Dubya in that ridiculous flight suit

[Cain]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20030502/mdf268190.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/06/opinion/06KRUG.html

Are we still "respecting" copyrights?

Paul Krugman in today's Times:

...

Some background: the Constitution declares the president commander in chief of the armed forces to make it clear that civilians, not the military, hold ultimate authority. That's why American presidents traditionally make a point of avoiding military affectations. Dwight Eisenhower was a victorious general and John Kennedy a genuine war hero, but while in office neither wore anything that resembled military garb.

Given that history, George Bush's "Top Gun" act aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln — c'mon, guys, it wasn't about honoring the troops, it was about showing the president in a flight suit — was as scary as it was funny.

Mind you, it was funny. At first the White House claimed the dramatic tail-hook landing was necessary because the carrier was too far out to use a helicopter. In fact, the ship was so close to shore that, according to The Associated Press, administration officials "acknowledged positioning the massive ship to provide the best TV angle for Bush's speech, with the sea as his background instead of the San Diego coastline."

A U.S.-based British journalist told me that he and his colleagues had laughed through the whole scene. If Tony Blair had tried such a stunt, he said, the press would have demanded to know how many hospital beds could have been provided for the cost of the jet fuel.


But U.S. television coverage ranged from respectful to gushing.
...

Next year — in early September — the Republican Party will hold its nominating convention in New York. The party will exploit the time and location to the fullest. How many people will dare question the propriety of the proceedings?

...

There was a time when patriotic Americans from both parties would have denounced any president who tried to take political advantage of his role as commander in chief. But that, it seems, was another country.__

[Richard G]

Nothing ridiculous about it. He used to work in one.

Forget political parties. Did you see the reception the men on board gave him? That never would have happened (beyond the normal military curtesy) with Bill Klinton.

[Crossbow]

Expect to see those images used in future campaign spots for George W. in 2004.

[whitefork]

Michael Dukakis redux. I wish I could find a picture of him in that tank. Talk about getting bad PR advice.

[Tmy]

I was waiting for Bush to say somthing like "Thats right Ice..man..I am dangerous".

I thought it was a silly photo op. Im aware that Bush kept the Texas skies free of the Viet Cong during Nam, but these over the top displays are regoddamndiculous. Is it really a good idea to gave the pres zipping around on fighter jets?

Theleftist media is tryingo convice us that Bush is unbeatable in 04'. Theyre scared cause the economy is messed up and the post war after glow wont last until the election.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Richard G
Nothing ridiculous about it. He used to work in one.

Forget political parties. Did you see the reception the men on board gave him? That never would have happened (beyond the normal military curtesy) with Bill Klinton. Jeest! You're not doing GW any favor by bringing up his national guard experience -- refer to this table for details: http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2003_01_12_uggabugga_archive.html#87590816

The crew of the carrier GW visited were no doubt glad to be home after a long cruise and happy to have a moment's break in their routine. And of course GW said the sorts of things they like to hear. (However, with San Diego in sight, I'd have been a bit impatient at having to put off going ashore just so GW could have a photo op.)

I don't know how the crew would have responded to Bill Klinton, whoever he is, but President Bill Clinton would probably have received the same sort of reception in the same circumstances.

[Checkmite]

Just a photo op. I was under the impression that presidents had lots of those...

[American]

Cain, it's because George is stupid.

George is stupid (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=14)

You need to keep making fun of him, and mock him personally. Then things will start to change. You'll have your marxist paradise if you keep doing exactly what liberals have done for 50 years.

[Clancie]

Cain,
Good article. I'm tired of the PR affect that silly landing seemed to have on so many people I know. ("Wow! Our President is cool!")
[B]...That's why American presidents traditionally make a point of avoiding military affectations. Dwight Eisenhower was a victorious general and John Kennedy a genuine war hero, but while in office neither wore anything that resembled military garb.
Great observation from Krugman, but it won't help the Democrats at all.

As Reagan showed in the Mike Deaver years--and Karl Rove is repeating with GW--critical words won't mean much to the average voter as long as the picture of the President makes the statement you want.

[Tmy]

What can he do to top this.

I know, he can jump out of an Apache helicpoter dressed as Rambo. With a buck knife in his mouth and carrying Saddams severed head!

[Baggle]

Does it make a difference that we are currently involved in a war in which GWB is a legitimate target? Not sure. In any case, there are no rules about such things, merely traditions. I am also not sure how important those traditions are.

As far as him looking ridiculous in a flight suit, what would you rather see him wear? A suit and tie? The guy would pass out.

I think it is also a bit disrespectful to mock Bushie Boy for his military service in Vietnam. I know that in a thread about Vietnam, 95% of you guys would say that you would've dodged the draft or joined a military unit that didn't have much chance of seeing combat, so why is it that GWB is mocked for it?

As far as the jet fuel issue(I know it was tongue in cheek), would the jet not have flown in any case that day?

As far as the crew liking the showing or not, are you crazy? The crew probably ate that up! Most Navy and USMC grunts are very young men that are looking out for #1. Now they have a president that they think will treat them as #1, along with not being afraid to take some of the risks they take, IMO. This is based on personal observations from my own personal USMC grunt friends.

I've got a lot of problems with the Bush admin, and I do not want to be seen as an apologist, but when everybody is overlooking logic and just going for blood(on this forum, at least), it bothers me, and I like to point out other PoVs.

-Baggle

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Baggle

I think it is also a bit disrespectful to mock Bushie Boy for his military service in Vietnam. I know that in a thread about Vietnam, 95% of you guys would say that you would've dodged the draft or joined a military unit that didn't have much chance of seeing combat, so why is it that GWB is mocked for it?


We would certainly be mocked if this was the only 'service' we did in Vietnam (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html)

[corplinx]

Hrm. I guess if Dubya had stepped oout of the cockpit of that plane dressed in a 3 piece suit, we would be hearing how ridiculous it looked for the president to step out of a warcraft wearing a suit and about how it was such a ridiculous photo op.

For the chronic Bush hater, anything he does is wrong. It reminds of of the Clinton years when the chronics Clinton haters were constantly yammering about "photo op politics".

[Baggle]

Thanks for the link.

However, there are no sources in the column and many instances of things like, "by one report..." and "according to some," without ever naming a single person or source. We are told that the Boston Globe reported on this, but are provided no text of the article. The Strait Dope is a great site, but this article seems a bit slanted. Have any other sources, please?

Another thing....Going AWOL wasn't a serious offense at the time? Can any military people who served in Vietnam confirm this, please? I find this claim very difficult to believe, especially in war time and for 17 months, according to the article.

-Baggle

[Jim_MDP]

So many of you miss the real point, from GW's POV.

This was not a photo-op, it was a chance to make a carrier trap. I would give a testicle for the chance.

He wanted to ride an F-18 (as would I), but the Secret Service (rightly) nixed the idea because it is a two seater, and it's irresponsible of them to allow him in a situation at the hands of a single person (mil. pilot or not).

Thus the four seat ride (A/E 6? 3?) with SS agent(s) behind the pilot.

In case of a problem, GW could not have made the trap, but he could have easily put them down back at the airport.

Envious, I am.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Tmy
Im aware that Bush kept the Texas skies free of the Viet Cong during Nam

I'm still laughing at this, hehe.

But all kidding aside, not a single Viet Cong soiled our lovely Texan skies on his watch.

Ok, this really all kidding aside, I am certainly no Bush fan but this particular photo-op just doesn't bother me much.

I guess, absurdity is in the eye of the beholder.

[Mr Manifesto]

Haven't read this link but it purports to have sources (http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/)

[swellman]

Originally posted by Baggle
Thanks for the link.

However, there are no sources in the column and many instances of things like, "by one report..." and "according to some," without ever naming a single person or source. We are told that the Boston Globe reported on this, but are provided no text of the article. The Strait Dope is a great site, but this article seems a bit slanted. Have any other sources, please?

Another thing....Going AWOL wasn't a serious offense at the time? Can any military people who served in Vietnam confirm this, please? I find this claim very difficult to believe, especially in war time and for 17 months, according to the article.

-Baggle

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/126/oped/Playing_Top_Gun_for_the_cameras+.shtml

This link is to a current Boston Globe Op/Ed that references the old reports on Bush's military record that were published during the 2000 campaign. The author of the piece, Joan Vennochi, is as liberal as they come, but she is citing the reports you are asking about.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Richard G
Nothing ridiculous about it. He used to work in one.

Forget political parties. Did you see the reception the men on board gave him? That never would have happened (beyond the normal military curtesy) with Bill Klinton.
Probably did more flying that day than in his "stint" before he went AWOL.

[Baggle]

Okay, after reading all of the articles(not all of yours, though, MM...too much to read and I am lazy), it looks like what happened is this: Bush was about to graduate from Yale and knew he'd be drafted, so he became a pilot in the Texas Nat'l Guard. Bush flew for four years before missing his annual physical, which grounded him. Bush was asked by his father to help with a campaign for an Alabama senator(I think it was a senator), and applied for a spot with as little work as possible in Alabama. His superior officer gave him permission for this move, but a letter was later received by higher-ups that declined his transfer. At this point, it gets fuzzy, and nobody seems to know what really happened. There are reports that Bush did get a transfer to an Alabama post, and it seems there are also reports that he was still in the TNG during this time....not sure what happened after that.

Can anybody finish the story for me, please?

-Baggle

[Tony]

Originally posted by subgenius

Probably did more flying that day than in his "stint" before he went AWOL.

You sure are a bigot.

[American]

Personal attacks are all you have. Someone's stupid, fat, rich, whatever.


Look at you! Yes, you're smart and they're stupid. That explains everything.


Now excuse me while I go repress your freedom, doing whatever I do with my time and resources (must be oil, right? I love oil.). I have to make sure you stay poor. That's my contribution to society, just what I want to look back on in 40 years.


I do it just to make you angry so you'll climb on the net each day and moan about the world and how everything would be better if we listened to you!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by American
Personal attacks are all you have. Someone's stupid, fat, rich, whatever.


Look at you! Yes, you're smart and they're stupid. That explains everything.


Now excuse me while I go repress your freedom, doing whatever I do with my time and resources (must be oil, right? I love oil.). I have to make sure you stay poor. That's my contribution to society, just what I want to look back on in 40 years.


I do it just to make you angry so you'll climb on the net each day and moan about the world and how everything would be better if we listened to you!

It seems to me that you are the one who is angry. This is a very relevant conversation. No longer do Americans seem to be critical about what their leader does. It is all a big fireworks show. This is just one part of it. Does anyone care about America's illegal war? About the myriad injustices America has inflicted upon the rest of the world since World War II? Do Americans even know about the crimes commited in their name? No, let's all wave at the pretty leader in his costume. Woo-woo-woo-woo.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


It seems to me that you are the one who is angry. This is a very relevant conversation. No longer do Americans seem to be critical about what their leader does. It is all a big fireworks show.

I have you on ignore but I chanced and clicked on this post to read it. It reminded me of why I put you on ignore. You have _nothing_ valuable to add to a dialogue. What planet do you live on where criticism of the president isnt happening?

Salon, the NYT, SNL, The Boston Globe, ABC, The Foreign Press, Some outspoken Celebrities, the Daily Show, and dont forget conservatives who feel Bush isnt conservative enough. Where is this mythical world you live in where its unpatriotic to be critical of the president?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx


I have you on ignore but I chanced and clicked on this post to read it. It reminded me of why I put you on ignore. You have _nothing_ valuable to add to a dialogue. What planet do you live on where criticism of the president isnt happening?



Yes you mention every chance you get that you have me on ignore. And it's no less boring this time than it was the last two times. Please put me back on ignore I find your incessant whining tiring.

[Pyrrho]

Bush's "stunt" was more than a mere photo-op. His landing on that carrier and stepping out in a flight suit was a tremendous morale-builder for the military.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Bush's "stunt" was more than a mere photo-op. His landing on that carrier and stepping out in a flight suit was a tremendous morale-builder for the military.

Yes the military needed a morale boost after slaughtering thousands of Iraqis. What trying times for them. Thank you Mr Bush.

[Clancie]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but without JK's frequent posts, the tone of this message board seems suddenly, refreshingly, quite a bit more liberal. :)

[DavidJames]

Photo Op? Yup?
Will we see it over and over in 2004? Oh Yeah.
Would I have preferred he stumble over something while strutting? Big Time!

But I'm not losing sleep over it and it really doesn't bother me, it's one of the advantages of being president, sigh

[crackmonkey]

I must admit - the level of anguished cries and gnashing of teeth over these little inconsequential things makes my heart sing.
I think it speaks volumes about the President that his opponents have to stoop to this kind of thing - and still can't land a glove on him.
Keep up the good work.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I must admit - the level of anguished cries and gnashing of teeth over these little inconsequential things makes my heart sing.
I think it speaks volumes about the President that his opponents have to stoop to this kind of thing - and still can't land a glove on him.
Keep up the good work.

