I've read quite a few complaints from the left about Bush's speech from the deck of the Lincoln.

I think it was a brilliant political strategy, as well as a welcome sight for all of the armed forces of the nation. The men and women of the military would run through brick walls for this guy, and I think that drives the left crazy. All they can picture is how those photos will play on the campaign trail. A campaign meant to insure that we continue on the same path for the next 4 years.

What was so inappropriate about the Commander-in-Chief arriving on a fighter jet and saluting the troops? Was it just that he didn't come off looking like a boob, as Dukakis did in that tank?

I gotta tell ya, this guy looks like a slam-dunk for another 4!

Personally, I thought it was awesome. And entirely appropriate.

Bush demonstrated his complete confidence in our military by putting his life on the line. Trust me, if you've ever been involved in carrier operations, you would see people lives are always in danger. Landing an airplane (even in daylight) on a moving ship that is rocking and rolling with the sea, is very, very difficult and dangerous.

Bush put his money where his mouth is. In doing so, he motivated and energized our military while instilling tons of confidence in us common-folk.

You see me beating up on Bush and his policies all the time here, but he got this one right. He did his job and he did it extremely well.

It would have meant something completely different if he had actually served. As it is, at best he avoided the draft by joining the national guard, and there's plenty of evidence he was AWOL for much of that. A deserter. What kind of message does that send to our men and women in uniform? Talk about a fair-weather friend. He's all smiles and rah-rah when there's a joy-ride involved, but when push came to shove he didn't want to be in harm's way himself. Oh, and after you come back from putting your life on the line for Mr. Bush? Don't expect much support then. He has taken absolutely no action on his campaign pledge to restore lifetime health care for veterans. He vetoed a bill to stop requiring veterans to pay for health care out of their retirement benefits.

Yeah, he gets what he wants from the military. Do they get what they deserve from him? What right does he have to act like he's one of them, in any way? NONE

Would they run through brick walls because they want to or because they are ordered to? I have two personal friends in the armed forces, who are both still in Iraq, not too fond of Bush. That their job requires them to support the President is in no way indicative of how the soldiers view him and certainly nothing for either the "Right" or the "Left" to find irritable.

Personally speaking, I don't care what images Bush chooses to use on the campaign trail. I'm not sure whether I would characterize the gesture as inappropriate or simply ridiculous. The President who dodged the draft through family connections to the National Guard and was then AWOL for over a year arriving on an aircraft carrier during a time of war? It seems a trite gesture after the soldiers have actually risked their lives for their country to arrive in a jet wearing the very uniform he sought to evade during another time of "war."
Other issues with the guy and his administration aside, Bush risked his life more during his drinking binges than he did landing on the Lincoln. Could something go wrong landing the jet? Sure, but unlikely. Such accidents aren't frequent occurences, and certainly not with the degree of planning put into this particular landing.

Passion51: Posted on May 7 2003, 07:23 PM


There was nothing inappropriate about doing a speech on an aircraft carrier

Bush's speech on the USS Abe Lincoln was fine because he was using a ship that was returning home from the war in iraq to announce the end of combat ops. Kinda has symbolism in there somewhere

Bush probably figured that it would be boring to do a speech like this at the White House, so he just added some spice to it instead of the same old boring White House background



Clinton dodged the draft by going to college. So he never had a dab of military experience. Bush flew fighter jets so technically he wasn't skipping the draft, he was just doing something different in the military


DaytonRocker: Posted on May 7 2003, 07:39 PM


Amen dude

Bush risked his life just flying a plane & landing it on a carrier because things do happen. You think that you may be safe if you are doing training missions until your F-14 suddenly breaks down near Edwards AF Base. Same thing would happen out of the blue with the plane Bush was flying in the middle of the water but nothing happened, which is good. Bush is cool.

Those in the military will vote overwhelmingly for Bush in 2004.

That costs topped a million dollars of your money for the stunt should have no effect on your judgement. You could look at it like a Presidential perk. It was clearly a photo op and a campaign freebee, paid for by US citizens. Boy, are the majority easy to bamboozle. The President has no shame considering his military record.

