Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Somebody shut this SOB up
Author Message
msudawgs64 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 998
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Miss. State
Location: Texas
Post: #1
 
Byrd Rips Bush's Aircraft Carrier Use
Tue May 6, 7:43 PM ET

By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Questioning the motives of a "desk-bound president who assumes the garb of a warrior," Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record) on Tuesday reproached President Bush (news - web sites) for flying onto an aircraft carrier last week to declare an end of major fighting in Iraq (news - web sites).

"I am loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan, and yet that is what I saw," Byrd said on the Senate floor.

Byrd, 85, of West Virginia, is the Senate's most senior member and was one of the most outspoken critics of the Iraq war.

Dressed in a flight suit, Bush was flown onto the USS Abraham Lincoln on Thursday, his small S-3B Viking jet making a tailhook landing. The ship was near San Diego on its return from action in the Persian Gulf.

With the sea as his backdrop, Bush announced that the United States and its allies had prevailed against Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said Byrd's criticisms are "a disservice to the men and women of our military who deserved to be thanked in person."

"Senator Byrd did not support the president at the beginning of this, and it is no surprise that he does not support the president at the end," Fleischer said. "Senator Byrd is a patriot, but on this we disagree."

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record) of California asked the General Accounting Office (news - web sites), Congress's investigative arm, to find out the cost of the president's trip.

The event "had clear political overtones," yet taxpayers footed the bill, wrote Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee (news - web sites), to the GAO.

Byrd contrasted the speech with the "simple dignity" of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address during the Civil War.

"I do not begrudge his salute to America's warriors aboard the carrier Lincoln, for they have performed bravely, ... but I do question the motives of a desk-bound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech," he said.

He said American blood has been shed defending Bush's policies. "This is not some made-for-TV backdrop for a campaign commercial," he said.

"To me, it is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the president to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech," he said.

Fleischer has rejected any suggestion that the landing was intended to provide campaign footage for Bush's re-election campaign.

Earlier Tuesday, he also said Bush decided to land on the carrier on a jet instead of his usual helicopter because the president wanted "to see an aircraft landing the same way that the pilots saw an aircraft landing. He wanted to see it as realistically as possible."

Waxman said Fleischer had provided conflicting accounts of the reasons for the president's trip by jet, initially indicating that the carrier would be hundreds of miles offshore, too far from land to be reached by helicopter


Ok maybe I am in the minority here but these two sumbitchs should shut the hell up, salute your president and move on. I took the liberty to look up their military service record just to make sure, guess what it is? Nada, zilch, zero. I never thought of his landing on an aircraft carrier with political overtones, maybe it was, but that was unimportant to me. This really don't surprise me though.



<!--EDIT|msudawgs64|May 6 2003, 11:43 PM-->
05-06-2003 11:37 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


just say no roy Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 430
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #2
 
First of all i have to admit if this had been Clinton their would have been republicans criticising him for grand standing.The only difference here is that its president Bush and not Clinton.Clinton loathed the military while Bush flew in the reserves and his farther was a vet of WW2.You have to expect this sort of crap from those two.(Waxman-Byrd)
05-06-2003 11:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
msudawgs64 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 998
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Miss. State
Location: Texas
Post: #3
 
I agree, and I do expect it, just a way for this veteran to vent. Irritates the hell out of me.
05-06-2003 11:57 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #4
 
Byrd was just pissed that he could not get the monies used for the "stunt" for a highway project in WV. Time for that old bastard to hang 'em up next to that KKK hood he keeps in his closet.
05-07-2003 05:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #5
 
just say no roy Wrote:First of all i have to admit if this had been Clinton their would have been republicans criticising him for grand standing.The only difference here is that its president Bush and not Clinton.Clinton loathed the military while Bush flew in the reserves and his farther was a vet of WW2.You have to expect this sort of crap from those two.(Waxman-Byrd)
I disagree. If Clinton had shown the courtesy that Bush has to the military and treated them with a mutual respect, nothing would have been said, at least by me. I viewed this trip as a MAJOR morale booster to a carrier that has been deployed for the longest time in recent history. The sailors and Marines seemed to think the same thing.

