Infinite Menus, Copyright 2006, OpenCube Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Meanwhile, Bush Leverages Young Iraqi Girl For Political Gain

As the bombs continue to kill our GIs in Bush’s Iraqi “Democracy Spreading” experiment, W continues to prove he there is no low to which he will sink to advance his political agenda. While he was busy preaching to the choir, he took an opportunity to leverage the situation involving a young Iraqi girl for his own political gain:

THE PRESIDENT: This is Dr. Christian, Dr. Karla Christian, who really symbolizes the best of America. She and a team of hers have performed surgery on a little Iraqi girl who was discovered by United States Marines. People in Nashville raised the money for the family; they were supported by the Marines there in Iraq, some of the Marines raised money; and they sent this little girl, whose heart was ailing, to America, right here to Nashville. And Karla and her team healed the little girl and she’s back in Iraq.

And the contrast couldn’t be more vivid. We got people in Iraq who murder the innocent to achieve their political objectives — and we’ve got Americans, who heal the broken hearts of little Iraqi girls. Ours is a compassionat e nation, that believes in the universality of freedom — and ours is a nation full of loving souls that when they find a stranger in need will lend their God-given talents to help that stranger. And that’s precisely what happened.DR. CHRISTIAN: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: I want you to thank your — thank your team there for all the good work they’ve done.

DR. CHRISTIAN: Thank you for all you’ve done.

THE PRESIDENT: God bless.


The ultimate Irony would be if this little girl is subsequently blown up in some collateral damage scenario caused by Bush’s war in Iraq, wouldn’t it? Think of it, GIs find young girl needs expensive heart surgery, raise funds to get fix her up in the good old US of A, send her back to Iraq, and bingo, she’s on the wrong side of an explosive vest, or gets accidentally smoked by some young GI busy greasing some bad guys in some Baghdad neighborhood . Could happen, no?

Sure this is a rather fanciful hypothetical  , but certainly probable. The thing I find more reprehensibl e is Bush’s lame attempt at advancing his agenda, trying to win the “defining ideological war” of our generation on the backs of a young girl.

Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • De.lirio.us
  • digg
  • Fark
  • Reddit

11 Responses to “Meanwhile, Bush Leverages Young Iraqi Girl For Political Gain”

  1. “Sure this is a rather fanciful hypothetical ”

    Sounds like one you are wishing for.

    So the left promotes made up stories by Marines about fellow Marines running over dogs and doing bad things and the President promotes stories about Marines chipping in to help an Iraqi girl and you attack the Presidents story. Why do you hate our Marines?

  2. Man, you make me laugh. I’m not hoping, merely pointing out the irony. The place they sent a repaired girl back to is more dangerous for her than if we hadn’t gone there in the first place.

    Au contraire, I don’t hate the Marines. I love the marines and I’m glad they are on our side. In fact, when I was in high school I was close to joining the Marines - even taking the tests to earn a scholarship. I didn’t get a scholarship to the schools where there was a Marine Corps option, so I didn’t do it instead went in to AFROTC sans scholarship.   I wanted to be a pilot and fly Harriers. So, no, I don’t hate the Marines.

    I do, however, dislike Bush for a large swath of reasons. Not the least of which is his tendency to exploit the good work of good people for his own personal political gain. In fact, we could also extrapolate this out to Bush yet again exploiting the military for political gain (remember those speeches delivered with soldiers at attention as the dutiful patriotic backdrop for thousands of Bush photo ops?)…not to mention the good doctors who did the work on the girl and the people raising the funds to help her.

    That this girl being helped occurred is marvelous. That the president is exploiting it for political gain is not surprising, but that’s what I despise. He plays political tricks, but claims to take the high road. Don’t you see the hypocrisy?

    You really are trying to put words in my mouth and obfuscate the point. Again, you have failed to change my mind and my opinion about Bush your hero. He’s an anti-hero in my book, even a tragicomic character at best, but a tragedy all around. We’ll be paying for his political and actual blunders for generations to come.

  3. How do you see relating a heart warming story about Marines helping a young girl exploitation for politcal gain? It is not as if he had to make this story up as has those who did about atrocities.
    You just cannot get past your hatred of this man long enough to see how you twist everything that comes out of his mouth as bad.
    I am pointing out your hypocrisy in blasting a true good story while giving the false bad stories a pass. Where was your outrage over the made up stories presented as true showing the Marines in a bad light? Where was your outrage over Murtha’s comments about our Marines?

