I did not have to take that helipcopter...Marine 1

From the Washington Post

So, not only did the White House backpedal like a Detroit Tigers' outfielder trying to chase down a fly ball after they misled the nation when they said the Lincoln was too far away for a helicopter but now acknowledge they were 39 miles and well within range of ANY helicopter. Now we learn that the carrier could've gone home a day early from their 10-month tour instead of being held up for entire day waiting for the president to tell us something we already know which he could've said from the Oval Office. And I don't buy what the Admiral in the article said, either. They knew the ship was coming back for weeks and could've planned for a quick return. I seem to recall a lot of Republicans back in the day bitching that Clinton was misusing government property during his reelection campaign and bitching that Gore was doing the same in 2000. I don't see anything wrong with reasonably questioning the use of taxpayer funds by a President up for reelection in what is for all intents and purposes a campaign commercial.

I turned of the Presidents speech after a few minutes. I have never done that before. I usually only miss a presidential speech if im not around a television.

I started listening to him and though he isn''t saying anything I dont already know. I cant believe I actually felt compelled to turn him off and actually went through with it. I feel a little disrespectful.

However, I think you hit the nail on the head Ratboy. This was a ""commercial"" for the President. It was a cheerleading speech with him thinking, ""Man I look great in front of a military that loves me!"" He is using a presidential address to essentially pat himself on the back in front of his supporters. I got so turned off to his ""job well done"" attitude.

We are NOT done folks! There is a lot more work to do. Parts of the job were extremely well done but we are no where near the home stretch.

Of course he comes to California to talk about our ailing economy and high jobless rate. His solution? Lets go to defense contractors. Millitary spending is going to lead the way to recovery! Ya great! Thanks...

I like how no one criticizes a President who used his father''s strings to pull a safe duty in the National Guard (edit out Coast, my head fell off for a moment) during the Vietnam war, who let his flight status lapse when it looked like he might be shipped off, who dodged the war worse (at least Clinton didn''t pretend to serve) than our last president. I like that people think he''s some kind of military hero, and don''t criticize him for wearing a flight suit when he''s clearly too much of a coward to have put it on for his own generation. I like how nobody talks about that.

I like how people call him a combat aviator even though his father got him into the ""Champagne Squadron"" of the Air National Guard that would never in a million years get called into active duty.

""I was off fighting the Crusades. My daddy didn''t get me into the National Guard.""

Wow. I had no idea bout any of that stuff with regards to his comfy National Guard station. Makes me respect him even less. You shouldn''t be sending people out to die if you won''t do it yourself. Yeah, it happens, and I know Clinton did it too. And while I don''t respect Clinton on that basis, at least he actually dodged the draft, instead of getting his daddy to bail him out.

Now we learn that the carrier could''ve gone home a day early from their 10-month tour instead of being held up for entire day waiting for the president to tell us something we already know which he could''ve said from the Oval Office.

This isn''t true. They sit off shore when they get in early. Parcking a warship isn''t like a car. Families where coming in to pick up their loved ones.

They were not held up an entire day.

It doesn''t matter what you think. He took a political risk, he could of ended up looking like Mike ""I''m a moron in a Tank"" Dukakis. The people on the ship loved him. The men and women in the military, love him.

Now about the photo op: So what?

Regean, Clinton, Bush Sr., JFK, etc. have all used the military as a photo op. It''s politicls. Matthew Miller, himself a Democrat, gives the best reply in his latest syndicated column:

"Every so often you come across evidence that a political party is losing its mind. Something like that is happening to Democrats over President Bush's fabulous "˜top gun' photo-op aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. It's a case study in how Bush and Karl Rove have left so many Democrats undone.

If you president is so hot to give the tax payer''s money back to them, why is he blowing it on unecessary stunts?

"Rat Boy" wrote:

If you president is so hot to give the tax payer''s money back to them, why is he blowing it on unecessary stunts?

How much did it cost to use the plane and how much would have it cost to use the copter? Why do you care? It was his victory lap. The military loved it. Why are you so self-centered where you cannot let people who''ve been out at sea for 10 months, to meet the President. They loved it.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

If you president is so hot to give the tax payer''s money back to them, why is he blowing it on unecessary stunts?

