BS: A good day for Bush

Subject: BS: A good day for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:12 AM

Today was a terrific day for George W. Bush, and for the men and women of our armed forces. I don't know if any of you saw the landing on the aircraft carrier, and listened to GWB's speech this evening, but I thought it was just terrific. The young men and women obviously admire our president very much!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:23 AM

They were interviewing people on our local news tonight about Bush's speach. This is a pretty pro-Bush area. One of the people they interviewed was the mother of someone serving currently in the armed forces. She was in tears. She said she thought Bush only made that speach to help his election campaign. She said that even though Bush tried to make it sound like the war is pretty much over in Iraq, it is in reality far from being over. I guess she's worried about her kid.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 02 May 03 - 03:05 AM

More than Bush had a "good day" ---the British National [neo nazi] party attracted the votes of a fair number of eejits in the English municipal elections. Some of their candidates made terrific speeches too---pro-"coalition" to a man.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 May 03 - 03:19 AM

A good day? Well no shit Sherlock!

Oh the campaign photos!!! There he is, the leader of the entire world, emerging from his own jet combat aircraft after a carrier landing.....togged out in a flight suit (much like the one he elected NOT to wear during VietNam) and with helmet under arm, striding across the carrier's deck!!! No Doug, we ain't gonna' see those pics appear in any of the campaign promos are we?

And the speech....one of his better diplomatic efforts at saying jack fuckin' shit nothing and sounding good. How the hell long did he have to rehearse this one to come off so well? And the following from the AP explains the lack of content:

Bush avoided the word "victory" in his speech, aides said earlier, because of political and legal considerations. A formal declaration of victory carries with it certain obligations under the Geneva Conventions, and using the word could invite questions about the continued U.S. presence in Iraq.

There are several reasons. For one, although major combat is over, skirmishes in Iraq continue as exemplified by deadly exchanges in the city of Fallujah between protesters and U.S. soldiers. Also, although Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled, the former Iraqi president and members of his inner circle, including his two sons, remain unaccounted for.

Scholars familiar with laws governing war say that a formal declaration of victory would complicate efforts by coalition forces to track down the former members of Saddam's regime.

"If we say the war is over, it makes it more difficult to pursue these individuals," said Anthony Clark Arend, professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University. He has written a book on international law and the use of force.

The Geneva Conventions also call for the release and repatriation "without delay" of prisoners of war at the close of hostilities.

"Generally, that means you repatriate them to the existing government," Arend said. "Well, there's no place to repatriate them to."

Pentagon officials said last week there were about 7,000 Iraqi prisoners of war.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Cluin
Date: 02 May 03 - 03:25 AM

So it was a good day to lie?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: alanabit
Date: 02 May 03 - 04:47 AM

Yes it was a good day. Your pious hood of a president has begun the campaign which will inevitably see him installed in the White House for another four years - which was always the whole point of this sordid little war.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 02 May 03 - 04:51 AM

He's almost as good an actor as Ronald Raygun.
Now, if he had LANDED that plane...

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Trevor
Date: 02 May 03 - 04:55 AM

You've got to take a look at this, which Yorkie has just sent!

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 May 03 - 07:42 AM

obviously some gullible people are easily impressed- by nowt.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Peter T.
Date: 02 May 03 - 09:09 AM

Didn't Cher do this with a much more interesting costume? yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Alba
Date: 02 May 03 - 09:16 AM

ROFLMAO
A

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Sam L
Date: 02 May 03 - 09:31 AM

Oh. This thread is about politics. Darn.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Gareth
Date: 02 May 03 - 09:37 AM

As opposed to Pornography !!!!!

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 02 May 03 - 09:53 AM

It was a good day for GWB - a man who has made a career out of being the image of success. In that way he is a lot like Ronald Reagan, another man who was more medium than message. Unfortunately, there were too-many half-truths and outright lies (the Afghanistan reference comes immediately to mind) in this performance for it to give too much comfort.

My real problem with this event was that he gave the wrong speech. He insists on bragging when he should be conciliating. He continued to beat his chest and rattle his saber when a real statesman would have begun the healing process. Having displayed his capacity for whoop-ass to his enemies in no uncertain terms, a gracious leader would have been holding out the olive branch to those in the world who might still be our friends. But Bush is a small man with a small vision.

But maybe that's just me.
After all
I'm just a liberal.
Bart

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 09:54 AM

I really enjoyed the cheers and applause after Bush said "...the end of the civilized world."

Dead brilliant, and I'm passing it on.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: TIA
Date: 02 May 03 - 10:39 AM

More of the same old outright lies and innuendo... talking about Iraq and Al Quaeda in the same breath, 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence, quoting a 9/11 murderer in the same paragraph as a comment on the war in Iraq, talk of the "hundreds of sites" for WMD's in Iraq. No wonder so many Americans now think that the airliners were hijacked by Iraqis. Next year at this time we will all be convinced they were Syrians, and that we actually did find WMDs in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 10:45 AM

It isn't just the Americans. The British have fallen into lock step as well, if the polls are to be believed.

Which helps expose the lie that this is about right or left, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, Labour or Tory.

This is the Global Reach nightmare come to fruition--fundamentalist nationalist fervor on all sides being used to justify the elimination of all barriers to the creation of a global corporate market empire, ruled by the wealthy elite.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 02 May 03 - 10:47 AM

It was a great day for resident Bush.
However, it is nothing more than a typical well done sound bite. He is running for re election; otherwise, he would have made this speech from the oval office.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 May 03 - 11:17 AM

Anybody listen to the speech? reminded me of Joe McCarthy when he said that they have "located hundreds of WMDs and we have the list!"



Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 02 May 03 - 11:22 AM

Americans aren't buying it. The 'polls' are conducted by the govt-owned media. Viewership of the evening news programs fell off drastically during the 'war'. Americans chose not to watch the lowest point in our history as a 'free' nation. The average American knows things are badly out of kilter and the solution won't come from watching the latest diversions and lies from the network news.

A really good day for Bush will be when he murders a hundred school kids in Oct of 2004. He has signalled his approval to renew the 'assault weapon ban' in Sept of 2004. The un-American law he should logically, as a conservative gun-rights advocate, allow to expire. But he is going to renew it and extend it to .22s and 'long rifles', which means your collectible flintlock. He will lose his base of support, you would think, but there is always an 'October surprise' to boost one candidate or another just before a presidential election. So next year, when Repubs are fuming and screaming about being betrayed on weapons, the BATF will again go to work in a public school. Only in October of next year, we'll see a hundred dead in a public school, not just a dozen. And the nation will go into the election in shock with GWBush smirking and defying voters to contradict him on the gun issue.

Or at least that's the way I would do it if I was from a psycho family and didn't give a damn about human life. And when those kids get killed and the Repubs in congress point out how proud they are their president tried to prevent it, THAT will be a good day for Bush.

Remember this in Oct 2004. And watch the newsclips for the men in the black ski masks (BATF...worst of the worst...the old backwoods murderers of moonshiners). THEY will be the people gunning down the kids in the building, and the 'killers' will be dressed just like them, so the traumatized students won't really know WHO they saw. Kids are being conditioned to this right now with 'lock downs' and 'drills' where 'mock terrorists' run up and down the hallways in ski masks. It's coming, folks, but it'll be at an opportune time, and what better time than when it will get a killer elected AND lead to the banning of guns in America? You liberals better buy guns, because once they're gone, you will be the FIRST to go under a fascist regime. Buy guns and ammo.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 12:15 PM

But Dreaded Guest, little guns can't ever defeat the big guns. Which is why I'm relying on people of intelligence and a passionate commitment to protecting our constitutional rights, which, BTW, doesn't include the right to own an arsenal and raise your own militias to fight the government or your neighbors.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 02 May 03 - 12:33 PM

I'm confused. Perhaps someone from the right wing can clarify something for me. (This is not sarcasm; it is genuine confusion.)

I would assume that most of the people who post here are not among the top 5% of America's wealthy: I would assume they are middle-class, upper or lower.

Bush is allowing the American economy to go into a decline which may well be unprecedented. The middle class will be paying much higher taxes, for fewer services. Health care/education/infrastructure -- all are deteriorating rapidly.

Why, then, do the middle-class right wing people support Bush? They are not gaining any benefit from his presidency -- indeed, their lives will be diminished by his domestic policies.

I don't get it.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 02 May 03 - 12:52 PM

They are blinded by party loyalty, and they choose to not see the cracks.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: leprechaun
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:00 PM

I'm thinking if the economy can make even slight gains before the election, George W. Bush will win by a landslide. He's got my vote, and I didn't even hear the speech. But, what the hell, I'm a wealthy man!

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:01 PM

Trauma-based mind control. Turn off your TV. Nazi death-camp psychologists were torturing for a specific reason...mind control. The US gave those guys safe-haven after WW2 and started up the CIA so they could continue their work secretly (at the same time TV was coming on the scene). 55 years later we have an absolute control system in place. Americans can be taught to buy anything if it is sold with fear. Clinton/Bush killed 3,000 on Sept 11, and they won't let us forget it. It will be the factor which pushes us over the next ten years toward a fascistic slave-state. The middle class will be shown a clip of the towers falling anytime we object to a tax to 'fight the war' or a tax cut for the wealthy 'anti-terrorists'. Americans have been hooked on special effects and soap operas and reality TV...

The Justice Dept, for example, has 40 million bucks per year budgeted for 'idea placement'. Like coke and Pepsi using product placement in movies, Ashcroft's people insert lines/characters/story ideas in TV and movie scripts. I expect, because of this, you'll start seeing a lot more Iranian and Syrians as bad guys on TV before long. Because that's where the 'perpetual war' is going. And when the invasion of Iran comes, you'll support it because that guy on Oprah last week said some Iranians hurt a puppy. Simple as that. Americans buy what they are sold on TV, including politics.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:08 PM

Many people feel more secure with authoritarian rule, a fact which has always vexed social democrats, liberals, and progressive thinkers. Knowing that fact is one reason why all the Western democracies have majoritarian rule built into their constitutions.

Also, people who feel more secure with authoritarian rule (and these are the people who love Bush as Commander in Chief, Bush the military man, etc while remaining skeptical of him as a peacetime president who will restore our rapidly fading era of economic prosperity) vote Republican. The Neo-Cons are masters at manipulating these sorts of people who want the world to be black and white, so they don't have to be bothered with thinking about the complex political problems. These people usually don't vote their pocketbooks, the way the wealthy or the poor do. They cast their votes based upon who makes the best emotional appeals to their sense of security.

DougR is our resident who best reflects this sort of voter, so maybe you could ask him why he supports the Neo-Cons so stridently, and everything they do without blinking an eye. DougR is the kind of guy who just follows orders, because that is what makes him feel good, feel safe, and feel emotionally fulfilled by appeals to patriotism, etc. But we all know people like this. Hell, we have family members like this. They often define themselves as "independents" in terms of political affiliation, but most often vote for Republicans, and secondarily, for Libertarians. DougR isn't the only one here at Mudcat--there are a number of folks who form their political worldviews this way. We went from the John Wayne folk to the Tom Cruise/Bruce Willis folk generationally, but it is all the same mindset.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:11 PM

GUEST,pdc, you live in a country whose media is (relatively) free and open. We in the US do not have a free and open media. All we have is a well oiled propaganda machine that is owned and run by special interests. One of the psychological tactics that is used fairly successfully by this propaganda machine to manipulate people into being silently complicit with the government, whatever it does, is the promotion of the idea that it is unpatriotic to criticize or in any way question the government, and most particularly, the president.

(Except if the president is Bill Clinton, or anyone else who is not a right-wing Republican, and then it's unpatriotic to not criticize the president ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:18 PM

BTW, I meant to add that people who identify themselves as 'independents' in the US but vote Libertarian, in my experience, are people who want everyone else to submit to authoritarian rule, but themselves. That way they personally benefit from sidestepping all those nasty, conscience troubling democratic ideals that make people who are 'looking out for number one' not seem so crassly selfish.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: TIA
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:19 PM

pdc:

I share your confusion. I have never seen so many people voting against their own interests and rabidly supporting politicians who are actively working against them. I know it's a loaded word, but I can only conclude that people have been brainwashed. They have been conditioned to so detest anything that is branded "liberal", or "left-wing", or "DemocRAT", or "elite", or "socialist" that they cannot or will not contemplate the actual issue and its ramifications. Even if a program or policy would actually be good for them (i.e. middle-class or lower people), they reject it if it has been branded as liberal by the right-wingers and their propaganda machine. The same damn program or proposal can be trotted out at another time and place by a right-wing politician, and it is embraced! (Actual example of this type of double standard - yesterday, I actually heard Rush Limbaugh ranting against "...the constant drumbeat of criticism directed at the President..." Holy Sh_t! Who WAS the constant drumbeat of criticism for 8 years?!?)

It seems that folks care more about party lines and labels than substance, they don't bother to get information from differing sources, and they often don't make up their own minds - just spout the propaganda.

I find it truly scarey.

If I've got this all wrong, I'd welcome clarification too.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:34 PM

A good example of this is the lukewarm support for Bush's second tax cut. Now, the only people his second tax cut would benefit is the very wealthy, because it is intended to wipe out all taxation of dividend income, which is something only the upper middle class and extremely wealthy benefit from. It helps bring them down into the lower income tax brackets, effectively allowing the richest people to pay taxes as if they are in the same economic circumstances as the poorest people in the country.

Remember, the tax system overhaul was intended to make the system more fair--that those who had much, much more than the majority of citizens, would pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, than those who have much, much less than the majority of citizens. Hence the two tiered income tax bracket solution, which was bi-partisan.

Well, ever since it was passed, you've heard the Republicans screaming for capital gains tax relief, ending of what they call 'the marriage penalty' (Republicans got even richer when their wives went to work), any loop hole they can think of that will put them in the lower income tax bracket. Those people always vote Republican, because the only thing they care about is themselves and their money. The could give a shit about public education (for one example), because they don't send their children to public schools like the rest of us do.

No one from left or right, Democratic or Republican parties is raising the question of why we are passing a tax cut for the rich, when the people we should be helping right now are the exploding ranks of the unemployed. Has anyone heard any talk lately about addressing the now 6% (and growing by leaps and bounds every month) unemployment rate?

I agree it doesn't make any rational sense that so many people will vote against their own enlightened self-interest. But you have to understand just how many people are 'go along to get along' type folks, who will never rock the boat, no matter how bad it gets for them. They are too afraid of losing the little they have, if they step out of line. A very wise South Dakota rancher friend of mine calls this the 'hired hand' mentality. Others call it the 'right to work for less' mentality. These sorts of people 'know their place'. They are often in the majority in places like the Deep South and the Old West. Also the regions who vote Republican without thinking, just as they used to vote Democratic without thinking until the Democrats became the party associated with changing the race laws.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 02 May 03 - 01:49 PM

All national-level leaders are on the same tyrannical team. GWBush and Ted Kennedy want the same thing...total social control. The far left and far right have found common ground in the bankrupting of America (benefits the rich Republicans and makes 99% dependent on Democratic social-control measures), so there is no longer any debate on economics in Washington. Both parties have the pedal to the metal driving us to financial collapse. These are NOT our leaders. They have violated their oaths to the Constitution. They are traitors and organized criminals.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 May 03 - 02:11 PM

Tia said something I think bears repeating: More of the same old outright lies and innuendo... talking about Iraq and Al Quaeda in the same breath, 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence, quoting a 9/11 murderer in the same paragraph as a comment on the war in Iraq, talk of the "hundreds of sites" for WMD's in Iraq. No wonder so many Americans now think that the airliners were hijacked by Iraqis. Next year at this time we will all be convinced they were Syrians, and that we actually did find WMDs in Iraq.

