By God, if I ever got to fly in a AF jet, I'd want a flight suit, too. But you know, I never thought about it before...what else should he have been wearing? Maybe Air Force One should have been fitted with a hook so that it could just land on the carrier. I suppose the President should have just worn a business suit.
todd
I can personally attest to the fact that the "swagger" is already built into the flight suit.
AAMOF, it's sorta the same feeling when you put your hat back on in front of the crowd after riding your first bull, or throwing your first successful heel rope. :)
I believe that a helicopter rather than a fighter jet is the "normal" means of transportation in this sort of case.
Renata
Actually, the worst thing to happen to DC since the British burned it in the War of 1812 is the ramming of a commercial airplane into the pentagon. The problem with many people who don't like Bush is that they seem to forget what we are up against. 1000 deaths in the military including traffic accidents? That's GREAT! It is unbelieveable how low that number is. I'd have to look it up, but I think the military loses something like 350 every year in peace time just due to accidents. So take maybe 500 off that 1000. For those who don't think we should have lost any, you are really just saying that we shouldn't be fighting at all. Look at past wars and we lose far more than that in one battle.
dwhite
And your boy is a lily white pure truthful soul, huh?
Let's take an example of his truthfulness:
"Health Care Humbug
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A30 Washington Post
AMERICANS HAVE come to expect political ads to stretch the truth, but a recent duo from the Bush campaign cross the line. One, titled "Medicare Hypocrisy," tries to blame Democratic nominee John F. Kerry for the recent hike in Medicare premiums. The second, called "Healthcare: Practical vs. Big Government," says the Kerry health care plan would amount to a "government-run healthcare plan" costing a whopping $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
On the matter of Medicare premiums, Mr. Kerry landed the first below-the-belt punch. Seizing on the news of a 17.5 percent increase in Medicare premiums, the Kerry spot said President Bush "imposes the biggest Medicare premium increase in history" -- as if the decision about how much seniors would pay were up to Mr. Bush, rather than determined by a preset formula. Still, if Mr. Bush didn't "impose" the premium hike, he's not blameless, either: The biggest part of the increase is attributable to higher payments to physicians provided by the new Medicare bill that he backed; another chunk is the result of the bill's extra payments to insurers to induce them to offer coverage to seniors.
The Bush campaign responded with an ad that made the Kerry campaign look like a model of honest rhetoric. "John Kerry: He actually voted for higher Medicare premiums -- before he came out against them," the Bush ad said, managing to simultaneously blame Mr. Kerry and summon the Kerry-as-flip-flopper image. The ad seeks to score points off Mr. Kerry's statement that a 1997 law instituting the premium formula was a "day of vindication for Americans" -- as if Mr. Kerry had been celebrating socking it to seniors. In fact, the law, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, included a well-intentioned effort to rein in Medicare costs, but what Mr. Kerry was praising was its child tax credits for working-class families and expanded coverage for uninsured children. Does Mr. Bush disagree with that assessment?
This week the Bush campaign unveiled an ad accusing Mr. Kerry of advocating "a government-run healthcare plan" that puts "Washington bureaucrats in control." This is not a caricature of Mr. Kerry's plan
-- it's fiction. The cost of Mr. Kerry's plan is open to debate; the Kerry campaign puts it at $653 billion, while the Bush campaign, not surprisingly, cites the $1.5 trillion estimate of a conservative think tank. What's not open to debate is the falsity of the Bush campaign's description of the Kerry plan as "a hostile government takeover of our nation's health care system."
In fact, what's striking about Mr. Kerry's approach is the degree to which it builds on the existing system. There are no employer mandates, no price controls, no premium caps; instead, Mr. Kerry seeks to lessen the financial pressure on employers through a voluntary program in which the government would shoulder some of the costs of catastrophic care. He also attempts to lower insurance costs for individuals and small businesses by letting them buy into a version of the plan offered to federal employees. And he would expand coverage for, among others, uninsured children -- in the very government program for which Mr. Bush pledged, in his nomination acceptance speech, to "lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up."
There's a legitimate debate to be had about the wisdom of the two campaigns' health plans. But so far no -snip-
They don't _forget_, they make the mistake of thinking we should _negotiate_ with 'em. Of course, the people who are intent on killing us see that as a sign of weakness, as evidenced by the Clinton non-actions in this regard. But, they'll not notice that it didn't work and caused more problems, will they.
It's not like anyone was drafted into today's army, and it's not like one volunteers to join the army without knowing what they may be getting into, considering the options, and deciding to do the noble thing and join.
Dave Hinz
Snip of article from
...which is the pinnacle of unbiased reporting
My point is that on an issue I understand intimately, Kerry's lies are blatant and obvious. There are more subtle issues that I do not have as complete of knowledge on, but it's reasonable to expect that since he lies so completely on this one topic, it's likely that he's lying on other topics to an equivalent degree.
My point also included the thought that, since neither one of 'em are someone I'd care to take to dinner, I'm picking the one whose record is closest to my personal point of view.
Not only is is "normal", apparently no other sitting president has ever done a tailhook landing on a carrier. But what fun is there in riding in a helicopter? What kind of pansy, given the choice to fly in a helicopter of a jet fighter, opts for helo? FWIW, the Navy said it was more comfortable with a jet landing as it afforded the opportunity to eject in case of a problem. Personally, it wouldn't matter either way to me. I'll even stipulate that it was partly political. Even so, so what? Any president is a politician, so it's not surprising that some of what they do is political.
todd
Kerry sure has made no mistake in pointing that out.