He''s not your President? Do you wear a tinfoil hat? Do you listen to the leftist Rush Limbaugh?

Because it is unneccessary political grandstanding. He had the tax payers of the United State of America pay for a political ad.

If he really wanted to thank the officers and sailors, he should give them a pay bonus. So far all they''re getting is an increase in death benefits and tax exemption if they are forced to transfer and sell their homes more than twice a year. It is a tragedy that the government orders these people to potentially give their lives but give them chump change in return. Why doesn''t he do something about it?

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Because it is unneccessary political grandstanding. He had the tax payers of the United State of America pay for a political ad.

Happens with every President.

If he really wanted to thank the officers and sailors, he should give them a pay bonus. So far all they''re getting is an increase in death benefits and tax exemption if they are forced to transfer and sell their homes more than twice a year. It is a tragedy that the government orders these people to potentially give their lives but give them chump change in return. Why doesn''t he do something about it?

They got a bonus in 2001. They should get another bonus. Why don''t we kill some federal programmes and do it?

Why are you so self-centered where you cannot let people who''ve been out at sea for 10 months, to meet the President. They loved it.

Actually, that''s a very good point. My issue was with the double-standard being applied, but all told if people on the boat wanted to meet the President and it bolstered their sense of duty, then I''m glad they had the opportunity.

Still, Rat Boy''s on to something as well. Glad handing is no excuse for not supporting military families (not hardware) when it comes budget time.

"Elysium" wrote:
Why are you so self-centered where you cannot let people who''ve been out at sea for 10 months, to meet the President. They loved it.

Actually, that''s a very good point. My issue was with the double-standard being applied, but all told if people on the boat wanted to meet the President and it bolstered their sense of duty, then I''m glad they had the opportunity.

Still, Rat Boy''s on to something as well. Glad handing is no excuse for not supporting military families (not hardware) when it comes budget time.

There is always a double-standard. The Republicans and Democrats both do it. I''m over it. It doesn''t matter that Bush didn''t go to war (when he could have). The people who have been in two wars love him.

I''m all for paying them more.

"Ulairi" wrote:

I''m all for paying them more.

Fine, but where is the push from on high to do it?

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

I''m all for paying them more.

Fine, but where is the push from on high to do it?

There was a raise in 2001. The last raise was in 1999. There should be another pay raise this year.

Good. Now they should start dumping all these big money wasters like the F/A-22, missle defense, the DD-21 and FF-21 warships, and any other projects designed to fight the Cold War and not the War on Terror.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Good. Now they should start dumping all these big money wasters like the F/A-22, missle defense, the DD-21 and FF-21 warships, and any other projects designed to fight the Cold War and not the War on Terror.

The Bush Admin wanted to get rid of a bunch of old weapons. Congress killed it. I don''t think we''re ready for a missle defense system to be deployed, yet. I think it''s worth it to R&D one.

It''s too hot-button and too far off. Full-funding for it right now is just pork-barrel spending.

"Ulairi" wrote:

It doesn''t matter that Bush didn''t go to war (when he could have). The people who have been in two wars love him.

Ok, again, I''d like to bring this up. Of course they love him, hes the freaking President. Thats like saying they love America. Duh. Second, assuming that they love him because hes such a good President, not all of them do at that. Thats a generalization. There are Democrats in the Military, you know. Independents too, probably some crazy ass Green party people as well. And political parties aside, there are probably as many varied views of the President in the Military as out, they don''t stop having opinions when they sign up. I just don''t know where you get this ""The Military loves him"" attitude from. Maybe you can provide me with a link.

I dont blame him for going aboard the warship and meeting the troops, thats fine, Im sure they enjoyed the visit. I do think its poor taste to use your position as President to get free airtime to campaign with, but all the other Presidents do it to.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]

"Ulairi" wrote:

It doesn''t matter that Bush didn''t go to war (when he could have). The people who have been in two wars love him.

Ok, again, I''d like to bring this up. Of course they love him, hes the freaking President. Thats like saying they love America. Duh. Second, assuming that they love him because hes such a good President, not all of them do at that. Thats a generalization. There are Democrats in the Military, you know. Independents too, probably some crazy ass Green party people as well. And political parties aside, there are probably as many varied views of the President in the Military as out, they don''t stop having opinions when they sign up. I just don''t know where you get this ""The Military loves him"" attitude from. Maybe you can provide me with a link.