I suspect that is exactly what will happen unless we are somehow able to educate the people NOW as to what actually did happen, and since the 'people' are already buying the canard there's not much hope of waking them up LATER. Man. I think I see the handbasket.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 02:25 PM

OK, if people aren't watching the news anymore, just how exactly is it that they hear the propaganda?

Nah, this isn't about what anyone is actually saying. People don't watch the news anymore. This is about what people want to believe. They don't want to believe the American sky is falling, so any time we kick some brown skinned ass militarily, it gives them the security fix they think they need. Our leader is strong. The brown skinned hordes will not invade us and destroy our way of life.

Voting Republican has much more to do with race issues than class issues. People who vote Republican would much rather believe that our economy going to hell is the fault of brown skinned fanatics, than the well dressed white men in suits cynically plundering the nation in the name of a white capitalist god and homeland.

I mean think about it. Isn't it just easier to go along and say it was the 9/11 terrorists who destroyed this great nation's economy, rather than have to think about the fact that those handsome, strong men who say they love and care about us and the patriotic sacrifices we make for our fatherland?

Remember, in places with good education systems, getting an education is your ticket out of poverty. Everywhere else, especially in the South where the generations of poverty still dictates peoples' thinking, you enlist just like you papa did, believing that Uncle Sam will take care of you for life. That is a pretty damn strong incentive to vote Republican, especially in the southern states where the public education system is a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Beccy
Date: 02 May 03 - 02:27 PM

Hey GUEST, anon... You sure sling a lot of ideological arrows for being too wussy to identify yourself.

Did it occur to you that perhaps DougR thinks for himself and ends up agreeing with the hated "neo-cons" that you detest so much? Do you know him personally to be a strict follower or do you make assumptions based upon your ideological differences with him? Hmmmm????

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 May 03 - 02:34 PM

Incidentally, I agree that it was obvious that the president had a 'good day', he was beaming like a kid whose wildest dreams have come true. The problem is that this is the PRESIDENT and if our PRESIDENT is not more in touch with the realities than that, the whole country cannot be less confused.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 02:37 PM

Beccy, I base my opinions of DougR on what he has written over time in this forum, nothing else. The great thing about the anonymity offered by the Internet is we actually get a chance to know each other based upon our ideas and opinions, rather than superficial things like appearance, where we live and work, who we associate with/are related to, that sort of thing.

Which is why I enjoy my time getting to know people by their ideas and opinions, rather than whether they wear fancy or shoddy looking clothes, or if they are related to THOSE people.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 02 May 03 - 02:39 PM

GUEST--I love the so-called "marriage penalty," but my favorite piece of right wing bullshit rhetoric is the "death tax." They like to make it sound as if you have to pay money for dying! In fact, you have to pay money in order to leave more than $600,000 in unsheltered wealth behind, to which the vast majority of Americans should say "boo hoo f*ck you."

The GOP hammers away at the unfairness of the "death tax," by claiming that it "taxes your money twice" since you already paid income tax. Well, doesn't sales tax also tax my money twice? I paid income tax on that money too! Who said I'd only pay one tax on each dollar? Where do they get this BUSHit? Then they make it sound like the primary people affected by the "death tax" are "family owned farms and small businesses," which have a net worth above the limit but maintain a number of family members. No one thinks to say: well, make a law exempting family farms, but leave the part where rich tycoons pay some taxes when they pass billions on to their playboy heirs. It's sickening how cynical and nakedly greedy this rhetoric really is!

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 02:46 PM

Well, they already got away with stealing everyone's pensions didn't they? Now they are busy looting Social Security. First, they told worker clones to buy into the stock market through mutual fund pension plans--we were told that savings plans and CDs were for dumb poor people. So many of those barely with a foot in the middle class door bought into them, and poof! Their retirement savings disappeared in a NY Stock Exchange fraud minute!

Now they are telling us to use Social Security savings to invest in--you guessed it--the same ole privateers who looted their retirement IRAs and pensions. The right wing is so much better at this than UMW and AFL-CIO ever was, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 02 May 03 - 02:52 PM

;-)

Where's the AARP when you need them?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 03 - 02:57 PM

CarolC, don't tell me you haven't joined yet? :)

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 02 May 03 - 02:59 PM

I've got another three years before I have to decide ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 02 May 03 - 04:22 PM

Americans get their news from sit coms and 'dramas'. Not the news. The news is kind of peripheral...an obligatory thing to have rattling away in the background...so some of the propaganda is spread that way, but mostly the 'news' programs mislead by emphasizing the wrong stories or wrong aspects of the stories. Sure there's been no investigation of Sept 11, but a woman lost a son in the WTC, news at eleven.

Some people consider the Hollywood tabloid shows to be 'the news', and I know quite a few folks who display no knowledge of a news story unless Jay Leno mentioned it the night before.

The MASS brainwashing is done by the tube, and then there are the lesser forms like radio, print, disinformation on the internet, so on. Americans are slaves to television. The Justice Department knows the score and spends 40 mil a year making sure the characters on 'Friends' crack jokes about the militia and 'conspiracy theories'.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 May 03 - 05:53 PM

Two articles worth reading.

Coagulation.
How to Stir the Soup.

Let's get crackin', folks!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 May 03 - 06:51 PM

Don, that's a great article. The problem is in knowing which comes first. If the Democratic party gets a flood of recruits, who's to say it won't believe that it's already on the right track?

What I've been doing in answering each fundraising plea is to return it to them along with a letter in which I say that I will not donate another dollar to the Democratic party until it wakes up and goes back to being the party of the people, that right now it is 'Republican Light" and that is not what we need from them.

I even got a call from Washington DC headquarters regarding my letter; he said that I can't abandon the party when the stakes are so high. I said that I can, because the party is not thinking for itself...

So how do we get started?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 02 May 03 - 10:47 PM

To Don Firth:

The article in your second link "How To Take Back America" should be required reading for every American who thinks.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 02 May 03 - 10:51 PM

Sorry, hit the wrong button. The following are opinions only:

The reason that the far right Republicans were able to take over the country is because they were cohesive. The reason they were/are cohesive is because they only have one issue: what is good for them.

People on the left are far more diverse than people on the right -- they are concerned about a great number of issues, many of them involving others: poverty, civil rights, equality . . . you get the picture. Trouble is, that very diversity prevents the left from forming a cohesive group to challenge the right. They simply have too many areas of focus.

Two solutions: 1) both sides swing toward the center, like the US used to be. Probably impossible. 2) Somehow Democrats have got to unite in one aim, which is to rid the country of Bush. I think that would involve putting aside all other issues until this is accomplished. Probably improbable!

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 03 - 02:23 AM

pdc, exactly so.

And Ebbie, the trick is don't just donate money, but actively participate. Attend meetings, caucuses, speak out. Tell them to their faces firmly and often until they get it. You'll probably find that there are others there who agree with you and will back what you say. Sometimes it just takes one person. If this is important to you, be that person.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 03 May 03 - 04:37 AM

Geeze! I'm shocked! I thought all of you would grasp the significance of GWB's speech but I guess not. Oh well.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 03 - 08:44 AM

I'm curious DougR, as I didn't see the speech. What do think the significance of the speech was? I ask because the mainstream media is spinning this as the greatest 6 hour free commercial for the opening of a presidential election campaign of all time. A sitting president opening his election campaign for a second term doesn't seem to be particularly significant, as it happens every couple of years, on schedule, with much more fanfare than it deserves. The script to his speech was given to the media the day before, and there was nothing of substance in it.

But I don't watch TV news, especially not the cable networks, which I understand were the networks that carried the 6 hour photo op as "news" when what it amounted to was a Khadaffi-style show of military pomp and circumstance for international propaganda purposes, and to get that footage for the upcoming election campaign paid for by our tax dollars, here at home.

So I'm curious to hear what you think the significance of this was, as there was no major policy announcement. There was a lot of breastbeating, war whooping, and victory gloating. And a grown man dressed in jet fighter clothes looking ridiculous. I was embarrassed for him, when I saw him trying to get his footing on deck, idiotic childish grin on his face, with everyone around him looking tense and uncomfortable.

BTW, I saw that on the Daily Show, my regular source for American mainstream television news.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 03 - 11:54 AM

I had a bit of a realization this morning. It occurs to me that for most of US history, our goal has been democracy and freedom. And it is those principles that we have fought for and defended. I think somewhere along the line, the focus of the US shifted away from democracy and freedom. Now the principle the US is focusing on, its real goal, is power. And it is that principle that we are fighting for and defending, even at the expense of democracy and freedom. This celebration of our military might by Bush on the aircraft carrier being a small example of this. It reminds me of the mentality behind the Soviet Union's big display of military might in its May 1 parades.

With that in mind, I don't think it would matter which party was in control. I think the only thing that will shift this focus back to what is good for humanity rather than what is good for power, will be when the majority of people in the US see what is happening and they decide that it's not what they want for their country.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 03 - 12:32 PM

CarolC, I think the tension between democratic ideals and capitalist ideals is at the root of what you are talking about. But that tension has always existed in the US, from the coming of the steamboat, to the railroad, to the car, to the airplane to the missiles and satellites, in terms of the transportation revoution. Then there is the weapons revolution, from the muskets, to the cannons, to the modern era of war weaponry, to the more recent promotion of war weaponry as consumer goods. Combine that with the technological advances of the past 50 years in telecommunications, and the rules have definitely changed.

But you are right. That tension, today, definitely indicates that the ideology of capitalism is winning out, at the expense of democratic ideologies.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 03 - 01:26 PM

I watched and listened to the speech, Doug. Just what significance were you referring to?

All I saw was a very "Rah! Rah!" setting which should produce a lot of good footage for the 2004 campaign (stepping off the A-10 wearing a flight suit and removing his helmet to display his firm jaw and his hair blowing in the wind was an especially nice touch--considering the fact that when he had an opportunity to do it for real, he went AWOL). He spoke, as usual, in T-shirt messages and bumper-stickers. He didn't even say that the war was over; he said that the major fighting was over. The "significance" of this was that he was able to convey the appearance of a victory speech without actually declaring victory. Had he actually declared the war over, the Geneva Convention would have kicked in, and Bush doesn't want to have to deal right now with what that would obligate him to do. Once again, America First!   To hell with treaties, conventions, and International Law.

Just what, exactly, did you find that was of any significance beyond getting some good campaign footage?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 03 - 02:17 PM

Or was that an EA-6B Prowler? I didn't really get a good look at the aircraft. I guess I assumed it was an A-10 because, for some reason, I was thinking "warthog."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 May 03 - 02:35 PM

Last night at music someone said that it was reported that Bush flew the first jet (not the fighter jet) on part of the first leg of the journey. Does he have a pilot's license?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 03 - 02:43 PM

Legend has it he flew the plane.

In his dreams, maybe. I doubt even the president of the US is gonna be allowed to really take over the plane. They let him steer, while sitting on the pilot's lap, is my guess.

But hey, I don't expect they'll tell us if he barfed all over his shoes when the plan hit the carrier deck, either.

He is still just trying to make daddy proud, IMO. Remember, at least Papa Bush was a real pilot, didn't run away and go AWOL from the military, and didn't have to subject himself to the humiliations that Dubya has to in order to make himself look military.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 May 03 - 02:54 PM

They let him steer, while sitting on the pilot's lap, is my guess. Cute. LOL, Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 03 May 03 - 03:42 PM

Oh yeah. GW can fly. The bush family has quite a collection of planes, including the one Barry Seal (most famous of the CIA's dead drug runners) used to use. Seriously. The Bushes own about fifty planes...they are trillionaires and collect things like that. And one of GW's favorites is the plane the Family ended up with after Barry Seal was shot for knowing too much about the Bush Cocaine Cartel. That is an ancient, ancient bookmark I lost long ago, but a google search of Barry Seal Bush Plane should turn it up.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 03 May 03 - 03:49 PM

Here it is...the story I read so long ago. Back on my bookmarks to read again later, but I skipped to the end...I knew it was involved with the Bushes somehow:

Barry Seal's Plane

At the beginning of this article we outlined briefly how a tail number in Barry Seal's papers started this investigation. It actually began when author Terry Reed announced at a Los Angeles public gathering in July, 1999 that a video tape might surface during the 2000 Presidential campaign "showing George W and Jeb arriving at Tamiami Airport in 1985 to pick up two kilos of cocaine for a party. Said Reed, "They flew in on a King Air 200." Subsequent statements made by Barry Seal and recorded in Reed's 1995 book Compromised recount how Seal bragged about how he had video of "the Bush boys" doing coke. Other witnesses located by both writers of this story, who were in relevant official positions in 1985, have confirmed that the described Tamiami sting took place. All, in fear for their lives, have refused to go on the record.

Does George "W" use Zero-Eight-Foxtrot? According to Jerry Daniels, Executive Director of the Texas State Aircraft Pooling Board, "He used to fly on that airplane all the time. He stopped when he became a Presidential candidate because the State won't let you fly its aircraft for political purposes." But FTW learned that if and when Dubyah is back in the state and on state business, he probably will because Dubyah is a licensed pilot and Zero-Eight-Foxtrot is one of his favorites though he doesn't get to pilot much any more.

Said one savvy Pol of George W, "The last thing we need in this country is another President with lingering drug scandals in his past--and maybe present."

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 03 - 03:58 PM

Here is an interesting summation of Dubya's pilot experience:

http://www.seanet.com/~johnco/bush102.htm

It's one thing to claim you are a jet fighter pilot. It's another thing completely to fly the plane.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 04 May 03 - 01:00 PM

It was a significant blast off for the next election, of course! Latest polls show him leading all of the Democrat hopefuls by a SIGNIFICANT margin. I don't know if the polls took Ralph Nader into consideration though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 May 03 - 02:33 PM

Well, unless he starts another war (certainly a possibility), folks might start looking at the domestic mess, and then Mr. Bush could find himself in the soup without his galoshes. Diversion is the name of the game.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 03 - 02:49 PM

Diversion is the name of the game.

JtS and I watched the movie "Gladiator" yesterday evening. JtS said that where, in the Roman Empire, the diversion was "bread and circuses", now it's SUVs and TV.

"The people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things — bread and circuses."

--Juvenal (Roman satirist)

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 04 May 03 - 06:32 PM

Sure he leads the pack now. But, when the election comes around, most people vote their wallet.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 May 03 - 08:06 PM

That's right, Kendall. The news report I read said that many people polled expressed a lot of concern and disappointment in shrub when it came to the economy and other domestic issues.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 04 May 03 - 08:11 PM

Who do they poll anyway? They never call me, or anyone I know. Has anyone here been polled?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 May 03 - 08:38 PM

Nobody ever asked me. The only times I ever receive a political type phone call is when they want me to vote for a local levy of some kind. I have never been asked about my preferences in a national election. Who are these people anyway?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 04 May 03 - 09:12 PM

More figments of Bush's imagination?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: TIA
Date: 04 May 03 - 10:38 PM

Here's a question (for DougR I suppose since he started this thread, and seems to be the only personimpressed by the speech-

Clinton held up Air Force One for 20 minutes to get a haircut. Thug radio went apesh_t over the "abuse of power" and "waste of taxpayer money"...I think a special prosecutor even looked into it (using taxpayer money of course).