Probably better than Texas Democrats forging documents to try to gin up some dirt.
I'm not crazy about people being detained indefinitely. However, every one of those people has a warrant signed by a federal judge. The practice was upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in November of last year. But I'd like to see some greater speed applied to their situations.
And as we've seen with federal judge appointments, you can't just ramrod through anything you want to in the Senate if you have a majority. Unfortunately, you can't get much of anything done in the Senate on your own with less than 60 senators on your side. So, if anything gets done it's because Republicans and Democrats both wanted to.
Well, this one's a layup. From John Kerry's interview with Crosby Noyes on Meet the Press on April 18, 1971.
MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?
SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.
Doesn't get any clearer than that.
This point of view is not supported by the facts and has been hotly disputed. Most Nader voters are not Democrats and some of the polling data I found showed that they would have split their vote between Bush and Gore. It shouldn't have mattered anyway. Gore should have done to Bush what Bush
41 did to Dukakis. Unfortunately, no one could find a pulse on Al for most of the campaign. The main purpose to blame for Gore's defeat is Al Gore. For God's sake...the man lost his own state. Unfortunately for Kerry, it looks like we're going to have a repeat in 2004, except the end result is going to be closer to Bush/Dukakis than Bush/Gore.So, what you're saying is that the Democrats chose political expediency over their principles?
Where does that rank compared to Kerry voting against funding for the troops?
Yeah, it's too bad we have double-digit inflation and unemployment. Oops, I forgot...we don't. If you question if it could be done worse, please refer yourself to Jimmy Carter.
9/11 happened.
Actually, based on the events that happened in 2001 and Bush inheriting an economy on the downturn, I think we're doing quite well, thank you. What we definitely don't need is the most liberal member of the Senate running the show.
Try to get the name right. When you bottom post, it forces people to wade through everything they have already read. Sorry for those that have 3 minute memories but most of us don't have that problem.
I have this magical development on my keyboard called the "Page Down" key. It allows me to almost instantly get to the bottom of a post to see the follow-up. If Usenet posts weren't archived, top-posting would be fine. However, when reading a series of archived posts, I find it hard to read top-posted replies because I was taught in school to read from top to bottom.
todd
One wag pointed out that if you took an Afro-American male from Compton and sent him to a combat infantry unit in Mosul, his safety would INCREASE compared to his risk of death in South LA.
Considering the tax payer dollars that go into keeping a president alive (this was reinforced for me after witnessing Bush's urban assault caravan scream through Rochester, MN yesterday,) it's ludicrous that any standing president would travel to an aircraft carrier during time of war regardless of the means of transport. I don't hold this against Bush, though - political creatures that they are, I think any president would have taken advantage of the opportunity. However, I would stipulate that it was blatantly political - again, a motivation easily within the comfort zone of any politician.
- Al
So learn to freaking _trim_ unneeded text. You don't talk backwards, why would you write that way?
So you're not only inconsiderate, but you're insulting. Lovely. Are you like this in person, or just when hiding behind a fake name on the Intarweb?
I notice you don't address my actual points. Does that mean you're done?
Just read last week that, in the current defense authorization bill, Congress cut ~4.5billion in spending on troop and real military stuff/support to diminish the blow of adding $9 billion in PORK (a lot of non-defense related stuff). Yup, priorities are clear. ANd to show how things are muzzled these days, you didn't hear much from the press about this, now did ya?
Yup, them thar Republicans are sure pro supporting the troops (both parties actually had a hand in the pork, but only one party is in the majority).
Renata
-snip-
-snip-
-snip
My heavens! It seems we're quite polar opposites on this matter.
I'm sorry, but it does seem that actually Bush's are much more blatant and proveably wrong. Maybe I need to watch more Fox. But then, a lot of folks don't seem to understand the difference between 527s that lie to smear and those that simply present distasteful information that is, nevertheless proven factual. Or, for that matter, the given reason for war in Iraq. Or that it ain't currently on the happy road to democracy.
Renata
I see that you get your news from Dan Blather.
What, you disagree that he's lying about assault weapons, or you disagree with me that a flash surpressor and bayonet lug on a semi-auto firearm that looks like a machine gun doesn't help Bin Ladin crash airplanes into our buildings?
Dunno, I don't watch Fox. But as I said, on a topic that I know intimately, Kerry's lies are so blatant and obvious that I clearly can't trust him. Since it's also an issue I feel strongly about, the combination of his voting record on the topic, and his blatant lying about it, make it a deciding issue for me. I mean, the guy can't make his point with truth, so he resorts to lies about what the assault weapons ban was about? (you _do_ know it was about 4 cosmetic features rather than anything functional, right?)
And a lot of people don't understand that there is nothing inherently evil about a "527", and that by making it so an organization of interested people can't express their opinion is a bit on the side of anti-freedom-of-speech.
And whose fault is that? Kerry voted to approve the war too, remember? He also said, a week or two ago, that even knowing what he knows now, he'd _still_ vote to approve going to war. How do you reconcile that with yourself, I wonder?
Given the history of democrats gutting the military and republicans building it back up again, I would take this story with a grain of salt. There's more to it than what you have shown. Just a guess, but the defense strategists have been overhauling the focus of our military away from the Cold War outpost mentality and more to quick reaction forces. Technology, among other things, makes this possible, and probably saves money, too.
dwhite
If people posted they way they should, you wouldn't have to do this.
98% of all posts are read in the orrriginal posting. The other 2% will just have to deal with it.This brings up questions as to your reading ability.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.