Thanks Dems.

The more military votes for the Republicans, the better. Goodbye AW ban, my AR-180B needs a flash hider.

Uh. Did the author actually ask the sailor if it was "revulsion", or was that convenient use of artistic license in order to sell his spin?

After the dem's ugly attempt to disenfranchise voters in the services, it probably doesn't take much to ignite our troops and lower still further their opinion of liberals abed in America.

The Lincoln had been treading water off the California coast when Bush made a dramatic landing on the carrier's flight deck, his "Navy One" S-3B Viking catching the 4-wire, the last cable before about an 80-foot drop from the edge of the flight deck to the frigid Pacific.

PURE UTTER BS
Only a complete FNG would write this

TX Vet, just curious as to why? I admit I'm not up on military terminology or practice, so clue us in.

ATTENTION ON DECK! This 'journalist' is selling ink. That's about ALL that's being bought. I can recycle most of this crap off the stern as fast as this guy can dish it out. Haven't we heard about enough from 'embedded' writers, even when they aren't?

I understand that the number 4 cable is the FIRST one the plane could hookk and the number #1 cable is the one that has the 80 ft drop after it.

Navy guys correct me if I'm wrong...

The 1-wire is the one closest to the "Ramp" - the stern of the boat (we aviators never call it a ship), followed by the 2-wire, three-wire and 4-wire. The target point is the 3-wire. Catching the 1-wire means you were flying on the low side of the gliideslope, putting you more at risk of meeting Mister Ramp. Conversely, catching the 4-wire means you were on the high side of the glideslope and in danger of missing all four wires (boltering) and having to do a inadvertent touch-and-go. Other than getting a bad grade and catching a lot of grief from your peers this isn't too bad in the daytime.

Nightime bolters are another story.

Oh, and I seem to remember it being 60 feet, not 80 feet...

Dave,

I think you are mistaken. The article was written by a local reporter, in The Everett Herald. Everett is the homeport for the USS Abraham LIncoln. It was a report of the events. He is not "embedded".
Everett is a great Navy Town! They support their Navy! Look around the paper, read the article about the Welcome Home Parade! They expected 10,0000, they had a turnout of 30,000! I live 10 miles away! It was a great event!!!

I get a kick out of all the anti Republicans out there.
At least Bush had the guts to take the risk;
And by the way, I bet it was a bit cheaper than a crew on AF1, and to have the carrier dock for a photo op, something that Clinton would have done.

See this morning's Drudge Report for a pic of Dem. Senator Patrick Lahey posing in a flight suit, on a carrier, next to a fighter jet. Was that widely decried as a crass political maneuver? Hipocracy, thy name is Liberal.

Jack, I think Leahy is posing next to an Air Guard F-16, which could not be on an aircraft carrier. Other than that, the picture says it all as far as Dem hypocrisy is concerned. What next? Robert "KKK" Byrd in battle-sheets standing next to an Abrams tank?

from anoldfashioned, european perspective: i'm not quite shure, weather the unleshed euphoria for the armed forces displayed here is healthy for any society, especially if it considers itself democratic (or republican :) - HURRAY

There is a picture of, I think it's Leahy, posing on a carrier. I think it was the Lincoln, which is ironic since he voted NOT to fund building it.

thanks leo. rest assured we're (Americans, left or right) not all so self-absorbed and angry inside. I, for one, love the international news on TCP, and appreciate the opportunity to learn about different perspectives about that news in the "spin" column, but regret the fact that it has apparently developed a cult following of hyper-opinionated pundits who can't resist the forum as a place to spew jingoistic venom to which they can't get anyone to listen in person. Still, it's a free forum, and one must take the good of free speech with the bad.

Leo, I understand your qualms. But you have to remember something about America, it's run by civilians. Although most American Presidents have done a term in the Military, the military has no say in the running of our country. We glorify the achievements of our sports heroes and our military heroes, but both Michael Jordan and Tommy Franks would have to stand for elections to have any say in the government.