How is commandeering an aircraft carrier (fer crissakes) for six hours different?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 May 03 - 11:17 PM

Copmpletely and categorically different. It didn't involve a Clinton.
Also factor in standard Republican neo-fascist cognitive dissonance & selective memory. No problem. Works a treat.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 05 May 03 - 03:11 AM

I suppose, TIA, as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, the president can do just about anything he pleases. Clinton showed that, and the wait was considerably longer than fifteen or twenty minutes. The aircraft carrier was headed to San Diego anyway, so Bush didn't hinder it's getting there.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 05 May 03 - 06:56 AM

That hair cut story is just that. It came out later that it was not true. Just like the trashing of the government offices by outgoing Clinton peoplewas a lie by the republicans "dirty tricks dept."

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: TIA
Date: 05 May 03 - 08:50 AM

Even if actually true (see kendall's post above), it wasn't six hours was it? And are there more people on a carrier or a jet? So, which costs more thousands per minute to commandeer for essentially personal reasons?

Don't get me wrong, I was a Clinton opponent before he was elected Prez. My target is the incredible double standard in "reporting" aka scandal-mongering. No matter how hard I look for "biased liberal media elites", all I see is a propaganda machine. Remember John DiIulio's quote from inside the White House -

"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything -- and I mean everything -- being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

Old story, but quote proving out

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 May 03 - 11:31 AM

The Clinton "hair cut scandal", as kendall has said, has absolutely no basis in truth. The plane was on a side runway that was not used for regular traffic, and no planes were held up. The hair cut didn't cost $200. I saw the guy who did the haircut on TV. He said it cost under $100, but the news people who interviewed him only asked him how much his most expensive cut cost, and they published that figure instead of the actual amount that was charged.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 May 03 - 01:03 PM

What the hell is a "social entrepreneur"?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: TIA
Date: 05 May 03 - 01:17 PM

Never heard of one, but DogPile found this...
social entrepreneur

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 May 03 - 01:17 PM

No matter how hard I look for "biased liberal media elites", all I see is a propaganda machine.

Over ninety percent of the media is owned and controlled by five mega-corporations. When they want your opinion, they'll give it to you.

Who owns what.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 May 03 - 02:26 PM

Very interesting, TIA. So by that definition, Karl Marx was a "social entrepreneur".

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: TIA
Date: 05 May 03 - 03:35 PM

T'would seem so. So, apparently are these folks. Since my ignorance is on full display already, I must ask - where'd you come upon this phrase?


Historical Examples of Leading Social Entrepreneurs

Susan B. Anthony (U.S.) - Fought for Women's Rights in the United States, including the right to control property and helped spearhead adoption of the 19th amendment.

David Brower (U.S.) - Environmentalist and conservationist, he served as the Sierra Club's first executive director and built it into a worldwide network for environmental issues. He also founded Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters and The Earth Island Institute.
"Social entrepreneurs are not content just to give a fish, or teach how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the fishing industry."
    - Bill Drayton
Vinoba Bhave (India) - Founder and leader of the Land Gift Movement, he caused the redistribution of more than 7,000,000 acres of land to aid India's untouchables and landless. Mahatma Gandhi described him as his mentor

Frederick Law Olmstead (U.S.) - Creator of major urban parks, including Rock Creek Park in Washington DC and Central Park in NYC, he is generally considered to have developed the profession of landscape architecture in America

Mary Montessori (Italy) - Developed the Montessori approach to early childhood education

Gifford Pinchot (U.S.) - Champion of the forest as a multiple use environment, he helped found the Yale School of Forestry and created the U.S. Forest Service, serving as its first chief

Florence Nightingale (U.K.) - Founder of modern nursing, she established the first school for nurses and fought to improve hospital conditions

Margaret Sanger (U.S.) - Founder of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, she led the movement for family planning efforts around the world

John Muir (U.S.) - Naturalist and conservationist, he established the National Park System and helped found The Sierra Club.

Jean Monnet (France) - Responsible for the reconstruction and modernization of the French economy following World War II, including the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The ECSC and the European Common Market were Monnet's mechanisms to integrate Europe and were direct precursers of the European Union, which have shaped the course of European history and global international affairs.

John Woolman (U.S.) - Led U.S. Quakers to voluntarily emancipate all their slaves between 1758 and 1800, his work also influenced the British Society of Friends, a major force behind the British decision to ban slaveholding. Quakers, of course, became a major force in the U.S. abolitionist movement as well as a key part of the infrastructure of the Underground Railroad.

Some Present Day Social Entrepreneurs
Dr.Verghese Kurien (India) - Founder of the AMUL Dairy Project which has revolutionized the dairy industry through the production chain of milk, small producers, consumer products and health benefits

Bill Drayton (U.S) - Founded Ashoka, Youth Venture, and Get America Working!

Muhammad Yunus (Bangladesh) - Founder of microcredit and the Grameen Bank

Marian Wright Edelman (U.S.) - Founder and president of the Children's Defense Fund (CDF) and advocate for disadvantaged Americans and children

Ralph Nader (U.S.) - Fighting for consumer rights and working to increase citizen access to government

Michael Brown and Alan Khazie (U.S.) - Founders of City Year, a program to promote community service and civic participation among teenagers

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 May 03 - 03:59 PM

Since my ignorance is on full display already, I must ask - where'd you come upon this phrase?

I found it in this paragraph in the link you provided in your 05 May 03 - 08:50 AM post:

"Bush, in announcing his faith-based initiative the week after his inauguration, called DiIulio "one of the most influential social entrepreneurs in America" and said he "has a servant's heart on the issues that we will confront.""

Nice list, by the way, in your 05 May 03 - 03:35 PM post.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Rich(bodhránai gan ciall)
Date: 05 May 03 - 06:13 PM

I thought this was a bit of a stretch when a friend e-mailed this article to me, but with the Patriot acts I and II and the Homeland Security act (aka the repeals of the Bill of Rights), it sounds pretty close to an exact parellel except Bush would have "undesirables" (anyone not supporting his abuse of power) into jails instead of camps. A good day for Bush is the end of America as it was established by our forefathers.

Rich


When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History

by Thom Hartmann




The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.



It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)



But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.



Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.



"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.



Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.



Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.



To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.



Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)



Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.



Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.



His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.



Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.



He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.



His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.



To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.



But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.



With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.



It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.



In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."



To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.



A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.



As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.


February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."



Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.



We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.



Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: "fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."



Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.



Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.



To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.



Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: ard mhacha
Date: 06 May 03 - 06:26 AM

The US the most brain-washed country on earth, even the Iraqis had the good sense to realise their rifles were usless against tanks, so they wisely took the advice of oul Slattery and "ran away to fight another day".
And as for air cover they couldn`t put up a kite, the most sickening thing of this walkover was those US sailors shouting "showtime" as those brave US pilots dropped their cluster bombs on the civilians.
No wonder every right thinking person I talk to has nothing bur contempt for the present US government.
Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: TIA
Date: 06 May 03 - 10:00 AM

Along the lines of Rich's post above:


We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."


Gustave Gilbert
Intelligence Officer and Psychologist
Interviewing Hermann Goering
Nazi Luftwaffe Chief and Reichsmarshall
April 16, 1946, at Nuremburg
From Gilbert's book Nuremburg Diaries

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Sam L
Date: 06 May 03 - 10:10 AM

I don't know, Carol C, isn't it gilding the past a bit to say that most of U.S. history was about the goals of democracy and freedom? It's true. But a lot of other things were going on, were also true, at the same time, all along.

I really don't believe Bush can be re-elected, but I could be wrong--I didn't see the Oscars, which usually restores my pessimistic viewpoint. The shame is that the party system insures that R's run Bush instead of a better, more qualified conservative candidate.

Nader was the first person I thought of at the term Social Entrepreneur, but I admire him more as that, and couldn't vote for him as a candidate. He's a hero of mine, but has also made some serious mis-judgements about people. And I think it would be hard for him to be very effective even if he won. He's already too big an influence to be re-cast into the role of chief exec. It'd be like watching Robert Duval do a tv sit-com. I don't want to see it.

   Doug R, your posts are too short, I still don't know what you think was so significant, but then, oh well, I probably wouldn't understand it anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 06 May 03 - 11:31 AM

"Mayberry Machiavellis" -- LOL!! I think that is the best, succinct capsule description of this administration that I've ever seen. Great!

A comment on Bush's good day from an editorial in the New York Times of May 6th, 2003 here

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 06 May 03 - 03:19 PM

I don't know, Carol C, isn't it gilding the past a bit to say that most of U.S. history was about the goals of democracy and freedom? It's true. But a lot of other things were going on, were also true, at the same time, all along.

Yeah. But I think maybe what's changed is that we're more openly just about power and privelege now, whereas before, we at least thought we were fighting about ideals and principles of freedom and democracy. Or maybe I'm being too charitable.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 06 May 03 - 03:52 PM

Thank you Fred. I'm flattered. It is a rare occurance for anyone to be criticized for posting a message that was too brief. I'll take another stab at it.

The speech was significant because the major part of the fighting was pronounced to be over. It was significant because it was the first time that a Commander in Chief landed on an aircraft carrier to deliver a speech to U. S. Armed forces and the world. It was significant because it was the first time that a Commander in Chief piloted the plane for part of the journey from San Diego.

Now Fred, I don't believe for a minute that you agree with me, but I'm fairly confident you understand why I, at least, think it was significant.

And in typical Mudcat fashion, I used a minimum of four paragraphs to state my case!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Sam L
Date: 06 May 03 - 05:27 PM

Well, I might agree with you more than you think. True, I do quibble on a couple of points. It may be kinda cool that the Prez flew the plane--just like in that Harrison Ford movie!--I don't think it's very significant of anything, except that he's a pilot. It's cool that Lincoln had a patent, but, the invention was silly and didn't work.

But I'm as happy as anyone that the fighting seems to be over, and prefer not to be cynical about what good may come of it.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 06 May 03 - 06:12 PM

Hey DougR, we both know you're right, and we don't have to waste any number of paragraphs to explain why they are losing. Many are continuing to fight the obvious because if they didn't, they would have to admit they have been wrong for many years. But someday they going to have to explain it to their children. (Who, as children do, do not pick up all the prejudices fof their parents. I love this in my daughter, and she is more conservative in ways I never imagined possible).

They wonder at the intelligence of a President who could pilot a jet plane, and yet excuse one who lost every trace of his legacy over a blow-job. The men he has picked are the wonder of their age, with Rumsfeld making changes at the Pentagon never thought possible, and sacking a slow performing Secretary of the Army as soon as the war was effectively over (Quick! Name Clinton's SecDef). I could go on, but it might make them alter their position to comport with reality (kinda like Dean) and I prefer them just the way they are.

But hey ya gotta love 'em, they only make it easier the next time...

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Alba
Date: 06 May 03 - 06:59 PM

Clinton again!!!.Jeez guys let that go would ya.
Clinton screwed an Intern..
Bush is screwing a Country.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 06 May 03 - 07:52 PM

So, the shrub is the only president to fly a plane? His father was a REAL pilot. Hell, I once flew a plane that was already in the air!

Significant that he announced the major fighting over? Anyone with a TV knew that! You notice he didn't say the WAR was over...no, that would require him to release prisoners, and conform to the Geneva convention.
Doug, come on now, you know, and we know that it was nothing more than a sound bite for the coming election. There was nothing significant at all.
I still say, a draft dodger and an AWOL drunk has a nerve to prance around like Moussolini in a military uniform is a PHONEY!! Deep down, you know it too, but, he's YOUR phoney.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 06 May 03 - 08:55 PM

Are you, Guest Claymore, comparing the intelligence of Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, with G W Bush, who got "a gentleman's C"?

I don't like either of them, but come on!

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Peg
Date: 06 May 03 - 11:55 PM

Claymore the great American wrote:

"The men he has picked are the wonder of their age, with Rumsfeld making changes at the Pentagon never thought possible"

Jeez Louise, you can say that again...

when you're standing in the bread line in a couple of years, under the watch of armed mercenaries, maybe your words will come back to haunt you...

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 03 - 12:14 AM

The men he has picked are the wonder of their age, with Rumsfeld making changes at the Pentagon never thought possible

I would change that only slightly:

"with Rumsfeld making changes at the Pentagon never thought legal.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 07 May 03 - 12:22 AM

It doesn't take much intelligence to relish a blowjob. Any Intern will do! If you find a really willing one, well, that's probably icing on the cake!

Claymore: if you ever stand in the bread line, as Peg suggests you will do, I will be more than happy to flick you some crumbs from my loaf of French ...oops ...Italian bread.

Kendall: so are you REALLY sure you want him to release ALL the prisoners? Even in Maine they might figure out where you are! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 07 May 03 - 02:22 AM

Anyone who thinks Bush really piloted that plane is deluding himself. He was "co-piloting," which in this case means just sitting there. Even if he were fully competent and rated on the machine, which after his non-appearance for his year in the Air National Guard is highly unlikely, they would leave the flying to the pro. He is the president, and no matter how much he wants to look like a tough guy, he is shielded from danger at all times. So, no, DougR, that part's not significant.

Also, DougR, the issue is not just releasing but repatriating the prisoners. When he declares the war to be over, Bush has to send all POWs back to Iraq. Kendall won't be in any danger from them, because in case you missed the briefings, these are not Al Qaeda operatives but Iraqi soldiers! Once they're back in Iraq they will be under US Military rule for quite some time, anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 May 03 - 07:53 AM

Now THIS, on the other hand, IS significant:

Report: Pentagon Adviser in Seminar Flap

Associated Press
Last updated: 3:51 a.m., Wednesday, May 7, 2003

LOS ANGELES -- Pentagon adviser Richard Perle briefed an
investment seminar on ways to profit from conflicts in Iraq and North
Korea just weeks after he received a top-secret government briefing on
the crises in the two countries, the Los Angeles Times reported
Wednesday.

Perle, who until March was chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a
group of outside advisers to the Pentagon, also serves on the board of
several defense contractors. The revelation raises concerns about
conflicts of interest.

The Times reported that Perle attended a Defense Intelligence Agency
briefing in February and three weeks later participated in a Goldman
Sachs conference call in which he advised investors in a talk titled
"Implications of an Imminent War: Iraq Now. North Korea Next?"

Perle did not return phone calls or e-mails from the newspaper seeking
comment.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 07 May 03 - 10:33 AM

A couple of quick ones:

I have stood in a bread line, during Carters presidency when interest rates were up to 19% (anybody remember that?). It took Reagan to get us out of that "malaise" (remember that?).

I was refering to the only time Clinton claimed to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces; when he was trying to use the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act to claim immunity from his sexual escapades. This was many years after he falsely joined a National Guard unit, went to England on that Rhodes scholorship, and then denied joining (anybody remember that?)

And while it is a surety that Bush was "shadowed" as a pilot on his portion of the flight, he has over 400 landings in his flight record. He's not carrier qualified, but surely the only president (other than his father - who was carrier qualified) I know of who would have had a chance to put the plane down with some chance of success, were it necessary.

