I look at it this way, regardless of what his political intentions were, he put his life in danger to go over there to visit the troops for Thanksgiving. Just like the troops, he spent the holdiay without his family, too. It was good for morale and he received a very warm welcome from the military. Good president, bad president-whatever. I just thought it was very altruistic on his part to do. I sure as hell would not have my ass on a plane and put my life in danger for total strangers like he did.

The best part of his mission is the fact that it completely eclipsed Hillary Clinton's visit to the troops in Baghdad. That cow went with total political intentions, and her visit is page 10 news while Bush got the headline. It was kind of her to visit the troops, but c'mon when is she going to give her race for the presidency a rest? I would sooner die than allow her to be the first female president of this country. She can't even control events in her own home and family, and she is going to control this country?She should have been home servicing her husband so someone else doesn't have too.

BTW, Paul-- you did not mention how you reacted to the woman in the cab who said that Bush orchestrated 9/11. Was she drunk? Was she certifiably insane? Or was she hot and you tolerated her babbling bullshit to get into her pants?

I don't see what's so life-endangering about a plane ride in which plenty of media were invited to join him. Where's the praise for the media who "risked their lives" to capture images so the majority of troops could see Bush's trip? Where's the outrage over putting a pilot's life at risk to serve food — if, in fact, this was so dangerous? There is none, and there shouldn't be, because this was political theater, not D-Day. Why wasn't there panic over how he was going to get home, if it was so dangerous?

Like I said, I still think it was great. Thought it was a great surprise, and pictures show some very appreciate troops. But altruistic and non-political? No way. A one-day photo-op away from the family on Thanksgiving isn't the greatest sacrifice in the world.

===

I told the woman in the cab that 9/11 was too monstrous of an event to be a U.S.-orchestrated conspiracy. Human nature tells us someone would have spilled the beans, much like it would have been too hard to frame O.J. — something on 1/millionth the scale — and come up with that DNA evidence without someone cashing in on the info or acting out of sheer good.

Of course you have to respect his physical courage for flying into what remains a war zone -- although let's not overestimate the danger of flying in in the dead of night, and then skeedaddling even before the dishes are cold lest the bad guys learn of your presence. But the bigger picture is this: Seven months ago, Bush did his "Right Stuff" stunt on the USS Lincoln, and told us under banners reading "Mission Accomplished" that the war in Iraq was over. His visit made clear that the war is far from over. And anyone who is paying close attention knows that there'll be the same number of troops for him to visit in Iraq next Thanksgiving, too, and the one after that if he's still President. (The Army's planners are operating on the working assumption that they'll need at least 100,000 troops Iraq at least until March of 2006.) And while he was able to make a nice gesture by going to visit them, Bush can't give them what they really want, which is a ticket home any time soon. So along with his turkey, he was eating some humble pie in Baghdad over screwing up on the war itself, in which American lives were risked (and wasted) without good reason.

what made Bush's trip dangerous is the fact that everyone in that country (minus our troops) would have loved to shoot his plane down, or attempt to assisnate him on their own soil. This is what would have happened had word leaked out, and that is why he made it clear that if word leaked the mission would have been aborted. I personally do not feel that taking that chance would be worth the photo-op or vote generator that others have implied.

He is just doing what other presidents during war time have done. History shows that presidents have visited war zones during war time over the years. I don't give a shit about what his intentions are, all I know is that he received a warm welcome and boosted morale in Iraq. I don't like to get too political, so I am going to leave it at that. I come from a military family and I support the troops and that is all that matters. His visit showed his support of them. Does it mean I am going to vote for him in the next election? Not neccesarily.

This excerpt from the Washington Post addresses previous Presidential visits to troops and the relative danger of the trip:

-- EXCERPTED --

There is nothing novel about presidential visits to war zones at holiday time. Bill Clinton went to Kosovo for Thanksgiving in 1999, Lyndon B. Johnson went to Vietnam for Christmas in 1967, and President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower visited Korean battle fronts in 1952. Richard M. Nixon also traveled to Vietnam, in 1969.

It is also not unprecedented for a president to make unannounced trips in wartime under intense security. Franklin D. Roosevelt's trips to Yalta and other ports during World War II make that clear. And while people may debate the wisdom of sending Air Force One into an area known to have frequent antiaircraft fire, security experts said the secret defensive technologies on Air Force One put the plane at little risk compared with the DHL aircraft that was struck over Baghdad a few days ago.

-- EXCERPTED --

Full article:
An Indelible Moment in A War and Presidency

I'm no Bush fan, and even I think he did the right thing by going. That's what the Commander in Chief should do on Thanksgiving, our national holiday, when he has sent troops over to fight.

He did the right thing on the right day. He's the president of the U.S., so he'll always get the edge when it comes to media coverage over other people doing the same things on the same or different days. One of the perks of the job.

But I don't think his visit was any less political than Hillary's. If he wasn't running for re-election, it might be a different story. But I can't separate the upcoming election and lower poll numbers from the visit. That might not be fair to Bush -- maybe he'd have gone even if he wasn't running again -- but he is, so I can't separate the two things.

I can't separate Bush's visit from Hillary's either. Politics is politics. So much of it is symbolism. But it doesn't mean all of it is bad. Did we need Bush to come to New York on 9/14/01 to help find bodies? No, but we needed him nonetheless. The troops needed him now.

I am most interested in how this trip is being portrayed, as a death-defying mission.

Paul,
I think this is one of your better and more thoughtful posts to date. I like the way you've included many different views around a fairly contentious issue. I agree that "He (Bush, or "Dubbya" as we're fond of calling him here in Australia) is, by definition, a politician in everything he does outside of closed doors."

Great post Paul.
As far as I can remember, this is one of your first political posts. Are we going to seeing a change at PaulKatcher.com?
Anyways, as far as I am concerned this was all about the 2004 elections. If Bush really cared, he would've visited the families of the soldiers killed in Iraq. One sec, but that would mean taking time off from his busy fund raising schedule. If he was really doing this just for the troops why were there reporters on the trip. They weren’t needed to raise the moral of the troops, were they? But it wouldn’t quiet be a photo-op without them.
And if he really cared about the lives of these kids, we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.
Do you guys really think it was a dangerous mission? As long as the news of his visit didn’t get leaked, this was a perfectly safe trip.