To contrast that, Clinton had the flag flown lower than another countries while in their port. Yes, it is their port, but the ship was US sovereign territory and this was against all the rules. He and thunderthighs(Hillary) couldn't stand the military and made no secret about it. His wife threw a temper tantrum when the military would show up in the White House in their uniforms. Guess what beeyatch, if it weren't for those uniforms, you wouldn't be free.

...and that mutant Waxman and "Sheets" can go straight to hell.
05-07-2003 06:54 AM
Quote this message in a reply
RochesterFalcon Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,626
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #6
 
Thank god West Virginia has a senator willing to cut through the bullpucky this administration keeps serving up.

Sen. Byrd is right. Bush landing with a tailhook was Dukakis riding a tank.

The ship was so close to shore that Bush could have easily have ridden a helicopter there. It was so close to shore, in fact, the ship had to be turned around so that when television cameras aired Bush's speech, the backdrop was open water -- and not the California coastline.

The irony, of course, is that we are talking about a silver spoon kid who had his path greased into the Texas National Guard only to not bother to show up much of the time.

He kept Texas safe from the Viet Cong -- when he felt like it.
05-07-2003 07:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


just say no roy Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 430
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #7
 
RebelKev Wrote:
just say no roy Wrote:First of all i have to admit if this had been Clinton their would have been republicans criticising him for grand standing.The only difference here is that its president Bush and not Clinton.Clinton loathed the military while Bush flew in the reserves and his farther was a vet of WW2.You have to expect this sort of crap from those two.(Waxman-Byrd)
I disagree. If Clinton had shown the courtesy that Bush has to the military and treated them with a mutual respect, nothing would have been said, at least by me. I viewed this trip as a MAJOR morale booster to a carrier that has been deployed for the longest time in recent history. The sailors and Marines seemed to think the same thing.

To contrast that, Clinton had the flag flown lower than another countries while in their port. Yes, it is their port, but the ship was US sovereign territory and this was against all the rules. He and thunderthighs(Hillary) couldn't stand the military and made no secret about it. His wife threw a temper tantrum when the military would show up in the White House in their uniforms. Guess what beeyatch, if it weren't for those uniforms, you wouldn't be free.

...and that mutant Waxman and "Sheets" can go straight to hell.
I thought that was my point.If Billy had done this republicans would have bashed him for it but many of us wouldnt have cared because of who it was.
05-07-2003 07:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #8
 
RochesterFalcon Wrote:The ship was so close to shore that Bush could have easily have ridden a helicopter there. It was so close to shore, in fact, the ship had to be turned around so that when television cameras aired Bush's speech, the backdrop was open water -- and not the California coastline.
Show me a link. I'm not going to just believe anything you say.
05-07-2003 08:05 AM
Quote this message in a reply
RochesterFalcon Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,626
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #9
 
Quote:Show me a link. I'm not going to just believe anything you say.

<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/06/opinion/06KRUG.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/06/opinion/...Ed%2fColumnists</a>
05-07-2003 08:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #10
 
RochesterFalcon Wrote:
Quote:Show me a link. I'm not going to just believe anything you say.

<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/06/opinion/06KRUG.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/06/opinion/...Ed%2fColumnists</a>
Sorry, can't get to it because I'm not a paying subsriber and don't plan on being one to that rag.
05-07-2003 08:17 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Motown Bronco Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,758
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation: 211
I Root For: WMU
Location: Metro Detroit
Post: #11
 
RochesterFalcon Wrote:Sen. Byrd is right. Bush landing with a tailhook was Dukakis riding a tank.
..and, evidently, Clinton on the USS Theodore Roosevelt in 1993. I'm just curious if Byrd "loathed to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan" ten years ago.

A little cheesy at worst, and generally worthy of some good SNL material, but I don't understand the uproar over what any of these guys (W, Bill, Dukakis) did.







