President fiddles while soldiers burn

The BBQ Pit
121

Ever take a nap, and get up, and suddenly a SDMB thread is all about something other than what it used to be about?

Liberal, it would be fun to talk about exactly when our president first demonstrated a lack of any sense of personal responsibility (see: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html, and http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/national_guard/ and http://www.thesmokinggun.com/bush/bush.html) and how it stacks up against the record of other presidents (even other Texan presidents) and whether his taking a vacation is crossing a line that he had not flown over a long time ago, especially in his treatment of those military personnel he claims to be, and accuses others of not, “supporting:” see: http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=367

But, as long as you’ve finally gagged on the gnat, I should refrain from commenting on the size of the camel’s ass. And, as I said, that’s not the topic any more. Too bad.

Anyhow. Although I’m seldom entertained by your tendency to see every debate as having the same topic (i.e., “who’s smarter, me or him?”), and you sometimes adopt argumentative tactics that seem to me evasive if not dishonest, it strikes me that in this thread you’re being needlessly baited (by moderators, no less). I’ve got no pull around here, but I’d kill this thing now if I could. Of course, there may be e-mail communication I don’t know about, and don’t want to. So, I’m definitely not your best pal, but I think it would be in your best interest to take a deep breath and hold it. Friend Ponder Stibbons speaks wisely, I think.

122

30 days leave sounds like a lot, but let me explain military leave for people who don’t know. Weekends count as leave days. So in the civilian world, if you want a week’s vacation, you leave work on Friday afternoon, go on vacation, and come back to work on Monday nine days later. For this you get charged five days leave. In the military,* however, if you go on vacation Friday afternoon and return to work nine days later, you get charged for nine days of leave.

Thirty days of leave amounts to approximately one month of leave. Whereas thirty days of leave sounds to a civilian like six weeks of leave.

Naturally your leave can be cancelled on the whim of your service. It’s often cancelled for such trivial little things as a war going on.

To compare a soldier taking fifteen days of leave from Iraq to a U.S. president spending nearly a third of his term in office on vacation…there are no words.

As always, I invite people who think soldiers get a great deal to please go ahead and enlist and take advantage of the great deal for yourself.

*In the Air Force, however, I believe it is different.

123

Oh, I agree. I’ve already followed his advice, both in this post (with bold letters), and by e-mail (via RTP). So there’s nothing more I can do about it. Maybe it’ll get back on topic. Hope springs eternal.

124

OK, this is the kind of intellectual honesty that feels a little like swallowing a hot rock (because as I have probably indicated at least in a round about way, I am not a huge Liberal fan) but in the interest of said honesty I am forced to state that I did read this post as Liberal being outed for a report that he had made to staff. While I am sorry to hear that it is technically true (the reporting part), I am glad to hear that the official policy is to not do so.

In the spirit of returning this thread to something approaching the OP, I will say that I tend to think that there is probably very little difference between when Bush is technically on vacation and when he is technically on the job. Scary as it is, I think that the country has been running on a combination of Machiavellian advisors and autopilot for the past 5 plus years. That said, it would be kind of nice if he would give lip service to not taking a vacation as there are a lot of serious things going on. Come to think of it, imagine what that would do for his poll numbers.

125

bluethree: You’re going off of old information, I think. You can check www.bupers.navy.mil and peruse the BUPERSMAN link there. All the Armed Forces have (or did at the time I retired back in 2000) the same leave charging policy.

Additionally, if the servicemember goes on leave on Friday afternoon after working hours, then that day is not charged. If he returns on the following Friday afternoon, then only Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and that final Friday are charged. If his work schedule doesn’t begin until the Monday after he returns from leave (on that Friday afternoon), he does not get charged for that last weekend.

A note to all those who are complaining about the President taking a “vacation”: I still haven’t seen a credible answer from any of y’all to the query someone posted about the president who took vacations during World War II. To complain about this president basically doing his job outside of Washington is purely partisan and ignorance of the highest order.

126

Posts #'s 36 and 37 by jrfranchi are indeed credible. And factual, to the best of my knowledge.

127

If you need to Pit Bush’s policy, including the war, then by all means Pit those policies. Feigning righteous indignatation about something that is S.O.P. for presidents just makes you look like a partisan tool-- in either or both senses of the word.

128

Thanks, This Year’s Model. That’s great support to show that complaining about this president taking a working vacation is exactly what I said it is.

129

SOP for presidents?

Is it SOP for a president to brag that he is a War President? Is it SOP for a president to launch a full scale attack, planned for months, on a soveriegn nation with sketchy intelligence and a whole world telling him he’s wrong? Is it SOP for a president to declare a War on Terror, and then say later that he doesn’t even think about the object of his war? Is it SOP for a president to advocate curtailing the liberty of his citizens for the sake of his own popularity while doing effectively nothing to increase their security? Is it SOP for a president to fly onto a carrier in a fighter jet and claim that a mission is accomplished when he hasn’t even yet planned out the mission? Is it SOP for an American president to flee Washington at a time of war, on the very day of massive casualties?

If all these things are SOP for presidents, then America is lucky still to exist.

130

I thought the OP (you) were pitting the long vacation. I think that is what John meant by the SOP mention.
The rest was insulting, but the Vacation is pretty much SOP.

131

Not with all the other context, which was the point of the OP and the LP article. When you’ve declared a state of war — strike that, multiple states of war, you dig in your heels and spend every waking moment working for peace. It is not the job of a president to bring us war, but to ensure our peace. You can have your vacations when your work is caught up. Just like the rest of us.

