Linyt, perhaps I did not make my self clear. As you noted the flight to the aircraft carrier, the speech and the whole operation the last few days was political grandstanding of the first order. So be it–politics is a game that invites this sort of balderdash. No place in my last post or any other will you find a word that denigrates the officers and enlisted members who do the dirty work.
My point is that throughout out this thread are repeated claims that the President was a coward because he got a position in the National Guard or that Vice-president Gore was a coward because his job when he was on active service did not present a grave risk that he would get his butt blown off. I say it is not a mater of being brave or being a coward but rather is a matter of different ideas of duty. That lots of people did not see their duty as involving active service in war time does not in any way justify or make noble that concept of duty. There is, after all draft avoidance and there is draft evasion. It is offensive that people who are now eager to serve their country in an office of power and acclaim did not see it as their duty to serve when there was precious little power or acclaim to be had and some amount of sacrifice was required. It is even more offensive when those self same people wrap them selves in the flag and go out to greet the troops pretending to be another member of the old brigade.
I don’t think you denigrated the servicepeople at all, Spavined, and I wasn’t offended by anything you wrote, although I disagree with sentiments like these:
This is below the belt. There are other ways to serve your country than the military, you know. I would just as soon vote someone into office who had served 20 years with the Peace Corps, if I thought he was more qualified than the candidate. And, if he declared war, I certainly wouldn’t bring his lack of military service into the fray, even if I felt compelled to protest.
One person’s “John Wayne act” is another person’s display of personal courage to make a point. Actually, there’s not a lot of difference in definition between the two sentiments, is there? I suppose it depends a lot on your opinion of the person doing it.
Good God, SG! How many prejudicious and malicious comments can you pack into one post? I’m referring to your asinine comments about John Wayne and others above.
The CNN link says, "I happened to be on Air Force One for the infamous “haircut flight,” where President Clinton held up traffic at LAX while he was getting a haircut.
Carl Rochelle was there – on Air Force One, with President Clinton.
Number of American office buildings destroyed by al Qaeda terrorists under the Clinton Administration: None.
Number of American office buildings destroyed by al Qaeda terrorists under the George W. Bush Administration: Two.
Ergo, Clinton was better at protecting the United States from al Qaeda than Bush has been.
Doesn’t this part of Rochelle’s antidote argue against the fact that traffic at LAX was held up, since the press plane pulled around them and went on?
Both cites given so far seem to indicate the same thing–Clinton did get a haircut on AF1, which held up AF1’s return, but did not hold up traffic at LAX, much less worldwide.
I don’t like Bush anymore than you do (well, maybe a little more), but let’s stay in reality.
I disapprove of the photo/op. I disapprove of most photo/ops, and this is no different. He could have made that speech from anywhere. That was a lot of money spent that didn’t need to be spent. And yes, I’d of felt the same way if Clinton had done it.
The African embassy buildings destroyed by al Qaeda during the Clinton years have already been cited.
What, the Pentagon doesn’t count?
ObL tries to destroy the World Trade Center. Clinton does nothing. This gives ObL the chance to have another crack at it, this time involving airplanes.
At a certain point, this goes beyond selective memory into fantasy.
Actually, the World Trade Center had something like 9 or 10 buildings, all of which were destroyed. The two towers were the tallest, but the others were not small. Some were 50 stories or so. Also, a number of other buildings in the neighborhood were destroyed, including part of the World Financial Center directly across the street.
Actually, the WTC was 7 buildings, and yes, none are left. The World Financial Center (“WFC”), which consists of 3 skyscrapers, suffered only superficial damage. The public atrium was in pretty bad shape (it has a domed glass roof), but certainly not destroyed, and it has been completely rebuilt. (Cite: I work there)
The Deutsche Bank building is in bad shape. There was so much mold damage, the building is toxic. There’s a big black tarp hanging over it. They’re fighting with insurance whether to demolish and rebuild or clean. (Question: Where do you get tarps for 60 story buildings?). The main Federal Post Office is closed and may not reopen. The Verizon building has “open offices.”
Lastly, the Millenium Hotel officially reopens today.
I’m 34 and I remember it all too well. as for your Google search, I think this cite debunks the whole “Air Force One held up traffic at LAX once and for all.”
'Course the dittoheads will believe what they want to, even if it isn’t true.