It isn't inconsequential. It's a sign of the rampant American jingoism that goes on while the real issues are ignored. Issues which have been brought up by many in this forum and others which are ignored by many Americans because it doesn't fit into their sunny picture of the world.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by JamesMGMDP
Thus the four seat ride (A/E 6? 3?) with SS agent(s) behind the pilot.

S-3B Viking (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-s3b.html). :)

[Cain]

First, on the Air National Guard controversy:

Krugman wrote (in the same column):

But U.S. television coverage ranged from respectful to gushing. Nobody pointed out that Mr. Bush was breaking an important tradition. And nobody seemed bothered that Mr. Bush, who appears to have skipped more than a year of the National Guard service that kept him out of Vietnam, is now emphasizing his flying experience. (Spare me the hate mail. An exhaustive study by The Boston Globe found no evidence that Mr. Bush fulfilled any of his duties during that missing year. And since Mr. Bush has chosen to play up his National Guard career, this can't be shrugged off as old news.)

American is a typical troll:

Cain, it's because George is stupid.

I don't think anyone said word one about Bush's intelligence.

Then he conflates (or muddies) very basic political terms in exploration of a non-point:

You need to keep making fun of him, and mock him personally. Then things will start to change. You'll have your marxist paradise if you keep doing exactly what liberals have done for 50 years.

I'll make fun of him, sure. That flight suit was absolutely ridiculous. As Manifesto has tried to emphasize, these are images -- crude, third-rate right-wing agitprop -- designed to obstruct and squash out clear thinking. "Look at how macho and pro-military the President is. He loves our boys. He's great." Given his heroic record "defending the Texas skies from Vietcong" :) it's beyond shameless.

Also, remember that Republicans shrieked about Clinton's political motives behind everything (and for good reason). Now, though, the shoe is quite obviously on the other foot, and there's not a peep of outrage.

No one talks about how the Bush administration is guided by the polls, how much money Bush has raised for his party through expensive dinners (more than Clinton -- way more) and so on.

Crackmonkey:
I must admit - the level of anguished cries and gnashing of teeth over these little inconsequential things makes my heart sing.
I think it speaks volumes about the President that his opponents have to stoop to this kind of thing - and still can't land a glove on him.
Keep up the good work.

Hardly. What policies has Bush proposed other than tax cuts (for the rich)? We can discuss how his silly faith informs his shallow politics; how he essentially believes God chose him as President (rather than the Supreme Court); or anything else.

Bush's Foreign Policy: Bomb the "next Hitler".

Bush's domestic policy: Tax Cuts (the topic Paul Krugman, the columnist/economist featured in first post, obsesses over).

You name it and I would be more than happy to thoughtfully and civilly discuss a serious Bush policy on the agenda. Hydrogen? Bush's free-market oriented farm bill? His free-enterprise loving tarrifs on foreign steel? Energy ideas?

[Clancie]

Great, Cain. I look forward to serious, factual discussion of Bush's policies. Good election year fodder, too.

Btw, according to Reuters, Bush could have easily accessed the aircraft carrier by helicopter instead.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It turns out that President Bush was intent on landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln by jet plane even though the aircraft carrier was well within helicopter range.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer had said last week that Bush would land on the Lincoln in a S-3B Viking jet. "It will not be a helicopter arrival, because the ship is so far out at sea," he said, adding the aircraft carrier would be hundreds of miles from shore.

As it happened, the Lincoln was only 30 miles from shore, well within helicopter range, when Bush made his dramatic landing in a jet that was jolted to a halt by a cable on the deck as a live television audience watched.

And I thought Byrd's blunt criticism today of this PR stunt was excellent. After all, most of the Democrats seem so afraid of criticizing Bush after 9/ll that most of the time, it feels like I'm living in a one-party state....

[schplurg]

Btw, according to Reuters, Bush could have easily accessed the aircraft carrier by helicopter instead.

Yes and how many chopper crashes were there in the past 6 months, even in training alone? How many jets? I sure as hell would rather be in a plane.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by schplurg
Yes and how many chopper crashes were there in the past 6 months, even in training alone? How many jets? I sure as hell would rather be in a plane.

Choppers don't have ejection seats. That's one of the reasons cited by the White House for the arrival by jet rather than helo.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Choppers don't have ejection seats. That's one of the reasons cited by the White House for the arrival by jet rather than helo.

It would be funny if choppers did have ejection seats. Ones that shot straight up, anyway.

[corplinx]

I remember an interview with dubya's girlfirend when he was in the guard. She said he got into the cockpit every chance he could could get and was pretty enthusiastic flyer.

With that in mind, I've always wondered why the hell he went awol? Needed more attention from Dad? Needed to rebel? Spent the year in rehab? I just dont get how someone who loved what he was doing that much could just put it down.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by c4ts
It would be funny if choppers did have ejection seats. Ones that shot straight up, anyway.

Heh. Who knows, maybe it was considered a feasible design at some point. ;)

[Badger]

I saw something on Discovery, or History, or something like that where they did design ejection seats for helicopters. First stage in the ejection sequences was when the chopper blades released from their housings (explosive bolts? It was a long time ago. I don't remember exactly), flying out of the way. Second stage was normal ejection. The tail rotor blew off too.

[Clancie]

Well, the quotes I read from Ari Fleisher were that GW "wanted to see a landing on the air craft carrier from the pilot's point of view". Not that it was an issue of safety. (First they said "it was too far for a helicopter", but that didn't pan out either. Guess no one's thought of "good photo op" yet, huh?)

And, as for his time out of service, I think, in fairness, he had tacit consent of his superiors at least and wasn't exactly AWOL. The explanation in 2000 was that he was helping his father's/Reagan's campaign.

Of course, what kind of excuse is that anyway, especially when other men were being drafted--and sent to fight in Vietnam, not fly planes in the cushy National Guard assignment inTexas?

I'm sure a lot of them would have liked to have used the "presidential campaign" excuse, too...if they only could have.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Badger
I saw something on Discovery, or History, or something like that where they did design ejection seats for helicopters. First stage in the ejection sequences was when the chopper blades released from their housings (explosive bolts? It was a long time ago. I don't remember exactly), flying out of the way. Second stage was normal ejection. The tail rotor blew off too.

Ooo! Coolness. :)

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Clancy
And, as for his time out of service, I think, in fairness, he had tacit consent of his superiors at least and wasn't exactly AWOL. The explanation in 2000 was that he was helping his father's/Reagan's campaign. :confused:

Mister(s) Reagan and Bush were running on the lead ticket in 1980, a "few" years post-Viet Nam.

[Regnad Kcin]

As is often the case, The Daily Howler (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050603.shtml) comes to the rescue:Excerpts from the article by Walter Robinson as seen in the May 23, 2000 Boston Globe, entitled: “1-YEAR GAP IN BUSH’S GUARD DUTY/NO RECORD OF AIRMAN AT DRILLS IN 1972-73.”

In his final 18 months of military service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly [for the Air National Guard] at all. And for much of that time, Bush was all but unaccounted for: For a full year, there is no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen ...

From May to November 1972, Bush was in Alabama working in a US Senate campaign, and was required to attend drills at an Air National Guard unit in Montgomery. But there is no evidence in his record that he did so. And William Turnipseed, the retired general who commanded the Alabama unit back then, said in an interview last week that Bush never appeared for duty there ... [O]n Sept. 5, 1972, Bush requested permission to do duty for September, October, and November at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery. Permission was granted, and Bush was directed to report to Turnipseed, the unit’s commander.

In interviews last week, Turnipseed and his administrative officer at the time, Kenneth K. Lott, said they had no memory of Bush ever reporting. “Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not,” Turnipseed said.

[Mr Manifesto]

Nothing ridiculous about it. He used to work in one.

Forget political parties. Did you see the reception the men on board gave him? That never would have happened (beyond the normal military curtesy) with Bill Klinton.


Hrm. I guess if Dubya had stepped oout of the cockpit of that plane dressed in a 3 piece suit, we would be hearing how ridiculous it looked for the president to step out of a warcraft wearing a suit and about how it was such a ridiculous photo op.

So many of you miss the real point, from GW's POV.

This was not a photo-op, it was a chance to make a carrier trap. I would give a testicle for the chance.



Bush's "stunt" was more than a mere photo-op. His landing on that carrier and stepping out in a flight suit was a tremendous morale-builder for the military.

Yes and how many chopper crashes were there in the past 6 months, even in training alone? How many jets? I sure as hell would rather be in a plane.

I remember an interview with dubya's girlfirend when he was in the guard. She said he got into the cockpit every chance he could could get and was pretty enthusiastic flyer.

Let us hope these Bush apologists never use the phrase 'Palestinian apologists' or face being exposed as hypocrits.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Choppers don't have ejection seats. That's one of the reasons cited by the White House for the arrival by jet rather than helo.
He takes them all the time, for what that's worth.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
As is often the case, The Daily Howler (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050603.shtml) comes to the rescue:
Some can do no wrong, some can do no right.

[Clancie]

originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Mister(s) Reagan and Bush were running on the lead ticket in 1980, a "few" years post-Viet Nam.


Of course you're right. I should have realized that, but kept thinking that during GW's election the excuse was that he was working on a campaign. But even that doesn't make any sense when you think about the timeline.

Looking around online, I refreshed my memory with this good list of GWB's "military service" inconsistencies, along with many other things I'd forgotten about--like the way he jumped to the top of a long waiting list (after scoring only 25% on the pilot aptitude test, or "about as low as you can get to still be accepted").

And personally I feel it's an offense, to all the people who had no choice but to fight and die in Vietnam--for GWB to not just get a safe and cushy placement (near home, no less) that they couldn't get, and then, to top it off, for him not even to have to fulfill that relatively minimal commitment.

http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2003_01_12_uggabugga_archive.html#87590816

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Richard G
Nothing ridiculous about it. He used to work in one.


Before he went AWOL??

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Clancy



Of course you're right. I should have realized that, but kept thinking that during GW's election the excuse was that he was working on a campaign. But even that doesn't make any sense when you think about the timeline.

Looking around online, I refreshed my memory with this good list of GWB's "military service" inconsistencies, along with many other things I'd forgotten about--like the way he jumped to the top of a long waiting list (after scoring only 25% on the pilot aptitude test, or "about as low as you can get to still be accepted").

And personally I feel it's an offense, to all the people who had no choice but to fight and die in Vietnam--for GWB to not just get a safe and cushy placement (near home, no less) that they couldn't get, and then, to top it off, for him not even to have to fulfill that relatively minimal commitment.

http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2003_01_12_uggabugga_archive.html#87590816
And then to be a tool of the military.
There's a word for it: "chickenhawk."

[Baggle]

Clancy, GWB scored in the top 25% of people taking the test. The 25th percentile. This is not the same as getting 25% on the test.

-Baggle

[Cain]

Clancy, GWB scored in the top 25% of people taking the test. The 25th percentile. This is not the same as getting 25% on the test.

What are you talking about?

The site says:
"Scored 25%, the lowest possible passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion"

This appears to be a scale unique to the particular exam.

Next, the "top 25%" is not the same as the 25th percentile -- it's the 75th percentile.

It doesn't matter because he received the "lowest possible passing grade" anyway.

How difficult is it to admit that Bush piloted an outdated plane in the "Champaigne" division of the Texas Air Natl. Guard?

If my dad had the power and the means to get me out of the Vietnam war, I'd hope to God he would pull strings.

But Bush supported Vietnam and clearly didn't mind other Americans dying in order to "protect" his freedom. There's a word used to describe these people: hypocrite (see threads on Bill Bennett for elaboration).

[Cain]

As alluded to earlier, Senator Byrd said "I am loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan, and yet that is what I saw."

He reproached Bush as a "desk-bound president who assumes the garb of a warrior."

From the AP:

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Byrd's criticisms are "a disservice to the men and women of our military who deserved to be thanked in person."

I love that!

Fleischer also changed the reasons for Top Gun's photo-op stunt:

Earlier Tuesday, he also said Bush decided to land on the carrier on a jet instead of his usual helicopter because the president wanted "to see an aircraft landing the same way that the pilots saw an aircraft landing. He wanted to see it as realistically as possible."

Oh, gosh, I thought he needed to fly by jet because the carrier was "hundreds" of miles offshore.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Robert Byrd needs to shut up.

The President gave contructively to the war effort in VietNam during the hight of hostilties.

The non-participartory, non-patriot Byrd didn't even serve in the military. Look at how he slughed off during WWII (http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_bio/byrd_story/byrd_story.html).

;)

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by schplurg

Yes and how many chopper crashes were there in the past 6 months, even in training alone? How many jets? I sure as hell would rather be in a plane. Helicopters may be risky, but they must be considered safer than automobiles, else why would presidents be hauled back and forth from the White House to Andrews AFB and Camp David in a chopper every week or so.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by subgenius
He takes them all the time, for what that's worth.

Well, duh. :)

HMX-1 (https://www.hmx-1.usmc.mil/), the Marine chopper squadron which operates the VH-3D (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/vh-3.htm) fleet used to transport the President, is based at Quantico.