Its interesting how he so likes to parade himself in front of the military, in military gear, time and time again. He has obviously believes his own lies about actually being a fighter pilot, or a military man of any standing. I find it disgraceful.



He certainely was doing something 'different', by dodging and NOT going to college at the time. College students were not required to serve during Vietnam. Bush was simply AWOL with no good excuse.

Abs, on your comments: It was 17 months AWOL off and on, and he was discharged 8 months early because he began to attend Business School at Harvard.

"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148)

Um...Colin...have you talked to your boss about this anger?

So, your position is that members of the National Guard aren't "real" soldiers and are just "dodging" real military service?

Give me a break.

As far as retirement benefits :

The Pentagon spends in excess of $35 billion a year -- approximately the military budget of France -- on military pension and health care entitlements that are among the most generous in the country for public- or private-sector employees. With the new pension program, the defense budget would become one of the federal government's fastest-growing entitlements.

Bush Threatens Veto of Defense Bill

There are reasons behind the President's position beyond "screw those dang gummit vets". Please try to understand the issue before making blanket statements about it.

The President's speech was entirely appropriate.


Wrong. The million dollar figure is the cost of one day's fuel of the Abe Lincoln. The President did NOT keep the vessel out to sea for an extra day, that figure is purely imaginary. The Abe Lincoln arrived right on time (after several Democrats arrived on board (via helicopter) a few hours before it actually docked). So an extra day's fuel was NOT spent.

There is nothing wrong with landing on the Lincoln. Its a smart PR move on many levels.



There is an AP photo floating around where he is wearing a flight helmet and looks like he is either high or drunk.

NRO piece on the Democrats outrage

An excellent piece which demonstrates that this isn't all that uncommon for Presidents.

[/QUOTE]



SHRUB ACTUALLY FLEW THIS AIRCRAFT ?????...........AND LANDED IT ON A CARRIER?

May I ask who sat in the other seat?.

I thought the aircraft in question was an Intruder, side by side seating for an observer and pilot, is this correct?.

He's gone up 0.5% of a notch in my estimation.


Regards....Alan

I don't expect he actually flew the aircraft, since that would require flying currency in that specific type of aircraft. You can subtract that .5 percent

Bush lands on USS Lincoln

No, Bush didn't fly the plane, except perhaps for the brief amount of time he claims to have "taken a turn at it." And lest anybody think it was an F-14, it was a Navy S-3B Viking, whose primary function is day/night surveillance.
This is strictly opinion, but this is precisely my problem with it. He's only the "commander in chief" in title, not in character.

The NRO piece was decent, amlord, but the other presidents in question actually served in combat. I wouldn't have wanted Clinton flying onto a carrier anymore than Bush. I would like to think presidents could honor the troops without having to put on the act of fitting the persona of "commander in chief." If they've actually fought in combat alongside soldiers -- as Washington, Kennedy and Bush Sr. did -- they have a great deal more credibility than presidents who avoided the draft either through college or through the "Champaign Unit" of the Texas National Guard.

As for the "risks" the president took flying out to the carrier...

1. You seem to be easily impressed.

2. Who's money paid for that trip? Mine and yours. Bush uses our tax dollars as his personal bottomless piggybank. I want my money back...let him use yours.

3. A ten year old could have pulled it off with the same amount of skill. Again I'm confused at what you're so impressed with about him riding in a jet and landing on a carrier. Lot's of us would love to be able to experience that...we just can't afford it and don't have the kind of 'toys' the President does.


He did look like a boob. I saw clips.

I'm greatful the news channels spent hours before the actual landing warning us of the spectacle so I had a chance to avoid it. I can't even watch him give speeches anymore without becoming angry and cussing at my television. I would rather wait and let the news tell me if he says anything meaningful...normally his speeches are pretty predictable though and aren't worth my time anyway.

I would trade two terms of Bush Sr. to avoid one more term of his son. I hope he loses the election again...without the convenient Florida fiasco of course.

Onya ABS.

After checking my 'Janes' It was as you said.

It may, or not, interest you to read excerpts from an artical in Our local paper 'The West Australian" and taken from the Washington Post.

