The fawning and frothing over the President notwithstanding, no alert observer can rationally see last night’s speech on the EISENHOWER as anything except the opening act of the 2004 campaign. While many might reasonably think there was no substance to the talk, all must concede that it was a superb piece of public relations and salesmanship. The outline of the campaign is apparent–the President will wrap himself in the flag, waive the bloody shirt from the ruins of the WTC, allude in the most indefinite terms to general terrorism and claim that the invasion of Iraq was somehow vengeance for 9/11. Anyone who questions these glittering generalities will have his patriotism impugned. Anyone who points out that the President has done precious little to fix the economy will be told that it is all the fault of terrorists and a weak Congress that willfully refused to pass the President’s full tax cut. People who suggests that it may not be a good idia to deliberatly damage our international credibility and relationships will be told that they look French.
The President will continue to cozy up to the Christian conservatives and give them a left handed almost promise of mandatory prayer, public funding of parochial schools, public funding of church run social services and restrictions on access to abortion. The Christian conservatives will wet themselves voting for W., and they will get nothing more from him than lip service for their devoutly held beliefs. The Second Amendment zealots will get the same treatment and will give the President’s reelection the same fervent support and get the same sort of lip service.
The President is going to run a campaign the likes of which for slickness and mendacity has not been seen for years–we have just seen the beginning. George W. Bush will be sold like a box of corn flakes. An electorate that thinks that Rambo movies and the X-men are only a slight deviation from reality will buy it.
The secret to making the whole thing work is to restrict the President to photo-ops. Under no circumstances will he be allowed to say anything in public that he cannot read off a Teleprompter and under no circumstances will he be allowed to talk to anything but an audience of syncopates and ernest supporters.
As for the people who tell us that the Pres had to take a fix wing onto the carrier instead of a chopper because the carrier was too far off the coast – the EISENHOWER was 30 or 40 miles offshore, just what do you think the range of those choppers is? How far is it from Washington City to Camp David? It is all public relations; it is all form without substance: it is a big hat and no cattle. Hang onto your bill fold!
Right! Lincoln, not Eisenhower. Easier to spell. Carrier named after some Republican President, one saved the Union and ended slavery, the other played golf and inflicted Richard Nixon on us.
George W Bush flew the F-102, whose mission was to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft. It was the world’s first supersonic all-weather jet interceptor and the USAF’s first operational delta-wing aircraft
He’s not too smart, but he learned to fly a supersonic interceptor? Doesn’t wash with me. Getting my private pilot’s license in a Cessna 172 was tough as hell and that’s nothing compared to the rigors associated with flying fighters.
As for the guy who lost the election via the electoral college, ie Gore… That would be great, if you had the Burka market cornered in Afghanistan, with maybe a side interest in beheading axes, as I’m sure the Taliban would still be in power. Best to keep the girls uneducated I guess, if that’s your view.
As for Iraq, surely the man we humiliated in the Gulf War held no ill will towards us, and Gore would’ve realized that he would Never even consider supporting groups like Al-Q. Hmmm Syria sure is close, might be a good place to store stockpiles. NAH, Gore wouldn’t have fallen for that. There’s more important things, like banning the internal combustion engine here in the states, after all, Earth is in the balance.
One must shudder at the imagined consequenses of AlGore at the helm. Or this one does at least.
Your loyalty would be commendable if it were more worthily placed.
Indeed, it is an accomplishment to learn to fly such an aircraft. It is even better to protect the skies above Amarillo from Viet Cong aircraft, while Al served in the cozy safety of Saigon. Pity that he wandered off-base for a beer and forgot how to get back.
Indeed, Al Gore might very well have failed to free Afghanistan from the dreaded Taliban, and deliver it to the enlightened mercies of the thugs and warlords who rule it now. We shall never know.
And you are wise to point out how GeeDubya does not suffer from the tree-hugging fanatacism of Al Gore. Al would never have come up with such a brilliant plan as GeeDubya did in Texas, that is, to place environmental laws in the hands of the petrochemical industry. Who better to guard the chickens than the foxes? As long as you’re making good money, who needs air?
Yeah, good thing we were saved from the horrors of Al. Only two wars in two years, that ain’t much. We are free at last from eight long years of peace and prosperity. Oh, the horror! The horror!
An S-3B also affords “stick time” while in the front seat, something not available in most aircraft (A-6 slash EA-6B is another) I have piloted an S-3B, it’s a hell of a lot of fun!
Did I say it’s not your right to be stupid? Did I say you don’t have a right to display your stupidity?
[/quote]
Point two: I’m supposed to believe the White house when “they” say that a tailhook landing is safer then a chopper landing on an aircraft carrier, rather then the fucking United States Navy?! What are you, high?
[/quote]
No, I’m not high. I’ve actually served on aircraft carriers and watched the numerous landings of both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft. From what I recall, landing the rotary wing craft is a bit more complicated than it is for the fixed wing.
See my response to your point one.