I can just imagine the headline:
President Wastes Taxpayer Dollars By Shuttling Marine One 2500+ Miles for Photo Op. The bashers would have taken issue with this no matter how it went down. ;)

Something I'm surprised I haven't seen discussed thus far... the general concensus here seems to be that it was just a photo op for President Bush. Don't forget this was great publicity for the US Navy as well. Just food for thought.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Cain

But Bush supported Vietnam and clearly didn't mind other Americans dying in order to "protect" his freedom. There's a word used to describe these people: hypocrite (see threads on Bill Bennett for elaboration).

Excellent point !

As pointed out by UnrepentantSinner , the chickenhawk leading this forray, decided to stay home and weld during WW2, but has the gall to say of bush:

"desk-bound president who assumes the garb of a warrior."

This would have had a lot more impact if Byrd had worn his welders mask while he made this speech...:)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Excellent point !

As pointed out by UnrepentantSinner , the chickenhawk leading this forray, decided to stay home and weld during WW2, but has the gall to say of bush:

You're right, I wonder what un-patriotic liberal loudmouths like Daniel Inouye and Bob Kerry have to say about this!!!

All double sided facitiousness about G.W. actually being in the military while avoiding contribution to the war effort, while Byrd wasn't in the military but did contribute to the war effort - some of my ancestors on my mom's side build ships during WWII. Without the Liberty ships the Battle of the Atlantic might never have been won. Had that occured, Sea Lion might have been successful and without England as a massive launch pad for the 8th Air Force and D-Day I shudder to think at the outcome of the war.

There's a reason why Rosie the Riveter is just as sexy as a WAC in the Philippeans :) (...wonder's who'll get the rock reference.)

[crackmonkey]

So... I gather that it's now illegal for a President to make a dashing entrance? Obviously, the carrier landing was a photo-op. I understand that Presidents have acted in front of cameras in this way before... even the blessed Clinton wasn't averse to a photo-op. Where are the screams of outrage for Clinton's arranging stones in the shape of a cross on the beaches of Normandy - and every camera in the Western world just happened to be there.

[renata]

Question:
If Bush uses this image in his 2004 campaign, wouldn't the extra expense of using a plane instead of going via helicopter or waiting until the ship came into dock be picked up by the Bush reelection campaign as opposed to the tax payers? As I understand it, the ship was in San Diego a day or two days after the speech. How much extra did it cost, anyway?

I am afraid stunts like this reinforce the "cowboy" image.

I remember when Navy crew came back from being detained in China in 2001. Bush did not greet them, and a big deal was made about how respectful he was, about how Clinton would have milked the occasion, how Bush is salt of the earth kind of guy, a change from "photo op" presidency.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by renata

I am afraid stunts like this reinforce the "cowboy" image.

One that a lot of people do not seem to have a problem with..

Isn't it all about 'image' anyway?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Where are the screams of outrage for Clinton's arranging stones in the shape of a cross on the beaches of Normandy - and every camera in the Western world just happened to be there.

Those cameramen were busy in the cemetary with SS soldiers where Reagan was laying wreaths a few years earlier.

[crackmonkey]

Yes, my point exactly. So what? Politicians make grand gestures in front of cameras. It's part of their job description.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Yes, my point exactly. So what? Politicians make grand gestures in front of cameras. It's part of their job description.

No doubt (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1579121551/ref=lib_rd_zi_6/002-7734000-9524816?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=6&jumbo=1#reader-link)

[Baggle]

Uh...Clancy, congradulations on being one of the rudest people on this forum.

I didn't know I needed to admit to anything, so don't ask me how hard it is.

Besides, you are wrong.

[Bush] scored in the 25th percentile
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html

Thanks for alerting me to your posting style before I ever got into a real debate with you.

-Baggle

[Baggle]

By the way, Clancy, it does matter, because you were either intentionally or unintentionally distorting facts to suit your political beliefs. I felt I needed to keep the facts out there, or at least the ones I was aware of. I would've done the same thing to any poster on this forum.

-Baggle

[Clancie]

originally posted by Baggle
Uh...Clancy, congradulations on being one of the rudest people on this forum.
Thanks. Mind telling me what I said that was so incredibly rude?

As for your source of "25th percentile", it's not a newsource. (I have checked four online sources--newspapers and university websites that say "scored 25 percent". I think you need to have a reputable source if you're going to state it as a fact).

But at least all sources, including yours, agree that it was the lowest possible score anyone could get to qualify for pilot training.

And, with that score, Bush was able to jump ahead of 500 people to fill one of only 4 available slots.

[Clancie]

originally posted by Baggle
By the way, Clancy, it does matter, because you were either intentionally or unintentionally distorting facts to suit your political beliefs

Baggle, I just noticed this accusation from you, too. What facts are you referring to specifically?

"?"

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by whitefork
Michael Dukakis redux. I wish I could find a picture of him in that tank. Talk about getting bad PR advice.

LOL if you think this picture of Bush in a flight suit is anything like Dukakis in the tank.. Dukakis was the most comical figure ever to grace an M1 tank. People thought he looked like a joke--a weak, out-of-place, awkward joke. Bush looks like f*cking Tom Cruise here!

Having worked as a high-levels political PR and media consultant, I can tell you that the Bush images onboard the LINCOLN were pure gold... the kind of images PR people dream about. That´s why the democrats and liberals are so ticked off about it. hahaha! :D

[Baggle]

My apologies, Clancy. I read Cain's post, interpereted that it was a response to my own, only glanced at the name and saw that it looked similar. Nothing you posted was rude, and I thank you for that. It was my own fault for not reading closely enough. Cain, on the other hand, was extremely rude in the way that he responded to my post. The response was intended for him alone.

Back to the issue, however. Would you please provide a newsource(that doesn't include GWB cartoons talking about how he wants to provide toys that kids can choke on and SUVs that rollover to Americans) that backs up your claim? Honestly, what seems more plausible, 25% or 25th percentile? The guy had just graduated from Yale.

-Baggle

[Mr Manifesto]

I am finding some of the responses quite funny. From the typical: "People are just jealous" to the sublime: "The Navy needed publicity/military needed morale boosting" to the ridiculous: "Planes are safer than helicopters".

Here's why I have a problem with Bush pretending to be a Top Gun pilot. Bush was looking for any excuse at all to go to war with Iraq. First Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda. Then it was weapons of mass destruction, even though no country in the world had gotten rid of as many weapons as Iraq. Finally it was to free the people and as always in order to free the people it was neccessary to kill them.

Bush had a few reasons to go to war with Iraq none of them justified. He had to show what a big strong man America is. To do this he needed his army which he used like a small boy uses his toys. The world saw a man who obviously knows nothing about how horrible war is condemning thousands to death so he could feel a little more macho.

Now he's wearing a halloween costume pretending to be GI Joe- the Great American Hero. Who knows who he'll go to war with next? Who will he condemn to death next? It seems obvious that this man isn't leading his country- he's too busy playing Little Army Men.

[Baker]

Originally posted by renata
Question:
If Bush uses this image in his 2004 campaign, wouldn't the extra expense of using a plane instead of going via helicopter or waiting until the ship came into dock be picked up by the Bush reelection campaign as opposed to the tax payers? As I understand it, the ship was in San Diego a day or two days after the speech. How much extra did it cost, anyway?

I am afraid stunts like this reinforce the "cowboy" image.

I remember when Navy crew came back from being detained in China in 2001. Bush did not greet them, and a big deal was made about how respectful he was, about how Clinton would have milked the occasion, how Bush is salt of the earth kind of guy, a change from "photo op" presidency.


That is very surprising coming from you renata this just shows how desperate the left is at attacking anyone on the right using a photo such as this one to attack Bush with is really pathetic.

[renata]

Originally posted by Baker



That is very surprising coming from you renata this just shows how desperate the left is at attacking anyone on the right using a photo such as this one to attack Bush with is really pathetic.

Baker, my love, you know I fall in different camps on different issues! :) I am just aware of perceptions, and I have certain aversion to gung ho images perpetrated by anyone! I would have been just as concerned if Clinton did this. I do not dislike Bush on all issues, but if he wants to be a non "photo op" president, a la Clinton, he should not have done this one.
Truce? :)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Baker



That is very surprising coming from you renata this just shows how desperate the left is at attacking anyone on the right using a photo such as this one to attack Bush with is really pathetic.
Geez, it falls under the heading of "mild criticism," "humble opinion."
If the man can't stand the lukewarm.....
Left vs. right, did you notice Frank Newgent's post to a link with embarrassing photos of Al and Hillary?
Your comment is why some people feel that they're no longer able to express an opinion without being accused of something.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I am finding some of the responses quite funny. From the typical: "People are just jealous" to the sublime: "The Navy needed publicity/military needed morale boosting" to the ridiculous: "Planes are safer than helicopters".

Here's why I have a problem with Bush pretending to be a Top Gun pilot. Bush was looking for any excuse at all to go to war with Iraq. First Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda. Then it was weapons of mass destruction, even though no country in the world had gotten rid of as many weapons as Iraq. Finally it was to free the people and as always in order to free the people it was neccessary to kill them.

Bush had a few reasons to go to war with Iraq none of them justified. He had to show what a big strong man America is. To do this he needed his army which he used like a small boy uses his toys. The world saw a man who obviously knows nothing about how horrible war is condemning thousands to death so he could feel a little more macho.

Now he's wearing a halloween costume pretending to be GI Joe- the Great American Hero. Who knows who he'll go to war with next? Who will he condemn to death next? It seems obvious that this man isn't leading his country- he's too busy playing Little Army Men.


If you are not an evil dictator, you have nothing to fear..:D

[Baker]

Originally posted by renata


Baker, my love, you know I fall in different camps on different issues! :) I am just aware of perceptions, and I have certain aversion to gung ho images perpetrated by anyone! I would have been just as concerned if Clinton did this. I do not dislike Bush on all issues, but if he wants to be a non "photo op" president, a la Clinton, he should not have done this one.
Truce? :)

If he runs around with suits such as the one during the election year in the photo then you make an availed point I just don’t think this one photo is worth all of this commotion.

[Baker]

Originally posted by subgenius

Geez, it falls under the heading of "mild criticism," "humble opinion."
If the man can't stand the lukewarm.....
Left vs. right, did you notice Frank Newgent's post to a link with embarrassing photos of Al and Hillary?
Your comment is why some people feel that they're no longer able to express an opinion without being accused of something.

Many of the posts on here or more then just mild criticism and those disagreeing with the theme of the thread are being attacked also it sounds like one of jk’s post where he blows a miner story out of proportion.

[Clancie]

Baggle,

Thanks for the retraction. Appreciate it.

Here's a link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm

I'm sure we disagree, but since I think Bush is completely average in intelligence, I think it makes more sense that he scored in the bottom 25%, or got 25% on the test, not that he was in the 75th percentile (top 25%).

My, quite negative, opinion of him is that he's been coasting all his life on his family name and connections and hasn't a clue about how hard other people have to work to deserve the things that are just handed to him.

And I agree, Genghis kwn. It was totally contrived, but Bush looked great. :( A bleeping PR disaster for Dems, which Byrd is trying brilliantly to salvage by preemptive strike--"Will Republicans still have the nerve to use the photo in the 2004 campaign?" He's got good points to make, too, but I think alas the answer is still "Yes".

[hal bidlack]

Wait, are you guys saying flight suits *always* look silly?:eek: :D :eek: http://www.hamiltonlives.com/JREF/fs.jpg

(oh, and yes, those are the Rocky Mountains out the window)

[subgenius]

Hal, post a pic of Hamilton in a flight suit.

[Baggle]

Thanks for the link, Clancy. Wow. GWB almost looks scary in that picture, if not for the bubble gum..haha.

Think if I emailed the Washington Post author of that article he would reply? In that case, I could confirm the number. It is just hard for me to accept that 25% is passing on any military exam. Maybe pilot aptitude is a section on the test among many? In that case, I could see somebody getting 25% and passing, as long as they did well on other parts of the test.

Hal, nice to see you make an appearance. Can you add anything to this? Got any ideas on who I could email(military folks, maybe?) that may know the answer to this question? I'd be grateful.

-Baggle

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Wait, are you guys saying flight suits *always* look silly?:eek: :D :eek:


Eehm..., before anyone answers: what do you hold in your hand behind your back? :eek: :)

[hal bidlack]

Lt Col Bidlack supports his commander in chief, and will continue to obey lawful orders from his superiors :) And as to what's behind my back, did I mention I started off as an ICBM launch officer? Don't get on my bad side...:p

[renata]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Lt Col Bidlack supports his commander in chief, and will continue to obey lawful orders from his superiors :) And as to what's behind my back, did I mention I started off as an ICBM launch officer? Don't get on my bad side...:p

You need a sockpuppet to tell us how you REALLY think, hal.

[Cain]

Baggle,

I'm curious how my post was so rude:

First, I noted that the site says 25% (without offering a percentile).

