Actually, Anbar Province is a success story in Iraq, which needs more attention, since it should be commended. The troops are doing a wonderful job, and a visit from their Commander in Chief helps morale.

Of course, the cynics will find fault with anything he does. And here comes James, right on time.

Of course, that fact that these visits still have to be a secret underscores that the success in Anbar is far from complete.

Did the President or his staff say they were there to bolster support for the war or is that an editorial comment? Maybe it was just a good opportunity to stop and meet some of the troops and build their morale. Why shouldn't the commander in chief meet with his troops in the field if he gets the chance without being accused of politicizing the troops? And why shouldn't adequate precautions be taken to protect the president in an ackowledged war zone? The cynicism is thick enough to cut with a knife.

The cynicism is thick enough to cut with a knife.

Golly gee, I wonder why that is the case. Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with the Bush administration's politicization of everything to do with national security. How's them terror alert levels doin'?

He's the Commander-In-Chief. The trip seems quite appropriate. Although I have been very, very impressed with the opposition's staunch willingness to avoid politicizing the presentation of their views on the Iraq war.

While I commend Bush going to the war zone, which is more than he did during Vietnam, I would be a bit more convinced that the surge is working if he could announce the trip like Ahmadinejad did.

If this wasn't about politics, then why all the coverage - why not make it like his trips to the VA hospitals when the cameras are rarely allowed in? Not politicization - dream on.

Those of you bashing the President for his non-assignment to Vietnam conveniently overlook the fact that he had over 500 hours of flying the air defense fighter F-102A, a high-performance, non-trivial-risk-to-fly jet fighter. While in that unit he _did_ volunteer of Vietnam duty but we weren't using F-102A's in Vietnam.

And where in his military records is the request for duty in Vietnam? Perhaps on the same page as the records of his last month of service?

Hate to re-argue this point Carroll, but if Bush wanted to go to Vietnam he could have volunteered at any time. The National Guard was used by many (not all) to get out of Vietnam. And this doesn't even account for the year where he didn't even show up for duty.

Also, the minute that Bush decided to fly all-Top Gun on to an aircraft carrier under the banner of "Mission Accomplished", you lost every right to question people's cynicism about him. If Bush was promoting a surge of Iraq then, instead of holding a $1million dollar PR event to make him look "tough" we might have already one this damn war.

Well, my memory failed me. President Bush didn't have "over 500 hours" in the F-102A. It was only 335.

The source for volunteering for "Palace Guard" duty seems to be the President himself - and we all know how reliable that can be. ;-)

http://www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm

Doncha just hate it when someone gets re-elected with the largest vote majority in 28 years after all that? 8-)

It is great that our Commander-In-Chief can visit the troops in a war zone. My friends in the military say they respect Bush and are proud to serve our country under him. Call it what you want, this president shows up because he cares.

PJ, you said: "this president shows up because he cares." And I say: bwah, ha, ha, snort, bwah, ha, ha, ha..chuckle, hoo boy, wow...thanks for the laugh of the day PJ, it does a body good.

Doncha just hate it when someone gets re-elected with the largest vote majority in 28 years after all that? 8-)

Math illiteracy has grown critical, apparently. 2004 had the largest turn out for any US vote ever. Our population continues to grow and it was the highest percent turn out since the 60s (when our population was much smaller).

While it is correct to say Bush had the "largest vote majority in 28 years" it is also incredibly dumb since the stat means nothing. The stats that do mean something (i.e. his margin in the popular vote, electoral votes, and his percent share of both) are not so good. In 2004 Bush won the popular vote by about 3 million votes, out of over 120 million cast. For comparison, Clinton won 1992 by almost twice that margin (6 million) out of about 105 million cast. In 1996 Clinton won by 8 million out of 95 million or so.

Similarly in 2004 Bush won a margin of 35 more electoral votes than Kerry. Clinton in 1996 won a margin of 220. In 1992 he won a margin of 202.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html

Education in this matter is being provided to you free of charge. The next one costs you.