  4. Man, if it truly is a good story, why does the President feel the need to act as a member of the press corps? He’s not a member of the press, why do you think he was there?

    What stories that are untrue are you talking about? I don’t focus on the Marines, in my book, they are brave and bold. If you would like to point out “false” stories, go ahead and create your own blog.

    By the way, Murtha, as a person who served many years in the military is largely more qualified than me to make any comment he would like. I don’t think the Marines need defending. However, we need people holding Bush’s feet to the fire because he is running roughshod all over our constitution .

    I blog it like I see it. You still have not changed my view point. Care to try again?

  5. “Man, if it truly is a good story, why does the President feel the need to act as a member of the press corps?”

    Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps because the members of the ordinary press corps ignores the story. That would be a possibility, no? I mean, how many stories have you read on this? Zero? Sounds about right. Way to go, press corps! Yeah!

    Maybe if we had a press that, whatever its opinion about the Iraq war, could put aside its animosity toward Bush and our military and actually play up positive stories about our military, our country and our efforts abroad, Bush wouldn’t have to play ‘press corps member’. I’m not holding my breath.

    “If it truly is a good story”? IF? You admit, in your comments section above “That this girl being helped occurred is marvelous.” So help me out here. What’s with the “If”?

    Craig R. Harmon

  6. If it was a good story, craig, it would percolate to the surface some how as a high quality tale worth replicating.   It doesn’t need the bully pulpit to catapult the agenda. Do you think the President had simply benevolent intentions by going out of his way to trumpet this story?

  7. There’s that “if” again. Dangitall, you called it marvelous so what the heck? If it’s marvelous that the little girl got the help that she needed then what are we doing arguing about whether its a good story or not? I honestly don’t understand.

    No one does anything out of purely benevolent intentions so, in my view, the fact that Bush got something out of it is totally irrelevant. We all get something positive out of everything we do, no matter how altruistic an act may appear, so I really don’t see your point. Of course, Bush was getting something out of pushing the story to the front and center but so what? That doesn’t make him bad for doing it or doing it the wrong thing to do. Nor does it denigrate how good the story is.

    I mean, I guess it depends upon the reader whether one considers it good or not. I mean, if we stop a terrorist attack, is that a good story? Well, if you’re rooting for the terrorists it’s a terrible story. If you find the terrorists’ tactics of indiscrimina tely slaughtering anyone and everyone, then it’s a good story. Here’s the real question, though: after calling it marvelous that the little girl got help, how is it that you can still question whether it’s a good story? That’s what I don’t get.

    The answer seems to be, it’s a bad story because Bush used it; a sort of ‘bad by association with the granddaddy of all bad guys’. At least that’s the way it looks to me.

    But honestly, if you are saying it isn’t a good story because it didn’t show up on the front page of the New York Times without Bush’s help, I can only shake my head.

  8. Wind you ask:

    “What stories that are untrue are you talking about?”

    Always the stickler for details aren’t you. O.K.

    “More than a month after Ron Harris of the St. Louis Post-Dispatc h exposed the fraudulent anti-war veteran Jimmy Massey’s lies about alleged atrocities committed by him and his fellow Marines, the Associated Press has finally, finally acknowledged its own role in spreading Massey’s unsubstantia ted smears:

    In a lengthy telephone interview with The Associated Press, Massey repeated his claim that his unit _ and he personally _ fired on the demonstrator s. He said four were killed. He said his original estimate of 10 was inaccurate.

    But reporters and a photographer who were embedded with the 3/7 say there is no evidence such a shooting happened _ indeed, no evidence that the Marines confronted any demonstrator s so early in the war.

    “There was certainly no organized protesting, no `Go home,’ anything like that,” said Ravi Nessman, an AP reporter who knew Massey while he was embedded with Weapons Company. “When (the Marines) were driving into central Baghdad, they were cheered.”

    “Things went bad much later,” he said.

    Ron Harris, the St. Louis Post-Dispatc h reporter whose November article called into question Massey’s claims, said neither he nor any Marine he has interviewed remembers a protest.

    “What demonstrator s?” he asked in a phone interview. “It was almost like a parade atmosphere. People had been lining the streets for blocks to see these Marines drive by…”
    As Harris had noted in his ground-break ing package, the AP had quoted Massey numerous times without interviewing Nessman, the wire service’s own reporter embedded with Massey’s unit:

    The Associated Press, which serves more than 8,500 newspaper, radio and
    television stations worldwide, wrote three stories about Massey, including an
    interview with him in October about his new book.