Then I clarified your statistical error: 25th percentile is NOT "the top 25%" (that would be the 75th percentile).

Finally, I made a few innocuous comments Bush's service.

You misinterpreted more than poster name.


As for Byrd, I don't see the big deal. He doesn't seem to be the one thirsting for war (and even Ari called him a "Patriot" -- as if that means anything).

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Lt Col Bidlack supports his commander in chief, and will continue to obey lawful orders from his superiors :) And as to what's behind my back, did I mention I started off as an ICBM launch officer? Don't get on my bad side...:p

Bad eyes kept you out of other fields too 'eh Hal?

Did you happen to run into a young lieutenant in the early 1990s named Tim O'Shea or had you changed fields by that point?

[Clancie]

originally posted by Baggle
Wow. GWB almost looks scary in that picture, if not for the bubble gum..haha

Ha! I can't believe that I didn't even notice that picture when I read the article, Baggle. It is an awful picture, with GWB definitely not looking too "post grad", blowing out bubble gum...in Harvard Business School no less.

Funny I didn't notice it before. I definitely prefer seeing photos of "GWB as a Sweathog", lol, to his current "Top Gun" persona :).

[VernorsRush]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Choppers don't have ejection seats. That's one of the reasons cited by the White House for the arrival by jet rather than helo. Neither does Marine One. Never seen him flying a combat jet to Camp David.

[003998]

Originally posted by Diogenes



If you are not an evil dictator, you have nothing to fear..:D
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,grossbild-256837-245006,00.html

[subgenius]

Originally posted by 003998

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,grossbild-256837-245006,00.html
Willkommen.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by Tmy
I was waiting for Bush to say somthing like "Thats right Ice..man..I am dangerous".

LOL :)

I didn't watch it, I refuse to watch, but I caught a glipse channel surfing. Very ironic the few seconds I watched the camera panned the crew, and the crew who were not officers looked bored staring off into the distance during his speech.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller


LOL :)

I didn't watch it, I refuse to watch, but I caught a glipse channel surfing. Very ironic the few seconds I watched the camera panned the crew, and the crew who were not officers looked bored staring off into the distance during his speech.
Like you, I have refused to watch a second of this guy's blathering. He's not an orator, statesman, intellect. (And yes, I do get his "message" in writing.)
Like Reagan, and sex for British women, "close your eyes and think of England." Grin and bear it.
This country's second figurehead puppet president.

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Cain
First, on the Air National Guard controversy:

Krugman wrote (in the same column):



American is a typical troll:



I don't think anyone said word one about Bush's intelligence.

Then he conflates (or muddies) very basic political terms in exploration of a non-point:



I'll make fun of him, sure. That flight suit was absolutely ridiculous. As Manifesto has tried to emphasize, these are images -- crude, third-rate right-wing agitprop -- designed to obstruct and squash out clear thinking. "Look at how macho and pro-military the President is. He loves our boys. He's great." Given his heroic record "defending the Texas skies from Vietcong" :) it's beyond shameless.

Also, remember that Republicans shrieked about Clinton's political motives behind everything (and for good reason). Now, though, the shoe is quite obviously on the other foot, and there's not a peep of outrage.

No one talks about how the Bush administration is guided by the polls, how much money Bush has raised for his party through expensive dinners (more than Clinton -- way more) and so on.

Crackmonkey:


Hardly. What policies has Bush proposed other than tax cuts (for the rich)? We can discuss how his silly faith informs his shallow politics; how he essentially believes God chose him as President (rather than the Supreme Court); or anything else.

Bush's Foreign Policy: Bomb the "next Hitler".

Bush's domestic policy: Tax Cuts (the topic Paul Krugman, the columnist/economist featured in first post, obsesses over).

You name it and I would be more than happy to thoughtfully and civilly discuss a serious Bush policy on the agenda. Hydrogen? Bush's free-market oriented farm bill? His free-enterprise loving tarrifs on foreign steel? Energy ideas?

Cain, it's good to see that there are still observant and critical people in America. I point to people like you as positive beacons of reason (unfortunately with less media coverage than the right wing crackheads currently in power) when Europeans ask me if America has gone completely paranoid, power-mad and crazy in the last 3 years.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by 003998

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,grossbild-256837-245006,00.html

Feel better?

Some kind of ethnic guilt, we are feeling..?

http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/gifs/p126.gif

Just a quick search, I couldn't find any mutilated ones...

[aerocontrols]

A defense (http://www.hobbsonline.blogspot.com/2003_05_01_hobbsonline_archive.html#93934189) of Bush's service record.

MattJ

[renata]

One part of my questions answered:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-05-07-bush-landing_x.htm

Staffers for Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, calculated that the visit delayed the ship's arrival in San Diego by at least one day and cost taxpayers as much as $1 million in extra fuel costs, plus $100,000 in additional pay for the crew.

...

The White House initially said the carrier was too far out at sea to use a helicopter. Tuesday, Fleischer acknowledged that the ship was close enough and said Bush took the jet because he wanted to experience a carrier landing.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
A defense (http://www.hobbsonline.blogspot.com/2003_05_01_hobbsonline_archive.html#93934189) of Bush's service record.

MattJ
Talk about damning with faint praise:
"However, probably the most comprehensive media review of Bush's military records concluded that while he, "served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, he did accumulate the days of service required for him for his ultimate honorable discharge." "

Wow, he accumulated the days of service required to get a discharge. My hero.
Served irregularly. Expedited discharge. Man he had places to go and people to see.
Did they count the days he was AWOL?
Think Daddy being VP was "helpful"?

And the source for the quote from George magazine is a National Guard publication obviously sensitive to criticism.

Thanks for the link.

Why bother to defend the indefensible? Why not just say he's a better man now, like they do with his alcohol and drug problems?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius
Think Daddy being VP was "helpful"?

Obviously not, since he wasn't.

Originally posted by subgenius
Thanks for the link.

Why bother to defend the indefensible? Why not just say he's a better man now, like they do with his alcohol and drug problems?

Your welcome for the link. I'm glad you appreciate the extra information. I didn't realize I was defending the indefensible, I thought I was linking to someone else's defense in an effort to get the whole truth.

MattJ

[subgenius]

Sure should have said "Daddy having power."

Shouldn't have directed the "indefensible" part at you.

And your link was truly helpful. Info there I did not know. You learn something new everyday if you wake up and get out of bed.

[RandFan]

I loved it. I think Bush looked great. That Byrd and others are in a dither about this is great! I would have done it just to piss them off. :cool: :D

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by VernorsRush
Neither does Marine One. Never seen him flying a combat jet to Camp David.

Apparently you didn't read my later post...

[hal bidlack]

Just as long as we all agree that it is possible to look dashing in a flight suit.

[crackmonkey]

By the way, nice icon, Wolverine. Is that the top-of-the-line Wolfgang? I've tried one out - I love the feel of the neck.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Just as long as we all agree that it is possible to look dashing in a flight suit.

There's a picture of John McCain in his autobiography wearing his flight suit.

I'm not gay or anything, but I think that picture almost got me pregnant.

MattJ

[rikzilla]

This thread reeks of sour political grapes. It's hardly worth commenting on.

I'd say the same if this was a thread about Clinton's sleazy pardons...or Clinton's staffers wrecking offices on their way out of office,...or of Clintonites stealing everything from Airforce One that wasn't nailed down...(and a few things that were!)....or of Clinton bombing a asprin factory whilst the Congress was busy impeaching him,....or of Monica blowing him...etc....etc....etc.


:rolleyes: the hits just keep on coming!

One would think that the Dems would be so stuffed after their dinner of Iraqi crow that they'd let this little presidential perk go. But nope, they need something else to bleat about since it's suddenly become unfashionable to protest "the war".... :D

I think it would be much more instructive to question the Dems about how much on-going and perpetual enforcement of the no-fly zone by these same carriers would cost had we not had a president with the guts to remove Hussein by force.

I wonder how many zeros that figure would contain???

-zilla

Originally posted by rikzilla
I think it would be much more instructive to question the Dems about how much on-going and perpetual enforcement of the no-fly zone by these same carriers would cost had we not had a president with the guts to remove Hussein by force.


-zilla

For a thread hardly worthy of comment, you found quite a bit to say.

How does it take guts to send other people off to die in a needless war?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mackadoodledaddy aka: Lost Sailor


For a thread hardly worthy of comment, you found quite a bit to say.

How does it take guts to send other people off to die in a needless war?

political guts boy, political guts!

BTW; Why do you keep changing your nick, but keeping the same avatar?? I find it mildly disconcerting, and a possible indicator of the onset of mental illness! ;)

-z

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
By the way, nice icon, Wolverine. Is that the top-of-the-line Wolfgang? I've tried one out - I love the feel of the neck.

[off-topic]

Yes indeedy! You're the first person to guess correctly. :)

Love mine, got it when they were still new on the market several years ago -- it says "Patent Applied For" on the back of the headstock. :)

[/off-topic]

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by rikzilla
BTW; Why do you keep changing your nick, but keeping the same avatar?? I find it mildly disconcerting, and a possible indicator of the onset of mental illness! ;)

-z

Me, too.

How does one do it, anyway?

Also, how does one change their 'title'?

MattJ

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Me, too.

How does one do it, anyway?

Also, how does one change their 'title'?

MattJ

One must beat a moderator in a football bet! :)
(Go Bucs!)

:D

-z

"Political guts"... I see. So, are you then saying it's brave to send people off to die to make political hay? To press war on a nation that can't possibly retaliate effectively, so W could look stern and tough?


Off topic... it amuses me that I can ask for and receive username changes, and I do so every three to four weeks for fun. It's also a self-reminder not to take myself too seriously. It'll all come to an end soon though.

Onset of mental illness? Already swimming in those waters, sir.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by subgenius
Hal, post a pic of Hamilton in a flight suit.

:D :D :D

[Doubt]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Just as long as we all agree that it is possible to look dashing in a flight suit.

Why do launch officers wear flight suits? Your not going to ride the missile and the bunker is not going to fly anytime soon.

You may as well wear a wig and tights!
:D

[Wolverine]

Neal Boortz (http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm) cracks me up:

AND WHAT IS THIS PICTURE...?


http://www.boortz.com/0000284023-001.jpg

Well, Golly! It looks like Clinton on the deck of the USS Theodore Roosevelt! Why, that's exactly what it is! And looky! He's wearing a flight jacket! Don't you think that it's just shameful that this particular Commander-in-Chief posed for these photo ops with the military? I guess this is OK for a president, if that president is a Democrat who "loathes" the military.

Tee-hee. :D

[subgenius]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Just as long as we all agree that it is possible to look dashing in a flight suit.
How would Hamilton look in a flight suit?
Inquiring minds are dying to know.
(Or would that be sacrilegious?)

[Clancie]

originally posted by Rikzilla
Clinton's staffers wrecking offices on their way out of office,...or of Clintonites stealing everything from Airforce One that wasn't nailed down...(and a few things that were)
You need to keep up with those Republican retractions, Rikzilla. The Bush group later admitted that both of these accusations were false.
originally posted by Woverine
I guess this is OK for a president, if that president is a Democrat who "loathes" the military.
You have "loathe" in quotes. Please provide a source where Clinton said he "loathed" our military.

Why is it that some Republicans just can't stick to the facts? Maybe because the truth just doesn't serve their political agenda?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Clancy
You have "loathe" in quotes. Please provide a source where Clinton said he "loathed" our military.

Ask Neal Boortz (http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm)... that's why the pic and excerpt were in the [quote] box. ;)

[subgenius]

And why don't people get the fact that there's criticism now of the people in office now. It's called "the loyal opposition."
Republicans are still obsessed with Clinton, which to me only makes it appear that they are hate based and don't stand for anything.
(Note I said "appear.")
Also the continual "well Clinton did it too" wears pretty thin.
My momma taught me that just cause Johnny did it doesn't make it right.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius
Also the continual "well Clinton did it too" wears pretty thin.
My momma taught me that just cause Johnny did it doesn't make it right.

Perhaps you should read the link that began this thread, Subby. Krugman makes a big deal that Bush is "breaking tradition" by "wearing... military garb".

It appears to me that Krugman's argument that Bush's action is unique is "what makes it wrong", according to him.

MattJ

[subgenius]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Perhaps you should read the link that began this thread, Subby. Krugman makes a big deal that Bush is "breaking tradition" by "wearing... military garb".

It appears to me that Krugman's argument that Bush's action is unique is "what makes it wrong", according to him.

MattJ
Hey, I'm not defending him, I have a hard time defending my life. (Oooh, that was a good Albert Brooks movie.)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Clancy

You need to keep up with those Republican retractions, Rikzilla. The Bush group later admitted that both of these accusations were false.



Oh? Well, if they retracted those accusations then I will henceforth not use them. (I must have missed the retraction) Trouble is tho Clancy, that Clinton's list of misadventures while in office is mind bogglingly long.