Actually, it’s not. “Shrub” is a rather mundane version of “bush.” I get it. I’m just not impressed by lackluster displays of “wit.”
well, obviously the political allegiences delineate the choice of facts presented and not visa versa, and that would apply to both of us of course.
It’s just that the “W really isn’t too bright” card gets played so often that it’s mere repetition by dem pundits and the raised eyebrow of Peter Jennings and his ilk that it’s become something of a “given” among some of the (from my viewpoint) ill informed masses. He learned to fly jets over Texas, while Gore was kept safely at a typewriter in Saigon.
I personally don’t think Gore is stupid. I don’t call him that, just because people feel free to lambast our current commander in chief in that way.
I just disagree with his ideology. I disagree with many of Bush’s political stances, especially on the domestic front. As a conservative, I think that our president is trying to please everyone at once, and ramping up spending is anathema to those of us with a somewhat libertarian bent (Farm bill last year springs to mind).
As for your 8 years of peace and prosperity, lobbing cruise missles at The Sudanese (hello Islam) aspirin factory, bombing the hell out of Yugoslavia so that a differant sort of genocide could begin, lobbing cruise missles at Saddam (to no effect - except to divert attention from Monicagate), giving North Korea nuclear technology which they are now attempting to blackmail us with, selling China missle guidance systems… and inheriting a great economy from Bush Sr. oh, and teaching our children what “oral sex” was and how it “wasn’t sex” and other uses for cigars. Come on, Clinton left no legacy or coatails for Gore to use, he left him with the usual “dependent class” vote, which is pretty damn big in this country. I will say this, Clinton/Gore did at least fix the Israel/Palestine issue. Those were some great photo ops at Camp David… oh wait, it was a total disaster. Par.
man I really didn’t want to get started, but my fingers just took a life of their own…
Skillet:man I really didn’t want to get started, but my fingers just took a life of their own…
Next time hook 'em up to your brain first. Clinton “inherited a great economy from Bush Sr.”??!? Huh? The recession of the early '90s is widely considered the worst economic shape we’d been in since the Great Depression, and unemployment was at 7.5%. (It was about 4.2% when Clinton left office.)
Jeez, I’m no fan of Bush, but at least I don’t go around spouting absurdities just in order to smear him. Looks like the PR blitz that SG referred to is already taking effect.
Look, CrapHat, if you’re going to post a link in which you try and prove me wrong, at least read the entire article first, so you don’t make an ass of yourself.
Which you do.
Make an ass of yourself.
To quote from the linked article: "Well, somehow, somebody called the FAA or soemthing. Some unamed source at the FAA said ‘delayed aircraft’-- which became a delayed aircraft all over the country which was never really true…You know, he is my friend, Christophe, so I defend him, but then when it was married to this notion that air traffic was delayed."
So in other words, you Brutus are full of shit on this one.
As for the helicopter/jet dispute, shouldn’t we estimate some actual figures?
The carrier was 30 miles from shore when he landed on it, and apparently slowing so that it would not reach port until the next day. Using the normal cruising speed for both carrier and jet for your estimate, about what distance from shore was the carrier when the jet took off?
Now, what range do most helicopters have? Could any of them have reached the ship at roughly the same distance from shore (by having to take off much earlier I assume)?
It could simply be that the President was busy, and taking a plane saved precious schedule time, with the photo-op being an added benefit.
If he wanted to save precious time, he wouldn’t have stayed on the ship overnight.
This is what is. Someone had the idea of flying out to the carrier. Rove went, “Man, that would be a great photo-op.” Bush is thinking, “Hell, if I’m going, I’m going in in an F-18.” All Air Force pilots secretly want to find out what it’s like to land on a carrier.
The Secret Service went nuts, and they all came to a compromise. Fly on in a safer plane, helicopter off in Marine one.
But I will guarantee you that in Bush’s mind was that he just wanted to hang with his military. And that’s why they like him. The admiration is mutual. Bush enjoyed this a whole lot, and that’s partially why it was done.
And this business about keeping them away from home for another day - I kind of look at it like, "Hey guys, guess what? We’re going to take an extra day and throw one wang-dang of a party!
Trust me, every sailor on that ship was thrilled about the whole thing.
Let’s face it, the whole bleedin’ incident was one fat showboat production – empty on substance, high on photo ops, and another step towards the George W. Bush 2004 “War on Terror” Presidential Campaign. Complaining about the carrier landing is like nitpicking a man’s performance in a debate because his tie was the wrong shade of red.
And if Bush wanted to do something gutsy, he could try admitting that the whole “Iraq has WMDs and is going to use them any day now!” bit was fabricated bullstuff to justify an unjustifiable invasion.
yup, it looks like it more and more. This CNN page says it was a severe case of the US believing what they wanted to believe rather than thinking rationally.
In other words, not even the Americans who claim they believe the WMD existed do really believe it because if it were true it would men there is a serious possibility the WMD have been distributed to a lot of bad guys out there which would be much worse than the previous situation.
The article pretty much says the US government still publicly says the WMD existed but it is becoming quite clear they most probably did not.