It is proof once again that all politics is personal, and when it’s personal that no opportunity for low pettiness should be passed up in favor of any sense of institutional gravitas or decency: The US Congressional leadership - elected leaders of our highest branch of legislative government - plans what is in effect a work stoppage in order to delay delivering a critical piece of legislation that must in any case be reworked in order to fund the troops that they themselves committed to the field of battle.
The delivery to the President of a much labored over but fatally flawed and pork-laden war funding supplemental bill - itself a piece of absurd theater - for his long-threatened veto will be delayed in order to celebrate what is for his political adversaries an important anniversary:
Democratic leaders in Congress are planning a special ceremony on Tuesday afternoon to send President Bush a bill that sets timetables for troop withdrawal from Iraq.
The timing is no accident. It comes on the fourth anniversary of the day Mr. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier under the banner “Mission Accomplished” and declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.
Neener, neener, Mr. President.
That ceremony was intended to recognize the accomplishments of the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln, a ship that had just returned from an exceptionally arduous 10-month deployment - the longest combat deployment of an aircraft carrier in decades.
Six months is a long time at sea, enclosed inside a noisy, dangerous machine, working 14-hour days for weeks and months on end - no weekends off, no holidays aboard a carrier - surrounded by 5000 people you might not ordinarily choose to associate with, far removed from the creature comforts of home, family and friends.
Not everyone is built to hack a six-month deployment, people quit the service from the strain, families fly apart.
Ten months is unutterably longer. Especially when the sixth month comes and goes and you’re still in the Arabian Gulf and frankly no one knows when you’ll be heading home. It can seem like forever.
Everyone aboard that ship knew what the banner meant: Lincoln’s mission was accomplished, at least for that deployment - once they arrived in home port, delayed personnel transfers would take place, that particular crew would never again go to sea together. Major combat operations had in fact ended. The outline of the insurgency had not yet taken form and many of what in retrospect would appear to be mistakes in the occupation had not yet been committed. The wounding grievance of that ceremony would be first nurtured in private and then - increasingly - trotted out in triumph: The mission was not accomplished! You didn’t win your little war!
Everything about that ceremony grated against the raw nerves of fringe members a political left still traumatized by the election of 2000, a left whose self-loathing had been laid bare in the aftermath of 9/11, a left further enraged to the point of infantilism by the quick destruction of an illiberal Taliban regime that was supposed to show an imperialistic Amerikkka the error of its ways - after all, this was graveyard of empires, and the harsh Afghan winter, etc. They had such fond hopes!
This was the part of a political left already outraged that the Iraq war had been sought by a man they reflexively loathed, and authorized not just by their hated political opponents, but also by large numbers of what they conditionally thought of as their own party. The fact that the kinetic phase of the war had ended so quickly, with so few casualties, disappointing their ghoulish predictions of a months-long slugfest with thousands of telegenic casualties, military and civilian was bad enough. The fact that the President flew out to the carrier on a military jet with a sign waving on the island saying “Mission Accomplished”? Almost unbearable.
But I don’t think that’s really what sent them over the top, that banner. Because even the most rabidly foaming partisan can not really be pleased by the fact that nearly 3000 American lives have been lost to support their political perspective. That banner merely serves as a convenient foil, a “politically correct” substitute for what really made them mad.
No, this is the picture from that day that really sent them around the bend, for reasons best left to professional psychoanalysts:
There have been times when I dread that certain of the war’s most inveterately hostile opponents - the kind of people still so agitated by that banner, for example, and to whom the Congressional leadership now pays gratuitous obeisance by staging this little theater - would rather that their country lose a war, than that man in the flight suit there should be thought of as a president who won one.
70 responses so far ↓
1
Monkeyboy
// May 1, 2007 at 10:02 am
It was also, in a larger sense, “Mission Accomplished” for Naval Air (and the Air Force).
Throughout the “peace” we kept on station in the no-fly zones, wearing down man and machine until relieved by the Army.
2
SJBill
// May 1, 2007 at 10:45 am
Cap’n,
I was called a day before “The Trap”, and was given a not too cryptic order: “Stay home. Watch TV. Big Day”, etc. Being an old CVS & VS guy, I was on fire that day — we all were (weren’t we. D.R.?).
