I heard that the turkey that der furher carved up for the tv cameras was a prop! whats up with that?

Heh. "Der Furher". I've heard that one before.

It's funny, you know. Less than sixty years since the end of World War II, with the blood of Canada's war dead still staining European soil, we've already forgotten that it happened at all. Less than sixty years, and we, the all-seeing, all-knowing youth of Canada, are completely irreverent. How is it that we honour the memory of six million innocent people, imprisoned, mutilated, tortured, and systematically and deliberately eliminated at the hands of a despotic psychopath? We jestfully hand over his title, in reference to a questionable foreign policy, to a two-bit moron we also like to call "Dubyah".

You no doubt owe your life to people of that era - many of them Canadians - who suffered adversity that your pathetic life experience couldn't possibly move you to imagine. Could you please be a little bit more disrespectful to them, and to those they fought to save? I'm not quite angry enough yet.

Dude, chill out.
'der fuhrer' is German for 'the leader'. Yeah, Hitler had that name too, so what? Just because I referred to Georgie as that doesn't mean that he's as bad as Hitler, or that all of those who lost their lives fighting Hitler, or those who were killed at Hitler's request meant nothing. Again, chill out mang.

It wouldn't have been the first time, by quite a bit, that I've heard that comparison made. If that's not how you meant it, then forgive me for being reactionary. I am chilled.

There's no shortage of comparisons, anti-comparisons, and bitchings about the comparisons and anti comparisons.

http://www.google.com/search?q=comparison+bush+hitler

.

Yeah, there are lots of comparisons (I've read some of them now). Which just goes to prove my point: the freedom of speech alone is not enough to justify speaking.

As I begin to write this, I know not whether my thoughts on this matter will amount to a disagreement with you, or perhaps merely function as qualifying thoughts to your own rant. It will probably be the latter - I think you might overstate your claims a bit.

You say: "[Bush] isn't even cunning. With all respect to his detractors, he does not have the intellect necessary to predict the effect this would have on his publicity, or to carefully craft a scheme by which he could benefit from such a "stunt"." I have two thoughts here. First, I would suggest that the political advantages associated with the President's trip to Iraq, when viewed as a political tool, are available even to feeble minds. Since his declaration that war is over in Iraq in May of this year, our Commander-In-Chief has seen nearly 200 soldiers perish. Howard Dean, and others, have used this figure, and all that it is taken to imply about U.S. involvement in Iraq, as a political tool. My suggestion is simply that, given the political dangers associated with Iraq for the President, a thought similar to "a visit to Iraq would be useful in the campaign" might occur to just about anyone - ignoramus or otherwise.

Notice, however, that this is not incompatible with your claim that Bush thinks he is doing the right thing, if by "doing the right thing" you mean something like "not primarily motivated by self-interest." Bush's primary motivation might be to express gratitude or to provide fond memories to these men and women; even so, he might have other motivations: enhancing troop morale (and thereby efficiency), or earning publicity. The beauty of the trip, from the perspective of a political analyst, is how successful it is AS a political tool: even (some) liberals feel warm inside when they think of it - I am one such liberal.

My second thought here is about advisors, particularly those who bear great influence on their advisee's decisions. If you have so little faith in Bush's intelligence that you do not believe he could make a simple inference from the role of emotions in electoral politics to a single arranged event, there is at least one other way for the trip to be (primarily) politically motivated: the President's advisors, acting from political motivations, could suggest the trip to the President. Whether or not they share their motivations with him is irrelevant, given that the trip's origins can be traced to the search for more votes in 2004. Again, this is compatible with a view of George Bush as an honest, amiable person trying to do good things for people in a bad situation.

I think that the source of the problem stetms from the dual roles the POTUS plays: he (and hopefully, one day, she) is the President, but also the leader of his political party. Where people seem to disagree on the interpretation of Bush's trip to Iraq hinges on which of these roles they believe our interpretation ought to focus: detractors urge us to consider that Bush is the leader of the Republican party, and that this implies that his motivations as such are primarily political; supporters urge us to consider that Bush is the leader of the nation, and that this implies that his motivations are to reassure the public and the military in a time of great stress. It is important to note that these two positions are closely related if one believes that when the President does his job right he is doing what is politically strategic, or vice versa. Certainly we esteem the former as good, and the latter as bad: while we often cherish great leaders, we tend to regard most politicians with a certain level of distrust.

Given this discussion of the dual-roles the President is forced to play, I think that a successful criticism or defense of the trip requires either an assumption about Bush's psychology that is unverifiable and unfair, or a robust and detailed analysis of his Presidency's interaction with the media. I think such an account is available; his use of the media has been quite remarkable. Even so, this analysis would need to be accompanied by a normative framework according to which the President ought to interact with the media, and an argument that demonstrates that Bush's actions are or are not legitimately within such a framework. To me, that seems to require more time than just about anyone is willing to devote, given the alternative: take the action for what it is, perhaps with a dose of rational suspicion. When it comes to glorifying or condemning the action and the man, be careful to hedge your bets!

Well said, though I'm afraid that even a worthy response is more than I'm willing to invest. You're definitely right on that note. ;)

God, I've got to stop doing that! It's Quigley, by the way. [mutters]

I am new to this site and all the stuff about Bush really makes me wonder where you all live. I live in the United States. There are plenty of things Bush has done that I do not agree with but every President has. It is kind of his job to do the un-popular thing. His response to September 11th his speech to the Nation was wonderful any man who would cry on national television and bring not only or nation but the world together to grieve and to rebuild is a wonderful man. On the other hand we are not stupid and when I first heard about the war in Iraq I knew it had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. Sadam is a crazy man and needed to be taken out of power but do not treat us like we are stupid. At least be honest about it. He has the power to do whatever he wants he could at least tell the truth. The fact that Bush takes all the crap for these events really astounds me. What did CLinton do while he was in offie (besides Monica?) We had three bombings on US soil all related to Bin Laden One even at the trade centers. We where tracing Bin Laden by his cell phone at the time and Clinton did nothing. When the hijackers lap tops where found they had stored data for over two years relating to the attacks, that would have been before Bush took office. Sadam was a cop out I'll give you that! I have plenty of friends and relatives in Iraq and I would love to see them home. I really can't blame Bush for wanting to get rid of the guy. I really don't think he compares to Hitler. He isn't going around tattooing people and sending them to prison camps because of there nationality. He himself isn't killing people just for the thrill of it. Hitler was one sick person. Bush is just a slow Texan. Give the guy a break some one has to take the fall for everyone elses mistakes.