Bill and Hillary Clinton left the Whitehouse with their pockets full - full of silverware, furniture, and pretty much everything else they could grab that wasn't theirs. Included was a multi thousand dollar furniture set belonging to the interior department, which the Clintons had tried to claim as a gift before being forced to return it under pressure and outrage.

On the night before and morning of his departure from office, Bill Clinton made several controversial "midnight" pardons. Aside from pardoning political allies and scandal co-conspirators such as Susan McDougal, Henry Cisneros, and his brother Roger, Bill pardoned fugitive criminal millionaire Marc Rich. Rich was charged in the early eighties with several felony offenses but fled to Switzerland to avoid facing trial. Among Rich's crimes were oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis and ties to arms smuggling. Amazingly, Clinton completely disregarded pardon protocol in the Rich case and failed to properly inform many authorities in the justice department of Rich's fugitive status.

This Clinton scandal involves the discovery of over 900 Republican FBI files in the White House. Files of former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and Newt Gingrich's spokesman Tony Blankley were found to be on this list. Upon the discovery of these files, the White House issued an excuse claiming that the files were mistakenly requested by a White House employee working with an outdated list. They were called a simple "snafu." Investigations into Filegate revealed that not a common White House worker but the President's friend and close advisor, Anthony Marceca, had requested the files. When the presidency starts illegally compiling an enemies list it is a sure sign he is not fit to serve office and that, just maybe, a crime has been committed.
etc.....etc.....etc.....<yawn>

There's many, many more too tedious to mention......were these "retracted" as well?? :confused:

-z

[Baker]

Originally posted by subgenius
And why don't people get the fact that there's criticism now of the people in office now. It's called "the loyal opposition."
Republicans are still obsessed with Clinton, which to me only makes it appear that they are hate based and don't stand for anything.
(Note I said "appear.")
Also the continual "well Clinton did it too" wears pretty thin.
My momma taught me that just cause Johnny did it doesn't make it right.

Well trying to jump on Bush just for a photo is still pathetic, couldn't you at least find some constructed criticizes?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Baker


Well trying to jump on Bush just for a photo is still pathetic, couldn't you at least find some constructed criticizes?
I'm not sure I did jump on him specifically for the photo, but feel free to go back and make me eat my words.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Baker


Well trying to jump on Bush just for a photo is still pathetic, couldn't you at least find some constructed criticizes?

I am finding some of the responses quite funny. From the typical: "People are just jealous" to the sublime: "The Navy needed publicity/military needed morale boosting" to the ridiculous: "Planes are safer than helicopters".

Here's why I have a problem with Bush pretending to be a Top Gun pilot. Bush was looking for any excuse at all to go to war with Iraq. First Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda. Then it was weapons of mass destruction, even though no country in the world had gotten rid of as many weapons as Iraq. Finally it was to free the people and as always in order to free the people it was neccessary to kill them.

Bush had a few reasons to go to war with Iraq none of them justified. He had to show what a big strong man America is. To do this he needed his army which he used like a small boy uses his toys. The world saw a man who obviously knows nothing about how horrible war is condemning thousands to death so he could feel a little more macho.

Now he's wearing a halloween costume pretending to be GI Joe- the Great American Hero. Who knows who he'll go to war with next? Who will he condemn to death next? It seems obvious that this man isn't leading his country- he's too busy playing Little Army Men.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by rikzilla
There's many, many more too tedious to mention......were these "retracted" as well?? :confused:-z I can't help but wonder if cost is truly a complaint or just a reason to bitch. I wonder how many of the same complaining about the cost to land on the carrier were complaining about Clinton's paid vacations abroad.

National Tax Payers Union (http://www.ntu.org/taxpayer_issues/ntu_policy_papers/pp_ntu_104_c.php3)

The President’s 1998 trip to Africa provides an example of how extensive this operation can be. In addition to the advance teams, ever-present security detail, and White House cooks, Clinton’s entourage included “stenographers, telephone operators, pilots, diplomats, coordinators, facilitators, assistants to the President, deputy assistants to the President, reporters and technicians, spin doctors (10, if you count the assistants and their assistants), Members of Congress (16 including 14 Democrats and 2 Republicans), Cabinet Members (3), business executives, labor leaders, mayors, church leaders, Clinton pals, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, special envoy to Africa.”[i]

Unfortunately, the complete cost of all of President Clinton’s trips abroad is currently unknown, but two studies completed by the General Accounting Office provide a glimpse of what the final tally might be. At the request of Congress, GAO examined the cost of three Clinton trips in 1998 (see Table 5) and in a separate study the cost incurred by the Defense Department for fixed-wing cargo airlift, passenger airlift, and aerial refueling for 27 Presidential foreign trips between January 1997 and March 2000 – half of Clinton’s total number of trips (see table 6).

The total estimated cost to taxpayers for the three 1998 trips is $72.1 million. It is very likely that these are conservative estimates because they do not take into account additional Secret Service costs (which are classified for security reasons) and costs to agencies involved in planning. Agency involvement in a particular trip depends on the goals and agenda of that trip. For example, if trade is a key issue, then the U.S. Trade Representative and officials from the Commerce Department would likely participate. The Department of Defense (DOD), responsible for the transport of the President and his entourage, is involved in all trips and bears the largest share of travel costs.

The aircraft support expenses for half of Clinton’s trips cost nearly $247 million. Again, this figure does not include additional expenses incurred by other participating agencies (as seen in Table 5). The total known cost of half of Clinton’s trips based on the two partial GAO studies (minus the $55.6 million in aircraft support costs for the trips to Africa, China, and Chile in 1998 which are included in both GAO reports) comes to $263.4 million.[ii] It is safe to say that the remaining 27 trips need to have been held to a very tight budget to keep the total taxpayer burden for all of Clinton's foreign travel below a half billion dollars. A half billion dollars!


Questions about personnel opportunity costs of Presidential trip are particularly acute when examining the Clinton record. As noted previously, Clinton took staggering numbers of personnel on his overseas trips, with perhaps the biggest contingent going to Africa in 1998 (1,302 federal officials accompanied Clinton). But beyond questions of raw numbers, there are questions about who Clinton chose to bring along. In the case of Africa, Clinton chose to bring his personal secretary Betty Currie. Currie was of course a witness before the grand jury investigating the Lewinsky/obstruction of justice case. While Ms. Currie no doubt enjoyed her trip, it was very much out of the norm for the President’s personal secretary to join him and one can reasonably wonder what public purpose was served by her accompanying the President.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Also the continual "well Clinton did it too" wears pretty thin.
My momma taught me that just cause Johnny did it doesn't make it right. It doesn't wear thin to Clinton's loyal opposition. It does demonstrate inconsistency though. It's a two edged sword but it ISN'T going away no matter how thin it wears. :cool:

[Clancie]

Rikzilla,

Could you post a link to your source?

I'm wondering if its also going to turn out to not be a bona fide news source either, like Wolverine's post from Neal Boortz's page. (And, imo, saying the President of the U.S."loathes" the military, with no proof at all, just doesn't seem right....)

Let's see how many of the alleged "crimes" above are really true, or just more Republican Party smear tactics.

So...The source....?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Clancy
I'm wondering if its also going to turn out to not be a bona fide news source either, like Wolverine's post from Neal Boortz's page. (And, imo, saying the President of the U.S."loathes" the military, with no proof at all, just doesn't seem right....)

You mean presidents are depicted on some web sites in extremely negative fashion, with no regard to factual information?!?!

*GASP* :eek:

I'm shocked. ;)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
Let's see how many of the alleged "crimes" above are really true, or just more Republican Party smear tactics. I sourced the Clinton travel debacle.

[swellman]

Damage to the White House? Yep.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34764-2002Jun11?language=printer

Theft from Air Force One? Nope.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/trashingthewhitehouse.htm

[Clancie]

From Swellman's link above re: damage:

A government investigation, prompted by Bush administration charges that aides to President Bill Clinton vandalized the White House as they left, found at least $19,000 in damage but concluded it may have been typical of recent outgoing administrations

The 217-page report was released yesterday by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress....

...The report gave both sides some vindication. Bush aides said it validated their charges, and former Clinton aides said it proved the damage was minor and ordinary.

The report said "some of the same types of observations that were made concerning the condition of the White House complex during the 2001 transition were also made during the 1993 transition," when Clinton was taking office.

The report said that the GAO was "unable to conclude whether the 2001 transition was worse than previous ones" but that career government employees recalled similar conditions in 1989, when President Bush's father was inaugurated.

Although this seems childish and wrong, but there's no evidence Clinton had any personal knowledge of it at all.

[Cain]

Originally posted by RandFan
It doesn't wear thin to Clinton's loyal opposition. It does demonstrate inconsistency though. It's a two edged sword but it ISN'T going away no matter how thin it wears. :cool:

No, it assumes that those of us now criticizing Bush also supported Clinton. In my case that's just plain wrong.

I've seen Bush wearing those same silly jackets for awhile without any sort of public brouhaha. I dunno, maybe I'm just crazy for thinking there's a difference between putting a jacket over your civilian clothes while walking on a flight deck, and making a very public entrance aboard a military jet in full flight suit (not to mention posing for pictures with adoring women, or triumphantly yelling out to journalists "Yes, I flew it!")

In high school we had a word for these people... what was it?

Ah, yes, wanker. Bush is a wanker.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Just a photo op. I was under the impression that presidents had lots of those...

Like Clinton at the DMZ looking at N. Korea with binoculars that had the lens caps on. :D :D :D

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by Supercharts

Like Clinton at the DMZ looking at N. Korea with binoculars that had the lens caps on. :D :D :D

Do you mean this Clinton? (http://www.logicpathsw.com/bush/bush_binoculars.jpg) :p :)

[Clancie]

Lol, Nitpick.

Is that for real?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Clancy
Lol, Nitpick.

Is that for real?

See this (http://www.snopes.com/photos/binoculars.asp). In the sequence photos at the end, it appears to me that Bush was using his pinkies to push the lens caps off, in the first photo they're extended to push them off, in the second he's finished drawing the binoculars up to his face and the caps are off.

MattJ

[subgenius]

That whole binolulars thing, on both sides has be de bunked so many times.

[Cain]

Forget that whole binoculars thing, it doesn't matter (Bush has a number of times expressed himself... poorly).

What I don't understand is how JREF members can support this guy so ferverently. After all, he is a religious fundamentalist who thinks God has appointed him President. How does any self-respecting person can express unrestrained enthusiasm for this clown?

I vividly remember how during the Lewinsky circus, conservatives kept whining "what will our allies think of us?" Yet, everyone I know from europe, Asia, the Middle East, and South America says their countrymen liked Clinton much, much more.

[Genghis Pwn]

http://www.boortz.com/0000284023-001.jpg

LOL, look at the cold reception Clinton got compared to the mighty and beloved W. Military people LOVE George W.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030501/capt.1051827735.bush_abraham_lincoln_pmm108.jpg

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Cain

What I don't understand is how JREF members can support this guy so ferverently.

Maybe you don't understand how people can support the Office and maybe not approve of everything the 'Man' says and does..

How does any self-respecting person can express unrestrained enthusiasm for this clown? I would be interested in seeing what you think is an example of this, in these forums.

I don't understand how any self respecting person can show such unrestrained annoyance about the President of The United States, putting on a flight suit and and welcoming back an aircraft carrier from a theater of war.

Get a life...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Maybe you don't understand how people can support the Office and maybe not approve of everything the 'Man' says and does..

I would be interested in seeing what you think is an example of this, in these forums.

I don't understand how any self respecting person can show such unrestrained annoyance about the President of The United States, putting on a flight suit and and welcoming back an aircraft carrier from a theater of war.

Get a life...



(emphasis added)

Look at the post above yours.

----
edit

to add emphasis

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

(emphasis added)

Look at the post above yours.

And?

You may need to describe your take on that post and how it applies to what I said...

[Mr Manifesto]

I've added the emphasis now. I'm not used to BBs which put the quotes in bold.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I've added the emphasis now. I'm not used to BBs which put the quotes in bold. Well, you have quoted me without including the comments Cain made.. Which were the reason for my comments..

Are you saying the photos are an example of what I said.....

".....how people can support the Office and maybe not approve of everything the 'Man' says and does.."


-------------------------- or what Cain said..----------------------------------


" How does any self-respecting person can express unrestrained enthusiasm for this clown? "

[Mr Manifesto]

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Sorry I am really not used to this bulletin board.

I meant what Cain said- about unrestrained enthusiasm for the clown. Which of course is what you meant when you asked for an example.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
:mad: :mad: :mad:

Sorry I am really not used to this bulletin board.

I meant what Cain said- about unrestrained enthusiasm for the clown. Which of course is what you meant when you asked for an example.

I'm sorry, I do not see anything " unrestrained ", in those photos, regarding anyones enthusiam for Bush as a person, unless you suspect the person behind his right ear, is kissing him. Besides, that is not a person from these forums... I don't think...


I'm not real quick sometimes, (... can it Sundog) though, and I would seriously be interested in how you infer this..