Finally, it is highly fitting that as the Commander in Chief, President Bush gets to put himself slightly at risk (carrier landings being the most dangerous of all) to greet his troops on their return home from a superbly executed military action. I'm sure that every man on that ship appreciated his gesture, and that the very men he sent into battle will vote en masse to elect him again. And I can't wait for the parade in Washington...

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Peg
Date: 07 May 03 - 01:13 PM

Claymore wrote:

"It took Reagan to get us out of that "malaise" (remember that?)."

Was that before or after he drove our national debt into the trillions? A debt that exceeded the TOTAL DEBT of ALL the presidents who had ever served prior to him!

Oh yes, I remember it well.

It has been said by political analysts that Reagan's first few years of economoic windfall were almost entirely dur to cost-caving measures implemented by Carter (many of them energy and utility related) that tok a bit of time to take effect. As for the obscene military build-up that put our debt into the trilions, wel that was all Ronnie's doing...mostly due to his "Star Wars" fantasy...

Clinton brought our federal deficit into the black again, and the economy positively boomed under him. Bush has driven it way, way into the red.

See a pattern here? I do.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 03 - 02:17 PM

Well . . . let 'em have Clinton's blow job. It's all they've got.

On the other hand, this Bechtel/Halliburton pork-fest is the Bush Administration's Watergate. What is needed are some investigative reporters like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein who have the cajones to run with it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 May 03 - 02:54 PM

Little boy george just wanted to see how it felt to be one of the big boys, at our expense:

The White House said today that President Bush traveled to the carrier Abraham Lincoln last week on a small plane because he wanted to experience a landing the way carrier pilots do, not because the ship would be too far out to sea for Mr. Bush to arrive by helicopter, as his spokesman had originally maintained.

Mr. Bush's arrival on the carrier, emerging from the four-seat jet in a full flight-suit with a helmet under his arm, is sure to be a defining image of his presidency and his re-election campaign.

But it brought criticism from Democrats who suggested it had been stage-managed. It also led to questions about the White House's assertion that Mr. Bush would fly in on a jet and make a dramatic landing because the carrier was expected to be hundreds of miles offshore at the time of his arrival, too far for a helicopter to fly.

Asked about the landing today, Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said the carrier was within helicopter range when Mr. Bush arrived on it, though he said he did not know precisely how far offshore the Lincoln was. He said the decision to fly in the S3B Viking jet rather than a helicopter was made by Mr. Bush.

"The president wanted to land on it, on an aircraft that would allow him to see an aircraft landing the same way that the pilots saw an aircraft landing," Mr. Fleischer said.

"He wanted to see it as realistically as possible," he added. "And that's why, once the initial decision was made to fly out on the Viking, even when a helicopter option became doable, the president decided instead he wanted to still take the Viking."

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Peg
Date: 07 May 03 - 03:16 PM

whoa, lots of typos in my last post! the one most worth correcting is "Cost-saving" not cost-caving...

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 07 May 03 - 03:29 PM

Last Updated on May 7, 2003, 9:39 PM (GMT+02:00)

Experts confirm truck handed over to US forces in northern Iraq is first biological-chemical weapons mobile lab discovered till now.

Saudi Arabia has foiled wave of terrorist attacks in kingdom, seized large cache of weapons and explosives. Interior ministry ran pictures of 19 wanted suspects over television, but provides no information on their organization or targets.

Last week, US advised Americans to avoid travel to Saudi Arabia because of terror concerns. DEBKAfile: US-Saudi intelligence cooperation against Islamic terrorism has stepped up since Iraq War

Former Iraqi Brig. Gen. Hosin Homamed al-Joubri who fought Americans in Gulf War is appointed Tikrit governor. His deputy is former Iraqi air force colonel Gaza Al-Nasere. Both signed statements renouncing loyalty to Baath and rejecting its claim to power

New York Times: A special US team seeking 7th century copy of Jewish Talmud underneath Iraqi intelligence command in Baghdad has found plans and maps for terror strikes against strategic Israeli targets based on detailed information from 1990s: a perfect mock-up of Knesset, official buildings in Jerusalem in fine detail, satellite pictures of nuclear complex and a female mannequin in Israeli Air Force uniform in front of Israeli officers' ranks and insignia

Search for ancient Talmud (collection of oral law interpreting Bible part of which known as Babylonian Talmud completed in 6th century) was carried out by US WMD hunter unit MET Alpha teamed up with Chalabi's Iraqi Congress

DEBKA-Net-Weekly Reports Exclusively: Bush administration plans to expose close relations between Chirac and Saddam and their families as revealed in secret Iraqi intelligence archives uncovered in Baghdad.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 07 May 03 - 04:35 PM

kat: "the Democrats are criticizing Bush for flying to the aircraft." It would be news if they DIDN'T criticize him. The Democrats are just upset that they don't have a similar opportunity. Sour grapes, I say.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 May 03 - 05:05 PM

Sour grapes, Doug? Naw...just the extra cost of satisfying the little boy getting in their craws. It's like the spoiled little brat going to FAO Schwartz and demanding the privilege of trying out the best of each toy, no matter the expense. It is unseemly when one considers the state of the economy and cost of the war.

Of course the GOP doesn't give a shit about the money spent, that's why they spent over $20 million investigating a blowjob they wished they'd all had. By the time LBG gets done we're all going to WISH a blowjob was all he'd done while in office.

Have you even noticed how he and his staff lie, then backtrack to cover it up? Open up your eyes, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Sam L
Date: 07 May 03 - 07:08 PM

Geez Loueeze. I don't care if he can fly a plane or not, I grant he can, or could, and that it would be wiser not to take any risks even so. What does it have to do with anything? Is it the Air Force One movie again?

Claymore, huh? I'd be much more interested in exactly what "they" are "wrong" about, and will have to explain to their children, if I knew who "they" were, and had any idea what on earth you are talking about. I wish people could get over the baw-game of politics, and say something more than They came to play! It's silly, stuff still matters, all around the world, who ever is in office here for a little while, or a little longer while.

    Or, yeah, we can wait for history to show that Republicans were "right" and Democrats were "wrong". Go ahead, hold your breath.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 08 May 03 - 02:59 AM

It's pretty well documented that Bush does not really have 400 landings under his belt. His records of his time in the Air National Guard were doctored because he NEVER SHOWED UP. His CO does not remember ever having met him, but remembers only that the governor's son (as he was at the time) was nominally under his command. So his flight record is irrelevant...

GUEST 03:29 PM, are you serious? Bush is going to try to show a connection between Chirac and Saddam Hussein?

Why on earth were they looking for an ancient Talmud?

And why is a set of wargame scenarios involving an obvious enemy (Israel) considered plans for "terror strikes?" When we conducted war games to prepare for possible wartime contingencies, were we "planning terror strikes against Iraq?"

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 08 May 03 - 04:33 AM

Thanks Don for your excellent link (Bechtel/Halliburton pork-fest) - it was extremely informative. The questions raised and answered in the correspondence linked in the chronology of the correspondence, however shows that this is clearly not, "..the Bush Administration's Watergate." - and as such, investigative reporters like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, would recognise that in an istant and would therefore have no inclination whatsoever, "...to run with it."

Generally regarding the Presidents flight to the carrier and associated costs/misuse of tax-payers money.

1. As correctly pointed out, the carrier was on passage to it's home port. COD flights are routine and very common under such circumstances, therefore costs minimal.

2. Timing and consideration for the crew. The President could have waited until the carrier docked - he didn't, because as Doug said he was to make a fairly important announcement regarding the ending of the open warfare phase of operations in Iraq, he wanted take the opportunity to thank the men and women of his country's armed forces in a personal way. To wait until the carrier docked would have meant holding back members of the crew from going on leave, and he wanted them to see he was making a personal effort to thank them personally, both would be extremely good for morale.

3. The choice of transportation - fixed wing or helicopter - given the choice, my option would have been fixed wing purely from safety reasons. To describe a helicopter flight as "do-able" greatly dimishes the high risk involved. No, I would far prefer the safety of a fixed wing aircraft, with it's speed and range to travelling in a helicopter to damn near the limit of it's range with no facility for diversion should anything go wrong. My preference is coloured by experience - I have done a fair amount of flying both fixed and rotary wing - I have never been in any incident fixed wing, but have experienced five, what the pilots involved termed as controlled hard landings in helicopters, having experienced them to me they were crash landings - but as we walked, or were carried, away from them, maybe technically speaking the pilots were right.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 May 03 - 06:59 PM

The choice of transportation - fixed wing or helicopter - given the choice, my option would have been fixed wing purely from safety reasons. To describe a helicopter flight as "do-able" greatly dimishes the high risk involved. No, I would far prefer the safety of a fixed wing aircraft, with it's speed and range to travelling in a helicopter to damn near the limit of it's range with no facility for diversion should anything go wrong. My preference is coloured by experience - I have done a fair amount of flying both fixed and rotary wing - I have never been in any incident fixed wing, but have experienced five, what the pilots involved termed as controlled hard landings in helicopters, having experienced them to me they were crash landings - but as we walked, or were carried, away from them, maybe technically speaking the pilots were right. Teribus, I believe they say that the riskiest landing is on a carrier where a jet comes at, quote: 350 knots and is brought to a standstill in 400 feet, enquote.

Not that Bush's safety keeps me awake at night... His stupidity may.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 03 - 07:37 PM

Dear Nerd. The WMD search teams are searching Iraq HQ sites. Since terrorism has, and will be, directed at Israel and the USA, it is not uncommon to link intelligence gatherings at non storage sites. Chirac probably knows there are French manufactured illegal military products supplied to Iraq. When evidence of such is made public, it will be very damaging to his political interference at the UN, and at home. The talmud should be returned to its rightfull place at the Museum.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Gareth
Date: 08 May 03 - 07:39 PM

Mmmm ! To modify the A-25 Song and drift this thread back to music.

" In the National Air Guard a landings OK,
If the pilot can get out and still walk a way,
But in the US Navy, the outlook is grim,
If you miss the flight deck, and you can not swim"

Sorry, not the exact words as per the DT, but a mod of the version I learn't from a ex (and surving) "Swordfish" Pilot.

Just a thought - Commander in Chief or not - no USN Pilot is going to permit GWB jnr to land on a flight deck - his instincts for self preservation will embargo that. Nether would the Carriers Captain.

On the other hand GWB Snr served as a carrier pilot in the Pacific, could this be an attempt by junior to emulate. I which case I would expect his election

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Gareth
Date: 08 May 03 - 08:01 PM

Sorry - Gross finger trouble.

Here is the full post.

Mmmm ! To modify the A-25 Song and drift this thread back to music.

" In the National Air Guard a landings OK,
If the pilot can get out and still walk a way,
But in the US Navy, the outlook is grim,
If you miss the flight deck, and you can not swim"

Sorry, not the exact words as per the DT, but a mod of the version I learn't from a ex (and surving) "Swordfish" Pilot.

Just a thought - Commander in Chief or not - no USN Pilot is going to permit GWB jnr to land on a flight deck - his instincts for self preservation will embargo that. Nether would the Carriers Captain.

On the other hand GWB Snr served as a carrier pilot in the Pacific, could this be an attempt by junior to emulate. In which case I would expect his election to be accompanied by the camera footage of GWB Snr ' Ditching ' his aircraft next to an Escorting Destroyer.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 03 - 08:27 PM

Cyril Tawney song from years ago... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 08 May 03 - 08:36 PM

The choice of transportation - fixed wing or helicopter - given the choice, my option would have been fixed wing purely from safety reasons. To describe a helicopter flight as "do-able" greatly dimishes the high risk involved.

President Bush travels by helicopter all the time. Pretty much whenever he goes from Washington to Camp David, or from Camp David to Washington, which is pretty often. I used to live right under the president's helicopter's flight path, and I could hear him coming and going. I used to be able to predict with fairly good accuracy when he was going to be at Camp David, just by listening to the helicopters.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 08 May 03 - 10:53 PM

I honestly think the problem with the photo-op on the carrier is not in the details -- what he wore, what he flew in on -- but in the essential, blatant phoniness of the whole thing. Other presidents have had phony photo-ops, but none quite as in-your-face as this one, in which he pretended to be something he's not, in front of the genuine article.

It's interesting how Bush handles phoniness: whether smirking, swaggering, strutting, posturing or whatever, he seems to be saying, "See how phony and theatrical I can be? What are you going to do about it?"

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 08 May 03 - 11:36 PM

BushWatch

Link to a local page...currently highlighting GW's illustrious career as a warrior. This is such ancient news to us. We had this turd for 6 years as Guv. The 'Headlines' link is updated daily...ALWAYS worth looking at. These folks are hard on Bush, though they stop a little short of proclaiming him the mass-murderer of 9-11 we all know him to be. During the most important flights of his life (of 4 hijacked airliners) GW was hiding behind human-shield children in a school in his brother's state of Florida.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 09 May 03 - 01:03 AM

Gareth: I'm a bit puzzled. Have you heard or read that GWB WANTED to land the plane on the aircraft carrier? I've certainly not heard anything close to that.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Gareth
Date: 09 May 03 - 06:49 AM

Doug - It is possible I might be wrong, the impression that I got from this thread, was that GWB jnr wanted to land on. I have little doubt that come time the "ledgend" will grow that he did "land on". Which could have been spectacular !!!! - and expensive. On the other hand - "President Chenney" ???!!!!

Guest - a minor correction. Cyril Tawney certainly collected and sang the A-25 song. I am happy in my own mind that this was, and still is in an updated version, sung by the Fleet Air Arm, and predates Cyril. But like the McColl / Hamish Henderson version of "D Day Dodgers" I believe this is an attempt to collect a genuine Folksong.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Gareth
Date: 09 May 03 - 08:52 AM

Hmmm ! - A belated thought should there be a modification of 'D-Day Dodgers' to take into account GWB's service in the National Gaurd ????

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 09 May 03 - 11:22 AM

Gareth: I'm a bit puzzled. Have you heard or read that GWB WANTED to land the plane on the aircraft carrier? I've certainly not heard anything close to that.

I'd be willing to bet the idea to have GWB "land" a fighter jet on the aircraft carrier came from Carl Rove.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 09 May 03 - 03:02 PM

Peg et al, if you go to the blue clickies posted by Nicole C in the thread "Bush national guard performance" (sic) and click the Washington Post article, and then read my response a little lower down, you will get some taste of a relatively unbiased view of Bush's pilot training and abilities, which will give lie to what you may have read on some rant sheet. It may piss you off, but he was an excellent pilot, and earned high regards from the other pilots. It does not give the number of his flights, but it was way more than 400, flying a single seater jet. And you guys are still wondering how he got where he is.

It's becoming more and more obvious to those who are willing to accept it, that he had the "right stuff" coming in...

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Sam L
Date: 09 May 03 - 03:49 PM

Claymore, again, I'll grant that GWB is the finest pilot that ever lived, if only you can explain to me why it matters at all. Conservative or liberal, to have such an generally yahooey, uncritical attitude as you seem to have, about ANY president, only serves to make for "opinions" that are of no real interest to anyone in any way whatsoever. It's like relying on advertising for news.

Why is it always so hard to hear what conservatives actually think? You'd like to hear someone's thoughts, all you get is a series of cheesy parade floats.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 09 May 03 - 03:50 PM

And you guys are still wondering how he got where he is.