Heading......Top Gun stunt exposed as Bush rivals protest.

United States President George Bush's spectacular arrival on an aicraft carrier off San Diego last week was not necessary.
He simply wanted to experience the thrill of a military jet's tail-hook landing, rather than taking a more traditional helicopter ride to the vessel, the White House acknowledged.......................The carrier was even positioned during Mr. Bush,s speech so television would show an open sea in the background rather than the coast.

Initially, the White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Mr. Bush took the jet from San Diego to the Lincoln because the carrier was hundreds of kilometres offshore. Later, he said the Lincoln had made faster progress than expected and was only 50km offshore----within helicopter range......................................

When are this lot going to STOP lying? and why has it got to the stage where damm near everything they say is questioned?.


Regards...Alan

Bush's "Top Gun" photo-op wouldn't be so disgusting if it weren't for the fact that he's paying for his tax cut by trying to lop off $14 billion in veterans benefits over the next decade.

"Support the troops?" Sure thing. As long as they're over there. Back here we're gonna chop 'em off at the ankles.

That's a shame Danya, you missed some pretty good stuff. Don't worry, you'll get to see plenty more of it once the campaign ads start.

In the intererst of getting back on topic though, other than the cost (minimal) what did you find inappropriate?

I'll be curious to see exactly how the clips are used in the campaign ads. Rest assured I'll be revisiting this topic plenty should they try to make him out to be some fearless leader, the embodiment of strength and valor.

Bush skipped out on combat during Vietnam. After amazingly propelling his name ahead of hundreds previously on a waiting list for the Texas National Guard, he was assigned to the so-called "Champagne Unit." Apparently this was too much to ask as Bush went AWOL for an extended period of time.

This, of course, has not stopped the President from giving the impression he contributed to combat in Vietnam... White House March 2002
He knows the lessons of Vietnam as well as Tommy Franks, who actually fought in the jungle thousands of miles away?

In January 2002 Bush went on record saying:
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."

It isn't beyond the President or the administration to bend the facts to fit the desired picture. What picture might we see painted for the 2004 campaign? It's a kick in the face to those soldiers who have and continue to actually lay their lives on the line for the president to try and equate his "service" with theirs. It's truly a shame anybody would seek to compare his "risk" of hitching a well planned ride on a surveillance jet to the risks each and every soldier took in combat.

As for costs of the stunt, and the time of arrival, a report in my local paper from Mike Allen of the Washington Post says:The reasoning being offered is that they didn't want to arrive early, but rather at the time promised. Democrats are saying it was to enhance the presidential visit. I'll leave it for everybody to form their own opinions, but I doubt if the soldiers who had been on board for over 10 months (the longest active duration, I believe) would have had any complaints arriving 14 hours earlier.

And it does cost money to keep these carriers at sea, doesn't it? How much might the additional 14 hours have cost the American tax payer and was it necessary? Doesn't seem so to me.

The cost is above and beyond the normal 1 million it costs to run the Lincoln, its the cost of a fighter plane landing inl leu of a helicopter landing and all extra costs of having the President fly out there. Not imaginary.

Supposedly he took the helm for 15 minutes, he did not land the plane, he has no status as a pilot having lost his license for failure to take a physical,(?) most likely because he could not pass a drug test.

In the end I see no real problem with his photo op. After all he is the President and gets some perks from it. I object only to anyone believing he actually IS a pilot, and can fly any plane what-so ever, or pull himself off to be a military man. This is false.

I find it inappropriate that during Viet Nam when he was expected to be a pilot, even away from the battlefield where other soldiers were dying every day for this country, he couldn't bother to show up and meet his obligations. Now, when soldiers are returning from doing what he so easily avoided he suddenly wants to see what landing on a carrier is like up close. As long as there is no real danger of someone shooting at him he's eager to waste our money on an unnecessary joy ride in a military jet.

Instead of trying to steal the glory from the real soldiers he should have given his victory speech after they docked instead of trying to dress up and pass himself off as some kind of hero. (Which also would have saved us untold thousands of dollars.)

