quote:

---

Bush's panic visit is like of a thief that comes in the night
| By Abdul Hamid Ahmad, Editor in Chief | 30-11-2003
Print friendly format | Email to Friend

The head of state of the strongest nation on earth will normally not make a sneaky and panicky visit to a country which is wholly occupied by his troops, unless he is terrified and unsure of his own safety.

That was what US President George W. Bush did when he sneaked into Baghdad to try and lift the morale of his soldiers there by sharing their celebrations on Thanksgiving Day as claimed by the US Administration.

But the trip was counter-productive because Bush appears to have demoralised his troops, as the visit was surrounded by lies from the Administration. In doing so, Bush has confirmed the Arab saying: "Trying to improve it, he spoilt it."

Lied to the public

According to news reports, Bush flew 27 hours non-stop to spend just two and a half hours with his troops. His Administration, like the previous ones, lied when it said two days before the trip that Bush planned to spend Thanksgiving Day with his family and that he would send a telephone message to his troops in Iraq.

Instead, all of the sudden, he turned up in Baghdad. It means that the American people are being lied to by their own Administration and government. This of course had nothing to do with security arrangements for the trip because there is a difference between lying and keeping something secret.

But let us now forget about the lying issue because we already know the US habitually lies through Bush himself, his defence secretary, national security adviser and the rest of the Likudish gang in the Departments of State, Defence and other institutions.

We tasted their lies as they prepared for the war against Iraq and as they launched that war.

Our focus here will be the scared President's trip to a country which is entirely occupied by his forces. It is a strange formula of course, although Bush is the second American President after the late president Dwight Eisenhower to go to a country occupied by the US forces. But there is a big difference between the two visits.

Bush made the trip under the cover of night and it was shrouded with secrecy and lying. Eisenhower visited his forces in Europe after World War II during daylight and it reflected victory and self-confidence.

It was unlike Bush's panicky trip which demonstrated only fear and, perhaps, defeat despite his hollow assurances of victory to his soldiers.

Bush's lightning trip to Baghdad produced only this outcome, although of course US propaganda will propagate different results.

We all saw how US troops, who are demoralised and upset, were paid a secret and surprise visit of less than three hours by their President and Supreme Commander. How can such a visit by such a scared President lift their already undermined morale?

The US Administration could have announced Bush's visit in advance and at the same time taken precautionary security measures. I can't see any contradiction in such a procedure given the United States' enormous military and intelligence might. With such a well prepared visit, Bush could have sent a strong message of self confidence and triumph to his demoralised forces in Iraq.

Fear of the situation

The sneaky trip under the cover of night produced just the opposite. It illustrated lack of confidence and fear of the situation in Iraq and was more like an infiltration by thieves than a morale-lifting trip by a president… how can Bush's troops now trust their ability to stay in Iraq if their own President's comes to them panicking under the cover of night?

Bush's lighting trip to Baghdad has actually hijacked his troops' self-confidence and could also have the same impact on the American people. These people are led by a government of lies and today it acquires two new characteristics - fear and panic.

---

 

---

Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
 
Link doesn't work.
 

---

Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
 

 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Wow, the person who wrote that is stupid.
 

---

Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
 
Definitely not The Onion quality.
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
That is just not funny. It's not witty, it's redundant, it's not witty, it's redundant. and when things are not witty and redundant, that is just not funny.
 

---

Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
 
It's stupidly written.

Here I thought, from the thread title, you were talking about Fox News.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
Um, I still don't get how the President's visit was fearful and undermined moral.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I'm confused. When a source is so biased that it's all the way past "out in left field," we refer to that as unbiased now?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Speed must've been being sarcasatic.
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
Noooooooo. I totally thought I was being serious.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Nobody gets my humor.
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
Sounds an awful lot like something Baghdad Bob would say.
 

---