I beg to differ.
Of course, the U.S. and the U.K. actually have been caught out inventing the documentation for the WMDs.
hell NO man, i am no-one, nowhere, no account, my countries ‘leader’ folded over, bent his tail up in the air to get royally shafted, as any good lackey should, i had no say in the matter, as our county went to war as the grand master Bush instucted, you supplied our (american brought) fighters, we even had to pay extra US dollars for the US bombs they dropped under the ‘user pays’ principle, ( millions of bucks i hear)
i live in a land donwnunder, south of the equator, we are obedient servants of the grand master of war, Sir Bush, master of the shock and awe crap, which fooled no-one, it was the USA’s WMD, (for sure Irak had none) that ruled the day and night, , there use being stark and real for the whole world to see as the USA’s cruise missiles reigned down in thier hundreds and hundreds…, its when many ppl died, but very, very few were your own huh?, for you sit comfortable, safe and secure, just as i did, continents away, safe and secure, no massive explosions going off meters away from you, your loved ones being blown away, but when you got nothing to defend yourself with from the yankee WMD, from the air, from America, with love? just who you going to cry out to for salvation.?
- but the feeling of inflicted pain just wont go away, no how, no wheres, and i am just an observer, continents away. but you wouldnt even know the world existed outside your own country now would you?
why the frig didnt you just assist humanity by providing schools. hospitals to them, in Irak, pre war, instead of bombing them to near oblivian, and instead of a decade of trade sanctions, that near straved them to death.?? just help them?
the whole world would have respected you more.
seems like you need new leaders to believe in, give you allegiance, and your blood to.
like leaders who know more about giving than taking or inflicting destruction on those you cant control or bend to your will or purpose.
Zan
Was there an element of political grandstanding, an understanding of the power of the “photo op” involved in Bush’s little trip out to the decks of the Abe Lincoln?
Okay, sure. We’ll give you that one. But so what?
He IS the commander-in-chief of our nation’s military, let’s not forget. It is entirely appropriate to select, as a backdrop to a speech primarily addressing the military, a symbol of our ability to project power anywhere on the globe-- and that just screams “aircraft carrier.” Remember, too, that the “viewing audience” when our president speaks extends far beyond American shores. If a potential adversary picked up on the not-so-subtle message (I not only carry a big stick, I’m not afraid to whack you with it) reinforced by seeing the speech delivered on the decks of an aircraft carrier instead of in the Rose Garden, well, that’s just effective advertising. 
The “wearing of the flight suit” as another supposed “offense” misses the mark entirely, though. For one thing, ummm, he’s worn them before. Make all the jokes you want to about his military service, but he has served his country as a fighter pilot. He certainly looked more at home in his “bag” than his predecessor did during the thankfully rare occasions he tried to don military clothing to “impress” the troops. There’s a safety consideration, too – he was in the cockpit of a military jet, and in the event of an inflight emergency requiring ejection, the President would fare better in his flight suit (and the survival gear accompanying it) than he would floundering around in the water in a suit and tie.
(Side note to MSU1978 : )Not sure if this changes the context a whole lot, but the aircraft he made the trip in is not a “fighter” jet at all. The S-3 Viking is a multi-role aircraft, primarily in the electronic warfare/ASW business, but it’s not going to score very high on the “macho” scale if anyone’s still attempting a “Top Gun” slur here. hehe. (Reportedly, Bush did at some point express a desire to take the trip in an F/A-18 – and, what fighter pilot wouldn’t – but the Secret Service freaked. Hard to provide security in a 2-seater; and evidently the S-3 has the Navy’s best safety record.)
Taking offense at the overflight of Iraq ( or blowing that up into a charge of “cowardice” ) is just plain silly. As many have pointed out, his landing and touring Baghdad would have sent a far more offensive signal than the occasional American flag that troops temporarily ran up Iraqi flagpoles during the conflict. He was wise to avoid that trap, but well within his rights to see the country from his window seat.
his security is preserved flying over a county he has just decimated?
as what? - lord of the skies, but not the ground?
his security is not worth a tin of yellow cake. storage containers of which, that the common ppl in Irak use to store water & food in, coz they got nothing else.
btw, some of us totally despise the american culture that spawned charlie brown, in fact what i personally would like to see is a total boycott of all things american, especially your $, after all, your country is US$43trillion in the red, you should be bankrupt, why arnt you?
yet you continue to wage war, at enourmous cost, you guys sure are wierd!
when will enough be enough?