It doesn't bother me that he would use the pics for election purposes in itself. It does bother me that he uses 9/11 and the war as a shield from critism throughout his term and then as a tool to bolster his image for the next election. What bothers me most is his glaring hypocrisy and lack of character.

Face it--the pro-Bush contingent would defend Fearless Leader if he appeared in a Little Bo Peep outfit; the anti-Bush contingent would question a literal voice thundering from heaven that he is God's anointed.
I belong to the latter group, and I would be looking for loudspeakers.

Photo ops in this society trump legitimately good works when those good works are not covered by the "liberal media" owned by those wealthy Republicanish conservatives. But I digress...

We've got to un-elect this guy. He is bad news. An MSNBC commentator was introducing a segment entitled, "Is Bush the new Great Communicator?" At that point I shut off the t.v.

We're obviously not going to let the facts confuse us in this society...

First, I have to address the issue of Veterans Benefits since it has been mentioned twice on this thread.

The budget resolution passed in Congress includes an increase of $6.2 billion in veterans' funding from fiscal year 2003 to 2004 -- a 10.7 percent increase in overall veterans' spending. In addition, the budget resolution includes a $3.4 billion (or 12.9 percent) increase in funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Yet critics continue to decry cuts. How, in the face of such clear evidence, is this possible?

The fact is, it isn't possible. Those who oppose the budget speak loudly of so-called cuts, but are reluctant to even whisper about the formulas they use to reach that conclusion. In order to claim a $6.2 billion increase in spending for veterans' programs as a cut, one must work from a fabricated projection of spending based upon an outdated budget.

Critics take a large risk when they use hypothetical numbers to justify their arguments. I commend their command of theoretical math, but challenge them to a discussion based on facts.

Fact: In fiscal year 2003, we are spending $57.63 billion for veterans' programs.

Fact: Our budget for fiscal year 2004 provides $63.8 billion for veterans' programs.

Fact: The budget resolution passed by Congress would increase spending on veterans' programs by $6.2 billion.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/3827481.html

Bush’s budget at a glance
Associated Press
Department of Veterans Affairs
Spending: $28.1 billion

Percentage change from 2003: +10.6 percent

Highlights:

Would increase medical care and research spending by $2.62 billion, bringing its total to $26.2 billion.

Would increase spending on burial benefits by $12 million to help open four new national cemeteries and improve some of the existing 120 national cemeteries.

Provides $225 million for construction of new facilities as part of a plan to close and consolidate underused hospitals and open or expand new ones.

The additional $2.7 billion proposed for 2004 is the highest percent increase ever requested by a president for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The budget includes a proposal to restrict long-term nursing home care to veterans with severe service-connected disabilities.

It includes a previously announced halt to enrollment of higher income veterans without conditions related to their service and calls for an enrollment fee and increased co-payments for outpatient care and drugs for higher income veterans.

Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi said the budget would ensure that the agency “will continue to provide America’s veterans with the benefits and health services they have earned.”

He said the agency will continue to pursue goals of deciding all claims within 100 days, eliminating medical appointment waiting lists and scheduling primary care appointments within 30 days.

http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/0...lance.php?nnn=5

As to the now famous Presidential landing at sea; the POTUS has every right to greet the troops. He is, after all the Commander in Chief.

The controversy can't be about cost, because no one is complaining about the 3 other democratic congressman/woman who flew out there that day.

The controversy isn't really about the President addressing his troops on board the USS Lincoln, it's about using the footage for political gain. It all just went too perfectly and could be helpful to his campaign in 2004. It was a very important moment for this country and a powerful campaign tool.

But other Presidents have used footage of themselves on USS carriers and at military facilities for campaign purposes, so why can't he?

Is there a double standard?

Possibly that's true for democratic politicians but I can assure you I did not see it that way. The way you put it makes it sound as if he looked so good it was so damaging to dems that they now have to complain. Not so. I thought he looked like a smirking, hypocritical fool. After that I thought about all those tax dollars he wasted for his joy ride.

As for political leverage I don't see how it could help him get re-elected. If anything it seems like it would do more harm than good at election time. It practically dares his competition to discuss his real military record. And if that happens to be Kerry who is a decorated Viet Nam war hero he may not like how it ends up making him look.