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I'm sorry, I do not see anything " unrestrained ", in those photos, regarding anyones enthusiam for Bush as a person, unless you suspect the person behind his right ear, is kissing him. Besides, that is not a person from these forums... I don't think...

Maybe he didn't mean the photos, but the comment: "(...) compared to the mighty and beloved W. Military people LOVE George W."

But probably I'm wrong, and "mighty and beloved" are epithets frequently used by skeptics...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Nitpick


Maybe he didn't mean the photos, but the comment: "(...) compared to the mighty and beloved W. Military people LOVE George W."

But probably I'm wrong, and "mighty and beloved" are epithets frequently used by skeptics...


Maybe you could explain what

" ....compared to the mighty and beloved W. Military people LOVE George W."

means..

I didn't get it..

But I still don't see this as an example of :

"....unrestrained enthusiasm for this clown.."

by the members of this forum that show political support for the president...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Cain
I dunno, maybe I'm just crazy for thinking there's a difference between putting a jacket over your civilian clothes while walking on a flight deck, and making a very public entrance aboard a military jet in full flight suit (not to mention posing for pictures with adoring women, or triumphantly yelling out to journalists "Yes, I flew it!") Yeh, we had a saying in high school also, it was BFD (Big F***ing Deal). I can't imagine anything more trivial to get worked up about. Which is precisely why I find it so delicious. My thanks to you Cain. :cool:

This is the best thing that has happened in politics in a long time. The funny thing is that it would have not had as much impact if Byrd et al had kept their mouths shut but now it is getting even more play and people are asking themselves "what exactly is the problem?"

[Genghis Pwn]

This was just a really cool way for Bush to greet the sailers, thank the military, and declare the heavy combat phase over. Trust me, all the people in the armed services LOVED Bush´s aircraft carrier visit. That was awesome.

The only people who are complaining are longtime Bush haters.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yeh, we had a saying in high school also, it was BFD (Big F***ing Deal). I can't imagine anything more trivial to get worked up about. Which is precisely why I find it so delicious. My thanks to you Cain. :cool:

This is the best thing that has happened in politics in a long time. The funny thing is that it would have not had as much impact if Byrd et al had kept their mouths shut but now it is getting even more play and people are asking themselves "what exactly is the problem?"

I'm still trying to find a link for a story about a bunch of Washinton State VIPs( mostly Democrats), who supposedly choppered over to the Abe for a photo shoot , at taxpayer expense, after it left San Diego..

Maybe we can keep the fires burning for a while..

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by Diogenes



Maybe you could explain what

" ....compared to the mighty and beloved W. Military people LOVE George W."

means..

I didn't get it..

I'm not sure what it means, but it sounds like very uncritical enthusiasm to me. Genuine, I'm sure. Ok, why not.

Sorry, I'm just somewhat allergic to calling a political figure "mighty and beloved"... It reminds me of the pictures of a "mighty and beloved" Great Leader who stared foolishly from the walls of every classroom in my school half a lifetime ago...
And NO, I'm NOT comparing W. to that guy!

Of course, people who genuinely love a leader for being a mighty tough guy should be free to do so. It just doesn't necessarily demonstrate critical thinking, though...
;)

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Nitpick


I'm not sure what it means, but it sounds like very uncritical enthusiasm to me. Genuine, I'm sure. Ok, why not.

Sorry, I'm just somewhat allergic to calling a political figure "mighty and beloved"... It reminds me of the pictures of a "mighty and beloved" Great Leader who stared foolishly from the walls of every classroom in my school half a lifetime ago...
And NO, I'm NOT comparing W. to that guy!

Of course, people who genuinely love a leader for being a mighty tough guy should be free to do so. It just doesn't necessarily demonstrate critical thinking, though...
;)

My friend, I, like most Americans, see Bush as "the Great Protector" of America, much like Lincoln. Say what you will about Bush, he is doing everything in his power--even very unpopular things internationally--to make America safe. That, after all, is a President´s #1 duty.

[Tony]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/comics/updating/varvel.gif

[RandFan]

Now thats gotta hurt. :D

[Clancie]

Okay. Good cartoon.:rolleyes: I even laughed.

And, Tony, re: your Orwell quote. I just can't help mentioning that Orwell identified himself politically as a Democratic Socialist.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Maybe you don't understand how people can support the Office and maybe not approve of everything the 'Man' says and does..

I would be interested in seeing what you think is an example of this, in these forums.


Ah, just how these same Republicans lent their "support [to] the Office" for Clinton? No, they're just party faithfuls who made some of the following silly comments :

You need to keep making fun of him, and mock him personally. Then things will start to change. You'll have your marxist paradise if you keep doing exactly what liberals have done for 50 years.

Thanks to Manifesto for the following (page 2):

Nothing ridiculous about it. He used to work in one.
Forget political parties. Did you see the reception the men on board gave him? That never would have happened (beyond the normal military curtesy) with Bill Klinton.

Hrm. I guess if Dubya had stepped oout of the cockpit of that plane dressed in a 3 piece suit, we would be hearing how ridiculous it looked for the president to step out of a warcraft wearing a suit and about how it was such a ridiculous photo op.

So many of you miss the real point, from GW's POV.
This was not a photo-op, it was a chance to make a carrier trap. I would give a testicle for the chance.

Yes and how many chopper crashes were there in the past 6 months, even in training alone? How many jets? I sure as hell would rather be in a plane.

I remember an interview with dubya's girlfirend when he was in the guard. She said he got into the cockpit every chance he could could get and was pretty enthusiastic flyer.

And there's many more nuggets in this thread alone.

The problem with these sort of party faithfuls is that they place a greater emphasis on "winning" (getting Clinton, exposing those evil liberals) than finding the truth. There's actually serious discussion here about the Clintons alleged involvement in Vince Foster's "suicide." However, there's little to no discussion on Clinton's unprovoked attack against a pharmecutical factory in the Sudan that manufactured drugs for a dying people. Clinton's obviously a war criminal that should be on trial at the Hague.

But who cares if Clinton's killed a whole bunch of brown people half way across the globe -- someone gave him a blowjob.

The blindingly obvious problem with that cartoon is that we only learned about Clinton's private sex life because Republicans made it an issue. Bush paraded himself in front of cameras.

So, of course it's perfectly sensible to criticize Bush for dawning a flight suit to pose as Maverick for photo-ops and re-election ads. It's ridiculous propaganda intended to subvert rational thought with a knee-jerk "support the troops" mentality.

Moreover, The President's press secretary has been caught in a blatant lie: Bush supposedly needed to fly via jet because the carrier was too far out. Then he flew in the jet because he wanted to.

I don't understand how any self respecting person can show such unrestrained annoyance about the President of The United States, putting on a flight suit and and welcoming back an aircraft carrier from a theater of war.

Get a life...

From the _Boston Globe_:

White House officials originally said that Bush was making the dramatic jet trip because the ship was too far out to sea to be reached by helicopter. Bush was trained in ejection procedures and water survival in case of a crash. But the carrier was just 30 miles from shore by the time he arrived, and officials said it had slowed down so that Bush could spend the night on board before the USS Abraham Lincoln docks today, extending by one day the sailors' almost 10-month deployment at sea, the longest by a carrier in 30 years.

He just wanted a pretty picture for re-election ads. The administration had no problem delaying the sailors another day (in the second longest deployment) from seeing their families and loved ones. What a great guy.

P.S. As I said in an earlier post, I have no objections do discussing any of Bush's policies.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Clancy

And, Tony, re: your Orwell quote. I just can't help mentioning that Orwell identified himself politically as a Democratic Socialist.

No sh-t!!

[corplinx]

this thread is still going? sad

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nitpick


Do you mean this Clinton? (http://www.logicpathsw.com/bush/bush_binoculars.jpg) :p :)


http://www.snopes.com/photos/binoculars.asp

[xouper]

Just for grins, I'll weigh in with my opinion (speaking as a pilot). I think what's ridiculous is the title of this thread and Cain's complaint about Bush's flight suit. Talk about yer non-starters. :rolleyes:

[crackmonkey]

The thing I find amusing about the whole flap is that the Dems are actually hurting themselves by screaming about it... photo-op or not, it's a victorious President congratulating his troops. It was photogenic as hell, and the military - and citizenry - loved it. By attacking Bush doing this, the Dems are making themselves look petulant, like sore losers for (many of them) being against the war. Bush now has the chance to address his detractors and defend his meeting and personally congratulating the troops.
It makes him look like more of a man of the people, while they look like cynical whiners.
Priceless.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by JamesMGMDP
So many of you miss the real point, from GW's POV.

This was not a photo-op, it was a chance to make a carrier trap. I would give a testicle for the chance.

He wanted to ride an F-18 (as would I), but the Secret Service (rightly) nixed the idea because it is a two seater, and it's irresponsible of them to allow him in a situation at the hands of a single person (mil. pilot or not).

Thus the four seat ride (A/E 6? 3?) with SS agent(s) behind the pilot.

In case of a problem, GW could not have made the trap, but he could have easily put them down back at the airport.

Envious, I am.
That's 2 of us. I still can't believe he ignored the advice he must have received from every quarter ... DON"T DO IT

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


It isn't inconsequential. It's a sign of the rampant American jingoism that goes on while the real issues are ignored. Issues which have been brought up by many in this forum and others which are ignored by many Americans because it doesn't fit into their sunny picture of the world.

Hey bubba, where you at? Maybe some people could come by & discuss your problems with 'Mericans -- is that just the USA or are you including all americans?

I didn't realize much of that was still around ... ;)

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by subgenius

He takes them all the time, for what that's worth.

Yes, but this trip was substantially over water, not land. Big difference.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Cain


What are you talking about?

The site says:
"Scored 25%, the lowest possible passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion"

This appears to be a scale unique to the particular exam.

Next, the "top 25%" is not the same as the 25th percentile -- it's the 75th percentile.

It doesn't matter because he received the "lowest possible passing grade" anyway.

How difficult is it to admit that Bush piloted an outdated plane in the "Champaigne" division of the Texas Air Natl. Guard?

If my dad had the power and the means to get me out of the Vietnam war, I'd hope to God he would pull strings.

But Bush supported Vietnam and clearly didn't mind other Americans dying in order to "protect" his freedom. There's a word used to describe these people: hypocrite (see threads on Bill Bennett for elaboration).

If you have a slot in a Guard unit, you take the tests. Once you pass the tests, you are signed up. Your scores above passing do not matter, since once you have the spot you are not competing. You are taking the test to confirm qualification.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by VernorsRush
Neither does Marine One. Never seen him flying a combat jet to Camp David.

Doesn't the Apache have ejection seats?

[Clancie]

Your scores above passing do not matter, since once you have the spot you are not competing. You are taking the test to confirm qualification
But we're not talking about getting in the Guard, we're talking about getting into the Guard's pilot training program.

What I read was that there were 500 people on the list for 4 openings at the time Bush tested. He jumped to the top of the list, even though he scored the minimum amount possible to qualify.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Clancy

But we're not talking about getting in the Guard, we're talking about getting into the Guard's pilot training program.

What I read was that there were 500 people on the list for 4 openings at the time Bush tested. He jumped to the top of the list, even though he scored the minimum amount possible to qualify.

I beg your pardon, but the opening was given to him. Was it given to him based on a test? Was it given to him at unit level? You say there were 500 people up for four slots. Have you any idea what you are saying? Have you ever been inside an Air National Guard squadron? Bush had the position, as did three other men. The tests didn't differentiate the winners from the losers.

[Clancie]

No, Brooklyn Dodger, I don't understand.

What are the criteria then? What is your explanation for why he was chosen out of 500 other candidates?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Clancy
No, Brooklyn Dodger, I don't understand.

What are the criteria then? What is your explanation for why he was chosen out of 500 other candidates?

He was well educated, well motivated, and came in to see them with a commitment to immediately go to flight school and further commit to whatever time it took to upgrade in the F-102. The unit was part of a wing that was deployed at the time to Viet Nam, so it was a serious commitment. When it is said that 500 applied, that means there were 500 applications or resumes. Nothing more than that. Only a few were serious. In my unit it didn't take much to separate the serious from the unserious. And by the way, many applicants apply for several units at the same time.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

This thread has gotten into another far ranging Bush Bash, featuring the usual leftist anti-Bush, anti-military know nothings. They want so much to hate Bush they will use any tactic they can, whether it makes sense or not. They have become a charicature of Robert Byrd, Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Senate Democrats, who rails against the Bush appearance on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, much as he would have railed against Lincoln as he spoke at Gettysburg.

President Bush thanked the forces he commands at the conclusion of a successful battle on the midst of the War on Terror. He flew aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in an S-3B Viking, which has an ejection seat. The aircraft was chosen for the speed it has, which is much greater than a helicopter, and the fact that it has greater lift capacity. The communications, advance, and Secret Service entourage which must accompany the president cannot get to the aircraft carrier without using heavier aircraft, and helicopters can’t hack it.

The president also needed to use a flight suit and ejection harness since he was using an aircraft with an ejection seat. After shaking hands with some crew members, he changed into a business suit for his address. He could not fly a Viking in a business suit safely.

