I am curious if you had this same opinion of Clinton when he dressed in military garb. Somehow I doubt it. Where did he spend the war again???
In case you weren’t aware, flying F-4’s isn’t generally considered to be one of the safest places to spend one’s military service.
Did you really intend to state that the military should be a separate entity from the government? I personally am reassured that the military cannot act on it’s own but instead only at the direction of duly elected officials.
In a word…no. I guess it just depends on whether you rely on liberal propaganda for your information sources, much like the other person who chooses to make the cocaine reference. I am willing to bet he doesn’t even have a clue as to when and how the first speculation was raised. If he gets it right, i’ll gladly apologize. I feel pretty safe though in the knowledge that to do so would expose the accusation as deliberately misleading and knowingly false.
Then you’d be wrong. He looked like a hypocritical goofball, too.
So, if Bush went to visit a nunnery, would he dress up like a Catholic schoolgirl?
President Clinton in Bosnia
Clinton reviewing troops
Clinton on the U.S.S. Independence
Steamboat Willie
Unless someone more expert in military protocl sees a distinction between Bush’s field jacket and Clinton’s apparent use of military items, I think there’s no issue.
…“protocl” of course is Flemish for “protocol”.
See Bush’s Military service in depth here.
It’s pretty convoluted, but it appears that he was AWOL for at least a year and that he got out a year early. However, I certainly don’t think that there was malice involved, or that he was never reprimanded because of influence pedaling. I think it was just plain laziness and oversight.
That said, I don’t see any problem in his wearing a military jacket. Not only is the US President the Commander in Chief, but Bush did serve in the National Guard, and was honorably discharged.
God, I hope not. Scary thought. However being that he is commander in chief of the Armed Services, he is not only entitled to wear the jacket but I believe it is entirely appropriate, for many of the reasons given by others earlier. I also believe that he is far more entitled to wear it than someone like Beezlebubba who “loathed” the military and spent considerable effort disrespecting it.
He’s the President. Who’s gonna tell him no?
And yes, every President does it. It’s an image thing, and it’s spin doctoring. By giving a speech in front of a bunch of soldiers while wearing a fatigue jacket, he is broadcasting the image of “I feel solidarity with these soldiers. I am with them. I am behind them”, regardless of what he meant, or what he said. He could have been up there reading his grocery list, for all it matters. The IMAGE is what matters.
I seem to recall reading about something that happened during the Reagan presidency that I think underscores this perfectly. Reagan cut funds for the elderly, but then made a point of being seen and videotaped while visiting old people in nursing homes. The footage was widely shown.
Later, someone took a cross-section poll of the American people. Most of them believed that he cared about the elderly. Some even believed that he RAISED funding for them.
The truth doesn’t matter any more. Only the image. It’s a numbers game, that’s all… and whoever plays it the most ruthlessly, the most cynically, is the one most likely to win.
I would enjoy if President Bush would practice a little one-upmanship on Saddam Hussein. Like, showing up on the Truman Balcony of the White House on New Year’s Day, but firing a cannon into the air instead of just a rifle. (Maybe making sure nobody’s across the street in Blair House first.)
Bush should not wear military clothing in public view. (It might be OK if he wore a flight suit when he sook a spin in the back seat of a fighter, though…I would love to see that!)
In this country, the Commander-in-Chief is a civilian who is also the President. I think the distinction is important to us and to the rest of the world. And in my military experience, military folks didn’t particularly like for civilians to wear military garb…except for the starlets from the USO.
Agreed, again. A lot of us hate Clinton from the left. I hope this doesn’t blow anyone’s mind.
Fine. I never suggested otherwise. Flying combat planes stateside was more dangerous than if he was being a camp counselor.
At the same time, it’s one hell of a lot less dangerous than being in a country where armed people want to kill you. Like Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain and Max Clelland were.
No it wasn’t. I did the math on that when this debate first came up. Looked up the accident rate in the F-102, worked out the risk of death over 3500 hours of non-combat flying, and compared it to the risk of dying for the average vietnam draftee. The F-102 was much more dangerous. The F-102 had an accidental loss rate of 18 aircraft per 100,000 hours flown. Bush flew 3500 hours. He had a 62% chance of losing an aircraft over that period, and most of the time one of those things was lost the pilot was lost with it.
Here’s A Stats Page that shows that your chance of being killed if you were drafted to Vietnam was 0.5%.
Bush’s chance of being killed was not just greater, it was MUCH greater.
Of course, the reason the Vietnam figure was so low is because a lot of soldiers in vietnam never saw combat. These numbers don’t apply to infantrymen in combat, or Huey Gunship pilots, or whatever. I would imagine that Bob Kerry’s chance of making it back out as a SEAL was a lot worse.
In any event, there’s nothing ordinary or safe about strapping yourself inside any military jet fighter. More of them have been lost to accidents than to enemy fire.
But, by all reports the military base he was visiting GAVE him the jacket. What was he supposed to do, hand it to a flunkey? No, he did the right thing, “thank you so much for this really great jacket, I’m going to put it on right now!”
Take a poll and see how many really care that their commander in chief is wearing it as opposed to Joe Schmo civilian (political motivations aside).
I think I agree with with you that the Prez as a civilian shouldn’t wear military attire, what with it possibly sending too aggressive of a message and blurring the ideal of a civilian military commander. However his (or maybe one day her) simply wearing a jacket or cap with a military connection (as opposed to full uniform) isn’t anything I think someone should get into too much of a twist over. It’s doubtful that anyone is going to mistake them for an actual member of the military.
And just out of curiosity Sam, and I don’t mean this to be snide, you know I don’t care for Bush bashing, but what are the chances that Bush knew these stats when he signed up? I think the common image of Vietnam soldiers was one of people getting killed or seriously wounded, and serving in the Guard was seen as a safer option back then. Although Bush probably knew the dangers of getting into an F-102 I wonder if he knew it was more dangerous than going to Vietnam. It seems reasonble that he would know, but then again it seems reasonable that he wouldn’t.
I don’t think anyone makes it into jet fighters without knowing how dangerous it is. Bush could have wrangled his way into ground duty, or transport flying, or whatever. But Bush wanted to be a fighter pilot - his old man was a fighter-bomber pilot in WWII. I have yet to meet a coward flying military fighter jets.
Sam, obviously no one is going to talk you out of your sincere belief that George Bush is an honorable patriot, who protected Texas from Vietcong infiltration. I concede the field.
Being that his Dad was shot down in the Pacific in WW2, and had men on his plane die, he probably has a good idea about the dangers of military aviation.
As to the person who postulated Gore’s service, I don’t think having a personal bodyguard, serving in the journalism corps in the rear, and checking out WAY earlier than the regular grunts is indicative of hazardous service.
That’s not what I said. I’m just pointing out the math. This place IS dedicated to fighting ignorance, y’know?