It's also something many American's have no idea about unless they are into politics because it's been so downplayed by the media. Using those pics as props for his re-election could too easily change that. Now that the war is over more people might even be willing to pay attention and be unpleasantly surprised by that record, especially if their loved ones are back home from Iraq or Ahfganinstan. Sounds risky to me so he's welcome to try for all I care.

BTW, You may want to send the info about the veteran ben's not really being cut to them...according to their web site they believe they ARE having millions of dollars cut. This has also been reported elsewhere.

My father (retired military) has been paying about 400 dollars a month for the past 35 years for survivor benefits to my mother. The agreement being, at the time of his death, she is entitled to half of his retirement salary for as long as she lives. They paid into this plan under that agreement. Now, the plan has been changed arbitrarily. She is only entitled to a sum total of half his retirement, to include social security. They call it the ‘social security offset’. In actuality, my mother will only receive about 33 percent instead of the agreed half, which they have been paying into all this time.

None of this surprises me, however. Military veterans always get the shaft, regardless of the administration.

Was the USS Lincoln run around in "lazy circles" for 14 extra hours for those members of Congress or for the President of the United States? It's just a guess, but I'd say the latter.

And yes, for me it was about him giving the address on the Lincoln. Not because he gave an address on an aircraft carrier but because he did so at a time of war, arriving in a jet and flight suit and continuing to foster the illusion that he somehow served his country in war.

I'm only 20 so I haven't had as much time to criticize other presidents giving speeches on aircraft carriers. How many gave speeches during a time of war and how many of them had actually served their country in combat? Of those who didn't serve, how many claimed they had in the face of contrary evidence? For me there isn't a double standard but rather a matter of circumstances. If any other president had done it, under similar circumstances, I would criticize them as well.

And for me it isn't about commercials... unless of course the clips are used to directly further the illusion that Bush is some courageous commander in chief when it was the soldiers who laid their lives on the line in this war. Until then, I still take issue with the manner in which this speech was delivered on a carrier and the time at which it was given. I find it highly hypocritical, to some degree deceitful (especially combined with his claims of service) and not at all respectful of our men and women who serve in the armed forces.

I also see no real problem with his photo op either.
Yes..he is the President, in name but not in presence, and being such is allowed to get his rocks off with his taxpayer toys.

I don't really care how much it cost for him to play with his toys, I'm not paying.
Some of you deserve to pay because you actually believe it.

Now that most certainly is my worry.........SOME OF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT.

Regards.......Alan

Before you get too carried away trying to make this into a debate about Bush's military service you should get your facts straight. I refer you to the Boston Globe and NY Times, which both revealed quite some time ago that the alleged non-service by Bush was just that, an allegation. A false allegation. This hasn't stopped the Bush-haters from perpetrating the myth though. They've never let facts get in the way before, why start now.

Nexis-Lexis isn't free so [/I]no links for you![I]

That's funny. I subscribe to the Globe, that most liberal of major-market newspapers, and I don't remember them revealing any such thing. The only stories I've seen in the Globe about the Bush/AWOL story were making allegations, not refuting them, and a quick search of their online archives doesn't seem to indicate any fault in my memory. Between that and your own past record, I'm more than a little skeptical about your claim. Attacking others for "never letting facts get in the way" is offensive (and a violation of the posting guidelines) at any time, but especially so when your own position is so contrary to verifiable reality.

From the Boston Globe 6 days ago...

QUOTE

Bush's military records, obtained by Globe reporter Walter V. Robinson during the 2000 campaign, revealed the following: ''In his final 18 months of military service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly 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.'' The military records showed that Bush flew with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor squadron from June 1970 until April 1972. ''That month, he ceased flying altogether, two years before his military commitment ended, an unusual step that has left some veteran fight pilots puzzled,'' reported Robinson in one of several follow-up accounts.

At the time, Bush insisted that he fulfilled his miltary obligation and disputed part of the Globe report. ''I did the duty necessary.... That's why I was honorably discharged,'' Bush said in May 2000. He acknolwedged, however, that he fulfilled his Guard duties at irregular intervals.