;-)

We don't "wonder" how he got where he is. We know how he got where he is. Whether or not he merits the position his Daddy's influence and the money of the Republican political machine bought for him is another subject.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Sam L
Date: 09 May 03 - 10:22 PM

Claypone, and Edna,

Ah well, I tried. But I can't help laughing it off. The movie isn't Air Force One, but Catch Me If You Can, where a 17 year old kid impresses the impressionable by being a pilot. A good test of whether something that seems significant actually signifies anything may be whether a messed-up teenage kid can fake it. This is a thread that so far has added nothing to anything that anyone needs to give a flying anything about. Where's the significance in all this flying crap?

So--a sucker is born every minute. P.T. Barnum supposedly said that--anyway it's old news. The real story is the legitimate museum of John Banvard's, which P.T. Barnum managed to drive into absolute obscurity with his phoney cynical showmanship. Despite that Banvard's museum was air-conditioned, and Barnum ran a sweatshop full of ridiculous freak-show crap you had to pay to visit. Suckers. Go figure.

Go on with your Frank Abignale School of Significance, if that's what you understand. Pilots!--you damned idiots--gee! what did we do for Presidents before aviation? y'all are too goofed-up to talk to. You're smoking crack or something. There's never a leprechaun around when you need one.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 10 May 03 - 02:22 AM

DougR I've read a lot of your comments over the last few months. You are either baiting us, Two sandwiches short of a picnic or just plain sick like te people who dictate what goes on in your country.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 10 May 03 - 10:53 AM

Didn't someone say DougR is probably posting as part of the 30-cent per hour slave labor arrangement in the American penile system? Sounds right to me. Someone is feeding him his thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 10 May 03 - 12:42 PM

I must protest. Doug has a right to say what he thinks, it's just that he doesn't think.
Seriously, he has his own opinions, and, he keeps us on our toes. I tire of people who always agree with me...come to think of it, I also tire of those who don't.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Sam L
Date: 10 May 03 - 05:35 PM

I'd like to be kept on my toes, but I simply don't get it. it's so depressing!

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 10 May 03 - 07:59 PM

Hey Fred, Carol, I don't think I have been what you'd call "obtuse" about what I think about Bush. He has parsed the far right wing of the Republican Party away from any success at taking away a womans right to choose, and backed the assualt weapon ban. I think he's right on the tax issue, and was almost too late on Iraq. He has "charged the wire" on the mid-term elections, Afghanistan, and Iraq and has deservedly won big on all three issues. And when they were "calling the ball" on the Lincoln, every man and woman on that ship was prouder than hell. The West Virginia papers are reporting that Sen Byrds office has received mail and calls that are running 90% against his statements. I am clearly not alone.

And whether or not he "merits the position" (as though Gore's daddy and the Union money was any different) he has clearly "earned the position" since 9/11.

And I've never been accused of resorting to cheesy parade floats, however that phrase does evoke a memory of a little get-together at the White House, right after Clinton got impeached. Remember Gore calling Bill the "Greatest President Ever"? Talk about cheesy...

(Though I actually didn't hear Gore's comment, as I was still on my knees in the front yard screaming "Yes, Oh God, Yes" until Carol told me to go back inside).

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 10 May 03 - 08:23 PM

What makes you think I ever supported Gore, Claymore?

The truth is that I never have. But you knew that. In fact, you know that during the primary campaign I said I was considering re-registering as a Republican just so I could vote for John McCain in the Republican primaries.

If the only defence you have is an attack on a candidate I never even supported, you haven't got much of an argument.

For everyone else, here's an interesting article about the Bush administration's own little private intelligence gathering agency. It's a secret group and we're not supposed to know about it, so don't tell anybody.

Selective Intelligence ( -or- So that's what happened to the WMDs)

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 10 May 03 - 09:43 PM

Ahhhh, not to change the subject, C & C, (Claymore and Carol...), but has anyone pointed out the fact that Bush wasn't piloting the plane that landed on the aircraft? I mean, like thousands of such landings occured over the last two months without any (known to us) mishaps in landing on the thing! So, the media talks about it as if Bush had just accomplished something along the line of John Glenn's historic rocket shot. Give my boney butt a break! I mean, like they talked about how Bush had to to through all this training. Yeah right? (Opp's! Excuse me but I think I just saw the Easter Bunny in my garden...)

Now here what I'd really like from Junior "John Glenn" Bush. Yeah, I'd like to see him try to land on an aircraft carrier piloting a real F-16. Not a Piper Cub with a stall speed of 52 knots. Yeah, I think that would be a hoot. They could set up camreas on boats around the aircraft carrier and have helecopters with cameras and an onboard camera! Yeah, they could have all kinds of recruitment commercials leading up to Junior "World's Best Pilot" Bush's attempt to land on the aircraft carrier. They could start the coverage a couple days before hand and sell so many of commercials that the economy would get strightened out. Yeah, now that would be cool. I know that he's not allowed to fly military planes because of that little AWOL thing butl, hey, he ain't 'sposed to be president either, and they let him do that, didn't they?

Yeah, I'm gonna go write my congressman and see if we can't this thing rolling. Heck, it will do alot more than stealing a bunch more of my money to give to Boss Hog. And it will be enetertaining. Ahhh, for all with the exception of Junior Bush and a few of his friends. Ahhh, since hearin' about my proposal, Vegas has it 73-1 that Junior crashes the plane. Danged, perfectly good waste of an airplane...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 10 May 03 - 10:23 PM

Bobert, the reports were that he piloted the plane during the flight but not the landing. Even then I indicated "waaaaay back up thar" that he was being shadowed (ie another pilot near the controls, if not on the second yoke). And I encourage you to write Marse Bob as it may be the only good letter he received this week...

And Carol, I knew you were looking at McCain. My point was that both candidates were born of political dynasties, like the Kennedys et al. a fact that you, in all fairness, failed to mention. And did you get to read the Washington Post article I mentioned above? I knew long ago that flying jet fighters on the "ready line" meant that Bush was a hell of lot smarter than the Dems gave him credit for.

And as for McCain, you do realize that McCain-Feingold (as it has currently been construed by the Appeals Court) will hurt the Dems more than the Repubs. No Union (or Company) soft money and the Repubs have plenty of people who will individually plop down $2,000 to see their man in office. God bless that man...

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 10 May 03 - 10:31 PM

I don't want to be a part of this debate. I just wanted to correct this misstatement of yours, "you guys are still wondering how he got where he is".

We are not wondering, nor have we ever wondered how he got where he is. We know exactly how he got where he is. The reason I said that whether or not he merits the position is another subject, but didn't give an opinion about it, is because I don't want to be a part of that debate.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Sam L
Date: 10 May 03 - 11:28 PM

Claymore--forgive "Claypone and Edna"--they are imaginary children from a play, and when I feel I'm talking to myself I fall into private humor. Anyway, I liked Dole against Clinton, but not Bush Sr. against Clinton, though I was not too sure about Clinton from the start. I'm not at all sure Bush has been wrong, yet, in the Iraq war, although aspects of his judgement worry me quite a hole heck of a bit. I hope it all makes good over there, even if he gets credit for every inch of it.

It seems to me you want some party-line ping-pong, and I don't care to play. I don't care who flew the plane, it means nothing to me, no more than that John Travolta is a pilot, and played a character based on Clinton and so, um, back to nothing again. I don't care to have politicians for heros. They have a serious job, and so do we, in the theory. People who are favored here are supposed to give back, and should not expect a royal butt-kissing for doing it as best they can.

   Ahem. Four score, and all that. The world will little care nor long rememder what we... um, uh, did I mention I flew the friggin' PLANE?

Jeesus. A better choice would be to direct attention to the soldiers, kinda like how they express admiration for their leadership--that's large character. The other isn't. Anyway, I don't keep score during the half-time show.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 10 May 03 - 11:54 PM

Ummmm, Fred. Just IMO, but John Travolta is a lot more pilot that Junior Bush. Flyin' planes can be done by anyone here in the Catworld. Landin' 'em is another story. A few years back. John Travolta had his instruments go out near Washington D.C. and landed his plane in weather! Bush would have been nuthin' more than another FAA statistic.... Guarenteed!

Like I say, I', waitin' fir him to announce that he is gonna *actually* land a real plane on the deck of an aircraft carrier! But don't h9old yer breath awaitin'....

Ahhh, Dole over Clinton? That's a no brainer... Heck, I'd have taken Charles Manson over Clinton, thank you...

Now as fir the current idiot/puppet there are few. past or present, that I'd pick Bush over?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 11 May 03 - 12:39 AM

Actually I don't care for the "party ping pong" either, but perhaps in a high state of dudgeon (is there ever a low state of -----? nevermind) I feel it necessary to point out a certain lack of balance on the issues. I'm certainly all for the focus on the troops (I have a former step-son over with the 3rd ID) and I have pointed out several times above, the pride the sailors must have felt, with that plane inbound.

But I swear to God, that the comments about Bush being an idiot are made by idiots who seem to have bypassed the Parential Controls program on their computer. Even those I try to ignore, but when, by extention, they state that those who happen to agree with the current state of affairs (some 70% of the Nation) are also idiots, it's time to come off the porch and chew some twit bits.

And Carol knows that while I have often disagreed with her positions, she presents them gracefully and with due merit. More often than not, in her case, we are simply sorting out the positions, and not the personalities.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Metchosin
Date: 11 May 03 - 12:41 AM

Thanks for the link CarolC, the more I've read about this crap over the last few months, the more it resembles The Tailor of Panama. And the more it seems as if John le CarrŽ was the fly on the wall.*BG*

It also seems to me that the biggest sucker for bogus conspiracy theories is not Dreaded Guest, but Wolfowitz , Rumsfeld and Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 11 May 03 - 09:26 AM

Okay, Claymore. I was givin' Bush the benefit of the doubt by callin' him an "idiot". That would at least give him an excuse for the wrecklessness of his policies, home and abroad.

How about: dishonest, sneeky, kaniving, whining, bullying, nasty, hypocritc and anti-human? But *not* idiotic! There, the wrap is off. I won't refer to this guy as a moron or idiot again. He's gonna just have to stand in there and with no shield.

BTW, we're havin' a blues coffeehouse at Leesburg Restuarnt next Friday (the 16th) and if ya' can make it, it would be good to see you.

BTW, Part B, the above adjectives I used on Bush are the same list that I use on Clinton...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 11 May 03 - 12:05 PM

Apparently, I'm in the minority again. I e mailed Sen. Byrd, and told him that he was right in blasting Bush. The man is a phoney.
Now, as for polls, CNN conducted a poll and 61% said he was right, and 39% said he was wrong. So, who's poll do you believe, and why?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 11 May 03 - 12:36 PM

I just heard a quote of Senator Byrd's statement. While I've never been a fan of Byrd, I agree with his statement. As my first post to this thread shows, there are military families who agree with Byrd as well.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 11 May 03 - 03:51 PM

Kendall;

Sorry, but which statement are you referring to by my couragous senator? Maybe I've missed one. Yeah, considering Byrd's past, he has really stepped up to the plate here recently and I'm proud of him.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 12 May 03 - 06:01 AM

Byrd made a statement on tv that Bush was grand standing. Using the aircraft carrier to make campaign spots. Seeing through that doesn't take more than a teaspoon full of brains.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: gnu
Date: 12 May 03 - 07:05 AM

Speaking of "a teaspoon full of brains", I saw a comedian a few days ago who said that Byrd, in his late twenties, was a member of the KKK. Any truth to that ?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 12 May 03 - 08:31 AM

Apparently true, but, back then I was a republican. People do wise up!

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 12 May 03 - 09:50 AM

Yes gnu, he was, as were most southern politicians during the twenties and thirties. He has since appologized numerous times and actually has a good record on civil rights, receiving a majority of black votes, as do most Democrats.

I think we have a case of people finding which polls you want to believe. The local paper polled the veterans at our local VA hospital and reported, that literally no one agreed with Byrd out of some thirty asked.

In addition, on the Sunday talk shows, dispite the ritualistic denials from the designated liberals, the common concensus for the Captiol Gang, McLaughlin et al, Meet the Press and Weekend in Review, was that the Dems have vastly overstepped their bounds on this one, and that they are only making their situation worse.

So keep those cards and letters coming, so that good video footage gets shown time and time again...

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 May 03 - 12:10 PM

Another "good day" for Bush coming up:

More manufactured respect

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: TIA
Date: 12 May 03 - 01:11 PM

pdc;

I can't get to the link...what's it about?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 12 May 03 - 01:34 PM

I don't know what the problem is, Tia -- I clicked on it, no problem. But I'll post a new link below; hope it works.

Bush is giving a speech at a manufacturing plant today, and the plant will close while he does so. Workers will lose either a day's pay, or part of a day's pay, and they are upset about it, I believe rightfully so.

Here's the new link:

AnotherBushSpeech

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 12 May 03 - 03:21 PM

One thing that has not been touched on this thread, by the way, is that Bush appearing in uniform in a military situation was not a brilliant new marketing idea from Rove et al, it was a successful attempt at flouting an important US political and military tradition: the president does not appear in this manner.

The president's role as commander-in-chief of the military was established so that the civilian elected government would always be in control of the military, not so that we have a country run by a military commander. In other words, the president must be a civilian who by rule of law is commander in chief, not a serving soldier who is running the country by force of arms. To maintain this important distinction, presidents traditionally avoid affecting the trappings of military rank, even if they are entitled to those trappings.   Even Eisenhower did not appear in uniform once elected president. For Bush to do this would have been considered OUTRAGEOUS even a few years ago. When Dukakis appeared in a helmet driving a tank during his campaign he was drubbed by both the GOP and the press, despite the fact that he had served in the army. When Bush does the same thing in a plane, despite the fact of his weaselly military record, HE gets a big wet one from the press.

Funny old world!

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 12 May 03 - 03:30 PM

sure, the "Liberal" press.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Gareth
Date: 12 May 03 - 07:42 PM

D Day Dodgers reprised - With appologies to the veterans of the 6th Army

We're the Viet Nam Dodgers, safe in the USA
Always on the coccain, always on the spree;
National Gaurd scroungers, not serving in the ranks,
We live at home, among the Yanks.
We are the Viet Nam Dodgers, here so safely;(2X)

We served our time in Texas, a holiday with pay,
The State brought the bands out to greet us on the way.
Showed us the sights and gave us tea,
We all sang songs, the beer was free
To welcome Viet Nam Dodgers at home in safety.

The bars and the night clubs were taken in our stride,
We didn't go to fight there, we went just for the ride.
The Highlands and the Delta were just names,
We only went to look for dames
The artful Viet Nam Dodgers, back home im safety.

Dear George Junior, you think you're mighty hot,
Standing on the "Lincoln", talking tommyrot.
You're America's bravest and her pride
We think your mouth's too bleeding wide.
You were a Viet Dodger, at home in safety.

(spoken slowley and softly)

Look around the Congress, in Washington so plain,
You'll find the ruling classes, Chicken Hawks by name.
The conscripts went, to fight your fight,
Your service will not be exposed to light
But you were the Viet Nam Dodgers who lived in luxury.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 13 May 03 - 02:33 AM

Claymore:

Clinton never claimed to be covered under the "Soldiers
and Sailors Relief Act". It's a fact. You can look it up
(the briefs are publicly available). The claim that he
did is simply another RW mischaracterisation (if not
outright lie).

Others have responded to your other rubbish. But to
the True Believer. . . .

