Sometimes, you have to cruise the land of the wing nuts, just to see what the opposition is thinking. They aren't.
I'm sure you remember Susskind's report in the NY Times magazine in which he quoted an administration official asserting their power to define, and redefine, reality. Looking at their comments on Bush's jaunt into Iraq, you'd have to conlcude that they had overdosed on this concept and like Alice, had a bit too much at the Queen's Tea Party.
A lot of the right is amazed at the bravery W displays by going there. ( The reality is that their being so impressed shows that they had really suspected him of being a complete coward).
Confederate Yankee wrote that "President Bush again showed, rather convincingly, that he is no way, shape or form a physical coward." Because he had to sneak into our embassy in the Green Zone? But isn't this in Baghdad, where we were to be greeted with candy and flowers? Isn't this in Iraq, where everything is going so well? Where the only problem is the cowardly press who are afraid to leave the Green Zone to go report how wonderfully things are going? But aren't there press people on that same plane with Bush, exposed to the same risks as Bush? Aren't there more dead reporters being flown home from Iraq than from Viet Nam, or WWII? I get confused about this cowardice argument.
In her post, Atlas Shrugs scoffs at the press,and asserts that they will not consider it newsworthy that "70,000 coalition forces, most of them Iraqi, to begin crackdown on insurgents in Baghdad on Wednesday." But wait; more than a year ago our Vice President told us that the insurgency was in its last throes. I don't get it. Does she mean that it's newsworthy because it's so unnecessary? Seventy thousand to fight an inurgency that must be over by now? Or is it newsworthy that coalition forces are beginning a crackdown? Or that a crackdown is even needed three years after we invaded Iraq?
The insightful california conservative has the same trouble as the Shrugging Atlas, when it wrote:
I wish we could make all of Baghdad as secure as the Green Zone. I suspect that that’s what President Bush and al-Maliki are talking about today. Al-Maliki has recently said that he wants to squash the insurgency. I suspect that that’s what they’re planning at this meeting.
Three years after that statue fell, Bush has to be smuggled into Baghdad so that he can have a meeting to make plans to secure the city?
Blogs for Bush is sure that it must be more important than that. "Something big is brewing - you don't go half way 'round the world for nothing." In reality, this should be true. But remember the only time Bush interrupted one of his vacations was to fly up to Washington to sign the Bill regarding Terri Schiavo.
The Political Pit Bull isn't so sure something big is happening, he thinks "It's largely a symbolic gesture", although an important one.
Oddly enough Michelle Malkin comes closest to reality - she supports a commenter who speculates as to "how long it will take the Democrats to accuse the President of making the trip as a publicity stunt?" Not very long at all. But what we're saying is not an accusation, it is simply a factual description.
If only we could get our friends on the right to stop peering through the looking glass, and take a realistic assessment of our President: A man who refused to fight for his nation, who has lied us into war and who is still lying to us about the tradgedy, and who believes that he can once again win an election with deception and publicity stunts.