Whether the president should or should not have addressed US forces is obvious. Of course he should have. He was telling them, America, and the world that we had won Battles, not Wars, that we were fighting a War against Terror, and reiterated what the criteria were for being our enemy. He said so in the most appropriate location for such a speech: the sharp end of the spear, lest Syria, Iran, or North Korea not get the message.

Some in this thread again call into question President Bush’s military service. These haters have nothing left, after he sent our forces into battle twice over their strenuous objections, and despite their dire projections of tens of thousands of American dead.

I served as an officer on active duty in the USAF from 1970 to 1978. I served in the District of Columbia Air National Guard from 1980 to the beginning of 1993. I left active duty as a captain, the same rank I entered the Air National Guard with, and I left the ANG as a lieutenant colonel.

On active duty I had a number of duties, including instructor navigator in the C-141 and weapon systems officer (back seater) in the F-4 Phantom fighter. In the Guard I was a weapon systems officer for 10 years, public affairs officer for three years, wing mobility officer, and headquarters squadron commander. I think I have established that I have
ample Guard experience.

In the case of GW Bush, I have seen absolutely nothing that would suggest any strings were pulled getting him into the unit, or into flying training, or into a pilot slot. By the way, his father was only a member of Congress, something that's a dime a dozen. In the DC Air Guard we had many important persons and kids of important persons, and they were treated the same as everyone else.

Bush got in because he was just graduating college with a degree, was knocking on the door of a unit that was down in pilot numbers (needed about four), was qualified, and was willing to devote the time required, which was considerable. I submit that ANYONE with the same profile, with the same qualifications, and with the same time available would have met with the same result at the same time.

This is NOT comparable to others who got into units mainly to avoid the war. Nearly all of those people were trying to get in as enlisted persons, in units that were already swamped with similarly non qualified people. Enlisted people in Army National Guard units merely have to serve one weekend per month and two weeks in the summer. This is NOT true of Air National Guard units and specifically those in flying positions. I should also include Naval and Marine air reserve units as well as being similar to Air Guard units.

A pilot in an Air National Guard unit must keep current in his aircraft to the same level as his active duty counterpart. That requires heavy participation. Bush must have served nearly two years of straight active duty right at the start of his Air National Guard career. That means between 500 and 700 training days if you are counting. Bush was a flying enthusiast, and he was in an interceptor unit that got special alert duty (Cuba comes to mind, and Ellington AFB would get the alert for the Gulf Coast of Texas). That means a three consecutive day alert commitment. Want to bet he took his share in the alert shack? You bet he did. If he was a pilot in his squadron for four years, and considered a good one, as he was, then yes, he took his share of alerts.

He did a good deal of flying in the unit for his time there. Typically, flyers serve at least 150 training periods per year (it can be a four or an eight hour period, depending on the category, and rates a day's pay), to well over 200 training periods per year. I usually had over 200, and derived a major portion of my income from the Air Guard.

Those who don’t understand the Air National Guard typically are thinking of the way the Army Guard, and the one weekend per month and two weeks of active duty each summer. Pilots can’t safely fly planes that way. They have the same flying requirements as active duty pilots and have far greater participation requirements. Those who today criticize GW Bush for his “lack of participation” should know that during his four years in the Air National Guard he put in more training days that an Army Guardsman typically puts in during a 20 year career. He also flew perhaps 200 hours per year in his F-102.

The criticism of George W. Bush for his military service is a slap at every Air National Guardsman who has ever served. It speaks not to favoritism, which didn't happen, but to the general ignorance of how the Air National Guard operates.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
[B]This thread has gotten into another far ranging Bush Bash, featuring the usual leftist anti-Bush, anti-military know nothings. They want so much to hate Bush they will use any tactic they can, whether it makes sense or not. They have become a charicature of Robert Byrd, Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Senate Democrats, who rails against the Bush appearance on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, much as he would have railed against Lincoln as he spoke at Gettysburg.

President Bush thanked the forces he commands at the conclusion of a successful battle on the midst of the War on Terror. He flew aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in an S-3B Viking, which has an ejection seat. The aircraft was chosen for the speed it has, which is much greater than a helicopter, and the fact that it has greater lift capacity. The communications, advance, and Secret Service entourage which must accompany the president cannot get to the aircraft carrier without using heavier aircraft, and helicopters can’t hack it.

The president also needed to use a flight suit and ejection harness since he was using an aircraft with an ejection seat. After shaking hands with some crew members, he changed into a business suit for his address. He could not fly a Viking in a business suit safely.

Whether the president should or should not have addressed US forces is obvious. Of course he should have. He was telling them, America, and the world that we had won Battles, not Wars, that we were fighting a War against Terror, and reiterated what the criteria were for being our enemy. He said so in the most appropriate location for such a speech: the sharp end of the spear, lest Syria, Iran, or North Korea not get the message.


All of these paragraphs completely miss the point: Bush could have landed on the carrier via helicopter. How difficult is it to concede that administration had politcial motives? This becomes evident given the shifting reasons offered by Ari Fleisher for the jet landing. I'll be the first to say that given the opportunity, any Democrat probably would have done the same. Ah, but I guess this makes me an equal opportunity "hater".


Some in this thread again call into question President Bush’s military service. These haters have nothing left, after he sent our forces into battle twice over their strenuous objections, and despite their dire projections of tens of thousands of American dead.

I love how you begin by describing the criticism and then go off on a personal attack ("supported" by a hasty generalization).

[snip]

In the case of GW Bush, I have seen absolutely nothing that would suggest any strings were pulled getting him into the unit, or into flying training, or into a pilot slot. By the way, his father was only a member of Congress, something that's a dime a dozen. In the DC Air Guard we had many important persons and kids of important persons, and they were treated the same as everyone else.

He flew an outdated plane in a division of the Texas Air Natl. guard known as the Champaigne divison, for all the rich kids. I'm also tired of this "his father was only a Congressman" blather. The Bush family has political connections throughout Washington. Dubya's grandfather, Prescott Bush, if you'll remember, served as a U.S. senator (R-Conn.) in the 50s.

[snip, snip]

The criticism of George W. Bush for his military service is a slap at every Air National Guardsman who has ever served. It speaks not to favoritism, which didn't happen, but to the general ignorance of how the Air National Guard operates.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's so enthusiastic that he went missing for an entire year.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Cain


All of these paragraphs completely miss the point: Bush could have landed on the carrier via helicopter. How difficult is it to concede that administration had politcial motives? This becomes evident given the shifting reasons offered by Ari Fleisher for the jet landing. I'll be the first to say that given the opportunity, any Democrat probably would have done the same. Ah, but I guess this makes me an equal opportunity "hater".

Brooklyn Dodger
Flying a helicopter over water is less safe than flying a multi-engine fixed wing aircraft. I believe I addressed that in another post.

Cain
He flew an outdated plane in a division of the Texas Air Natl. guard known as the Champaigne divison, for all the rich kids. I'm also tired of this "his father was only a Congressman" blather. The Bush family has political connections throughout Washington. Dubya's grandfather, Prescott Bush, if you'll remember, served as a U.S. senator (R-Conn.) in the 50s.

He flew the aircraft of the unit that was based near him. That was the F-102. He expected to upgrade to the next aircraft when the unit did. My unit had loads of important folk, but we didn't give anyone special treatment. My unit went from the F-105, which I couldn't fly, to the F-4, which I could.

Cain
Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's so enthusiastic that he went missing for an entire year.

Brooklyn Dodger
He wasn't missing for a year. Even the NYT admits that. The Air Guard knew where he was. He was doing political campaign work for his father in Alabama. That meant he had to reduce his participation to UTAs and SUTAs. Don't know what they are? That isn't missing, dunderhead. In other words, he was reduced to the status of a lousy army guardsman. How the mighty have fallen, eh? And yes, they found all orders for the days he was there. And it must have bugged him because he wanted to fly, and like all swlf respecting pilots he must have gone to the squadron and told them he was going to be unable to fly regularly anymore. So please give my flying slot to another guy. Now you understand why he was honorably discharged? It happened and happens all the time!

And here's the kicker, boy. When he left the unit HE WAS STILL IN THE RESERVES. HE COULD STILL BE CALLED UP ANY TIME. INVOLUNTARILY. UNDERSTAND? HE WAS STILL IN. HE DIDN'T SKIP. Anytime they wanted him they could have him. Know something? I'm retired AND I'M IN THE SAME BOAT!!! THEY CAN CALL ME UP BECAUSE I'M IN THE RETIRE RESERVE, NOT RETIRED!!! You guys hate Bush so much you look for any wedge, but it just doesn't exist. You know so little about the military and the Air Force and the Air National Guard, that you cannot accept that he served honorably.

[Cain]

Brooklyn Dodger:

YOU called ME a dunderhead. I just thought that was funny (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony).

Anyone who has paid scant attention to this thread knows that when I said "missing" (admittedly not the most precise term), I did not mean "vanished a la Chandra Levy."

From the _Boston Globe_ (via Daily Howler, linked earlier in this very thread by someone else):

“For a full year, there is no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen,” he wrote. “Officially, the period between May 1972 and May 1973 remains unaccounted for.”

Flying a helicopter over water is less safe than flying a multi-engine fixed wing aircraft. I believe I addressed that in another post.

Yeah you did. And the administration has never stated this (to my knowledge) as their reason. First, the carrier was too far out. That then became that Bush *wanted* to fly in the jet (a more compelling answer). Is this standard procedure? They couldn't wait for the carrier to come in a little further (as related earlier, Bush delayed "the boys" by a day because they wanted to slow the carrier down).

Lastly, no one disputes that pilots, including Bush, enjoy flying. His military record is brought up because the mighty Dubya would have wanted to slay the evil communists and spread democracy to the world. Instead he protected Texas from the Red Army. Personally, I don't really care about military records. But, in order to remain consistent on the most basic level, the Republican politicos cannot condemn Clinton for dodging the draft and give Bush a free pass. *Again*, if my dad possessed the Washington connections to get me out of the war, I would seize the opportunity. Of course, unlike Junior, I would also oppose that same war on moral grounds.

[schplurg]

Wow!!! I've been called a Republican and a Bush Apologist all in one thread...neither of which are true. That, and this thread itself, prove to me how desperate the left is in bashing anything and everything that the Bush administration does. The title of this thread speaks volumes.

Of course the landing was political! Everything Bush does in public is political, at least to some degree! Did it cost more money to take a plane than a chopper? Can you prove it, and if so, so what? Every time the President goes anywhere it costs a ton of money, whether it be by car, bus, Air Force One (a real cash-eater). So what's the big problem? Why is this thread 5 pages long?

I wouldn't post in this thread again if I didn't see my statements quoted and used to paint me as being "apologetic" or a "party faithful". I haven't personally attacked anyone at this forum yet, but anyone who infers these things by what little I have said here is an idiot.

From Diogenes:
I don't understand how any self respecting person can show such unrestrained annoyance about the President of The United States, putting on a flight suit and and welcoming back an aircraft carrier from a theater of war.

Get a life...
Totally...

[xouper]

Cain: Instead he protected Texas from the Red Army. During the Vietnam war, I helped protect Idaho from the Red Army. Wanna take a shot at me too?

[Cain]

Re: Schplurg's post:

Two "observations" -- completely mistaken and not worthy of consideration under ordinary circumstances -- keep cropping up.

The first: You're a "hater". All you can do is hate Bush... "Get a life."

I cannot speak for others, but out of my 173 posts (over one year) in 65 threads, this is the only topic on Bush that I've ever really commented on. http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=78849&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

I only address this now because these sort of lies have a way of taking on a life of their own.

The second: Dur, why does this thread have so many replies? It should have died days ago!!

The subtext is that the insidious "hard left" -- all of them Bush "haters" -- cannot allow the topic to die. Again, anyone remotely interested in the truth can plainly see the number of posts contributed by our tireless Bush defenders.*

Xouper - I'll take my shots at Texas. But Idaho? I've learned enough not to mess with Idaho.


______________________
*User Posts
Clancy 16
subgenius 15
Mr Manifesto 12
Cain 10
Wolverine 10
Diogenes 10
Baggle 8
Brooklyn Dodger 7
aerocontrols 6
RandFan 6
crackmonkey 5
rikzilla 4
UnrepentantSinner 4
renata 4
Baker 4
corplinx 4
Nitpick 4
Tony 4
Genghis Pwn 4
hal bidlack 3
American 2
Lemastre 2
xouper 2
hammegk 2
swellman 2
Regnad Kcin 2
Joshua Korosi 2
Magnifico 2
Tmy 2
schplurg 2
Pyrrho 1
blackpriester 1
Whitefork 1
DavidJames 1
Crossbow 1
The Central Scrutinizer 1
Richard G 1
Supercharts 1
Doubt 1
Questioninggeller 1
VernorsRush 1
c4ts 1
Badger 1
Frank Newgent 1
Blue Monk 1
JamesMGMDP 1
003998 1

[crackmonkey]

Six!