132

Cite that Bush has “bragged” about being a war president?

Cite that the “whole world” was against the war in Iraq?

Cite that he said he doesn’t think about the object of his war? You’re probably referring to this Press Conference statement that was misquoted in quite a few blogs. I’ve underlined the closest he’s come to saying what you claim, but be sure to read the whole response, which puts that quote in some context:

Probably. Presidents are politicians, and politicians are concerned primarily with power, as YOU are so apt to remind us.

Since very few prisidents have been qualified to fly a fighter jet, I’d say no.

Yes it is, and it should be. BTW, the president wasn’t in DC on 9/11/01 as you well know, so he wasn’t “fleeing” it. And all the folks in the chain of command were relocated to safe areas.

Are you sure that we exist?

133

Oops. I forget to includ the link to the press conference.

134

He’s played that both ways:

Bush sets case as ‘war president’ Feb, 2004

Ohio “Ask the President” Event Sep, 2004

135

But will you report Revealing posters? :dubious:

136

Report them to whom? And what are they planning to reveal?

I must admit that I stand corrected. You guys are a more cynical lot than I would have expected, even here. I still think that you guys inferred things that were not said, but you clearly were willing to leap to conclusions that I would have not expected, given the paucity of evidence. (Lib had apparent evidence, but the rest of you did not.)

137

Tom, as you know, God and the devil are in the details. As a theist, you know perfectly well that one man’s paucity of evidence is another man’s treasure trove of evidence. Being pursuaded one way or another does not a cynic make. I understand that the wagons are circled, but since you said that the evidence was lacking and haven’t closed the thread, I wanted to explain how people — without knowledge of the timing and specific post — can come reasonably to the conclusion that Veb was outing me.

It’s all right there in her statement. Three words, in context and together with her follow-up, compel the conclusion.

“Don’t whine to us about this being ‘trolling’, Liberal.”

  1. You have commented, and I would agree, that there is not necessarily anything remarkable about using the word, “trolling”, that I happened to use in reporting the post. However, when that word is put in quote marks, followed by my name, a reasonable person may conclude that I had been quoted.

  2. There is no “us” — other than moderators — to whom any legal report of trolling by anyone about anyone would go. The us had to reference mods because the alternatives are untenable. Us, the other posters? No, because one cannot notify other posters of trolling. A reasonable person may conclude that the mods had been notified of trolling.

  3. A public accusation of trolling, had it occured or were it to occur, would hardly be characterized as a “whine”. Had it occured, it would have merited, at the very least, a warning. But this can’t be a warning, because it had not occured. And yet, had it not occured either publicly or privately, how could it be pre-emptively described? A reasonable person may conclude that a report had occured, since its delivered tone has been characterized.

A leap of faith is required to conclude anything other than either (1) Veb was outing me for reporting a post, or (2, and less likely) Veb was warning me pre-emptively about an infraction that had not yet occured.

But we can eliminate (2) based on her follow-up, which said:

“I never dreamed that you would actually report it, given the circumstances.”

If she never dreamed that I would report it, but made the statement anyway, then she had to have prognosticated that I might publicly compose a post with a whining tone, select a specific post about which to complain, aim it at Binarydrone, address it to all the other posters, and call him a troll. And that, frankly, beggars belief.

Therefore, it is reasonable for people to conclude, based on nothing more than the public record, that Veb outed me for reporting a post. My own private knowledge did nothing more than corroborate the conclusion.

138

Yuck. I assume by now any participation at all in this thread by anyone whatever probably meets the definition of “trolling,” so if anybody’s looking for heads to lop off they can use this sentence to demonstrate intent.

Liberal, nobody can post a dozen times a day and generate as much smoke as you do and never suspect that s/he might have dropped an ember somewhere. You may be offended, but it should be clear by now that there’s no actual threat here. You’ll come off much better (full disclosure: I still don’t much like you) if you stick to the topic or bow out altogether. That said, I can’t help but view this catastrophe as an extremely belated opportunity seized to swat you on the nose, not too hard, with a rolled-up newspaper, an act to which I object mostly because it really should have happened long ago and far away, the first time(s) you got out of line and actually deserved it. Here, you didn’t, and you don’t, and although I haven’t been here long, I can’t think of another instance where a private message to a moderator prompted a public rebuke. So look at it this way: You’re safe in this thread, but you might want to choose the fights you now pick almost offhandedly a lot more carefully. Just a thought.

Oh, and a membership-saving grace note: can anyone come up with a plausible explanation why GWB, who grew up on the East Coast, would choose to sweat in Crawford when the PR value of staying closer to home would actually have been greater? It ain’t like he needs contact with his roots – they aren’t anywhere near there.

139

What makes you think there’s no PR value in being down home on the ranch? Also, Crawford is the man’s home and he does have roots there now. Hey, I grew up in Dixie and my home is California (except at the moment where it is as listed in the location to the upper right of this post). I have roots there, roots developed over 20 years–a longer time than I lived in the South. So, it doesn’t surprise me that the President wants to go home, just as all the other politicians, both pro- and anti-Bush, are doing.

140

What’s wrong with the simplest reason of all-- he likes Texas better than New England? And it’s simply false to say he has no roots in Texas. His family lived there when he was growing up, he met his wife there (who is a native Texan), both his daughters were born there, and he was the Governor of Texas for God’s sake. If that ain’t roots, I don’t know what is.