“Loose”, the air and support crew of Blue Wolf 700, all of former VS-35, the Lincoln airgroup, the entire crew of Lincoln under (then) CAPT Kendall Card and their battle group all hoist a glass today.
This is an anniversary that the elected officials of our Socialist underclass do not wish us to celebrate. We’re cutting in on their party and they are not liking it. Twohellwiddem.
V/r
-SJBill
3
craig mclaughlin
// May 1, 2007 at 10:57 am
Good post, Lex. And the posted picture reminds me of one of the very many good lines from “The Last Detail.” The one where SM1 Budduski tells some hippy girls at a party what he likes best about his bellbottoms. Too raw to share on this site, service etiquette and all.
4
AW1 Tim
// May 1, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Shipmates,
I think that what really torgues the leftists is that W actually CAN fly a jet, and the one he flew, the old F-102 “Lawn Dart” was a demanding girl. She required a well-trained, thoughtful and responsible man to handle her, and the accident rate of that partucular aircraft reflects how demanding she was.
On top of that, not everyone could get assigned to the F-102, because her primary weapon was a nuclear-tipped air to air missle.
So, we have a prsident who not only flew jet interceptors, but ones with nuke missiles. That reflects well on the man, regardless of how you view his politics, because it says to me that he isn’t nearly as rash or indecisive or weak as some would have everyone believe.
He reminds me much of both Lincoln at Fort Sedgewick, and Teddy Roosevelt with his bully pulpit. It ain’t braggin when they do it. They can back it up.
Respects,
5
Daveg
// May 1, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Tim -
I’ve always thought it odd that the President that Hollywood always wanted has been so forcefully maligned by the exact same crowd. For an example of the model of President of which I speak, I refer you to Independence Day.
6
Jeff
// May 1, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Lex & Co.
Right now, for Democrats in Congress, everything up to and including healthcare, the economy, national security.. everything is of lesser importance than making President Bush look bad. In fact, that entire list which “everything” includes is simply a list of
legislative vehicles by which they can attack the president. Making the president look bad (which his opponents somehow equate to making themselves look good) is the priority. Their most obvious means of doing this, most unfortunately, is the war in Iraq.
The really sad and scary thing is that, for the Harry Reids, Nancy Pelosis and their like, it doesn’t matter what the reality on the ground is. They don’t just want us to lose in Iraq. They NEED us to lose in Iraq. You don’t stand there and make bold pronouncements that the war is lost and then allow the troops to do something like.. you know.. win. That might be bad for your political career…
We have to stop these people.
7
badbob
// May 1, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Personally, I “celebrate” this unique Naval Aviation achievement by looking at the wall in my office with one of these signed by the artist:
http://www.hrosecure.com/firstclass/store08/product444.html
re- “…would rather that their country lose a war, than that man in the flight suit there should be thought of as a president who won one.”
G.D., well said Lex. And since that day in May 2003 they have sat on the sidelines just hoping that it would turn out the way it has..All for power.
b2
8
Kris, in New England
// May 1, 2007 at 1:09 pm
“…disappointing their ghoulish predictions of a months-long slugfest with thousands of telegenic casualties, military and civilian…”
And that does seem to be at the heart of it, doesn’t it. They are so disappointed that they didn’t get their flag-draped caskets, their very public chest thumping grief. They were denied all this by the skilled and well trained military that we sent to do their jobs; and if these nutballs have their way, they’ll leave them over there so they CAN have their flag-draped caskets and their public grief.
They make me sick.
(Lex - I’m curious, what does “Bread and Circuses” mean?)
9
CPT J
// May 1, 2007 at 1:11 pm
It’s simple. Ignore or malign what you can’t or won’t do yourself.
Where I live, almost nobody the Dems personally know or really care about is in harm’s way. It’s ‘those people’ who serve, who are dismissed as fools, tools and victims. The epic struggle for the freedom of a captive people and the future of our Nation in the world just don’t fit their self-absorbed narcissist narrative. Its a time for heroes across the globe and, well… they don’t do hero actually…because any recognition of heroism would mean:
Committment…standards….training… duty.. separations… sacrifices..consequences..ick–their lattes might get cold.
