BS: A good day for Bush

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.

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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.