BREAKING NEWS: Bush visits Iraq! - Page 4

GePap · November 28, 2003, 14:49

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I don't know about it all being an act either. But from what I've seen most if not all of them are the same quality, IMO. I don't see any meaningful difference between Ann Coulter and Michael Moore myself.

There is a difference between Dinesh D'Zousa and Hannity (to take two conservatives), so there are differences. I personally would not compare Franken to Hannity, or D'Zousa to Moore. And Moore, as left-wing as he is, has a bit more style than Coulter-at least he can set up things that are funny and has some showmanship- Coulter just screams, and tries to make jokes which fall flat constantly.

There is also a different tone to their words- if we take Moore and Coulter: Moore considers his enemies generally ignorant and stupid..certainly not compliments and demeaning, but even in his Oscar speech where he said shame on bush, he never went as far as Copulter does by accusing people of crimes (which Treason and Slander are). So there is a difference in tenor, in style, and thus overall quality among people.

Drake Tungsten · November 28, 2003, 14:50

Quote:

Like Drake said, try to watch some Congress debates. They are very civil. Much more so than "Prime Minister's Questions" in the British Parliament.

God, I love Question Time with the Prime Minister so much. It's comic gold.

Drake Tungsten · November 28, 2003, 14:57

Quote:

he never went as far as Copulter does by accusing people of crimes

I'm pretty sure I remember Moore accusing people of crimes in Stupid White Men. He's no better than Coulter.

The diplomat · November 28, 2003, 17:01

Michael Moore is a ignorant a-hole!

Chemical Ollie · November 28, 2003, 17:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I'm pretty sure I remember Moore accusing people of crimes in Stupid White Men

Only those who commited them

Chemical Ollie · November 28, 2003, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber

I think you read too much into his post. I'm in the same situation and I dont wish that on this adminstration or any for that matter...

Don't read to much into my post either. I was just making a sophisticated troll, and you were the only one biting.

Quote:

The main thing is that for that day when they were far away from home and probably not too impressed by much display by the army, the President of the United States came to visit them.

Actually, I agree. If I was in a sh!thole like that for a year, I would appreciated a pat on the back by the Big Boss too. The only problem with his visit was that it was too short and shallow.

Quote:

You'll probably laugh

Your president is actually easy to laugh at. Apart from being such a stereotype, he also has the looks of Alfred E Neuman.

Quote:

but then again you have never been in that situation.

I'm very happy for that, thank you. But my best buddy has spent a total of 3 years on UN missions in Lebanon and Bosnia, so I have gotten enough first-hand reports of what it's like. He has been bombed by Israeli Airforce, machine gunned by Hishbolla and shelled by Serb artillery. He has picked up casualties who had been killed by bullets, direct hits by RPGs and hand grenades. He even had pictures of the latter, showing guts and gore hanging from trees and bushes

One thing I like with Apolyton OT is that no matter where in the world something big is happening, there are people who can give first-hand reports here. (And MtG will always know enough on the topic to write a long post, no matter what the topic is).

Now we will soon have you and Oerdin on site in Iraq who can keep us updated if you get Net access at your base.

If you thought this post wasn't confused enough already, here's some more... Bush inspecting the frontline in Iraq

Q Classic · November 28, 2003, 17:55

you do know that was photoshopped, right?

Chemical Ollie · November 28, 2003, 17:59

It's funny anyway - it fits perfectly into the European image of G.W. Bush as an imbecill moron who is not qualified to be the most powerful man in the world.

Case · November 28, 2003, 19:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like Drake said, try to watch some Congress debates. They are very civil. Much more so than "Prime Minister's Questions" in the British Parliament.

Urm, I think that you mean 'question time'

The Australian Parliament's question time is a hoot - all the MPs shout abuse at each other.

Ned · November 28, 2003, 19:25

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Now, this admin has been very partisan more so than Clinton's by far.

Huh? I've never heard president Bush say anything negative about any Democrat. When he argues about a bill, he does so on in a very traditional manner. He has objected to the Democrat filibuster of judicial nominees. But not in harsh terms.

So, where is this coming from?

MrFun · November 28, 2003, 19:42

I was not that impressed with Bush's surprise visit to the troops.

It was just a real savvy, political, maneuver -- and that remains the truth, even if Bush happens to sincerely care about the troops.

Cyclotron · November 28, 2003, 19:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Only those who commited them

So, is this the new "innocent until described as guilty by Michael Moore" justice system I've been hearing about? Tell me how that works out for you.

Ned · November 28, 2003, 19:57

I saw a FOX News report on Iraqi reaction to Bush's visit. There were people who really liked his visit. There were people who were unimpressed.

I read a corresponding AP report. The AP report only reported the negative comments.

SlowwHand · November 28, 2003, 19:58

Bush going was excellent.

Hillary and fellow Senator Jack Reed should be ridiculed for going on his coat-tails.

Chemical Ollie · November 28, 2003, 20:03

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7

So, is this the new "innocent until described as guilty by Michael Moore" justice system I've been hearing about? Tell me how that works out for you.

In most of cases, he is quoting mainstream media sources to back up his accusations. My reading of it was too long ago for me to remember all details of his book, and I don't have it readily available here. However, his accusations against Bush and most of his cabinet are well known from other sources.

Cyclotron · November 28, 2003, 20:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
In most of cases, he is quoting mainstream media sources to back up his accusations. My reading of it was too long ago for me to remember all details of his book, and I don't have it readily available here. However, his accusations against Bush and most of his cabinet are well known from other sources.

I agree, his accusations are well known from other sources, but you of all people should know that "being accused of a crime" is not anywhere near the same thing as "committing a crime."