If you are allergic to pride and honor, you naturally resent all those for whom these still have personal meaning. And who have the courage to make them true.
10
MajMike
// May 1, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Kris,
..the only two things needed to rule Rome.
enough bread and enough circuses, you own the populace.
11
lex
// May 1, 2007 at 1:31 pm
You’re right Kris - and thanks, MajMike - it was bit inside ball. I threw a wikipedia link in, but this quote from that page seems apt:
This phrase originates in Satire X of the Roman poet Juvenal of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. In context, the Latin phrase panem et circenses (bread and circuses) is given as the only remaining cares of a Roman populace which has given up its birthright of political freedom:
Right.
12
Bomber Guy
// May 1, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I don’t suppose that anyone from the media will be interviewing any member of the crew of USS Abraham Lincoln who was aboard then, to hear what it meant to him to have Navy One trap that day.
Isn’t it about time the rest of us answered “broadside with broadside” and began examining the expenses of OUR ELECTED officials; especially at a time when all branches of the military are experiencing budgetary short-falls?
For example, how many “up-armored” Humvees could be purchased if “Princess Pelosi” would fly commercial air, rather than USAF VIP transport aircraft? I am certain she could get frequent flyer miles on Air Syria. If only one Humvee could be enhanced by the savings, it would be a good investment; and that is just for starters.
I could go on but, after reading about the “delay tactic” I have to go double-up on my blood pressure meds.
13
Therapist1
// May 1, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Despite one’s feelings for the man, there should be some respect for the office.
B2, it was not just power, but to be malicious as well.
14
fliterman
// May 1, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I acknowledge, appreciate, and respect the arduous and extended service of the dedicated Abraham Lincoln crew. I understand their “mission accomplishments.” But your selected photo grates.
Firstly, I do not like publicity stunts, which this most certainly was. And it backfired, as have many plans, policies, and actions of this Administration.
Secondly, there is something incongruous in seeing George W. Bush in a flight-suit and associated regalia, especially since he inexplicably and precipitately hung those up a long time ago. The photo is a rude reminder of someone of privilege, who avoided his required flight physical without explanation, abruptly hung up his flight-suit, ceased to fly, and prematurely left many months before his ANG commitment was complete.
There are a large number of Vietnam veterans who do not look kindly at an “aviator” who couldn’t even complete his Texas “Champagne Squadron’s” commitment, while they had been serving their country- and many dying - in Southeast Asia. For them, that photo is a bitter reminder of war avoidance and privilege.
15
lex
// May 1, 2007 at 2:15 pm
And as if on cue…
16
Skippy
// May 1, 2007 at 2:46 pm
F-man,
As a flyer of the mighty EA-6B, I must inform you that your take-away from the picture was completely off.
When I saw my President thank my buddies on the ABE that day in one of the best shows of respect I’ve ever seen, it made me proud to be an American. So speak for yourself, not for us in uniform next time.
Oh, and balls. Huge ones. Man In The Arena size.
17
PeterGunn
// May 1, 2007 at 3:24 pm
F-man,
You are so far off-base on so many issues, it’s difficult to know where to begin!
Perhaps with the BIGGEST LIE of the far left, throwing “Mission Accomplished” back in the face of so many, good and true. What does it take for the left to learn that each unit can “accomplish a mission” and that W said it was an end to major battlefield fighting. You and your ilk call it an insurgency exactly because they don’t fight on a battlefield; you can’t have it both ways!
Secondly, why is Bush’s picture in a flight suit a rude reminder for you when Clinton’s contribution to Vietnam was made from an Oxford library, dressed in tweed… smoking weed? You are a rude reminder of what’s wrong with those who don’t respect the man or the office, certainly of those who can’t “have their own way” and then whine about it!
At least it’s undeniable that he SERVED! He served you, dressed in that same gear. You decry that he put it away… where is your flight gear? What jets did you drive?
As a Vietnam era veteran, you may NOT speak for me. I’m not aware of so many Vietnam veterans who are unhappy with Bush’s service. (Why are you all still talking about this, anyway?)
