A cynical attack on courageous presidential trip
The Sun's take on the president's visit to Baghdad was incredibly cynical and deeply flawed ("Day trip to Baghdad," editorial, Nov. 30). President Bush sacrificed a portion of his holiday to be with the troops. He got as close to the tip of the spear as any president in memory has done.
And The Sun's suggestion that Mr. Bush's deceptive entry into Baghdad damaged his credibility is wrong. Mr. Bush has learned that he cannot trust the press to keep a secret, even if his life and the lives of those traveling with him depend on secrecy.
I think the commander in chief showed audacity by taking Air Force One to Baghdad.
President Bush could have "skulked" into Baghdad on some unmarked aircraft. Or he could have stayed close to home and visited Fort Hood in Texas for some face time and camera time with the troops.
But he chose to do something more symbolic and more courageous.
Douglas D. Wright
While you of the angry left may call it a "transparently political stunt," most Marylanders - indeed, most Americans - view President Bush's surprise visit to Baghdad as a moving and genuine expression of support and gratitude to our troops.
The Sun may try to belittle Mr. Bush. However, its over-the-top hatred of the president simply makes The Sun look petty and foolish.
We are fortunate to have a man of such character as George W. Bush as our president. It's too bad the anger of The Sun's editors blinds them to this fact.
Michael A. Simon
The only people with "challenged credibility" are the ones who write biased and malicious editorials for The Sun.
The Sun's contempt for President Bush is exceeded only by its arrogance.
Betraying Sun's bias on America, Bush
The editorial "Day trip to Baghdad" (Nov. 30) was the most disgusting editorial I've ever had the misfortune to read. Over the years, The Sun has continually shown an anti-American bias; however, The Sun has now even exceeded its previous endeavors.
Common decency dictates that I not use the much stronger language and expletives I expertly learned while serving four years in the Marine Corps. But that's exactly where my thoughts are.
Perhaps The Sun did not see the overjoyed expressions on the faces of our troops in the Iraq mess hall when President Bush arrived. Of course, with its anti-American blinders, it never sees anything positive about President Bush and our great nation.
The Sun should hang its head in shame.
Carroll C. Weyrich
Well, it would have been a safe bet to assume The Sun would find the dark lining to President Bush's Thanksgiving visit with the troops in Baghdad. Just as the sun sets in the west, so does the anti-Bush bias ooze through the pages of The Sun.
You just can't resist a chance to ascribe an ulterior motive to him, can you?
The Sun's editorial regarding President Bush's trip to Baghdad is just another example of how biased and narrow-minded it is toward him.
The Sun could save a lot of time and space if it would write just one editorial stating that it does not like Mr. Bush and does not agree with anything he says or does.
Then it could put its efforts into other topics.
An expensive effort to conceal quagmire
It occurs to me that if other American taxpayers knew the cost of President Bush's "quickie" trip to Iraq, they would be as appalled as I am by it. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars it must have cost for security, for the use of Air Force One and for those for those who accompanied the president at the taxpayers' expense ("Day trip to Baghdad," editorial, Nov. 30).
The trip was shrewd. It was clever, it was political - and it was extremely costly.
But Mr. Bush went to a place where our service people should not have been committed in the first place.
His trip was another attempt to cover up the quagmire he has placed us in (along with the Iraqi people and other nations) and the continuing loss of human life.
The Rev. Edward S. Warfield
Critics of the war really favor troops
President Bush's "Day trip to Baghdad" (editorial, Nov. 30) undoubtedly was a boost to the morale of U.S. troops in Iraq. Heaven knows they deserve whatever might lift their spirits - however politically motivated the trip may have been. But who really has supported the troops?
Was it those who manipulated press coverage to support the illegal, pre-emptive invasion? Was it those who misled the American public about the nature of this unnecessary war, who fabricated reports of weapons of mass destruction and the threat posed by the decimated country of Iraq?
Was it the armchair generals of the media who denounced the loyalty of anyone who criticized the Bush administration's war policy?