Opinion

A Baghdad Thanksgiving

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Related stories:

• PETA: Let my turkeys go (November 19, 2007)
• Thanksgiving break necessary to experience American culture (November 9, 2006)
• Turkey day trouble (November 20, 2003)
• Give thanks for life's simple joys (November 15, 2006)
• Memo to Bascom (November 26, 2002)

Also by Mac VerStandig:

• Herald loses friend, advocate (February 28, 2008)
• Why Women Should Sit In The Balcony (April 14, 2003)
• How the Pentagon won the war over Baghdad and the war over public opinion (April 25, 2003)

Sharing tools:

E-mail this article:

Your e-mail address:

Recipient e-mail address:

Optional message:

Share on:

• Facebook
• Digg
• Newsvine
• reddit
• StumbleUpon
• delicious
• Google
• Yahoo! My Web
• BlogMarks
• Linkroll
• Simpy

• Spurl
• Connotea
• Fark
• Feed Me Links

• Magnolia
• BlinkList
• Sphere
• LinkedIn

• Furl
• Technorati
• AddToAny
• Permalink

Thanksgiving has traditionally been a day of unity. In 1777, representatives from the 13 colonies gathered for the feast, leaving politics behind. The elementary school story tells of Pilgrims and Native Americans gathering for the feast, leaving politics behind. And every year Joe American and the in-laws gather for the feast, leaving politics behind.

But liberals have become so accustomed to criticizing President Bush first and thinking later that they cannot even allow this all-American holiday to slip by without raising their feet to their mouths between pieces of turkey.

The Commander-in-Chief decided that he would sacrifice a quiet Texan meal with his family so that he might spend 40-some-odd roundtrip hours on an airplane and be with American troops for Thanksgiving dinner.

For months, Democrats have criticized President Bush for attempting to distance himself from Iraq, so one would think that leftists would approve of his dropping into Baghdad for some turkey and pumpkin pie. But such would entail taking a break from the “Bush is a warmonger” rhetoric, something that not even cranberry sauce and sweet potatoes can persuade Democrats to do.

The first piece of criticism being leveled at the president is that the unusual safety precautions his trip entailed are indicative of what a mess he has made of Iraq and the dangers our troops are resultantly exposed to on a daily basis. The president did take some extraordinary cautionary steps in his trip, namely keeping the entire venture a secret until Air Force One was 10,000 over Baghdad on its way back to the United States.

But it must be realized that the president is always at great risk. John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Texas in 1963. Ronald Reagan was shot in Washington, D.C., in 1981 (before later having his character assassinated on Showtime in 2003). During the Clinton Administration, someone successfully flew a small plane into the White House.

So if a high level of risk exists at the White House, in Washington and in Texas, imagine the vulnerability of the president in a country that just six months ago was under the reign of a brutal terrorist dictator.

Even still, it is a great compliment to the war on terror that Bush could visit Iraq and make it out safely. Bear in mind Iraq has always been such a hotbed of terror that no United States president has been able to even contemplate a trip to the once-oppressive country.

Democrats are also crying foul about the timing of the trip, claiming it to be a blatantly political stunt of President Bush’s.

Now, to begin with, isn’t the whole notion of a democracy that elected leaders to do things that are politically popular? But putting that fundamental error of the left’s aside, the timing is still entirely justifiable.

With half a year having passed since the fall of Mr. Hussein, it is appropriate that the leader of the American military thank the troops, on behalf of the citizens, in person. There is perhaps no better way of doing this than by sharing a holiday meal with the soldiers (and, had President Bush selected Christmas dinner, there doubtlessly would have been bitter liberal cries of America’s imposing Christianity upon Iraq).

But moreover, President Bush had to combat the despicable Democratic rhetoric in the Middle East. Even while the Commander-in-Chief was dining with the 82nd Airborne, Hillary Clinton was telling troops in Afghanistan, “The outcome [in Iraq] is not assured … there are many questions at home about the (Bush) administration’s policies.” You’d expect a more positive message from the wife of the man who once declared, “Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,” and who called the dictator an “enemy of peace.” But, then again, you learn not to expect much from the Clintons.

The real question raised by all of this liberal criticism, though, is why the Democrats feel the need launch such baseless attacks against President Bush. But this Thanksgiving rhetoric really does fall in line with the prevailing leftist strategy of simply taking issue with the conservative agenda rather than promoting an agenda of their own. What does the Democratic Party stand for these days? Other than being pro-abortion, the party does not seem to have so much as a single unified agenda.

And, in a way, these desperate attacks on President Bush make sense, since he is becoming more and more difficult to criticize. Republicans just passed a comprehensive health care bill, something Democrats had been promising for over a decade but never managed to do. Al Qaida members are falling by the day. People have tax rebates to spend on holiday gifts. And even the economy is looking up.

In short, Americans have a lot to give thanks for this season, and almost all of it comes care of the Republican Party.

Mac VerStandig (Mac@Badgerherald.com) is a sophomore majoring in rhetoric.