Boston Globe

Where are your links Passion?

Danya, correct.

Passion51,

Not false allegations. The original documents are posted, at bottom of opening page, as well as eyewitness testimonies.

I give you this website, about Bushs non record and also veterans cuts:
http://www.awolbush.com/

One of the protocols for National Guard duty is that members are permitted to satisfy their duty in other than consecutive months.

This fact is regularly ignored or glossed over when reporting on Bush's service. The fact is that he fullfilled his requirements and was honorably discharged.

The fact is that this in not a wholly unheard of method of completing the requirements.

The fact is this is a non-issue that the left just can't let go of.

Keep on truckin' people, you're going to make Bush's re-election a cakewalk.

Really?

According to the Boston Globe,"Under Air National Guard rules at the time, guardsmen who missed duty could be reported to their Selective Service Board and inducted into the Army as draftees." --Boston Globe, 5/23/00

Your chosen facts are only missing any documentation showing he had any permission to be away from duty. Does any exist to your knowlege? If so please provide something besides your opinion to back it up.

It's not a non issue to anyone who who didn't have a choice about when or if they served. It might not have been so damning had there not been a draft going on at the time. Was he missing because it was inconvenient? Because he was a coward? I want to know why my president is willing to put other peoples lives on the line for this country but wasn't willing to put his own.

I want to know why he attempts to mislead the public about his military career with statements like this:

"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war." Houston Chronicle, January 2002

The man has never been to war and couldn't claim he has even if his Guard Duty wasn't questionable.

Could is the operative word. There's a reason for that. Irregular scheduling of service is not only permissible, it is often ignored by those trying to smear someone's reputation.

The bias of the Globe's reports is quite obvious. Understating pertinent facts is just as wrong as misstating them, sometimes more so.

What ever happened to the Globe as the source of that refutation? Yesterday they were the good guys, today they're scum - a change that can only be described as "convenient".

Yes, Bush did eventually complete the required hours, but the fact remains that he was absent from service for over a year. In the military it's important not only to do something but to do it when you're ordered to do it, and he didn't. More importantly, he claimed to have been present when he wasn't. I seem to remember that presidents lying about stuff was practically a hanging offense during the Clinton years, but now it's apparently no big deal. Gore got attacked for using a White House telephone for a couple of campaign phone calls; Bush gets a pass for using an entire aircraft carrier for a campaign photo op. My, how standards have changed.

If Bush were a man of good faith, he would have come clean about his service and admitted that he reported for duty in Alabama over a year late. He would take a pledge not to use pictures from the USS Lincoln in his campaign, due to the apparent conflict of interest, and then honor that pledge. Do we expect he will do either of these things? Why not?

According to the investigations I've found, not only from the Boston Globe but other reports, it isn't that they haven't attempted to find out if the leave was authorized because they have. They have been unsuccessful in finding any documentation that would explain his absense and Bush himself refuses to provide a specific explanation.

Again, if you have proof he wasn't simply AWOL I'd love to see it. Or
if you have proof that the Globe was purposely withholding that info in an attempt to smear his character I'd like to see that too. All you've given so far is your opinion...the Globe has at least worked a little harder to verify theirs with backup. I still haven't seen yours.

Come on Platypus...

Clinton's lying was UNDER OATH (i.e. illegal), Gore's phone calls were also clearly illegal. Bush was honorably discharged. The Air National Guard determined that he fulfilled his service, but of course, some people refuse to give him any benefit of the doubt.

During the 2004 campaign, the President has every right (and expectation) to show people what he has done during his first term. There is no "conflict of interest" in the President addressing the troops. None.

He was also removed from flight status in August 1972 for failing to take his annual flight physical. Discharged afterwards to attend Harvard Business school, He Is Not Legally Licensed to Fly Planes.
From:
http://monthly-messenger.org/Library/Bush_...litary/Main.htm
After reviewing George W. Bush's military records, one has to wonder who truly flew the staged plane flight with Bush Jr .

No, there isn't, if it's done in a reasonable businesslike manner oriented toward the troops or the American people. When it's a staged theatric display intended primarily for campaign use, though, it becomes a very different matter.