Zanthor
$43 Trillion in the red? CITE!!! The total US national debt is ~$6.5 trillion, with most of that being owed to US citizens.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
The total cost of the war in Iraq is chump change to the US government, ** Zanthor **
The day you strap your ass into an F-102 and fly it around, you can call Bush a coward.
Actually, I’ll let you off the hook - you don’t have to fly one of those hard-to-fly death traps. Just go shoot a carrier landing in an E-3. Then come back and tell us how much of a coward Bush is. After you clean your underwear, that is.
Why didn’t Bush go to Iraq, when Tony Blair did? Simple. Because Britain was responsible for controlling the southern Shiite areas, which are already quite stable and safe. The Americans took Baghdad, which is still filled with people running around taking shots at Americans. It would not have been safe for Bush to go to Baghdad or Tikrit. I suppose he could have gone up to one of the Kurdish areas, but then no doubt the clowns on the left would have been screaming that he was going there to gloat and parade around like a hero. So he decides to maintain a low profile, and you criticise him for cowardice.
This is just getting old and tiresome. Pick some real issues, will you?
BTW, every president has put on military garb from time to time. There are plenty of photos of Clinton in an A2 leather flight jacket and cap floating around the internet.
Oh, and Bush wasn’t a top-gun ‘wannabe’. He probably had more jet time than the guy who flew him out to the plane.
Maybe he was looking for WMD personally, I don’t know.
Well, yeah, but on the other hand the guy who flew him out probably can’t wander off base for a beer and forget to come back. If he tries to shrug off his last year of enlistment, he can likely expect consequences.
But on one point I agree: we don’t need this kind of chickenshit. The man provides howitzer ammo on a nearly daily basis, we dont have to go around picking up B.B.s
Just for the record Bush lost his eligibility to fly the F-102. Tell us again how great a pilot he was. Read about his career here…
Let’s see… Pretend you’re the commander of the unit that is assigned to flying the Prez out to the carrier and you’re trying to figure out which of your pilots will be the chauffeur. Do you: A) assign your best, most experienced pilot, or B) yell out “get me the rookie!”? Now, if you’re like me, you’d pick choice A. Do you think pilot A, who is a regular Navy flier and not a National Guardsman, would have less flight time than a former National Guardsman who had a rather lenghty period of unaccounted-for service time?
[hijack]
Sam
Not to burst your bubbble there Sam but I’m pretty sure Diogenes used to be a marine or some such thing and if anyone’s in a position to call Bush a “Spineless little half man” it’s a marine.
[/hijack
I was in the Navy not the Marines, but i appreciate the support.
I can’t understand why W doesn’t get more criticism from the military than he does. I am quite bothered that he used his father’s influence to avoid Vietnam, but I am even more bothered that he took his special treatment so much for granted that he felt it was acceptable to blow off his last year of service.
Sam Stone,
my father was an Air Force pilot during the Vietnam war. He was actually over there, not just playing at it back in Texas. He thinks Bush is a coward. I’ll take his word for it.
ahh yes, i see my mistake. the figure i quoted included future obligations of the US government.
from - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3608.htm
excerpt.
The material to be deleted from the budget document was an updating of generational accounting. Mr. O’Neill had requested an estimate of the true, long-term obligations of the U.S. government.
The estimate would include the formal debt of the U.S. Treasury plus equally serious government promises to provide retirement income and medical care. (Readers who think promises of Social Security and Medicare aren’t as serious as U.S. Treasury bond promises should visit the nearest elderly person.)
The resulting information might easily have been lost in a document whose online girth is measured in megabytes.
Except for one thing.
The new accounting shows the United States is broke.
It shows the true obligations of government are 10 times larger than the Treasury debt held by the public. It shows the current value of these unfunded obligations is a mind-numbing $43 trillion.
article continues…
apologies for posting off thread topic.
Zanthor