Photo-Op-Tabulous

[Paxton_Free]

Sorry if this has been posted, but as I was listenting to Rush on my way home to enjoy a delicious honey-ham sandwich with low-carb, vegetable fiber bread for lunch I couldn't help but notice something.

Bush = "What? Photo-Op?!? Get real! He Cares!!!!!!!"

Hillary = "What a Photo-Op fat whore! The evil human lubricant strikes again!!!!"

When it happened on Thanksgiving I was with my Dad. He said "Isn't that great, son?" To which I replied, "You know why he did that, right pops?" I swear, he's never given me a more "you're still not too old for me to kick your ass" look.

Jizzy Crizzy all the way around.


paxton_free, baby.

[Brotherjohn]

1. So, it's great and all if the Commander in Chief visits the troops...

... in the field. I say, let's give Bush credit for doing something he should do, for once. I think it's one of the few times he's done anything I might be inclined to agree with. And you can debate forever whether it was politically motivated and conceived as another photo-op. Of course it was. That still doesn't change the fact that it was the decent thing to do.

But my problem is, if the entire war was unjustified, doesn't that enter into it at all? Doesn't it make any difference that the men and women he was visiting were needlessly sent over there? It seems to me that we're missing the big picture here.

I mean, just for arguments sake, if Hitler visited his troops in Paris, would that visit suddenly make him a hero? No, of course it wouldn't. Hitler was still wrong, and history has rightly judged him so.

(NOTE to Andrew Sullivan and other conservatives monitoring DU in search of ammunition with which to criticize the Left: The reference above is IN NO WAY meant to draw a comparison between Bush and Hitler. It is merely using an extreme case to make the point that if a war is unjustified, a visit to the troops in occupied territory by the leader of the invading country does not justify the war.)

[Paxton_Free]

2. Right... Right....

No, I definitely agree. If you look at it that way than we've got two people doing a decent thing. According to the right, however, one is genuine and the other is false. And alas, we shouldn't forget who was holding the ridiculously beautiful platter of uncarved turkey garnished with grapes and pineapples. Chow house. Rock on.

[Brotherjohn]

3. Of course Hillary was doing something just as decent as Bush, and...

... the Right is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

But my major point (Hillary aside) is that, if the war was not right, what difference does it make in the big picture if Bush visits the troops? If would like to think that for the average undecided voter out there, they'll take the visit for what it's worth. I would think that the visit would be utterly swamped by issue of the war itself. And that's my concern here... that one decent action by the president will override the fact that the war was questionable, if not outright illegal, in the voters' minds. I think the voters should have major questions about this war, and I don't think this visit should change that. It is merely something that a Commander in Chief should do in this situation.

But the media falling all over themselves leads me to believe that the visit will somehow leave people with the impression that the war is more legitimate than it is (which is, of course, nonsense).