Wrong. The rank and file in the military didn''t love Clinton. This isn''t just ""go Bush go"" but they admire him. It''s completely different.

I dont blame him for going aboard the warship and meeting the troops, thats fine, Im sure they enjoyed the visit. I do think its poor taste to use your position as President to get free airtime to campaign with, but all the other Presidents do it to.

It''s a perk of being the President.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

It''s too hot-button and too far off. Full-funding for it right now is just pork-barrel spending.

Full-funding comes when we deploy it. Researching it isn''t nearly as costly.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Wrong. The rank and file in the military didn''t love Clinton. This isn''t just ""go Bush go"" but they admire him. It''s completely different.

Can you give me some sort of link, or something you read that shows this? I am not sure where youre getting this. Im not saying I necissarily doubt it, but Id like some examples, if you can.

Also, new sig = teh win

If it pisses you off, Ill change it, but I thought it was funny, and I was bored

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]

"Ulairi" wrote:

Wrong. The rank and file in the military didn''t love Clinton. This isn''t just ""go Bush go"" but they admire him. It''s completely different.

Can you give me some sort of link, or something you read that shows this? I am not sure where youre getting this. Im not saying I necissarily doubt it, but Id like some examples, if you can.

Also, new sig = teh win

If it pisses you off, Ill change it, but I thought it was funny, and I was bored :)

Just watch how they look at Bush and how they looked at Clinton. Watch Chris Matthews, and other talk show hosts. Read columns and articles. It''s all there.

Ehh...the sig is out of context, but hey.

Am I rank and file in the standard sense? No. Mainly because I''m well on my to being a college graduate and over the military average age of eighteen but I''ll chime in my two cents anyway.

Is Bush viewed more favorably than Clinton was by the military? Sure, it''s situational. Does that actually mean anything? No.
That just means this President is seen more on TV with the military than the last one.

Researching it isn''t nearly as costly.

... Tell that to the Crusader Artillery program. It only hit ELEVEN BILLION DOLLARS and never left the PROTOTYPE stage.
The Crusader was to be an awesome weapon, in my opinion, but to large, complex, and costly to deploy effectively.
Admittedly the F-22 is up to about sixty billion that''s all right. I don''t know who the hell calls that thing a Cold War weapon but it''s as lethal and as modern as they come. I, for one, like the idea of a better fighter than everyone else''s. I think the JSF is the stupidest idea ever.

The F-35 (fomerly the JSF) is essentially a scaled-down and affordable F/A-22 (The /A was added as a selling point ). Thanks to Lockheed building both planes, it''s essentially the same technology.

All I know is that I want an F-22. Those things are just cool.
Although, from what I''ve read the thing would crash if the stabilization computers crashed. Apparently it''s extremely unstable in flight and the only thing that keeps it in the air is the computer.

Oh c''mon, if somebody asked you if you''d like to make a carrier landing, wouldn''t you? I don''t mind that he did it at all.

"scoli" wrote:

Although, from what I''ve read the thing would crash if the stabilization computers crashed. Apparently it''s extremely unstable in flight and the only thing that keeps it in the air is the computer.

Would it surprise you to learn that a lot of the modern fighters would crash if they''re computers...er...crashed?

The technology called ""fly by wire"" means that the control stick in the cockpit is no longer physically linked to the elevators and airelons that control manuevering. If the computer goes, you have absolutely no control of your aircraft.

Now, the F-117A, F/A-22, B-2, and F-35 (and you can bet they''ll get the /A tagged on before long) are aerodynamically unstable, meaning that a computer is needed to keep the aircraft level, for the most part. If the computer goes on one of those planes, she''ll fall out of the sky like a brick.

Don''t forget the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18''s.
I just don''t like the idea of us eventually distributing the JSF to foreign powers, the same way I don''t like how we distribute F-16''s and M1''s now. Admittedly, these versions are stripped down in key areas (I''m thinking of the Choabam armor here), they''re still the best weapon systems out there.

Well, it prevents the countries receiving the advanced weaponry from setting up an industry on their own, that would be infinately more dangerous proliferation-wise.