YOUR opinion. The troops seemed happy to see their CIC.

It's not as if this is unprecedented. Even Patrick Leahy uses the military (and *gasp* he's wearing a flight suit in that photo! ) to his advantage.

Yes there is a conflict of interest. It's not in the interest of the Bush-bashers to have the voting public see him in the role that will define his presidency as one of the greatest in our history. They will continue to snipe and snivel, but to no avail.

There's a landslide acomin' and the savvy dems have enough sense to get out of the way.

It wasn't a 'staged' flight. He said, according to Abs, that he 'gave it a go' at the controls, meaning he tried to fly a little. It wouldn't matter if he was current to fly (in general) anyway, because he was not current to fly in that type of airplane.

This is really getting spun out of control with the 'he was pretending to fly'. If I was working for the Republican party (or if I was Republican to begin with), I would suggest we hire a mistress to accompany Bush everywhere he goes. Then, every legitimate concern or question (regardless of how the question relates to Bush's private life) could be answered with, "You just care about his sex life!"

It would work sort of like this, "Mr President, is it true that you eluded your military duty? Is it true that you're cutting funding to veterans?"
Bush (said while casually reaching over to grab his secretary’s bottom), "I don't think my private life is anyone's concern"
Republicans, "It's just about the sex, doesn't anyone care about the issues?"

Yeah, they probably were, not that any even-half-sane sailor or flyer would let themselves be seen scowling during the president's speech anyway. That really doesn't change anything, though. If Bush were sincerely interested in troop morale more than political gain, he could still make the appearance and take the pledge I mentioned. That he should forego that option tells us a lot about the real purpose of the trip.



Why on God's green earth do you think I'd defend Leahy? There is a little bit of a difference between a snapshot taken at an opportune moment and a media event that involves a whole carrier going in circles for hours, but the principle is still the same. If Leahy's picture cost even one dollar beyond what was spent on legitimate senate business and he uses it for campaign purposes, that's abuse of taxpayer money.

That's a bogus argument. The speech and its deliverance on a military ship both have merits independent of any campaign reasons that you might want to assign as a motive. There are deeper symbolic messages being sent, both to our troops and to our friends and adversaries abroad.

News Flash : Bush doesn't need a photo op to improve his chances in 2004.

Your "pledge" has nothing to do with political (or any other type of) reality.

The question is not if he eventually finished out his time; it's if he was Absent Without Leave. It's a very simple question that he refuses to answer with any specifics or provide any proof for. If he had permission or even requested the time away there should be some documentation of it somewhere.

Why on earth would you expect me to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who won't bother to clearly answer the questions and has twisted his service history to make it appear he had been in combat? How many times does he have to lie before I'm allowed to not take his word for something without proof?

Indeed there are, but they're not the ones you think and they're not good ones.

It's a photo op. So what? It is not like this is anything new.

Ah, but it was oriented towards the troops. And the American people. It's just that some can't accept the fact that the majority of those troops and those American people loved every minute of it! They were filled with a sense of pride and patriotism, and not an ounce of shame.

They loved it so much that they wish it were already 2004 so they could show their appreciation and loyalty by re-electing the man who leads them today.

Do you actually chant this mantra throughout the day or is typing it into all of your posts enough for now? Keep the faith...if you repeat this stuff over and over someone may even start to believe it.

Bush: A Legend in His Own Mind


link

Amen to that.

Yep. George W. Bush had the best military reserve job that Daddy's money and influence could buy. And, at that, he couldn't just do his job but was AWOL for one year and couldn't get his evaluation because he wouldn't pee into the cup for his military physical. These are documented facts. Just the sort of person into whose hands you want to put the military power of the free world.

Yep. That's an honorable man. Presidential material. Shows his love for God and country, all right. Shows how brave he is sending thousands of troops into a country that didn't attack us.

My God, is there something in the water (or is it breathing too many "harmless" industrial fumes?) that makes so many people blissfully overlook the contradictions that this President represents?!

Jimmy Carter is an honorable man. George W. is a poser, on the USS Lincoln, in the literal sense of the word.