Now, I'm usually the last person to defend George Bush, but this post got me thinking.

Rich people's kids have been doing what they can to avoid going to war for a whole lotta years. Heck, I think a majority of people who have ever been drafted into the service would not have chosen to go if there was a way out. Is it honorable that Bush was able to avoid the war due to money? Perhaps not, but if anything it is a fault of the system, not the person. Bush was just lucky enough to be born rich. My dad was lucky enough to be born into a family of Mennonite ministers with a doctrinal stance against serving in the armed forces, and was granted his conscientious obejector status.

While it may seem lame to wrangle out of the draft by using connections, I find it hard to blame anyone for trying anything to avoid going to war.

I do not think that this exonerates Bush from charges of hypocricy, however. The fact that he is so willing to spend the blood of his countrymen in dubious engagements, after having done what he could to avoid the fighting himself speaks of not only a crass outlook, but a serious lack of inner reflection.

I can remember seeing his father start quietly crying in an interview some years ago, while reflecting on the heaviness of the decision to send America's boys into harm's way; I have seen no such weight in his son.

You know, I probably would not react so strongly against this President if his supporters weren't so rabidly anti-Clinton and the Democrats, and so sublimely devoted to this son of a Bush.

Bill Clinton did avoid the draft. He was not a rich man's child, so he managed to beat it partly by having the good sense to use his head and distinguish himself academically, ultimately becoming a Rhodes scholar.

(Having said that, I do think that his conduct in the Oval Office was disgraceful, and it caused much of his good intentions and hard work to be overlooked or discounted. If he had stepped down from office, we would have had a chance to know what kind of President Gore would be.)

But Clinton did have the good grace to NEVER parade around as some great supporter of the military; indeed, if you watch old videos of him, he seems sheepish, almost apologetic when in ceremonies involving the military.

There seems to be such a sense of unreality, crassness, about this current President's whole attitude about picking fights with these countries.

He seems to acknowledge all too readily the expendability of our troops.
In a recent interview, he replied, "Bring it on!" to the idea of more trouble coming to the occupation forces in Iraq. This superficial bravado will not play well to those who lose loved ones during the post-war occupation.

Don't you think that this was blown just a little out of proportion, I mean, who exactly did this hurt? Who was damaged beyond repair because of this stunt?

CP

I would say the only damage to worry about is the perception of the American people that if it is on television, it MUST be real.

Bush Sr is like a lot of men I know who saw combat action themselves: cautious to use force and empathetic once they have.

Keep in mind that Bush the son was quite emotional after 9/11 in descibing the devastation of that event.

To address the topic of the thread: I believe that his handlers understood the immense symbolic value of a virile young president landing on an aircraft carrier during a time of war. It sends a very powerful signal to the public that this president is a competent warrior/leader. Like it or not it played well on Main Street America.

Just for the record, Bill Clinton didn't avoid the draft....he may have beat it, but he didn't avoid it. He was just "lucky" enough to pull such a high number (311) that he didn't actually have to serve.

The fact that we have a convicted criminal in the White House, coupled with his inability to perform his duties while in the guard, or show up for drills or drug tests while in the guard is unspeakable. Then, to have the gall to land on an aircraft carrier for a photo op (Karl Rove is a marketing mastermind) is a slap in the face to anyone who actually served (like myself).

George Bush will be revealed to be a fraud, and a liar.

Speak for yourself. I served 4 years in the United States Marine Corps (New River Air Station, Jacksonville, NC) and couldn't have been more proud of Bush.

For the record, I think Bush is a horrible president and I disagree with most stuff that he does (or doesn't do).

But landing on a carrier wasn't really about Bush. It was about the office of the presidency. You, along with many others, are mixing up who it was and what it was about. It represented what our nation does and can do. And for that, we should all be proud.

There are plenty of reasons to find fault with Bush. But this isn't one of them unless it really pains you to see him succeed.

Landing in it right off the California coast and wasting our money was not enough. Now he has the plane put in a museum thinking people will rush through the doors to see it and hoping it adds to some kind of idiotic legacy he thinks he deserves is really pathetic.

In my opinion, it was the ultimate example of hypocrisy. It was misleading to the American people, which it seems is what this Administration does best.

To me, it's not about being a Republican, or a Democrat....it's about honesty, and integrity, a couple of things this administration lacks. To give a speech onboard the Lincoln is one thing, but to act like the flyboy he isn't, wasn't and didn't do, is a completely other thing. Wrong.

8 years U.S. Navy (Vallejo, CA., Damneck, VA., San Diego, CA., Washington D.C.)

Actually, it was not inconvienenced at all

The Lincoln was 50 miles offshore.

I don't accept that. It was all about Bush. And I can imagine his old man passing his hand over his eyes and shaking his head when he saw it.

Why did George W. Bush masquerade as a fighting man? Because he can.

But you're right that it represents what our nation can do. We can set up a stage virtually anywhere in the world and propagandize. This was pure propaganda.

Bush had his shining moment in a borrowed flightsuit, in a borrowed Presidency. He John-Wayned it to the max. His victory dance in the end zone for the world to see.

Yeah, we won, sort of. We didn't get the leader or his sons, but we disrupted everybody's life in a small country that never had a chance against us.

One of Bush's statements that drew a lot of fire from the left was 'bring it on', referring to terrorists heading to Iraq. Some from the right, including me, speculated it might have been an intentional taunt on his part, trying to draw even more jihadists into Iraq where they would come up against our military rather than innocent civilians elsewhere.

That idea met with much derision from some posters here. Read this and see if the right may have been right all along.

You're completely off-topic (and I would advise others not to respond to it, or you'll be off-topic, too).

Please start a new thread if you would like to discuss President Bush's "bring it on" comment. Seeing as this was your debate question, I shouldn't have to remind you of it, but just in case :

Anyone who wants to remove photo ops from the lives of presidents should also oppose them when Democrats use them. Bill Clinton was nauseating with that crap, but only really dumb people are swayed by it, so who cares?

AHHHH! Your CONSTANT detracting remarks about democrats is SO OLD. It is unconstructive and does NOTHING to add to this debate. This is your last warning. Debate the actual topic or don't debate.

Exactly, goamerica. That's the point. The lincoln was only 50 miles or less offshore. Teh reason given for the jet landing instead of the usual helicopter, was that the Lincoln was hundreds of miles out to sea, and unrechable by chopper. Sounds like another lie to me.

This topic fits better in Old News than War on Terrorism.

Moving...

Am I wrong in thinking it costs more to fly a helicopter 50 miles and back than it does a jet? I thought I read that somewhere.

Even if it is wouldn't it be better to welcome them at shore and not spend either ridiculous sum of money for the purpose of showboating and playing dress up?

I can see the symbolism in doing it while it is in the middle of the ocean. Declaring the war over on a ship that is coming home from the war in question.

Unfortunately, it may be more expensive to welcome them home on shore, due to the much higher security costs involved. If your objection is grounded in simple matters of cost, then this may be relevant. Of course, if the cost is simply another cudgel you've siezed upon to play WhackaBush, then there's no point in pursuing this line of inquiry...