[crackmonkey]

Seven!

[Baker]

#5

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Cain
Brooklyn Dodger:

YOU called ME a dunderhead. I just thought that was funny (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony).

Anyone who has paid scant attention to this thread knows that when I said "missing" (admittedly not the most precise term), I did not mean "vanished a la Chandra Levy."

From the _Boston Globe_ (via Daily Howler, linked earlier in this very thread by someone else):





Yeah you did. And the administration has never stated this (to my knowledge) as their reason. First, the carrier was too far out. That then became that Bush *wanted* to fly in the jet (a more compelling answer). Is this standard procedure? They couldn't wait for the carrier to come in a little further (as related earlier, Bush delayed "the boys" by a day because they wanted to slow the carrier down).

Lastly, no one disputes that pilots, including Bush, enjoy flying. His military record is brought up because the mighty Dubya would have wanted to slay the evil communists and spread democracy to the world. Instead he protected Texas from the Red Army. Personally, I don't really care about military records. But, in order to remain consistent on the most basic level, the Republican politicos cannot condemn Clinton for dodging the draft and give Bush a free pass. *Again*, if my dad possessed the Washington connections to get me out of the war, I would seize the opportunity. Of course, unlike Junior, I would also oppose that same war on moral grounds.

First of all, I believe it was Aerocontrols who located the link which puts the lie to the "lost" or "missing" time. It isn't so, and the NYT admits it:

http://www.hobbsonline.blogspot.com/2003_05_01_hobbsonline_archive.html#93934189

The time is entirely accounted for, as I pointed out before, as UTAs and SUTAs, which you do not recognize. Because you are a dunderhead. The Boston Globe is out of date and inaccurate.

The reason I gave, that helicopters are not as safe as fixed wing for overwater, rtc., IS BECAUSE i HAVE MORE THAN 4,000 HOURS OF FLYING EXPERIENCE.

No one was delayed by a day. The ships were to arrive on a specified day, and they arrived that day. Arriiving early would have caused problems with families and traffic on the ground, etc. The president did not cause a delay of any ships.

The president's entourage normally is quite large, and consists of a great many people. Did you see the Secret Service people with him? There were several. There was also communications people and equipment and advance people. Tell you what, when you run the White House, YOU run the events. Till then, let the staff do it.

Clinton can walk down a normally rockless beack and find rocks in meaningful shapes, with warships precisely in the background, and go the Normandy cemeteries and find a tiny American flad that just happens to be blown down so he can right it. Nothing said.

The ANG squadron Bush joined was part of a wing THAT WAS THEN DEPLOYED TO VIET NAM! He had every expectation of going or could have gone. The Guard squadron I joined in 1980 had been in Viet Nam. Many had been there. It wasn't unusual at all. He was in F-102s then, but they could have been transitioned to some other aircraft and sent. My guess is that he would have wanted to go as a pilot, since there would be no way his father would have allowed him to go any other way but in the Air Guard.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
My friend, I, like most Americans, see Bush as "the Great Protector" of America, much like Lincoln. Say what you will about Bush, he is doing everything in his power--even very unpopular things internationally--to make America safe. That, after all, is a President´s #1 duty. Welcome back, Jedi Knight.

[Cain]

First of all, I believe it was Aerocontrols who located the link which puts the lie to the "lost" or "missing" time. It isn't so, and the NYT admits it:
http://www.hobbsonline.blogspot.com...e.html#93934189

This is also addressed at the Daily Howler: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050803.shtml (relevant portions below)

The president's entourage normally is quite large, and consists of a great many people. Did you see the Secret Service people with him? There were several. There was also communications people and equipment and advance people. Tell you what, when you run the White House, YOU run the events. Till then, let the staff do it.

I'm sorry. How dare I question the White House's motives. I'll shut up and go right back to being a good citizen.

Clinton can walk down a normally rockless beack and find rocks in meaningful shapes, with warships precisely in the background, and go the Normandy cemeteries and find a tiny American flad that just happens to be blown down so he can right it. Nothing said.

Yep. And I concede that this criticism of the press is perfectly valid.

____________________________
LARDNER AND KURTZ (11/3/00): The Bush campaign points to a torn piece of paper in his Guard records, a statement of points Bush apparently earned in 1972-73, although most of the dates and Bush’s name except for the “W” have been torn off.According to the torn Air Reserve Forces sheet, Bush continued to compile service credits after returning to Houston, winding up his fifth year with 56 points, six above the minimum needed for retention. However, Bush’s annual effectiveness report, signed by two superiors, says “Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report,” May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1973.
[Col. Bobby] Hodges also said he did not see Bush at the Texas base again after Bush left for Montgomery [in May 1972]. “If I had been there on the days he came out, I would have seen him,” Hodges said.

How weird! Only the “W” was showing! At any rate, despite having seen the famous “torn document,” the Post Two judged Bush down on points:

LARDNER AND KURTZ (11/3/00): Bush campaign officials say their evidence shows that he did his duty in 1972-73, when he worked for six months on the Senate race in Alabama and then returned to his home base outside Houston. But other documents in his Guard record contradict that claim, and critics who have examined that record contend that he also skimped on his obligations in 1973-74. It is safe to say that Bush did very light duty in his last two years in the Guard and that his superiors made it easy for him.

Quite possibly, the scribes were being more than fair. But on this same day, Jo Thomas penned the New York Times piece which Sullivan praised to the skies in his dotcom. Strangely, Thomas had seen a mysterious document which showed that Bush did lots of work:THOMAS (11/3/00): [Bush spokesman Dan] Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush’s military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May.

Bartlett pointed to a document? But what exactly was this document? Weirdly, it seemed that Bartlett had pointed to this document when no one except Thomas was around! Starting in June, Bartlett tried to persuade the Associated Press, the Globe, and the Post that Bush had really shown up for duty. But for some strange reason, no one else seemed to have seen the mysterious document which showed Bush’s twelve days of work!! How could Bartlett have been so stupid? To all appearances, he simply forgot to show the mysterious document to the AP, the Globe and the Post.But then, the New York Times was extremely Bush-friendly all through Election 2000. And Thomas judged in Bush’s favor—all thanks to that mysterious document which Bartlett, the doggy-pill maven, provided. But what exactly was that document? And why had no one but Thomas ever seen it? Hurrying through her short, sketchy report, Thomas forgot to explain. On Wednesday, that mysterious document saved Bush again, thundered in Sullivan’s dotcom.

At THE HOWLER, we don’t much care about this kind of story—this “what-did-he-do-at-age-23” story. But on the other hand, many people do care about this. Can you see why such people—that C-SPAN caller, for example—are complaining about a lack of clear facts? And can you see that your slippery press corps still owes them a clear explanation?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

You are grasping at straws. The document referred to has to be a document authorizing active duty orders. It MAY be for him, or it MAY be for several people. I have NO confidence that you nor anyone referred to in your quote understands what you are talking about. Nor that you would see it when you see it.

All that's left for you is hate. Hate for George W. Bush. It is unseemly. And it will rise again each time another enemy of this nation falls. Tell me this: how comforting is it when your chief mouthpiece, main spokeman for your position, was Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan? Now there's a man who knows HATE!!!

[Cain]

An interesting non-reply, perhaps your best so far (fallacies briefly counted: hasty generalization, ad hominem (more than once), appeal to authority).

The quote, taken from the Washington Post's indefatigable (and conservative friendly) media critic, Howard Kurtz, raises reasonable questions for the Thomas Times that party faithfuls have been praising to high heaven.

These comments about "hating" are just so childish they barely warrant reply. You must be psychic if you know all my inner-motivations -- and stupid if you think they can be reduced down to "hate" for hate and nothing more.

Finally, Robert Byrd is not my spokesperson and references to the KKK are beneath comment.

But, err, um, wait, I'm supposed to be the one grasping at straws. :rolleyes:

[Brooklyn Dodger]

You said absolutely nothing. Again.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by corplinx
Hrm. I guess if Dubya had stepped oout of the cockpit of that plane dressed in a 3 piece suit, we would be hearing how ridiculous it looked for the president to step out of a warcraft wearing a suit and about how it was such a ridiculous photo op.

For the chronic Bush hater, anything he does is wrong. It reminds of of the Clinton years when the chronics Clinton haters were constantly yammering about "photo op politics".

Well, I thought it was funny. Then again, I think alot of the militant, macho posturing that Bush - the draft dodging, duty shirking, Vietnam supporting hypocrite - does is funny. Depends on your point of view I guess.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by renata
Question:

I am afraid stunts like this reinforce the "cowboy" image.




Renata, I was telling Charmion this morning that President Bush looks almost sexy in this Uniform...

Of course, the glorious uniform of the Air Force-regardless of which country-it was Israel in my case- that has been part of my Royal Wardrobe can be nothing but sexy... :cool:

Seriously, although I am not the biggest supporter of the President, I liked very much the photo and the sub-message.

Because,this is the package guys, you either take it ALL or leave it :)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Cain
The blindingly obvious problem with that cartoon is that we only learned about Clinton's private sex life because Republicans made it an issue. Bush paraded himself in front of cameras. So what if he paraded himself in from of cameras?

I don't get how this rates on anyone's give a $h!t list, well any democrats give a $h!t list. No one has answered the question (adequately) so what?

So, of course it's perfectly sensible to criticize Bush for dawning a flight suit to pose as Maverick for photo-ops and re-election ads. It's about as sensible as shooting oneself in the foot. You might have a point but it is lost in the 500 million spent on the support aircraft for Clinton's vacations (see above) and the fact that it played well and Bush looked good doing it. It will raise money and woo voters. And decrying it as cynical will also raise money and woo voters. No, two wrongs don't make a right. And like I said it might even be a valid point but it isn't going anywhere So, please keep it coming.

Rule #1 in poly sci, "know which battles to fight."

It's ridiculous propaganda intended to subvert rational thought with a knee-jerk "support the troops" mentality. Damn straight, but it's good subvert rational thought with a knee-jerk "support the troops" mentality. As I said earlier, I would have done it just to piss the Democrats off. Now I wouldn't have thought that they (the Democrats) would have been stupid enough to take the bait and I doubt that anyone was smart enough to imagine that the Democrats would be so stupid. But here they are getting up in front of congress, guaranteeing that it will be a major story.

We can only hope that the Dem's will push the issue as long as possible.

We can only hope that all of Bush's scandals will be so productive.

[RandFan]

Ooops.....

Seems like Senator Patrick Leahy [D-VT] has been in that same "ridiculous flight suit".

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by RandFan
Ooops.....

Seems like Senator Patrick Leahy [D-VT] has been in that same "ridiculous flight suit".

Doesn't look like he could survive a carrier trap...


I knew if someone looked hard enough they would find something like this.. I'm (reasonably) sure there are more...

[corplinx]

I'm glad to see this thread still going, it proves to me that no matter how nonchallant the rabid bush-haters try act; they can still be provoked into the sort of idiotic ranting the right wing hardasses get into.

Nobody made such a fuss over "action tank dukasis" or "cowboy clinton" faux-masculine photos. The worst criticism Clinton got over the planted stones on Normady for him to make a cross with was from the respected bastion of journalism Rush Limbaugh.

So why is it a republican president is getting such flak for having the guilty pleasure of a flight carrier landing? Why? BECAUSE THE PHOTO TURNED OUT GOOD. God forbid it become a popular picture and some fund raising segment sell 8x10s. If he had tripped getting off the plane the furor would have died down by now.

[schplurg]

Ok I'm a sucker, I can't let the thread die either...not when I see B.S. like this...
From Cain:

Re: Schplurg's post:

Two "observations" -- completely mistaken and not worthy of consideration under ordinary circumstances -- keep cropping up.

The first: You're a "hater". All you can do is hate Bush... "Get a life."

I cannot speak for others, but out of my 173 posts (over one year) in 65 threads, this is the only topic on Bush that I've ever really commented on. http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/sear...rder=descending

I only address this now because these sort of lies have a way of taking on a life of their own.
What "lies"? I didn't use the word "hater", and I never said that's "all you can do" either. Putting words in my mouth and calling me a liar...good tactic. In fact, what makes you think my post was directed at you in the first place? I never mentioned your name, as you did mine above.

Now I've been called a Party Faithful, Bush Apologist AND a liar in this thread. I'm starting to feel like one of the gang.

The second: Dur, why does this thread have so many replies? It should have died days ago!!
You ignored the other "observation" in my post: why is this story such a big deal?

I think the reason you're seeing people "defending" Bush here so much is not because they love Bush, but because a lot of people are tired of such a big deal being made over every single trivial little incident. Why are you getting so upset over this? Calling people liars and (gasp) Republicans? I take great offense from the latter ;) We all know politicians grandstand and go for photo-ops...what makes this particular event any worse than all the others?

From Cain:
It's ridiculous propaganda intended to subvert rational thought with a knee-jerk "support the troops" mentality. I agree, but that's where it ends for me. Politics as usual, they all do it, and that's my point. I guess it just doesn't bother me that much.