Nurse Nancy - I read the article, and I was Navy 30+ years ago. The closest I ever got to a ship (I heard some call them boats, but I thought that was for subs) was the dock. This journalist 'seemed' to take exception with being 'herded' about, kept away from wherever it was he/she felt he/she needed to experience. It just appeared to me that this was an article written because he/she had a job to do. I knew very well that the writer wasn't 'embedded', although the impression was given that the writer wasn't a photographer, and that photographers may have missed a 'photo-op' and some sailors missed an up-close op because the sailors were good enough to move... I see no reason why the Commander in Chief should be dissed for pressing the flesh with the troops - phot-op or not.

Besides it being hypocritical, the Dems are making a mountain out of molehill. This is such a non-issue in the face of the economy, terrorism, and Iraq reconstruction, that it's sad they feel they can gain something politically by harping on it non-stop.

However, it must be said again that Bush hasn't exactly earned the moral right to pose as a military aviator. Not only did he avoid Vietnam service (unlike my own father and uncle and thousands of other less privileged or more patriotic people of the time) by joining the National Guard, he shirked even that duty by spending it half drunk and coked up, and even went AWOL for a year. That's AWOL from the National Guard. Pathetic. Of course, he was never disciplined for his misconduct.

I therefore find this recent photo-op to be no less shameless than Bush's predecessors' legalistic antics and womanizing. I hope Americans take that heroic leader imagery with a grain of salt.

PS - I support most of Bush's foreign policy, but I credit that to his advisors. If anyone should have flown out to that carrier and made the announcement, it should have been Rumsfeld, a real Naval aviator and military leader.

Byron, some advice for you: it is better to be silent and thought to be a fool than to open your mouth (or your keyboard in this respect) and remove all doubt.

AWOL? Maybe people like you and your friends (in this respect anyway) in the Demmie-communist party *want* it to be AWOL. But for one to be "AWOL" one must be (within the guidelines of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) charged AND convicted. I *defy* you to find evidence ANYWHERE that this is the case. The Guard and Reserves are both honorable methods in completing your service to your country (and I say this as a 7-year veteran of the U.S. Navy, now disabled). Yet there specific duty requirements *are* a bit more relaxed than are active duty servicemen's. The New York Times (not a noted conservative rag, mind you) interviewed the President's then Guard officers-in-charge prior to the 2000 election and those officers stated that George Bush was NEVER illegally absent and for those times that he WAS absent, he "made up" that duty in a legal manner according to Guard regs. If your commanding officer says you were NOT absent without leave, guess what? You WEREN'T... no matter how much you want to "spin it" for your own purposes.

And by the way... if you think strapping an F-102 Starfighter between your legs was a "safe" way of avoiding duty in Vietnam, then you must be quite ignorant of the risks involved in flying high-performance fighters. Have a nice day.

If he was flying F-102's, that's the Delta Daggar (as opposed to the F-106 Delta Dart), not the F-104 Starfighter (or the Zipper, as we used to call them).

On Little Green Footballs, I think, some research was done on the Presidents Guard Duty, and when he joined the Guard, his unit was currently deployed to Viet Nam.

Curious that someone who wanted to avoid combat would join a unit currently flying combat missions in a war zone, don't you think?

Another liberal urban myth exploded. Try again.

johnrog: Thanks for stepping in. I'd have been a bit more critical of the drivel, however. I'm a bit of a history buff, and I happen to know how the President spent his time in the military service. The 'disinformation' that you allude to is widely disseminated. He was also called a 'dodger', because he didn't spend any time in the Asian paradise some of us called home for a year. That usually is accompanied by some of the examples of fine research done by Byron and ilk.

I had a question pop into my mind as I read through this discussion. As his role as Commander in Chief, wouldn't it stand to reason that a sitting president get "military credit" while serving as president?
I know my CEO gets "service credit" for leading the corporation, even though he wouldn't know the front door fronm the shipping bay!
Any poly sci majors out there to take a stab at this?
(On a side note to Leo the European above implying that it may not be healthy to cheer and support our armed forces, I get the History Channel on TV so please spare me the health concerns of being too "militarized"... we don't intend to follow the European model(s) for such movements)

Look-- The truth is....