Food for thought:

How many times did Roosevelt visit the front lines in WWII?
Zero.
How many times did Wilson visit troops in the trenches in the Ardennes?
Zero.
How many times did Johnson go to Vietnam?
Zero.
How many times did Clinton go to Bosnia?
Zero, Nada, not once

How many times has Bush visited the troops in Iraq?
3

If this wasn't about politics, then why all the coverage - why not make it like his trips to the VA hospitals when the cameras are rarely allowed in? Not politicization - dream on.

You're blaming the President for the media hoopla after the fact. He took a small media pool with him. When word got out then the media frenzy began. Had he no media pool with him, I'm sure you'd accuse him of hiding something. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

announce the trip like Ahmadinejad?
Now there's a peacock.

Food for thought:

How many times did Roosevelt visit the front lines in WWII?
Zero.
How many times did Wilson visit troops in the trenches in the Ardennes?
Zero.
How many times did Johnson go to Vietnam?
Zero.
How many times did Clinton go to Bosnia?
Zero, Nada, not once

How many times has Bush visited the troops in Iraq?
3

Your food for thought leaves me hungry. What exactly was your point? In the first place you can't really compare Roosevelt or Wilson since the travel times in those days were so much longer. Second you seem to be making a big deal about Clinton not going to Bosnia... a war that lasted a week and half, at least our part (slight exaggeration but not by much).

Had he no media pool with him, I'm sure you'd accuse him of hiding something.

Actually we wouldn't have known about the trip. That's kind of the point of not publicizing something...

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

You break one little subcontinent and nobody trusts you anymore! It's just so unfair.

How many times did Clinton go to Bosnia?
Zero, Nada, not once

You food for thought leaves me feeling like I was just served by a cook who can't use google.

Because, you should know if you tried, Clinton did indeed visit the troops in Bosnia.

This revelation required using the search term "clinton visits soldiers in bosnia." Pretty mind blowing!

How many times has Bush visited the troops in Iraq?
3

And how many of those 3 visits were during the war?

How many times did Clinton volunteer to serve in Vietnam?

None. The draft dodger ran to the UK to smoke dope.

How many times did Clinton volunteer to serve in Vietnam?

None. The draft dodger ran to the UK to smoke dope.

Well, at least he's not a coward and a hypocrite, like Cheney and Gingrich.

Andy:

The Democrats politicised the war. I am surprised that a politically astute person such as yourself was not aware of this.

Tlaloc: Did Clinton win the popular vote?

The reason the popular vote was listed above is because the Democrat party aways use this figure, unless of course it doesn't work for them.

The Democrats politicised the war. I am surprised that a politically astute person such as yourself was not aware of this.

Our current administration politicized the war in Iraq from day one and has not let up since. Perhaps you missed this.

Did Clinton win the popular vote?

Popular vote totals
1992:
Clinton - 44,909,806
Bush - 39,104,550
Perot - 19,743,821
Others - 665,746
Advantage Clinton by 5,805,256

1996:
Clinton - 47,400,125
Dole - 39,198,755
Perot - 8,085,402
Others - 1,591,118
Advantage Clinton by 8,201,370

2000:
Bush - 49,819,600
Gore - 50,156,783
Nader - 2,883,105
Others - 1,070,117
Advantage Gore by 337,183 and electoral college shifts to Bush in no small part due to Nader.

2004:
Bush - 62,040,610
Kerry - 59,028,111
Others - 1,224,611
Advantage Bush by 3,012,499

The Clinton win in 1992 was not all that different from the Reagan victory in 1980. Clinton received 49.2% with Perot getting over 8% of the vote vs. Reagan's 50.7% in 1980 with Anderson getting 6.6% of the vote.

...the Democratic party aways use this figure, unless of course it doesn't work for them.

ditto every politician ever.

PJens: And I know plenty of people in the military who serve because they swore an oath, but who think this president is not doing such a good job with the reasoning for or implementation of the war. They are proud to serve their country, and they do what they must and uphold their vows - I am proud of them for that. But they don't believe that this war was executed well at all. My husband was one of them.

I've had this argument with my father-in-law more times than I can count. Assuming that Bush's intentions are good, good intentions are not enough when ruling a nation and running a war. You have to know what you're doing as well.

The Democrats politicised the war. I am surprised that a politically astute person such as yourself was not aware of this.

Thanks for the giggle, davod.

What's the current terror alert level, by the way? Haven't heard much about that since the '04 campaign, eh?