And what better place for the Commander in Chief to be than with his troops in the Area of Operations? The security measures were absolutely appropriate (one does not offer the bad guys a target of opportunity) and his action was superb. Having been deployed there I can tell you that the troops will have been delighted by his visit. The major combat phase was handled with great skill and success and now the "hard soldiering" phase of rooting out the relatively small number of die-hard thugs will have to go on as expected by all of us who served on active duty. These soldiers who are doing the really hard job deserve the morale boost they received by the President's visit. I salute them and I salute President Bush for his praiseworthy action. God bless our troops and God bless our Commander in Chief.
dekeguy
Captain, USAR
Home now but ready if needed again.

Excellent post. I'm glad that you have returned safely :)

Well, this morning on my local news a comment was made about the administration hoping the videos of the visit would help the ratings back home.

I agree with what was already said. They don't have to wait until the campaign to show the footage, the news agencies are doing it all for them, for free.

Oh, big deal. This is called the power of the incumbancy. Every single presidency does this.

My husband called yesterday...he's stationed at the Baghdad Airport. He was told to go and stand out at the runway and to wait for further direction. He said he almost pissed his pants when he realized what was going on!

Regardless of a 'publicity stunt' or not, it was a GREAT morale booster for the guys there! I think it says a lot to miss the majority of a holiday to be overseas for two hours!

aj

ajuhdg, my friend is also stationed there, along with a bunch of other people I know from school. On one of the photos that was on the Fox News site, we got to see a picture of her taking a picture of him! :)

And that doesn't make it right. That's the reason that it's very difficult to defeat an incumbant. Is that fair? Is it OK to use taxpayer dollars for that kind of publicity?

On the other hand, Dekeguy is absolutely right -- I have nothing but admiration for the CinC visiting the troops. I just won't like it if the "news" footage shows up in campaign spots.

I think it will, because the PR gained right now will be forgotten a few months down the road, and I will bet that there will be Republican commercials showing this trip.

Nor does it make it wrong. It simply is what it is. Unless the power of the incumbancy can be altered, without violating the First Amendment, or by diminishing necessary statuatory powers, this is more of a non-issue than any thing else.

See, in my opinion, it's questionable.

Given the use of Air Force One, all of the support folks, the security, etc., this costs the taxpayers lots of big bucks. By the way, that's true of every campaign trip, so I'm not just picking on this instance here. Although, I seem to recall that during the actual "campaign" season, the party has to repay some or all of those expenses. Anyone know if that's true?

on yahoo news I was able to see a picture of a friend of mine too! It made my thanksgiving.

Yes it is. I believe that it is a very small fraction of the operating costs of the two VC-25s (747s) used as Airforce One. The cost, if I remember correctly, is roughly equal to what charter flights carrying a similar number of people would cost in the civilian sector.

I know that the VC-25 is a very economical and high tech aircraft, however that cost is only a small part of the equation. There is also the cost of the other Air Force transports that take the Marine One copters and the limos, and the secret service cars and SUV's -- to say nothing of the WHCA (White House Communications Agency) and armed forces communications folks, etc.

I've televised every president (excepting Bush II) since Nixon, and have seen how many of our public servents travel with them. Many more than with a candidate, so by simply talking about the costs related to the aircraft is not apples and apples.

Of course they all have to go with the president, but what I don't understand is when a trip is clearly labled a "campaign" trip, outside of the campaign season (let's say the President is giving a speech to try to get some Senator elected) why we put up with it.

If the governor of Colorado was using state aircraft to fly all over the state to give campaign speeches, there would be hell to pay.

I agree. My brother has been stationed over there since March and was only home for 2 weeks and sent back to Iraq. He called shortly after Bush left and he was absolutely ecstatic about the whole thing. It just goes to show, if the troops can be away from their families on the holidays, so can Bush.

*edited typo

Good for President Bush and good for Senator Clinton and the Senator from Rhode Island who visited troops in Afghanistan over thanksgiving. :)