Bush goes to Baghdad
 

Syc asked me the other day what I thought of this, and I said, it's a home run in every sense.

As a carefully planned political event, what a coup. This is a non-partisan observation; I used to think that of Clinton. Clinton really developed the practice of staging events like this and sometimes one would be taken aback by the sheer audacity in the staging.

The carrier landing was meant to be that kind of thing, but I think it failed. It was too far over the top and thus was easy for the opposition to attack.

This one couldn't be faulted in the same way, because it was for the troops. So attacking it makes you look bitter; it can only polarize the opposition. (Smart campaigns sensed this and said nothing; Clark did a little carping; Kucinich foamed at the mouth as usual.)

It was timed to be digested by tens of millions over the Thanksgiving meal. Think about that. Somehow they worked out how to get the timing down so well that reporters couldn't announce what was happening until the holiday morning, creating a buzz. But not for political purposes; for purposes of national security. And a few hours later the video arrived, right on time.

No wonder the whole thing was to be shelved if the secret went out. If the timing was off in any way, it wouldn't be a perfect political event, and instead would look like a dangerous muff.

So you've got the holiday TV attention of tens of millions of bloated turkey-eatin', civic-minded votin' types. And through satellite TV and word-of-mouth, millions of Iraqis. What do you say? You keep it short. Bush's words repeated the strong resolve to stay the course. They gave the Iraqis reassurance. They were strong but positive. They were genuine, backed up by a sincere, teary entrance. And the bottom line, which I guess still matters, is that it was the right thing to do.

Staged: well of course, we are a marketing-driven, TV-driven people. Relentlessly political: well of course, everything is. But it felt like it felt when Clinton went to China and advocated freedom to the students: whatever else it might have been, it was the right thing to do. You go in, maybe work a little harder and take a little risk, for the sake of pumping up the troops and sending the policy message you need to send.

On Meet The Press this morning it came out that Bush was in the cockpit when they landed in Baghdad. I take this as a Bartlett/West Wing sort of vibe, not a political/leaked item for the sake of making the guy look like a cowboy. I'm sure the pilots would rather have the guy secured down in the tail where he couldn't do any harm. But he's the President, dammit, and he can sit where he wants. Wouldn't you demand to sit up there?

No doubt it was a great thing for the troops, and I have to give Dubya some props for doing such a thing. Politically, it could be a huge shot in the arm for the GOP and his re-election bid.

My only issues with it are 1) He could have been killed and 2) I think he should have spent some time with the Iraqi people.

Other than that, wow...I was in complete shock when I read about it Thursday afternoon.

With respect to your item #2, Syc ... as UT said, it was for the troops. Also, he's our President, not the Iraquis, and any such photo op could have become political fodder to those who want to show that the US has imperialist designs on the Middle East.

True, but I figure if you're gonna do a surprise visit, you might as well go all out. Also, see below.

Yes, it is possible that that angle could have been played...but that angle is played a lot already. It's old news.

And Bush IS the Iraqi leader (for all practical purposes) right now. As crazy as things are/may be over there, Bush could have been portrayed as being down with the peeps--"I care about my troops, but I care about you too." He could have talked about how he wants to give Iraq back to the Iraqis as quickly as possible, talked about upcoming elections, etc. That sounds like a 1-2 PR punch to me. "Look at him! He went all the way to Iraq to eat with the troops and to talk to Iraqis personally! What a stand up guy!"

Carville and Matalin better be looking over their shoulders. :)

Didn't his father do something similar, albiet with a less brilliant flourish?

Dubya's dad went to Saudi Arabia to visit the troops on Thanksgiving Day in 1990, a month and change before the start of the first war.

Just what Iraquis would you have him visit? The man in the street? Hell, why not Saddams home town. Sure get down with the home boys. C'mon, the only Iraquis he could visit would be the ones we're grooming to run the joint and that would just give them less credibility with the man on the street. Mingling with the natives is a bad idea. No win situation.

I was flipping around the television on Thursday when I caught it. I remarked to myself "Huh. Nice one. Well done." and moved on. Now, given my feelings towards the man, that's saying something.

Fast forward to Friday, where I'm again trolling the news channels, and I stop short on one particular story. Apparently, Hillary Clinton had a visit to Iraq scheduled for Friday, an event that naturally would be well-known inside political circles, or if not, then available to any who desired such knowledge.

I saw that and immediately thought "You know, I don't like the man. I don't like his political ideology, I don't like his agenda, I don't like the fact that he looks like a monkey. But damned if I won't give credit where it's due. That was a slick-ass move." Hell, I gave the news to my mother, who is as sweetly naive as they come. And politically, she sounds like she rolled off the turnip truck a few weeks ago, (rather than day before yesterday, I'm happy to report. I've rubbed off on her.) and SHE understood the significance of what Bush did.