Cheers,

                                 -- Arne Langsetmo

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 03 - 05:49 AM

Nerd,

The President flew out to the carrier in an unadapted military aircraft (Viking anti-submarine/EW countermeasures aircraft).

Something you may, or may not be, aware of - ANYONE flying in such an aircraft would be required by regulations to wear the appropriate flying clothing - that is done solely for reasons of safety - nothing else.

Gareth,

A good song, totally butchered. During the Vietnam era America's armed forces were conscipt services, that has not been the case now for quite a few years.

Options opened to those about to conscripted at the time:
Regular forces - conscription lasted 2 years
U.S. Coast Guard - period was 4 years
National Guard - period as discussed throughout this thread appears to have been 6 years

Service in both National Guard and Coast Guard could have resulted in limited periods of service in Vietnam.

As the President did serve in the National Guard, during the term of his service he would be subject to military discipline - how and where he spent his time would be subject to the approval of his senior officers, it would not have been left entirely up to him. As none of them appeared to have had any complaints at that time, for them to come out of the wood-work now to snipe at the man, seems somewhat petty and only serves to condemn themselves when it should be remembered that they were the ones in command - a duty they seem to have been extremely lax/incompetent/negligent in exercising.

The extent of the Presidents flying skills apart. The fact still remains that GWB was cleared to fly super-sonic, all-weather interceptor, fighter aircraft - and for that he certainly has my respect, knowing what I know about the subject. Not even the man's most vociferous detractors, can seriously believe that U.S. Air Force would entrust the responsibility of flying such an aircraft, fully fuelled and fully armed, to someone who was, in their opinion adjudged to be incompetent/incapable/irresponsible.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 May 03 - 08:01 AM

As the President did serve in the National Guard...etc.

Complete crap, as usual. Your boy was AWOL from the guard long enough to qualify as a deserter. Shame he didn't do it in a war zone- they could have executed him, as he deserved.

It is AMAZING the lengths the apologists for this spoiled brat will go to attempt to cast his unsavory history in a positive light.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 13 May 03 - 08:21 AM

Discipline only applies to people whose father doesn't own Texas.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 03 - 08:38 AM

kendall - Why not put that point to those who command the U.S. Armed Forces - I do not think that they would support your viewpoint, irrespective of how dearly you appear to adhere to it.

GregF,

You are the one that is talking crap. If, as you say, he was:

"...AWOL from the guard long enough to qualify as a deserter."

How is it that not one single one of his commanding officers ever reported his absense? Could it possibly be that they knew of it and had granted the required permission for it?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 03 - 10:15 AM

His commanding officers never reported on GWBush, period. They couldn't evaluate him because he never showed up for duty. His last year of service. In Alabama. During the election, an Alabama reserve group offered a $1,000 reward for any proof Bush ever spent time there...any record at all of service. No one could collect the reward. He missed his last physical, which would have required a drug test. Yet there are records of him flying at that time and at the time of his DUI arrest. A thousand men applied for the slot Bush was given. He was one out of a thousand. Most of the others went to Viet Nam.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 13 May 03 - 11:51 AM

Right, Bush's last year was in Alabama. He also served in the Texas guard. Rememeber, his father was already a Texas Congressman and a decorated WWII flyer. That's why in Texas no one ever complained; they knew damn well who he was and may even have received oral orders from the Governor. In Alabama, GWB simply never showed up. The reason he went to Alabama at all was to work on a Senator's campaign, so they may have had orders to cut him slack, too. But they never actually gave permission, because he never even showed up for 17 months. If complaints were sent anywhere, why, they'd go to the Texas Guard and the good ol' Governor of Texas. Neat, huh?

Teribus, your statement that Bush wearing a flight suit was a matter of regulations is absurd. It was against regulations for a civilian to fly the plane at all. What you're saying is he can break some regulatons in order to appear in military trappings, but has to observe others as long as they put him in military trappings.

He is the Commander in Chief and if he wants to he can break the regulations. But the point is he shouldn't, and other American presidents who were far more entitled to military honors and the trappings of distinguished military service (think Grant and Eisenhower) eschewed them for the sake of old decency, as they used to say. Bush has no sense of decency in these matters.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Gareth
Date: 13 May 03 - 02:52 PM

Terribus

- about the only thing I would agree with in your post of 05:49 on the 13th is yor criticism of my song writing efforts.

However, the question of George Juniors military service at the time of the Viet Nam war is relavent.

I have no difficulty with the accident of history making him Commander in Chief, I have no difficult with the fact that he appears to have used influence to find a safe billet.

I do have difficulty with a person of this nature using military glory to which he is not entitled to, for sordid political ends.

That view point is one I hold no matter which politician uses it.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 03 - 05:56 AM

Nerd,

"Bush's last year was in Alabama......... In Alabama, GWB simply never showed up. The reason he went to Alabama at all was to work on a Senator's campaign, so they may have had orders to cut him slack, too."

Another reason Nerd, could be something to do with the type of aircraft flown by the ANG Squadrons in Alabama at that time. In all between the years 1960 and 1977, 23 Fighter Interceptor Squadrons of the US ANG were equipped with F-102A, Delta Daggers - not one of them was ever based in Alabama. By 1972, only 11 ANG Squadrons were flying F-102A's. The last ANG unit to fly F-102A's was the 199th FIS in Hawaii, which flew the type from 1960 until 1977 when they converted to F-4C's (Phantoms). It is of interest to note that that transition started in 1976 - so it took one year for the unit to convert.

So in the period that GWB was assigned to his ANG unit in Alabama (1972-1973), GWB did not need to pass a flying medical (they did not fly the aircraft type he was operational on) and for him to convert would have meant that he would have gone operational just in time for him to be demobilised (Not a very good allocation of resources) - he was in effect "passed-over".

"But they never actually gave permission, because he never even showed up for 17 months."

His (GWB's) suspension from flying duties due to the absense of a flying medical is a matter of record, along with a number of other ANG pilots.

"If complaints were sent anywhere, why, they'd go to the Texas Guard and the good ol' Governor of Texas. Neat, huh?"

No they wouldn't, such complaints would go to the U.S. Air Force - The Governor of Texas, while he can call on the services of the National Guard, does not feature in their military command structure.

"Teribus, your statement that Bush wearing a flight suit was a matter of regulations is absurd."

Really? On what hard, factual, knowledge is that statement made? I made the statement based on personal knowledge and experience, from flying in military aircraft belonging to Fleet Air Arm, Royal Air Force and USN.

Rules are:
1. Indemnity Form signed
2. Basic medical to confirm that the flight will not kill you due to your current state of health.
3. If fitted with an ejector seat you will be given instruction on how to use it and how to jettison the seat if the automatic seat release does not work after you have left the aircraft. You are also given instruction on how to manually activate primary and reserve parachutes.
4. Basic cockpit drill for the type of aircraft you are going to fly in - i.e. what not to touch or play with.
5. You are then fitted out with ear-phones, flying helmet, flying boots, flying gloves and flying suit. Because the last thing the pilot wants rattling round the cockpit of his aircraft, if things start going "pear-shaped", are the contents of his passengers pockets and any other mundungus that he, or she, may have about them.
6. You then go out to the aircraft and walk round it with the pilot as he does his visual checks and signs the aircraft out.
7. You are then assisted into the cockpit and strapped in by a member of the ground crew, so that, at least, when you leave people are satisfied that everything was as it should be (they even tell you where to put your hands and feet during take-off).
8. The pilot will then test the function and extent of movement on his flight controls to make sure you as passenger are not in a position to interfere with them.

"It was against regulations for a civilian to fly the plane at all."

Where on earth did you get the idea that GWB was piloting the aircraft? He may have handled the controls of the aircraft during the flight out - but that does not mean he was flying the aircraft. The length of the list of civilians who have done likewise would stagger you - it's part of the fun of the trip - "joy-rides" are part of Squadron life, open to all, the most memorable I can recollect was Air Weapons Armourer's grand-mother - she thought it was a blast, said it made her year.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Sam L
Date: 14 May 03 - 10:22 AM

The question remains whether the AWA's grandmother's joy-ride was "significant" in the way people seem to think Bush's was. It's plain silly, and detracted from rather than enhanced the import of the occasion. It wasn't a great idea. It's a big fuss over an ill-considered bit of nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 03 - 10:36 AM

The media spin was that he flew the plane, same as the media impression created was that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. The White House controlling the govt-owned media. And Bush's commanding officers stated in writing at the time and later during the 2000 campaign they never saw him on base in Alabama. The couldn't give him a review because they never saw him. Technically, he deserted.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 14 May 03 - 05:44 PM

Absolute bullshit Guest. Knowing that you appear to be massively ignorant about the UCMJ, I will not dignify your stupidity with a technical answer, but if you had an ounce of dignity you might want to refer to the Washington Post article I have noted several times above. If you are so knowledgable, perhaps you can explain when and how a UA is converted to AWOL (this is a test, and only a test...).

And twice I actually rode in one of those F something jets (out to a carrier and back to Okinawa). A couple of things Teribus politely avoids mentioning is that when the catapult throws you down the deck (and you are doing your best to keep your hands together, and not touch any of those "dohickeys") the force stuffs your balls so far up your throat, you're going to have to open your mouth just to pee. But not to worry 'cause when you land and hook a line, the force causes your dick and your tongue to smack into the seatback of the pilot in front of you. I bet you thought that hoseline Bush was carrying off the plane was an air mask line... but it only lasts for a short time...

As for the Commanding Officers not seeing Bush, the twits in this crowd don't understand that since the COs are are full-time, with weekends off, while the Obligors are flying on the weekends, it was rare for the CO to see any of the reservists. And after reading the Post article, you might have to digest the FACT that his fellow pilots thought he was an excellent officer and pilot.

Now I was just a ground-pounding Marine Officer in Viet Nam, drafted out of college and commissioned from the ranks, so I do not have finisse and polish inherent in Teribus's British service, but when your urge to commit stupidity in public, overwhelms your innate sense of self-imposed ignorance, put a sock in it.

And Arne, I'm sorry you are wrong, Clintons lawyer, David Kendall, cited the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act in their brief to the Supreme Court, when they were urging it to set aside the Paula Jones lawsuit, until the end of his Presidency, or as they put it, his "Tour of Duty" (in the White House).

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 14 May 03 - 06:36 PM

Teribus,

So you're saying that Bush never reported for duty because (and I quote:

"In all between the years 1960 and 1977, 23 Fighter Interceptor Squadrons of the US ANG were equipped with F-102A, Delta Daggers - not one of them was ever based in Alabama. By 1972, only 11 ANG Squadrons were flying F-102A's. The last ANG unit to fly F-102A's was the 199th FIS in Hawaii, which flew the type from 1960 until 1977 when they converted to F-4C's (Phantoms)."

Huh? Your long and irrelevant catalog of planes does not change the fact that his nobody in the Alabama unit remembers ever seeing him after he was ordered to report. They have offered cash rewards to anyone who can prove he was there, and nobody came forward. During his years in Texas, other pilots thought he was good, I grant you. After his transfer to Alabama, not one person can remember either seeing him report for duty or excusing him from reporting for duty.

Why can't any of Bush's supporters ever admit that this is wrong? If you were ordered to report and never showed up, do you think the explanation would be "they didn't have this kind of plane, and blah, blah, blah?" Or "when does a UA become an AWOL?" Would such minutiae protect you or me? He didn't show up! Any one of us would have been disciplined, and he never was.

The hard, factual knowledge I base my other statement on is the fact that Bush is commander in chief of the military and there is no one to enforce a safety regulation upon him. Your specific knowledge of the regulations is once again irrelevant, because they do not apply to him if he wishes to break them. I do not think that Bush was flying the aircraft--but this is what many of his supporters on this list believe. (see my posting of 07 May 03 - 02:22 AM). My point was, he was given this ride because he ordered it, not because ordinary civilians can ride a jet to a carrier anytime they like. Thus to say, "They let him ride the aircraft, but forced him to wear the flight suit" is ridiculous. He could have done it any way he wanted because he is the commander in chief--remember?

I think it's obvious to everybody, even his supporters, that the whole affair was staged by him and his handlers, partly to make him look like a commanding military figure. You may think this was a good idea, but as I have argued it contravenes two hundred years of our presidential and military traditions. The minutiae of regulations and aircraft are irrelevant to this fact. He has crossed a significant line by doing this, one that I think should not have been crossed.

My point in this was that DougR and others were suggesting that "It was significant because it was the first time that a Commander in Chief landed on an aircraft carrier to deliver a speech to U. S. Armed forces and the world. It was significant because it was the first time that a Commander in Chief piloted the plane for part of the journey from San Diego." (By the way, Teribus, thanks for confirming that this part about Bush piloting the plane was bullshit.)

I say, "significant, yes. Another significant step toward eroding the practices and policies that separate us from countries ruled by military Juntas." Sorry, I'm not as excited as DougR and Teribus about such a prospect!

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Gareth
Date: 14 May 03 - 07:12 PM

Sorry Nerd - I am not one of the gut reaction fools which seem to think that anything Bush does is wrong.

But - Terribus is correct when he says that Bush had to wear a flight suit, and survival gear.

Where I will agree with the anti-Bush caucus is that it is distatefull to see one who's military "career" is, at best and most charitable, "undistiguished" and who seems to have his career both inside and outside the National Gaurd, protected, trying to claim heroic deads for himself.

Does anyone remember the "S & L" financial accusations ?

Now as C-in-C Bush had a duty to welcome home those servicemen who put thier lives at risk, no problem there. But to project himself as a "top gun" ??? I am afraid this type of behaviour, wether it be from Bush Jnr or others, leaves a very nasty taste in my mouth, and cheapens the sacrifice of those who did put thier lives on the line.

WE have seen it on this side of the pond - and it don't go down to well. Ask Lord Heseltine, or that Bloody Woman.

BTW When the news was shown on the 'Box' in the UK I was in the "Royal Oak" Ystrad Mynach. Comments included this from Ex Flight Sergent Frank Price DFM( in his 80's but still compos mentis ) who survived 30 ops in Lancasters. " Christ! They were never that keen to see us when we got back"

Former Flight Seargent Simon Finch ex Winchman RAF SAR crew " Landing on a carrier, big deal !!"

Just my two cents worth.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 03 - 09:06 PM

I read the Post article. It says that GW recieved an early discharge eight months before his six year committment was up. The missing time people are saying that he went AWOL 17 to 18 months before his six years were up. So there still seems to be about 10 months of missing time, even taking the early discharge into account. Here's the relevant quote from the Post article:

To start at Harvard, Bush needed early release from Guard duty in Texas, and he got it easily, about eight months short of a full six years. A Bush spokesman, Dan Bartlett, said early departures were quite common and, in Bush's case, appropriate because his unit had phased out the F-102s. Bush was transferred to a reserve unit in Boston for the rest of his time, Bartlett noted.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 03 - 06:41 AM

Nerd,

You seem to automatically assume that if someone in the military is ordered to report, that that specifically means turning up in person, in uniform, and presenting yourself in front of someone in an appointed place at an appointed time. Normally that is the case, but it need not necessarily be the case (Example: There were times, while moving from one appointment to another, or while on various courses, or on detatched service, I was ordered to report, either to RNO, Naval Attache at a British Consulate or Embassy, Area GOC - many, many times all that involved was a phone call, letting them, or, more often, someone on their staff know I was there, where they could find me and when I would be leaving - on occasion it would be true to say that those people could swear on a stack of bibles that they had never seen me - they didn't have to, it was not required, but I had reported and unless they saw the need to record it somewhere, there would be no record of my having done so).

