Bush's carrier landing... waste or hot stuff?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86273,00.html

"To me, it is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the president to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech." Thus said West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert "KKK" Byrd on the Senate floor Tuesday.

OK, I can see WHY the Dem's are gnashing their teeth and rending their clothes.... being so sadly impotent. But does this play well to any of you? Are they hitting on something that will stick?

I think flying out and landing on the carrier was totally cool myself. If I was a crewmember I'd be flattered as hell.

Are these dem's attacks just further detachment from the real heartbeat of America?

 

I think it was brilliant and very cool for Bush and the crew of the carrier (and anyone who has ever served on one). The most powerful man in the world taking a chance to land on a carrier.
I hope Bush just walks up to Byrd and punches him dead in the eye and says "Byrd, you're my bitch now".

 

About the only reason I would have to ever run for president would be so that I could get to play with all the cool stuff the armed forces has. If I were Bush, I'd be riding around in an Appache every day instead of that Sea King, and screw AF1, I'd hop continents in my own F16.
And hey - I'd keep all these toys locked and loaded at all times....just for kicks

 

Actually, I'd rather see him say in a TV interview, "I don't really think I need to comment on the rantings of a former member of the KKK."

Then in private he can inform him of now being his bitch.

 

These guys want to have their cake and eat it too. First, Bush is a turd 'cause he sends soldiers to war when he wasn't in the regular armed forces himself. Then, he's a turd because he takes the initiatitive to show the armed forces that he's willing to take some of the same risks that he asked them to take. Pick which side of the fence you want to sit on, guys.

 

Actually I think the Dems are upset for two reasons:

1. None of the Dems have the BALLS to do what Bush did.
2. None of the Dems are respected by the military as much as Bush.

Do you think Clinton would have enjoyed a smooth ride if he wanted to land on a carrier?

See Ya,

Darrin Talbott

 

Bush is a moron but I didn't care one way or the other about the carrier landing. . . but it did remind me of the time Dukakis was driving the tank!!! But it was sort of irresponsible -- a carrier landing is not the safest thing in the world. Almost as irresponsible as lying to the American public about Monica!!

The dems are upset about this b/c they are out of focus, have lost their ability to define the real issues and generally have no nuts. If they had the nuts to hammer Bush II on the real issues they'd win in 2004 -- but they won't hammer and they won't win.

Rodger

 

From some of the things I've read, the pilot might well have sacrificed himself and flew the plane into the fantail with Clinton aboard.

 

Clinton did have a smoooooth ride... as well did the HUNDREDS
he took to France for the aniversary of D-Day !
6 or was it 7 C 130's as well with the support aircraft.
So wait.... lets see...... current prez..... republican...
DEMON-RATS hate him...... he takes a ride to say thanks...
he IS the commander chief.... I would think he could do that,
if he really wanted.... and they, the DEMON-RATS are
cry'n like little pooopy-diaper babby !

well, at least he wasn't in the " Oral " office on the phone to
Russian prez with Monica hob-nob'n on the hob-bob !
Cry you little DEMON-RATS ! Cry like the poooopy's you really are ! ( Now you really got me started. Should we even mention the " Blue" dress and just how those "Stains" got there ??? hummmm ... what do you think? ) Or better yet ! How about the fish flovered sex cigars ! Man. Just think of it.
With all that CRAPOLLA from that pervertted bastard...
I would think the DEMON-RATS would shut up !

 

Words fail me. I nominate the above for Post of the Month.

 

bush

They had a poll on FOX before he went asking "Why do you think he's doing This" Talkin'about the landing. I wrote "Because he Can!."

Last Night on Hardball G. Gordan Liddy was talking about how his parachute harness,.. uh Enhanced his manhood.

I'm a strong Republican and I feel that Byrds and Waxmans talk is ridiculous and embarrasing. But even though Clinton totally disgraced the office of the President, what the Rebublicans and Ken Starr did by prolonging it until everyone was sick of it, was just as bad.

The Judicial Nominations have become horrible displays of partisonship by both parties.

The system is sick. And I can't see any relief in sight.

 

Re: bush

I agree with a lot of what you said. One thing that might help is if we could get away from the 2 party system. Yeah, I know, there's more than 2, but they are little more than tokens. Look at Clinton vs. Dole. A lot of democrats voted for Clinton ONLY because the were democrats and a lot of republicans voted for Dole ONLY because he was republician. Can anyone really say they liked either choice? Same with Bush vs. Gore. In both cases I voted for a third party. Some would say I "wasted my vote" but I didn't like either candidate and I was hoping to send a message to both parties that I'm tired of the present 2 party system. You buttheads (elected officials) are supposed to be trying to improve the country or at the very least the situation of your constituates (sorry 'bout the spelling) rather than spending all your time trying to make the other party look bad. The Republicans thoruoghly pissed me off during the Clinton investigations. They seemed to spend their entire time (and tons of our money) trying to make Clinton look bad (which he was doing a pretty good job of all on his own), but in the end they really found nothing concrete enough to remove him from office or justify what they did. They made the system look like a joke as much as Clinton did. And then you find out some of them were doing the exact same crap Clinton was, remember Larry Flynt and his challenge? Oh, that made the Republican leadership look good! Bunch of hipocrits...

The worst part of it is that the story remains the same, all you have to do is switch the party's names. Next time it will be (or is perhaps) the democrats going after a republican...