The Dems are not made at WHAT he did. Many dem congress people have done the same thing.

The truth is the Dems are mad as hell cuz he looked good doing it.

touchy, touchy, we are all very partisan here. Or will you give some Dem the same benefit of the doubt. In fact his National Guard episodes were not Bush's brightest moment. But why does it matter? he has repeatedly acknowledged that he made many "mistakes" as a young man, and hopefully learned from them. Do you all really need Bush to be a warrior-saint?

Owain: thanks for the correction. The F-102 was, of course, the Delta Dagger. Now that I'm over 40 those little details sometime get a little jumbled in the old brain. :-)

But even at this advanced age :-0, I *do* know what AWOL is and is *not*, no matter how hard some people less knowledgeable in JAG matters try to pretend it's something that it isn't.

I think the Leahy photo is him with a Vermont National Guard F-16. They take all sorts of people up for rides - sepecially politicians who bring home the bacon. In fact if you click on the photo in the Drudge Report page it will take you to a page in Leahy's website dedicated to touting his military pork procuring skills.

I am no fan of Leahy's, and very proud of the Vermonters serving in the Guards, but think that there is something to be said for accuracy.

I think we are missing a golden opportunity here to shut a DEM up.
It was Clinton who was the draft dodger, plus the fool lied to the grand jury.

Bush will go down in history as a man who took on the challange of world peace.
Clinton will be marked in history as the joke he was, the man who was gone down on.
lets not forget Monica, the girl who didn't swallow.
The history of the democratic party is marked and stamped, lets not forget this. The people who support this DEM party, also support the imorality of it.

Now, President Bush did his time in the service. He also did an extra year. Did clinton? no.
As the commander in chief, he also has the right to take a spin on the rocket, plus he had the guts to do it, and the strength. G forces aren't easy on a soft bellied man, so GW showed that he's in better shape than he looks.
Clinton would probably been hiding in the barf bag. But we will never know, he liar never had the guts to do anything exept get blow jobs, cheat on his wife many times. A fine example of morality he was.

They criticised Lincoln after his going to Gettysburg too. This is the job of a president. I can see why Al Gore tried so hard to keep these kids from voting though.

And leo, if we used our military for the sort of projects you Europeans use yours for, century after century, I could understand your sentiments.

You obsequious Bush sycophants can believe whatever you want if it makes you feel good, but that doesn't make it true. The fact is, the whereabouts of GW from May 1, 1972 through May 29, 1973 are far from satisfactorily resolved.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3778
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3671

I'm no Dem or commie, the latter of which I despise and the former of which I perceive as commie-lite. Nor am I a GOP kiss-ass, as seems so fasionable these days. People seem to have thrown their healthy skepticism out the window in order to pull for their favorite political "team". I refuse to join.

Bush will go down in history as a man who took on the challange of world peace.
Clinton will be marked in history as the joke he was, the man who was gone down on.

Most likely, and I have little problem with that despite what I've written. Clinton is in a league of his own when it comes to scumbagginess, and history will have the last laugh on him.

"And by the way, I bet it was a bit cheaper than a crew on AF1, and to have the carrier dock for a photo op, something that Clinton would have done."

what? a) air force one had to be flown out anyway. b) marine one was flown to the carrier as well. The white house put out a statement that it was cheaper than flying out marine one...BUT marine one can be seenon the carrier in the pictures!

"See this morning's Drudge Report for a pic of Dem. Senator Patrick Lahey posing in a flight suit, on a carrier, next to a fighter jet. Was that widely decried as a crass political maneuver? Hipocracy, thy name is Liberal.Posted by Jack at May 13, 2003 07:50 AM "

Jack, you mean "Ignorance, they name is Jack." You can see it is clearly an air force F-16 in the photo, so whoever is making the claim that it is a carrier landing by Leahy is a jackass

what i see with this story is lie upon lie by the administration. typical. "too far to go by helicopter." Opps that was a lie. "cheaper then Marine one." opps another lie, marine one flew to the carrier anyway.