The case in point - he was given permission to assist with an election campaign in Alabama - he was transfered to an ANG unit in that state, originally to a reserve unit but the Air Force changed that to assign him to a more active unit. Now the "long list of aircraft" you refer to, was relevant in that, it clearly shows that as an F-102A pilot without a current flying medical, more active unit or not, in Alabama, there was no function that required his physical presence - what was he going to do? Duty Operations Officer (Air) - not qualified; Air Direction Officer - not qualified; Duty Orderly Officer - they don't normally give trained and qualified pilots that duty. The other point of relevance of that long list of aircraft was that it illustrated the time it takes to cross-train a pilot to another type of aircraft - in this particular case it would have been a complete and utter waste of time and resources to cross-train a pilot with such little time left to serve.

I am not making any comment, regarding the rights or wrongs, of the Presidents ANG Service - all I am commenting on is that I, from personal experience, can see perfectly reasonable and rational explanations for the situation as presented. ALL serving military personnel are subject to military discipline, irrespective of rank, so my comment in response to;

"He didn't show up! Any one of us would have been disciplined, and he never was."

is, Yes he never was disciplined and that could only be because his commanding officers were fully aware of his whereabouts and that his absense was sanctioned.

Your assertion, which you believe to be fact, "... that Bush is commander in chief of the military and there is no one to enforce a safety regulation upon him." - is totally incorrect, and displays a remarkable degree of ignorance in relation to how military codes of conduct and regulations apply - the Commander-in-Chief cannot do just what ever he wants, if that were the case, total chaos would result.

As to, "....specific knowledge of the regulations" being, "...irrelevant," This only strengthens my belief that you subscribe to the vehemently anti-Bush lobby, who for whatever reason refuse to let facts cloud any issue relating to the man. My specific knowledge in this particular case means that I do know what I am talking about, whereas you patently do not.

"..he was given this ride because he ordered it," - I believe it would be more accurate to say he requested it (his prerogative as Commander-in-Chief), those responsible for the Presidents safety evaluated that request and agreed to it, he was then offered alternative means of transport, his choice was totally understandable (Given that choice which would you have chosen?).

"Thus to say, "They let him ride the aircraft, but forced him to wear the flight suit" is ridiculous." - not ridiculous just regulations.

"He could have done it any way he wanted because he is the commander in chief.." - No he couldn't regulations apply irrespective of rank. Another little anomaly that pertains to military aviation - the pilot of any aircraft is the commander of that aircraft, irrespective of rank. While in command of that aircraft what he says goes and is backed up by regulations, irrespective of the rank or position of anyone in that aircraft - that has been the case since very early on during the First World War. A Royal Navy helicopter pilot, a Sub-Lt, once told Flag Officer Sea Training in no uncertain terms to shut the f**k up and obey the instructions being given by his aircrewman, a Leading Seaman, while doing so he did call the Admiral Sir and on landing the Admiral apologised to both the pilot and the crewman for his behaviour.

"I think it's obvious to everybody, even his supporters, that the whole affair was staged by him and his handlers, partly to make him look like a commanding military figure." - No that is entirely your perception of it - all I have attempted to put forward is the reason the President was dressed as he was - no spin, no sides, if anyone flies in an unadapted military aircraft that is how they must be dressed, there is no choice in the matter. Believe me, on this point, "The minutiae of regulations and aircraft are far from irrelevant..".

"..make him look like a commanding military figure." - He is the Commander-in-Chief ----- Remember?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 15 May 03 - 09:56 AM

Full Dinner Jacket revisited, but what's sauce for the leftish-wing goose is rarely sauce for the right-wing gander. One can understand how anyone who had a chance to avoid getting needlessly killed in Vietnam did so, but the self-righteous way in which the US right pisses all over any "liberals" who managed to get away with it as if their own hadn't done exactly the same is a bit hard to take. That's the real reason why Bush's photo-op hijacking of the armed forces provokes such outrage, even if discussion of it degenerates into anorak debates about military trivia.

One of the questionable benefits of living in Belgium is seeing reruns of old US soaps. In one of the later episodes of the not-exactly-subversive Vietnam war series "Tour of Duty", one of the "socio-economically challenged" characters puts it neatly: "Hicks and spics and niggers - that's who does the fighting".

What's the betting that the banner "mission accomplished" will show up in the background of the photos and video clips of the flying frat brat when the campaign to re-elect the creep gets under way? I wonder who commissioned and positioned it, the Navy or the White House?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Sam L
Date: 15 May 03 - 10:19 AM

Yes, but people who actually are the president still make those silly efforts to look "presidential" for campaign spots. Long ago, maybe it was in an old Native American legend, there a Bush with an Iraq war who didn't get re-elected because of issues of piloting the country. Bush is wrecking on the ground, whatever he's doing in the sky.

Gareth is exactly right that it was distasteful.

   It would seem we need to elect a woman before we ever again have a president and don't have to hear what's going on with their nuts and bolt.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Don
Date: 15 May 03 - 11:50 AM

Is there some obligation to be anti-Bush?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 15 May 03 - 12:06 PM

Yes he never was disciplined and that could only be because his commanding officers were fully aware of his whereabouts and that his absense was sanctioned.


Okay, Teribus, have it your way. It's entirely impossible that Bush committed any wrongdoing and got away with it because his father was a congressman and an oil baron. We all know THAT can't possibly happen in the United States! The ONLY possible explanation is that he was given permission, which then everyone forgot about later. Buy it if you will, but I'm sendin' that story back!

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 15 May 03 - 01:39 PM

Fred Miller said:

"It would seem we need to elect a woman before we ever again have a president and don't have to hear what's going on with their nuts and bolt."

There are many, many reasons to elect a woman as President, and I have no doubt that it will happen, probably fairly soon. But I object like mad to the timing -- this and previous Administrations play brinkmanship, take us to the edge of the abyss, then as a last, desperate resort, we call on a woman to restore sanity.

Consider a world in which all or most leaders had been women. Would we be in the mess we are now? And please don't throw Margaret Thatcher at me -- one woman operating in a male paradigm has to follow the standards of that paradigm. A world comprised of mostly female leaders would, I think, be a different place. Not to say better, necessarily, but different.

Had women and men worked in tandem throughout history, I wonder how different things would be.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 May 03 - 01:43 PM

pdc, if the Picean Age would finally die and the Aquarian Age gear up, we might actually find out. It is supposed to be an Age of Cooperation and Equality!*bg*

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 15 May 03 - 03:14 PM

Right on, katlaughing. I thought it was supposed to begin with the new millennium; maybe it's just running a bit late.

Note I said in my previous post "take us to the edge of the abyss."

Here's what I mean:

Rumsfeld's Doctor Strangelove

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 15 May 03 - 05:07 PM

There are two more relevent points to be made, one from the aforementioned Post article. Another favorite son who was assigned to the same ANG squadron at the same time, was the son of Lloyd Bensen, he of Texas Senator and Democrat Vice Presidential nominee with Dukakis, fame. I guess the Dems missed that one...

The second was the mention in yesterday's Washington Post editorial, (which savaged Byrd, and Waxman) that several times Clinton flew out to a carrier to make a political speech, and each time emerged wearing a green flight jacket. The Post wondered what became of the green pants...

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 15 May 03 - 05:36 PM

Ahhhhh, to my friends who are perfectly happy with whatever revionist story that the Bush spin folks can coome up with, like how many Vietnamese died during the portion of the Vietnam War after the Golf of Tonkin Resolution? Hmmmmmm? Okay, if you know, then congrates but if you don't, join in with the 90% plus Americans that don't know either. Why don't we know this number. We certainly have heard the 8M Jews that were killed by the Nazis. Hmmmmmm? Oh, you guessed 100,000 Vietnamese? Wow, that sounds like a lot of folks. Little less than twice the number of Americans. But, 100,000 ain't it. Guess again...

See, when yer the victor, one of the spoils is telling you story, be it based on fact or not, the way you want to tell your story. Bush spin folks have been telling some whoppers but, hey, they don't care if they get caought up in their lies because they can just pull out 9-11 and wave the flag and all is forgiven. We all know this to be true! Oh sure, my bud Claymore and T-Bird will burden us with reems of freshly spun revisions, but deep down inside they don't care if Bush lies because they belive in his policies. Just as folks who supported Bill Clinton, who brought really raised the bar when it came to lieing.

I've got a theory an this lieing. Now, I've had some dealings with the Kuwaitis and lieing is a long honored tradition among them. I guess the world is just getting more and more tribalized with one group taking on cultural aspects of others. I'm not sure why or when the American people became so entertained by liars, but like in Kuwait, it has become part of our political culture.

Silly Repubocrats...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 May 03 - 05:53 PM

Cheap shot, Claymore, POST and all. Clinton didn't presume the full uniform like Little Boy George is all. OR, are you suggeting one of the flyboys gave him a blowjob and the panst were sent to the cleaners? (You left yourself wide open for that one!)

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 15 May 03 - 06:44 PM

Yeah, and what was the significance of Bensen? His son was in the same ANG unit as Bush, you say. And? Did he show up? If not, I think we shouldn't consider him a military leader however hard he tries, and if he gets elected president he shouldn't pull shit like this. Okay?

Heck, trying to claim that Bensen's son is somehow tainted just because he was in the same unit with Bush...well, sounds like you REALLY hate Bush, Claymore!

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 15 May 03 - 07:15 PM

I've always thought number of Viet Namese killed by Americans was one million, Bobert. Direct casualties, not including agent orange, etc. One million more or less, and over 50 thousand Americans killed. Don't know how many others who fought with Americans died.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Gareth
Date: 15 May 03 - 07:27 PM

Claymore - I have stuck my neck out in the past, and supported US military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. I respect your views and comments, I find them refreshing amongst the "Knee Jerk" reactions typical on the 'Cat.

The fact that circumstances led Bush into doing the morally corect thing are one, Bush and his friends trying to rewrite history is another.

Now playing semantics a simple set of question. ?

Could Bush Junior have chosen to serve in Viet Nam ? Answer YES !

Did he serve in Viet Nam ? Answer - No ?

Was the choice his ? Answer YES !!!

I think this puts his attempts to wrap other peoples sacrifice around himself in context.

Sorry, perhaps I am old fashioned with these views, but even in US of A politics there should be some minimum standards, and projecting an image of yourself as "top gun" is not within my bounds of political honesty.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 15 May 03 - 07:54 PM

GUEST: Though the 1,000,000 is a tad on the consewrvative side, I congratulate you for being in the ballpark. Hey, that's one heck of a lot of sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers and friends, ain't it. Hey, where is the museum fir these folks? See, me exact point.

Speakin' of lots of folks killed, how about the nuclear bombs that were dropped needlessly on Japan. Where's the museum?

Oh, that right, since those bombs were dropped, the US is the world's number #1 *Tough Guy* and can tell the story any ways it wants.

And there are one heck of a lot of stories being told by this current adminisrattion. One heck of a lot....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 16 May 03 - 05:05 AM

Respec' Gareth.

It's the chickenhawk factor and the double standards that get a lot of people's goat.

The current sustained climate of USA stick-my-chest-out and suck-my-gut-in nationalism, anti-Arabism and politicians wrapping themselves up in the stars and stripes means that there's a lot to knee-jerk about.

It's been said before, but it took quite a lot for the Perle-Rumsfeld-Cheney régime to turn worldwide sympathy for the US into new highs of detestation within a few months, even among people who were sympathetic long before 11 September. The vacuous grinning face of the régime's flying frat-brat frontman triggers reflexes of revulsion that lie below rational levels of human reaction, and seeing him dickied up in military garb just reinforces worldwide disgust at their collective hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 16 May 03 - 11:01 AM

There have been several "chicken hawk" threads and I give the same answer I gave then. History is repleat with good generals being bad presidents, and good presidents being bad generals. As a combat vet I do not believe that one is determnative of the other. I fought in Viet Nam under Johnson, who was the worst thing to happen to the American Armed Services, possibly in it's entire history. Yet he is generally regard as a caring President, with extensive civil rights and Great Society programs. And Johnson was a Naval Officer during WWII.

In my view Bush is an excellent Commander in Chief, no matter what his background. He clearly laid his objectives out, choose probably the best Cabinet in half a century, gave then the time and resources they requested, and then got the hell out of the way.

Clinton and Carter (one a Naval Officer, the other a true draft dodger) were two of the most inept Commanders in Chief in the past fifty years. If you're old enough to remember the "Debacle in the Desert", or the fact we were horribly late in the Balkans (after waiting forever for "Old Europe" to do nothing with NATO).

Gore was a clerk typist in Viet Nam, but whether he was in any greater danger than Bush bringing in a single seat jet fighter, is open to debate, as I believe there were far more cases of pilots in the US being killed in accidents, etc, than there were clerk typists being killed in Viet Nam (Gore was not exsposed to enemy fire and did not earn a combat infantrymans badge).

I have many friends in the current military; my family has had one and some times several members in the military in combat for every war the US has fought since the Civil War. I honestly can say that they all, to a man (and two women) regard Bush as the right man for the job, and I suspect that when the elections are held, they will vote en masse for him, no matter what the final outcome. If you see him on the deck with the carrier crew, he was perfectly at ease, and they with him. They clearly like him, trust him and are willing to fight for him. And he in turn has honored them, by flying out to their ship. They will talk of this for years, and probably more than whatever missions they undertook during the actual combat operations.

Now to clear a couple of other matters:

Kat, if Clinton did get a blow job, it would explain his immediate preoccupation with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" right after he took office. And perhaps his pathetic attempts to reduce manhood to raping defenceless women... (talk about leaving yourself open...)

And the second, since as Carol pointed out, the time that Bush was alleged to be "missing" was six months, and those drills occur for two days out of every month, in reality Bush has been castigated by the Desperate Left for missing exactly 12 days... (talk about pathetic...)

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 May 03 - 11:23 AM

Gotcha. If Baby Bush only deserted for 12 days, that's OK.
How anyone with real military service can support this lying fake beggers belief. And sorry, APM, but contrary to your assertion, by no means all, or even most military folks, past and present, think the sun shines out of Dubya's ass. Many see him for the posturing phony that he is.

Also, as Kendall pointed out, the infantile "but Clinton Did This" and "Clinton Did That" mantra of the right wing Repubs reminds me of nothing so much as a six-year old whining to Mom that "But Johnny did so-and-so". Mom wouldn't buy it, & neither will I. Lets deal with The Bushite Bullshit in the here and now.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 May 03 - 11:44 AM

Too right, Greg! Still, I can't let this pass:

his pathetic attempts to reduce manhood to raping defenceless women... excuse me, Claymore? You are now accusing Clinton of rape

Also, as Greg says, not all military personell worship Little Boy George, thank goodness!

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 03 - 12:24 PM

My post said the time he was missing, if the numbers given by others is correct, is ten months, not six, Claymore. Where did you get six months?

So what I get from what you're saying is that, if someone went AWOL from that particular branch of the service for 10 months, and they were prosecuted for it, they would only be charged with being AWOL for 20 days, rather than being charged with being AWOL for 20 days and failing to report for ten months? Is that what would happen to the son of the school cafeteria worker as well (if by some amazing stroke of luck he was able to get into that service), or is that kind of treatment reserved for the sons of highly placed politicians?