    But none of the AP reporters ever called Ravi Nessman, an Associated Press
    reporter who was embedded with Massey’s unit. Nessman wrote more than 30
    stories about the unit from the beginning of the war until April 15, after
    Baghdad had fallen.

    Jack Stokes, a spokesman for the AP, said he didn’t know why the reporters
    didn’t talk to Nessman, nor could he explain why the AP ran stories without
    seeking a response from the Marine Corps. The organization also refused to
    allow Nessman to be interviewed for this story.
    Now, AP admits its failures:

    The Associated Press quoted Massey five times between May 2004 and October 2005 _ four times directly, and once citing a CBC report in which Massey said his unit had committed “cold-bloo ded, calculated murder.”

    In each case, Massey alleged his platoon had killed innocent civilians or committed atrocities against Iraqis. Two of the five stories included Marine Corps denials of Massey’s allegations.

    “Clearly our stories should have included the firsthand observations of our own embedded reporter,” said AP Managing Editor Mike Silverman.”

    http://miche llemalkin.co m/2005/12/14  /jimmy-mass eys-lies-the -ap-finally- wakes-up/

    I no you won’t like Michelle’s blog on this so:

    http://www.t ulsatoday.co m/index.php? Itemid=27&ca tid=2&func=v iew&id=207&o ption=com_si mpleboard

    Then there was the Scott Beauchamp/Ne w Republic debacle about the Army atrocities:

    http://en.wi kipedia.org/ wiki/Scott_T homas_Beauch amp_controve rsy

    “In a diary entry in The New Republic, Beauchamp claims he ridiculed a woman in Iraq whose face had been severely burned: “I love chicks that have been intimate with IEDs” (improvised explosive devices), Beauchamp quotes himself as saying, loudly, to his friends in the chow hall. “It really turns me on — melted skin, missing limbs, plastic noses,” he recounted. “My friend was practically falling out of his chair laughing…The disfigured woman slammed her cup down and ran out of the chow hall.”

    Next, he described finding the remains of children in a mass grave uncovered while his unit constructed a combat outpost: “One private…foun d the top part of a human skull… As he marched around with the skull on his head, people dropped shovels and sandbags, folding in half with laughter … No one was disgusted. Me included.”

    Finally, Beauchamp described another soldier “who only really enjoyed driving Bradley Fighting Vehicles because it gave him the opportunity to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs.” Beauchamp described how the soldier killed three dogs in one day: “He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks.”

    Only problem is none of it was true. The New Republic could have found countless stories like the one the President related but didn’t, they instead ran with an uncollaborat ed story that spoke to alleged atrocities. Why you ask? For the same reason you promote the negative, it fits your agenda.

    I am not surprised to read this from you:

    “I blog it like I see it. You still have not changed my view point. Care to try again?”

    The impression your blogs leave is that your opinion is far to set to be swayed by facts. I am not envisioning any way that it could be changed.

  9. Windspike, I have a comment awaiting moderation that responds to your comments. Please release it.
    Thanks Manapp

  10. Thanks

  11. Man,

    I’m not particularly sure why you don’t get automaticall y approved as a frequent visitor and commentator here. I’m not the only moderator for the location, and don’t log in that regularly. Anyway, happy to approve the moderated comment.

    Even so, I’m not clear on the point you’re trying to make. I have no doubt that both camps post false stories. Shoot, you remember Jeff Gannon (aka whatever his name really was) getting full access passes to the Whitehouse press briefing rooms. This is why I go direct to the whitehouse web location for my “news” and where I go to contest the behavior of the President and his chronies. That there are false news reports, is not in debate here. That this story of the young girls isn’t either. My main point, still to this day, is that the president uses people for political gain, and many of those people are in harms way, ironically because of his actions sending our troops into a needless war in Iraq.

    Even just today, there are more reports of GIs getting exploded in Iraq and Afghanistan.   I don’t think George Bush’s war is a wise war, nor is it being executed strategicall y correctly. I remain open to being convinced otherwise, but I doubt you can sway me. So, in your eyes, I may be fixed, but if you are such a stickler for the “truthfulnes s” of things over the truthiness of things, why are you not crucifying Bush for the WMD boondogle that got us all into it. Did you hear about the CIA report that came out recently that clearly stipulates as well that Saddam had no connection whatsoever to Al Queda? So, which lie is worse. the New Republic Story or Bush’s rationale for engaging Iraq?

Leave a Reply

Fish.Travel