Its Funny, its rare that a democrat earns the armed forces respect, and its rare that a Republican loses it. I don't really care for Bush policies (although I was very much for Afghanistan, and Iraq) but I admire him and Rummy. I had the misfortune of serving in the USMC under Clinton. Although I liked his domestic policies (at least his centrist ones) but hated serving under him. I guess It just seems Republicans have more spine, and when someone is sending you into danger, you want that reassurance that brings. I am an independant by the by.

Being an 82nd Airborne vet, I am certainly no expert on carriers. But I seem to remember reading that they have five wires, the third being the optimum one.

As to the comparative costs of an S3 and Marine One, being an old helo pilot, I suspect that they are very similar costs. Helicopters are very expensive to fly simply because pretty much everything on them moves and needs more maintenance than the parts on fixed winged aircraft. Back when I flew, the rule of thumb was two hours of maintenance for every hour of rotary-winged flight flight.

And addressing the "Marine One was going there anyway" argument, so was the S3. S3's go from shore to ship damned near constantly.

And lastly, Leahy was indeed in front of an F-16 which wouldn't care how many wires adorned the flight deck of a carrier unless it were aiming a LGB at the # 3 wire.

Puh-leeze Dems, make this your signature issue in the next election, this and also, be sure to push the idea that Saddam was more likely to be developing rapidly bio-degradable pesticides than bio weapons. Pleeze Pleeze Pleeze!

Actually Byron, Bill Hobbs has debunked those claims.

"As to the comparative costs of an S3 and Marine One, being an old helo pilot, I suspect that they are very similar costs"

Kabar, just becssue the White House fibbed about this doesn't mean we shouldn't set the record straight. You have to add both costs as Marine One flew to the carrier anyway. For the White house to issue a release saying that the S3 was cheaper "you do the math" was classic Orwell since Marine one flew to the Lincoln as well.

Oh and Spawn, speaking of pesticides, the US exported huge amounts to Iraq for decades. My dad particpated in both massive pesticide spraying and marsh draining in Iraq with your tax dollars.

The number of military Democrats has been steadliy increasing relative to Republicans for two decades now.

If you read my post carefully, you will see that I was referring to bio-degradable bio-pesticides, which require mobile laboratories. I am quite sure that Iraq has used plenty of conventional pesticides, of all kinds, and that Saddam defined the term "pest" quite broadly.

Change the subject, you can't change the facts.

"bio-degradable bio-pesticides, which require mobile laboratories."

What idiot said this?

It is on another thread.

". An agricultural expert suggests that the labs may have been intended to make biological pesticides close to agricultural areas to avoid degradation problems. Neither expert, of course, is on the scene."

This was quoted by Anthony, as an explanation for the mobile lab. There are such mobile labs under development, but somehow, I just can't believe that Iraq, under sanctions was spending good money on whole earth, natural farming techniques. Evidently though, many of the posters here have no problem with the idea.

"the US exported huge amounts to Iraq for decades. My dad particpated in both massive pesticide spraying and marsh draining in Iraq with your tax dollars."

Finally, someone says it right, EXPORTED PRE PACKAGED PESTICIDES same thing we use for Agriculture. Probably by dupont and mosanto.

so, why the need for a army green pestiside lab?
We know pesticides don't degrade in the box until part A is mixed with part b .
no need for a "mobile army green pesticide lab"
any sprayer will do, I spray 2500 acres a year, and I don't have a army green mobile pesticide lab.

Well, there goes the thread..............

>sailors couldn't quite believe it was happening

They couldn't believe a politician might use such a situation for a photo-op to further his own career, or they couldn't believe another group of politicians would be hypocritical and petty enough to whine about it?

Sean

Capsu78 : In answer to your question, no. POTUS "owns" the armed forces, yet is not 'serving'. Everyone serves under him. And as President, he is civilian, not military; the framers of the Constitution made damned sure of that.

One of the things that amuses me about this is the fact that the Presidential perks, duties, and privileges include the the right to visit any US military site, formation, compound and or ship at any time he cares to. He is the commander in chief. Whether this is polictically wise is another story.

"politically"
Sorry, I am trying to graduate from hunt-and-peck to ten fingers, and not doing near so well as I would desire.