Rick Heller takes me to task for my post on Bush’s Baghdad trip. Apparently I showed “lack of graciousness” in my complaint that the whole thing was a costly photo-op. We should be glad, Heller says, that Bush took the risk: “For a leader to share some of the risk in which he has placed his troops is not only a morale boost for the troops, but also sobering for the leader. Furthermore, despite the virtual resources available, there is still no substitute for physical presence in order to gain a deeper understanding of a conflict.”
I don’t know whether Heller is just naive or is somehow so committed to the notion of being a “centrist” (as his blogroll labels suggest) that he has bent over backwards at this rare opportunity to praise an action by Bush. But c’mon! Can anyone believe that a two-hour touchdown is an effort to “gain a deeper understanding” of the conflict? It’s barely time to get through a holiday meal. Surely a leader interested in “deeper understanding of the conflict” would want to talk to more than just a handpicked cadre of U.S. soldiers. I understand that for security reasons Bush can’t pull a Henry V, don a disguise, and wander the streets of Baghdad talking to the common folk. But don’t tell me that a photo-op is a fact-finding mission!
As the post I linked to below suggested, the impact of the trip on morale is debatable. The one indisputable outcome of the visit was the opportunity to shoot the President offering a turkey to the troops.
If that footage doesn’t show up in Bush’s campaign advertisements before November, 2004, I will gladly apologize to Heller for my lack of graciousness. If it does, as I’m quite sure it will — unless the Iraq adventure turns into such a continuing debacle that the Bush campaign decides to run away from it entirely — then I will continue to feel justified in my cynical view.
Post Revisions:
There are no revisions for this post.