Personally, I find it distasteful that he repeatedly confuses rumors and accusations with truth. You shouldn't fall into that trap.

Chemical Ollie · November 28, 2003, 20:53

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7

I agree, his accusations are well known from other sources, but you of all people should know that "being accused of a crime" is not anywhere near the same thing as "committing a crime."

I don't exactly know what you are referring to? Why should I know that more than anybody else? Was it my previous posts (months ago) saying that someone is innocent until proven guilty? Because I don't think I have ever told the story on Apolyton about when I was arrested for "possession of a knife in public", then wrote a letter of complaint to the prosecutor who dismissed the case and dropped the charges?

Anyway, some of the cases Moore is referring to in his book was actually proven guilty in court. If I don't remember totally wrong, your President is a Felon who would not even be allowed to vote if he lived in the state where his brother is governor.

Quote:

Personally, I find it distasteful that he repeatedly confuses rumors and accusations with truth. You shouldn't fall into that trap.

I'm smart enough to apply critics in my reading. If something is too far off and not backed up by credible sources, I simply won't belive it. I consider Moore's work as comedy based on reality, rather than serious digging journalism. Very often he tells the truth, but sometimes he goes somewhat out of bounds.

MrFun · November 28, 2003, 20:54

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Bush going was excellent.

Hillary and fellow Senator Jack Reed should be ridiculed for going on his coat-tails.

So whenever Republicans show respect for troops, you never question their political, ulterior motives?

And whenever Democrats show respect for troops, they are just copy-catting?
That's a nice double-standard that you have there, Slowwy.

People of both parties have political, ulterior motives for visiting troops overseas.

Bush's surprise visit that everyone is swooning over is one of his manueverings as part of his political bid for reelection.

DinoDoc · November 28, 2003, 20:57

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
Bush's surprise visit that everyone is swooning over is one of his manueverings as part of his political bid for reelection.

So what. You have to admit that it was very well planned. It fooled even the media.

Oerdin · November 28, 2003, 21:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
It's funny anyway - it fits perfectly into the European image of G.W. Bush as an imbecill moron who is not qualified to be the most powerful man in the world.

So it only matters if it fits a stereo type? I would have thought the question of whither or not the stereo type is true would have been brought up.

Chemical Ollie · November 28, 2003, 21:53

So you actually think he's a brilliant guy?

MrFun · November 28, 2003, 22:26

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
So what. You have to admit that it was very well planned. It fooled even the media.

Yeah ok -- he did it, and it was a surprise, and now it's over . . . .

so . . . .

Tuberski · November 28, 2003, 22:52

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun

So whenever Republicans show respect for troops, you never question their political, ulterior motives?

And whenever Democrats show respect for troops, they are just copy-catting?

Who cares about ulterior motives on either side?

Of course there are ulterior motives.

That's not the point, whether you like him our not, you would be suprised and happy if the president flew around the world to visit you.

Hillary also.....but she isn't the president, congressmen and senators have always gone to warzones.

It was good for the troops, that's what matters.

ACK!

Imran Siddiqui · November 28, 2003, 23:56

Quote:

Bush's surprise visit that everyone is swooning over is one of his manueverings as part of his political bid for reelection.

So utterly cynical. If it was Clinton, I bet this would be a 'selfless move', eh?

While it was good PR, I don't doubt for a second that the major reason for this trip was because Bush decided that it would be a good idea to suprise the troops in Baghdad at Thanksgiving.

Caligastia · November 29, 2003, 00:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed

so i'm a lefty now because i don't like hannity? for cryin' out loud, the man has half of his show devoted to people calling in solely to praise him and tell him what a good job he's doing. do we really need that in a talk show? no. give me boortz any day, who's far less of a republican cheerleader.

MrFun · November 29, 2003, 04:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Bush's surprise visit that everyone is swooning over is one of his manueverings as part of his political bid for reelection.

So utterly cynical. If it was Clinton, I bet this would be a 'selfless move', eh?

While it was good PR, I don't doubt for a second that the major reason for this trip was because Bush decided that it would be a good idea to suprise the troops in Baghdad at Thanksgiving.

So naivity is back in fashion, huh??

When I saw that Hilary visited -- I also believed that she had ulterior motives -- so I would not have swooned or gotten all giddy over a Bill Clinton surprise visit.

Winston · November 29, 2003, 16:10

As an aside, I read an amusing story in the paper about the secrecy surrounding Bush' visit to the troops in Baghdad.

While the President was en route to Iraq, unannounced even to the flight authorities, a British Airways passenger jet came so close to his plane that the British pilot felt compelled to ask over the radio "Was that Air Force One I just flew past??" A long silence from the President's plane was eventually broken by the short reply "Gulfstream Five." An even longer silence ensued from the British jet, ending with the pilot finally replying simply "Oh."

Apparently the British pilot must have realised that he'd stumbled on what was supposed to be kept a secret, and wisely decided to keep it to himself until after the story broke.

Sava · November 29, 2003, 22:49

What a disgusting photo op... this was worse than the aircraft carrier flight suit stunt... I'm sure the troops were just sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner... AT 5 IN THE MORNING BAGHDAD TIME when Bush arrived...

"there's nothing proper about your propaganda..."

EDIT: link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...03Nov27_2.html

Quote:

A little after 5 a.m. Baghdad time, about 10 hours after takeoff from Andrews, the cabin lights were turned off and all the shades were down. Twenty minutes later, we touched down in Baghdad.

Winston · November 29, 2003, 22:51

He landed 5:30 PM local time...

Sava · November 29, 2003, 22:52

that's AM buddy...