Bush--I give thanks for the existence of the Champagne Brigade when it was my turn to serve--and more thanks that they didn't notice I went AWOL when they began drug testing.

Since my Thankgiving vacation coincided with Mr. Bush's layover at Baghdad International, I didn't post regarding this. Sure, my initial reaction went something like gee, that's hard to believe, followed by, well, damn, he really DID go (when I saw the footage), followed by, yeah, I guess you can't really complain too much about a Presidential visit, and the soldiers sure did give him a fine round of applause--but instant analysis isn't my strong suit--as if instant analysis IS anyone's strong suit.

But further reflection and review of the media suggest this quick trip is simply more empty calories. Sure, there will likely be a quick bump in the opinion polls, and it gives the So-Called-Liberal-Media a chance to fawn over how "smart" Bush really is (the initial news reports invariably depicted various members of the press corps displaying an "aw shucks, he sure pulled one over on us" look when reporting or recounting the trip).

But, Wayne Madsen has some genuine questions--the kind a free press might ask.

In addition, you've got to ask yourself if the Hillary Clinton trip factored into Bush's decision. It's one thing to lose (face) to a girl--but to her? A free press would ask this question as well.

There was a report that Air Force One was spotted by a British Airways jet, but that the pilot deftly deflected a radio query by announcing he was instead "Gulfstream 5," the equivalent of a Humvee driver saying that he's really in a Ford Taurus--but this appears to be more classic Bush hyperbole, i.e., his team lied. Coming on the heels of an audio modification of Bush's SOTU to make it sound better for a television ad, you've got to ask yourself, if he'll lie about such trifling matters, what WON'T he lie about?

An aside: there has been some discussion as to whether the editing of the SOTU clip is a valid issue for the left to raise. I've given this some thought--absolutely, in my opinion. The right would holler and bitch and moan to no end if this was done by anyone speaking from the progressive side of the aisle. Sure, if it didn't catch the media wave, so to speak, they'd let it go (and then bring it back whenever it suited, forcing progressives to admit that, yeah, maybe we went a little far in that)--sort of in the same manner that a good coach works the referees. Now, is this fair? Technically, yes. Is it ethical? That's where things get a little gray. Does the right do this? Absolutely--they work the media like a coach works the refs. And that's one reason why they get the calls come crunch time. The left better learn how to do the same--well, the real left does this, but the "left" that actually holds elective office is so busy trying to play by the right's rules that it's like playing five on seven--or worse, as the elected "left" has given up on their bench.

So let's make sure that Bush is actually asked some tough questions--that is, if we can EVER get close enough to him to ask. In case no one's noticed, they've isolated him to an extent that no president in a free society has ever been isolated. Hell, maybe it's just a Bush double who we "see" on television--that is, if he even makes an appearence on television. I'll give Rove some degree of credit--he knows that his guy is such a piss poor performer that all sorts of measures are taken to keep the Bush visage from gracing the media, unless under the most carefully scripted and staged occurrences. The Baghdad International layover was just that--the press pool was halved, Fox News was the only broadcast outfit, only highlights of the speech made it to the broadcast news...

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?