Re: ARE AMERICANS STUPID????

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:23:59 +0100, Eric Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

>On 30-11-2003 18:09, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>"Al Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is 2003, it is not 1999, 1995, 1991, 1987, 1983 or any other year
>> in the past.
>
>
>
>Sooooo fucking what? It is called the fruits of incumbency. The Senate and
>House people do it too.
>

Which Senator or Representative is already making multi-city stops in a
single day and making the taxpayer foot the bill?

I'll be glad to criticize them as well - if you have any examples, of
course.

>The president's security requirements are not determined by him. If he wants
>to go somewhere, he has to take Marine 1, air force 1, and his personal
>limo.
>
>As far as having gone to Iraq, he is commander in chief. And security -can-
>be arranged.

It's now come out that the story was leaked ahead of his trip, but the
news agency (can't remember which one - MSNBC possibly) didn't believe
it.

Bush was extremely lucky nothing happened.  Putting himself in harm's
way is not the action of a responsible president.

>
>Just admit it. You opposition is based on hatred of the man, and not
>necessarily anything he does on a day to day basis.

Your defense of all things Bush seems to be driven by the exact opposite
- a blind love of him.  Or perhaps it's a blind hatred of his
opposition.

I've grown to hate Bush based on his policies.  I was actually somewhat
ambivalent towards him at the outset of his term.

>
>I invite you to become president. Then you will know that people read stuff
>into the way you stand to pee. Stuff that is not actually there?

I haven't criticized Bush's stance in front of a urinal.  But I would
hasten to warn him that more than 3 shakes is playing with it.

>
>Is in not just possible that Bush's visit was motivated by interest in
>elevating troupe morale?

It's possible that's a small part of it - it certainly did seem to have
that effect, but how long-lived that will be is questionable.

But even so, isn't it grossly irresponsible for the President to put
himself in that situation?  How many resources had to be pulled in order
to secure his visit?

>
>If not, what would Hillary Clinton's visit to Afghanistan be all about.

It's all about the same thing as Bush's visit.  It's a good photo-op.
Do you somehow think she should be a role model for Bush?

She's merely a Senator from NY though - she does not represent me.  Bush
is President of the US, and as much as I disagree with his policies, it
would be very bad if something had happened.

>
>What the Hell is she doing there, anyway? Smuggling some heroin?

What does her trip have to do with Bush's?  

Why would you think bringing up Hillary Clinton would make a good
defense of Bush's actions?


>EJ