When you were a Marine, what would have happened to you if you had gone AWOL for 20 days during wartime?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,Hal Peterson
Date: 16 May 03 - 12:51 PM

Great lines, great comments. Glad I found this. Have you read the latest column from Mark Russell? "President Bush said he did not want a theocratic government in Iraq led by religious zealots. Why not? It works for us!"

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 03 - 06:23 AM

Gareth,

Your set of questions, answered fully:

Could Bush Junior have chosen to serve in Viet Nam ? Answer YES, but he would not necessarily been able to fly - that was the reason he chose to serve in the US ANG !

Did he serve in Viet Nam ? Answer - No, but he could have been assigned there - a number of US ANG Squadrons were.

Was the choice his ? Answer YES, the choice was his and the reasons given for that choice are perfectly reasonable. (Just as in my case I wanted to fly so joined the Royal Navy, may not sound logical to you, but at the time I joined 50% of all officers joining the Navy were needed by the Fleet Air Arm, my chances joining the Royal Air Force would have been much less).

"Sorry, perhaps I am old fashioned with these views, but even in US of A politics there should be some minimum standards, and projecting an image of yourself as "top gun" is not within my bounds of political honesty."

What do you define as "top gun"? - What is the image? - What is the profile?

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Sam L
Date: 19 May 03 - 10:00 AM

Teribus, the point is that making a show of flying the plane at all was merely self-indulgent, and distracted from the real import of the occasion. Whether Bush is a good pilot or not is beside the point that he was just playing dress-up. Presumably he can drive a car, but does he need to get behind the wheel of the presidential limo? Why? I think you're being disingenuous to ask these questions. You know better.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 19 May 03 - 11:03 AM

Fred,

The articles relating to this topic and links provided by members and guests are predominantly from the press and are articles the content of which cannot be described as flattering to GWB.

The press stated that he flew the plane.

One press article even has in it's introduction that he landed the plane.

The press introduced the "top-gun" epithet.

Note - The Press, The Media - Not the White House.

To many GWB "hid" in the ANG - that was a choice open to all, as was the option of serving in the US Coast Guard. While delighting in taking political pot shots at the man for electing to serve in the US ANG so that he could learn to fly (accepting all the inherent risks involved in learning to fly an all-weather interceptor and be passed as operational), his detractors casualy ignore the fact that the term of service in the ANG is 6 years not 2 years as in the US Armed Forces proper (US Coast Guard service was 4 years). They also ignore the fact that ANG units/ US Coast Guard units could be called upon to serve in Vietnam - and did so (Weird place to hide? liable for combat service for three times as many years as if he had volunteered to go there directly).

Anyone lifting phrases out of the press and using them as Gareth has done, should be prepared to state in what context and term of reference he is using them. As far as I am aware the President has never described himself as a "top-gun", nor has anyone in his administration. The press and media have but as stated above the reason for, and intent behind, doing so was far removed from image enhancement.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Gareth
Date: 19 May 03 - 11:35 AM

Oi Terribus - do not acuse me of lifting and misquoting. Leave that for the fanatical Bush/America is always wrong group that infest the internet.

Please do not try and polish an unsavory sceen starring GWB jnr by denying the obvious. Bush Jnr exercised his choices. They have now come back to be rexamined.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 May 03 - 11:42 AM

Teribus, read the NYTimes article which is linked in the SMoke and MIrrors thread, please. You will see the media feeds us exactly what it is fed, by Bush and his handlers. It was a very deliberatly planned "event" and the media dutifully followed with the required propoganda. Here is just a snippet about the jet landing which I'd posted to the Smoke & Mirrors thread:

White House officials say that a variety of people, including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.

Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.

Masters of Manipulation is what they are!

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 May 03 - 12:02 PM

If Gore was a clerk typist in Vietnam (I have always read that he was an army reporter) as said above, it highlights a dramatic difference in the character of the men involved.

If Gore was a clerk typist, why? Given his rearing in a affluent, longtime Senator's home, does anyone doubt that strings could have been pulled by influential persons to either keep him out of the military entirely or to insert him into a more prestigious position?

Does anyone doubt that Gore was capable of greater responsibilities than that of clerk typist?

Why and in what way, do Bush's exploits, even if Bush had NOT casually neglected his post, denote a greater devotion to his country than that of Gore? Scornfully dismissing Gore on the basis of his Vietnam service position says a good deal more about the writer than it does of the man.

Here is one contrast between the men. Can you imagine Gore saying - or thinking- these things?

MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
by George W. Bush

I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mential losses. {NOT mental, btw. Ebbie}

Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?

They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.

Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!

Ah, yeah. I'm proud of our commander in chief.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: TIA
Date: 19 May 03 - 05:49 PM

Actually, the full quote is "You're working hard to put food on your family"

And don't forget "I don't have to be subliminable about anything."

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Sam L
Date: 19 May 03 - 06:45 PM

Teribus, why fly the plane at all? That's what I asked. It's ridiculous, I ridicule it. His present dis-service to the country concerns me more than his what-not military record. With what he is doing right now, as president, I'm not inclined to look for little clues about him or his character in the past.

   It's traditional that military leaders take a break from self-importance to direct attention to the troops. It was a gaff in horrible taste to take a pointless joy-ride and create a distraction from that moment. It shows a great smallness of character. Given the unreasonable delays and constraints of ground support for those troops, against and over the recommendations of the joint cheifs of staff, one should blush, even if he had a hundred purple hearts and some missing limbs. Even so. The petty business of all these details is of no import whatsoever to that question.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 19 May 03 - 07:07 PM

Like I've said before, IMO had Bush be flying the plane then Dich Cheney would most likely be the president today. I've challenged Bush here before to repeat his heroics. This time, 1st, 2nd and 39th seat. I've even offered to land a tail draggin joy stick Cub on the carrier my ownself. Latest Vegas odds on Bush aren't too good. 119-1 that he crashes. And I'm moving up. 7-1 that I crash. But, heck, at one time it was 114-1 that I crash. At least I'm moving in the right direction while the other guy ain't....

And I'm lovin' all these revisionist Bush apologists. Well, he ain;t as bad as so-and-so... Ahhh, he was only a crook fir a little while. Heck, Lee Harvey Oswald was only a bad man for a brief second. Come on, get real. Yer guy is a liar, a thief and a crook. But not an "idiot, moron or puss bag".

See, I'm rehabilitated, Claymore, and I owe it all to you...

Awww, jus' funnin'...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 03 - 12:17 PM

Fred,

You ask me a question:

"Teribus, why fly the plane at all? That's what I asked. It's ridiculous, I ridicule it."

Why fly the plane - common courtesy - pilot to pilot.

If you mean what was he doing in the aircraft in the first place relates to something I'd like to comment on later.

Regarding, "... his what-not military record." - and not being, "... inclined to look for little clues about him or his character in the past." - you personally, Fred have not, but others responding to this have, and all that I have done has been to provide some alternative explanations.

Now to get back to the question of what was he doing in the aircraft in the first place:

"It's traditional that military leaders take a break from self-importance to direct attention to the troops."

All well and good - it is traditional and extremely well thought of by those troops. To go on to say:

"It was a gaff in horrible taste to take a pointless joy-ride and create a distraction from that moment. It shows a great smallness of character."

You could not be more wrong - as a member of the Lincoln's crew I would have appreciated the effort, he made to make his visit while the ship was still at sea, as opposed to being held back from going on leave when the ship docked and have to work to spruce everything up prior to his arrival. It did not show smallness of character at all, it showed consideration. Anyone who has been involved in preparations for VIP visits while serving in the military would appreciate that point.

One question for you, relating to your post:

What, "...unreasonable delays and constraints of ground support for those troops,.." ???


katlaughing,

"...see the media feeds us exactly what it is fed, by Bush and his handlers."

If that were in fact the case I would be very surprised as the articles I referred to were not very flattering.

"It was a very deliberatly planned "event" and the media dutifully followed with the required propoganda."

Of course it was deliberately planned - I cannot imagine that much, if anything, done by ANY President of the United States of America is unplanned.

Regarding your snippet:

Sections of your press stated that Mr. Bush landed the aircraft - that is not true - he made a carrier deck landing - bit of a difference.

As to what he was wearing - not his choice - don't take my word for it, just ask the question of anyone connected with Air Force, Navy, USMC aviation or Army Air Corps what someone flying in such a aircraft has to wear - you cannot safely eject from an aircraft wearing a two, or three-piece suit, or in jeans, bomber jacket and a T-shirt.

By the way - how did Mr. Sforza get out to the carrier??

"Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event,"

Flying overalls and helmet apart, Mr. Sforza must be delighted that so critical a group appreciated his efforts - probably the best testimonial of his work to date - That is after all his job for goodness sake.

"Masters of Manipulation is what they are!" - Yep! same crowd can be seen around the leaders of most political parties in most countries. In the UK the crowd around the Labour Party have been more adept at it than the crowd around the Conservatives - But like I said that is their job, and for what they get paid for it, its nice once in a while to see them actually earning it.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Sam L
Date: 21 May 03 - 10:22 AM

Oh, Teribus. You intend to say that the president flew the plane as a pilot to pilot courtesy. Well--all right, I give. I need to quit this, I keep hitting the wrong keys, from laughing. I'm sure he drives the limo when the driver is tired. Sometimes he runs the vacuum in the oval office, so the staff can take a break for coffee. I don't know what to say, I'm sorry to have pushed you on this point to this degree of utter silliness. I'll take your last comment seriously, instead, if that's okay with you.

   Well, I don't post articles and links, I'm not going to start. If you want to look into it, the essential story is that Rumsfeld and the administration over-rode the joint chiefs calls for greater ground support at every turn, rejected their blueprints for the action, insisting on surgical air strikes, the show of shock and awe, and counting on clear weather. They were betrayed when Rumsfeld turned around and claimed no involvement in the decisions. But, like the military often does, they seemed to blame themselves for having let this be done. The cheers of the troops are more to their credit than the administration they cheer. In spite of the failures of leadership, now and in past administrations, they ALWAYS dutifully cheer. If Mayor McCheese was their CIC, they'd cheer.

   I make absolutely no effort to substantiate any of that story, it's not some obscure scource I have, just regular media like any other in the vast, liberal-controlled comunications universe. The point is simply that the troops cheering speaks about them, not about the administration, whenever, whatever, and regardless. It's pretty tasteless to try to spin it around the other way. Some leaders have done their best to make that point, themselves, with proper self-effacing humility. This one will lap up what he can get from the commode of political spin, like a damn dog, like a political animal.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 May 03 - 12:52 PM

Yet another good day for Bush. . . .

!

In the meantime, according to an item in this morning's news, if the Administration doesn't do something quick to buttress up the budget, your (my) next Social Security check may bounce!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 May 03 - 01:55 PM

Goofed the link. Lemme try it again. . . .

!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 21 May 03 - 03:42 PM

Purdy funny stuff, Don!

I have figured this administration out. They realize that since the vast majority of Americans don't vote, and the Dems don't have clue, that their guy can promise (lie) anything he wants. *No One* is going to hold him accountable.

"No child left behind" is a good example. First of all, though they passed the Education Reform (hahaha) Bush won't sign the checks and secondly, now his folks want vouchers which will only further cripple a crippled public education system.

And they talk about AIDS. Well, when you take that program apart, its nothing but another smoke and mirrors program with reems of restrictions which will only insure that this won't get done either.

Yeah, like I've said before, these guys talk the talk and that's about it...

I mean, does anyone really care? They suyre don't. Thay'll say whatever they feel like saying and do what ever they feel like doing...

And this is democracy?

Certainly don't look like a government of the people to me...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 21 May 03 - 04:07 PM

Bobert, ole buddy, you skipped your meds again, right?

Fred: talk about spin! You seem to be the one spinning the story to me! Anyone who saw the reception Bush received and didn't believe it was genuine must have been watching a different program IMO.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST,hey bob
Date: 21 May 03 - 04:19 PM

the education program that teddy kennedy wrote and had passed???
and the 15 billion bush asked congress for aids research?
sounds like your the one "who doesnt care anymore" to check the facts

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 22 May 03 - 09:20 AM

My question was:

What, "...unreasonable delays and constraints of ground support for those troops,.." ???

As to the answer:

"If you want to look into it, the essential story is that Rumsfeld and the administration over-rode the joint chiefs calls for greater ground support at every turn, rejected their blueprints for the action, insisting on surgical air strikes, the show of shock and awe, and counting on clear weather."

As far as is apparent at the moment the planning and execution of that plan went extremely well. There was no statement made by any on-scene commander regarding unreasonable delays or constraints of ground support. The only thing that was included in the plan that did not occur was the intended participation of the 4th Infantry Division who should have entered Iraq from the North. I believe that had Turkey allowed this the war would have been fore-shortened considerabley.

What will stand is the result. I don't know if it was reported in the press in the USA, but over this side it was reported that the Russians are conducting exercises to find ways of countering the tactics used by US and UK forces in Iraq. It also must be abundantly clear to the North Koreans now that their one million strong standing army and their massed artillery are of little use to them as a threat. As one American observer put it - they now only represent a target rich environment.

The US planners developed the plan - and it worked. Those entrusted with its execution did so in the finest traditions of their respective services, those who participated know that they did a good job. The President thanked them for that and I am sure that they appreciated it.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 22 May 03 - 10:05 AM

Bush # 1 had to fire 2 or 3 of the Joint Chiefs when they refused to follow his illegal order to invade Panama. Back when Noriega decided he didn't need to pay such a big percentage to the Bush Cocaine Cartel when HE was doing all the work, dammit. So Bush # 1, like Hitler and Cheney, put on their military caps for a while while sitting behind the Big Desk. Surprising the military lets them sit at the desk at all.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Sam L
Date: 22 May 03 - 12:21 PM

Doug R, I never said it wasn't genuine, of course it is. I said it speaks of the troops, not of the administration, and that great leaders have tried to underscore that fact in their remarks and bearing. I think it would've been a better idea to avoid the "flying the plane" business. I don't feel I need to prove it is a political distraction from the significance of the occasion. Look at the title of your thread.


   Teribus I already told you I wouldn't try to convince you. You know perfectly well the measure isn't success or failure but losses incurred, risks taken, yet it seems to suit you to pretend otherwise. You're disingenuous. I don't have the patience for discussing it with both sides of your mouth--as in the way everything Bush does is planned and orchestrated, yet he seems to quite casually offer a 'courtesy' to the pilot. Whatever. If it matters it's to Bush's credit, if it's not to his credit, it doesn't matter, but the press made a big deal out of it. Round and round.

   I've had to run round in circles simply to say the same thing over again, while you've introduced more and more overlapping and somewhat contradictory explanations of what I happen to consider an error of judgement. On the larger point we seem to more or less agree, at least in my hope for what follows. To keep going around about it is probably a vortex into merely partisan views.

Oh. This is a thread about politics.

Subject: RE: BS: A good day for Bush
From: Sam L
Date: 22 May 03 - 02:12 PM

These young men and women obviously admire the president very much!

Please notice no-one has been so crude as to suggest that any of the armed forces might be the least bit glad to hear that the fighting is over. No. You're right--I'm the one who's spinning.