Until offered a better alternative, I will continue to remain independant and look had at minor party candidates. I know they won't win, but I'm be damn if I'll vote party-lines.... However, if I really like a r or d, they will get my vote. Try to look at the candidate you feel will do the best job, not just what party they happen to belong to. The parties really aren't any different...

 

Independant's

I agree, I almost voted for Nader. But the bottom line with me are issues that I feel are important. And as Clinton said so well "It's the Economy Stupid!" I beleive in the Republican financial philosophy. The "Tax and spend" docterine of the Democrats has many flaws. Most social wekfare programs have proven to be failures. Did you know that 53% of Federal spending goes to Social Welfare programs. I beleive that Tax cuts and cutting spending on welfare will have the effect of creating new jobs for the people who are being impowered to work. I beileive this creates a "ripple effect" that is good for the country as a whole.

So that is really where the problem exists. The Democrats and Republicans philosophies are diametrically opposed to each other.


So a third party candidate is probably the only answer. But the ones wev'e been getting have some wacky ideas. We need a legitamit candidate from either party who is just sick of it, John McCain comes to mind!

 

A problem with the democrats and republics plans are that it seems to me the real answer lies somewhere between the two. Yes, we need some welfare plans. I think the original idea was good, help people get back on their feet so that they can start contributing again. Problem is that too many people figured out how to take advantage of the system and even though everyone knows it, no one has done much. During the Clinton adminstration, there was some welfare reform and it was a step in the right direction. I personally know some people that were effected by it and they actually found out that working for a living comes with it's own reward. They now own a house that they bought. Problem was that they would have kept leeching until it was stopped (as it was).

I don't believe trickle down works either. The rich get richer and no one else sees that money usually. Well, maybe the country clubs do... The rich are already rich, taxing them less is no guarantee they'll do anything useful with it. Heck, they usually have figured out tons of loop-holes. The best plan I can think of is a tax break for the middle class. They are the biggest spenders of any social group as a group. Give them money to spend and it's fairly well proven they'll spend it. That's what the economy really needs. IMO. That's the short version, I'd be curious to hear the thought of those with the econimic degrees here in BBS-land think...

Nader? Naw, that guy scared me worse than Gore (and my dad has a Corvair!). You hit it on the head of how I think we should vote of Presidents. Forget about parties, look at what's important to you.

 

social programs

Social welfare programs can work, but it's just as you say, people need to use them as a stepping stone instead of a lifestyle for them to work. This is how Social Welfare programs were envisioned in the begining. But now these programs have reached a point where they have become enablers. They contribute to peoples self-destruction. I can say this because I became disabled. And it was bad. I blamed others and felt sorry for myself for a while but continued to do nothing to fix myself. It wasn't until took responsibility for my problems that I was able to do what was necessary to repair and rehabilite my injuries. I have been able to recover to the point of being a junior in college under Voctional Rehabilitation.

I am going to be a State Probation/Parole officer. And I couldn't have done this without the help of these programs. But this is what I'm talking about. People who don't attempt to better themselves and programs that foster victimization by not requiring action by the client should be cut.

This empowers people and as you say people who are working are happier. I know I am thrilled! I tell people I am the only person in America trying to get off disability

 

I agree completely, it is amazing to me that they let him do it at all. Anyone who thinks it was a PR stunt is completely full of shit. As someone who did it in an ES-3E well over a hundred times (as a passenger) it is a controlled crash every time. Not being the guy in control makes it even worse, totally out of your hands (although there is the pretty yellow and black handle to pull if it goes really bad). I absolutely guarentee you there were a bunch of people asking him not too (except Cheney!), and he said blow me, I'm going. Major heavy duty moral boost when you CIC is willing do lay it out there a little.

 

by the way, did he get the cat shot off too? never heard way over here, just curious. Much more fun going off the pointy end, wish I could get the GSXR to pull like that off the line!!!

 

You mean he couldn't have landed in a helicopter? and they HAD to keep the ship out an extra day at a cost of about $1 mil?

It was a good move on the President's part, very commendable, but denying it's a PR stunt? THAT'S full of shit

 

I think he departed the carrier on Marine One, which according to the GAO costs $5,597 per hour to operate. But you have to multiply that by 3 because there are always 2 decoys in the air at the same time.

Anyone remember Bill Clinton keeping Air Force One at idle at LAX while he got a haircut in 1993? According to the GAO, AF1 costs about $34k per hour to operate, not counting other support and personnel costs. George Stephanopolous defended Clinton's actions: "I mean, the president has to get his hair cut. Everybody has to get their hair cut. The president and his family have a personal services contract with Cristophe to cover all things like this... It covers things like make-up and hair and they just pay for it.

It's fun to listen to all of the carping over the expense of the visit. Republicans were doing much of the same, although about a much more expensive deal, when complaining about President Clinton spending over $70 million in travel for three foreign trips conducted in 1998.

 

No, he could have easily done it in a helicopter. My point is that it could not have been a Republican PR stunt of the grand proportions the TV talking heads make it seem to be. The inherent dangers involved would have his handlers tripping over themselves trying to talk him out of it (which I'm sure they were). Personally as someone in the military and Naval Aviation, I think it was awesome. Now, are the Rep using it, obviously, but I find it hard to believe they would put W in that circumstance for purely PR purposes. Wonder what kind of flight pay HE gets?

As for the GAO stuff from the above, what a crock. There is serious waste in the military no doubt, but claiming to know how much it costs to operate any given aircraft/hr is crap, it a total guess and can be spun to sound high or low (always high).