Like you said, UT, it was very Bubba-esque. Koko has good advisors, what can I say? And syc, though it appears the Year Zero curse has been lifted, I don't think Bush felt like pushing it.

I dunno why... but the title of this thread made me think of "Bonzo goes to Bitburg" by the Ramones.

That is all.

It turns out Bush did meet with Iraqis, and it turns out he accomplished something with them. Columnist David Warren (via here):

Darn it! That show was at the Fort Washington Expo Center (about 15 minutes from me). I love watching the Westminster Kennel Club show every year on the two day broadcast on USA Network, would have been great to go to a live event. :(

I was looking around and couldn't find the results posted anywhere yet, which I think to be a bit strange. They aren't rebroadcasting on any of the cable networks, are they?

Some one get me a price quote on what his two hour visit cost the tax payers...

Quzah.

It cost the fuel for Air Force One.

I've been pondering replying to this or to not bother. But what the hell...

Because all of that security is free right? The only thing that costs anything is fuel? No pilots get paid, they do it for the love of their country. No security people get paid, they do it because GW is such an inspiring leader. No...

Why do I bother?

Quzah.

I think you'll find those people get paid whether they actually fly/provide security or not. Thus the concept of fixed cost versus variable cost, most of the costs involved in this trip were already fixed in doing the business of the country.

I'm sure you understand the terms fixed cost and variable cost since you're such a crackerjack smart-guy analyst.

For comparison there was recently an itemized list of 750 people that followed Bush to London. On this trip the security consisted mostly of ball caps and it seems like they got more done.

Q.E. fuckin' D., my man.

Because you love getting 0nz0r3d!!!! F00l!

Right, and everything is fixed rate. You've never heard the term 'combat pay' either I suppose. I mean, all those soldiers get paid the same for sitting on their collective asses in the good old US of A as they do shooting people in other countries.

Oh, wait, that's entirely wrong. They do get different pay for combat.

But I'm sure nothing in the world is like that. Only soldiers...

Quzah.

We were discussing the costs of Bush's Thanksgiving visit, weren't we? Isn't that a marginally separate issue than the troops in Iraq?

Are you intentionally stupid? The statement was made that all costs were fixed. I pointed one example where cost is not and suggested it is quite possible that this is not the only case that exists. What's the confusion?

Quzah.

You're pretty stupid for assuming I'm stupid. In fact, I just misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

About the same as the cost for Hillary's morale-lowering tour where she went to Afghanistan and Iraq and bitched about the war to the 100 troops that were duct-taped to their chairs for two hours. :D

Ok, educate me so that I can get up to speed. Where was the statement you refer to made?

The closest I can find is this:But he didn't say ALL costs were fixed, and in any case he specifically refers to Bush's trip.

Well Said! I was thinking back to that day, and I recall wondering why they were breaking into programming for this. I pretty much shrugged the whole thing off and I thought, "Isn't this something he's SUPPOSED to do anyway?" (of course, I KNOW that it's not, but it just felt like he should).

So, I wasn't impressed. *shrugs* ;)

My local paper ran pictures of twin imbeciles Bush and Hillary burning up my tax dollars for their political gain. "We care a lot."

Yes. In that context he said costs are fixed. He implied that the only thing that was paid for was the fuel. I suggest otherwise.

Quzah.

OK the link said that followed by;
How is this apparent? He told them you can run the country while we remain in control or you can not run the country while we remain in control. Bottom line is we're staying whether you play ball or not. So this is some breakthough diplomacy? Horseshit, he told them what they've been told from the gitgo.
Like I said, he could meet with the Iraquis we already own.

Resonable request.

Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda.............

Q, why didn't you just tell us what the costs are instead of all that nonsense?

Amusing article
 

Washington Post
"Accurately dramatize", eh?

What I see is that he said <i>most</i> of the costs involved in the trip were fixed. He didn't say, "All costs everywhere, including those not involved with Bush's recent trip, are fixed".

Yes, but he prefaced the argument with the implication that the only thing actually newly charged for was fuel. I highly doubt the only thing we tax payers pay for is jet fuel.

Quzah.

Yeah, you're probably right, but it's pretty insignicant compared to the money he's pissing away on other endeavors or just fixing up his ranch.

I'll have you know that Dubya's ranch fence is vital to national security!

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As annoying as that is I'm much more annoyed that not only did Ashcroft cover the statues, I'm pretty sure tax money paid for it.

Naturally. He's just continuing his 'Nam tour, right? Protecting Texas from the VC?

Quzah.