<!--EDIT|Motown Bronco|May 7 2003, 01:25 PM-->
05-07-2003 08:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RochesterFalcon Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,626
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #12
 
Registration to the New York Times is free, by the way.

Man on Horseback
By PAUL KRUGMAN


Gen. Georges Boulanger cut a fine figure; he looked splendid in uniform, and magnificent on horseback. So his handlers made sure that he appeared in uniform, astride a horse, as often as possible.

It worked: Boulanger became immensely popular. If he hadn't lost his nerve on the night of the attempted putsch, French democracy might have ended in 1889.

We do things differently here
05-07-2003 08:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #13
 
That's a freaking OP-ED!!!!! Oh, we ALL know opinionated editors ALWAYS tell the truth, huh? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
05-07-2003 08:29 AM
Quote this message in a reply
RochesterFalcon Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,626
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #14
 
He's citing the AP.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|May 7 2003, 08:36 AM-->
05-07-2003 08:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
just say no roy Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 430
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #15
 
Registration to the New York Times is free you say.It better stay that way if they expect anyone to read it.
05-07-2003 08:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #16
 
RochesterFalcon Wrote:He's citing the AP.
Ok, show me the AP piece then.
05-07-2003 08:49 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Motown Bronco Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,758
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation: 211
I Root For: WMU
Location: Metro Detroit
Post: #17
 
The speech was obviously a "kill two birds with one stone" thing. It's both for political gain and honoring the troops. And I think the servicemen and women realize this as well. Why would these be two mutually exclusive things, as the NYT implies?

Think about a corporate spokesperson giving a $1,000,000 check to Jerry Lewis' telethon over Labor Day Weekend. You're glad to see a company stepping up to the plate and giving this donation, as it would surely help. But you also realize the corporation is getting a plug on national TV, and is using the format for brand recognition. Everybody wins, so who cares?

This whole thing is just another example of 'my political party or the highway' type of thinking. Both political parties have their media cheerleaders, armed with a journalism degree and oversized ego, defending "their guy" to their graves, but blasting anyone else who does the exact same thing.

If anyone happens to find a link of Krugman blasting Clinton's or Dukakis' "stunts", please provide.



<!--EDIT|Motown Bronco|May 7 2003, 02:08 PM-->
05-07-2003 09:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
just say no roy Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 430
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #18
 
Motown Bronco Wrote:The speech was obviously a "kill two birds with one stone" thing. It's both for political gain and honoring the troops. And I think the servicemen and women realize this as well. Why would these be two mutually exclusive things, as the NYT implies?

Think about a corporate spokesperson giving a $1,000,000 check to Jerry Lewis' telethon over Labor Day Weekend. You're glad to see a company stepping up to the plate and giving this donation, as it would surely help. But you also realize the corporation is getting a plug on national TV, and is using the format for brand recognition. Everybody wins, so who cares?

This whole thing is just another example of 'my political party or the highway' type of thinking. Both political parties have their media cheerleaders, armed with a journalism degree and oversized ego, defending "their guy" to their graves, but blasting anyone else who does the exact same thing.

If anyone happens to find a link of Krugman blasting Clinton's or Dukakis' "stunts", please provide.
Its called kissing babies.Politicians perfected this art.I know that presedent Bush used this as a photo op but like you said it can work both ways.I f this had been Clinton it would have been only a photo op.
05-07-2003 09:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #19
 
I have no problem with Bush doing this. He is just following in the footsteps of one of the greatest manipulators of the press the WH has ever had. Play the cards they deal ya! If anyone is dumb enough to be influenced by seeing any President in this type of situation, they should have their voting rights taken away.
05-07-2003 09:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #20
 
just say no roy Wrote:Its called kissing babies.Politicians perfected this art.I know that presedent Bush used this as a photo op but like you said it can work both ways.I f this had been Clinton it would have been only a photo op.
<a href='http://www.saviodsilva.net/09/fpics/funnypic11.jpg' target='_blank'>http://www.saviodsilva.net/09/fpics/funnypic11.jpg</a>

Not all babies are non-partisan.
05-07-2003 09:21 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.