As for publicity stunts, printing the funding amendment on parchment, along with the many billions added by the anti-war minions… what was that? Vetoes are just as valid on any paper, parchment included!
18
Kris, in New England
// May 1, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Let’s talk about publicity stunts:
-Nancy Pelosi in Syria
-Nancy Pelosi negotiating to meet with H. Chavez
-Nancy Pelosi refusing to meet with the President of Colombia (the country, not the school…)
-Harry Reid being Harry Reid
-John Murtha betraying his fellow Marines
-All the pork barrel politics in that farce of legislation
Bush in a flight suit, on an aircraft carrier, supporting the troops who honor him - that’s not a publicity stunt, that’s a President being one. It was a very Presidential move and I think he looked fantastic doing it.
19
Kris, in New England
// May 1, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Oh YEAH - he did what he said he would:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html
It’s been vetoed with the following statement:
“”I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war,” Bush said. “They’ve sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.”
Bitch. Slap.
20
unkawill
// May 1, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Filterman, most here are too polite to say this.
Please get back under the bridge, do some research, cause we don’t do revisionistic history here, and last but not least, I am sure your mother told you many times, if you can’t say anything nice about someone, don’t say anything at all.
21
Skippy-san
// May 1, 2007 at 6:27 pm
F-man,
Welcome to the jungle! ;-). In this context, silence is the most prudent precaution. I can advise you that-from experience. ;-(
22
Sim
// May 1, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Kris-
Regardless of what side of politics you sit on you must be joking if you don’t think that was a publicity stunt.
Or perhaps you just give politicians way too much credit….
23
fliterman
// May 1, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Revisionist history, unkawill?
1. I believe when you delay the Abe’s long beleaguered crew for an unnecessary, excruciating extra day ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú at the end of an extremely long 10-month cruise, and painfully in sight of San Diego and their long awaited homecoming -
?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú so you can dress up in flight gear and trap aboard, instead of a short helo-ride out of NAS North Island - that sir, is a stunt!
2. As far as researching Bush’s spotty military record, I have. Maybe you should too. One can Google “Bush National Guard” and get a wealth of unflattering information. But Wikipedia probably gives a more balanced and objective, yet still disputed discussion, here.
Everyone I have ever known that served in the military can account for, and document nearly every day they served. That Bush cannot, speaks volumes.
PS: Nearly everyone of that period was trying to avoid the draft - Clinton, Bush, and yours truly included. And certainly anyone who wanted to avoid the draft by volunteering to go into harm’s way - in a capacity of his own choosing, rather than the draft - had absolutely no problem joining the fight. . . as I did.
Other avoiders will always have to live with their respective, personal choices.
24
Glenn M. Cassel, AMH1(AW), Retired
// May 1, 2007 at 10:23 pm
SEP 80-MAY81: Atkron One Four Five/CVW-2/USS Ranger CV61. Nine months boys and girls. I was out there when the hostages left Iran. We had to down load the bombs and rockets. Dang the bad luck. Oh, yeah Nancy and company should stand trial, for the ultimate offense against one’s country. The Retired Petty Officer First Class has spoken. Take note Sam Brownback.
25
PeterGunn
// May 1, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Hello again, F-Man…
Wikipedia you say? Well, go and take another look. First, Wikipedia is composed of random contributions; second, the account of Bush’s service in the ANG is under DISPUTE! As a matter of interest, Turnipseed’s quote on Bush was out of context and/or mis-quoted according to Wikipedia. They also state that stand downs in flight status are the NORM in the guard, that the flight program in the guard is much less strict than in the active services.
So… we’re picking at “peas in the pod” about something that happened years ago and nobody is too sure nor too upset about it… except, of course, the left. Why can’t you all just get over it? As John McCain recently said to his critics, “Get A Life!”
Hey, Bush is our President. He’ll be our President for another 19 months with all the rights, privileges, and respect of the office. Why all the hate? You must know that it’s harder on you than it is him, don’t you?! Heck, he did an appearance on “American Idol” tonight… relax!
26
Skippy-san
// May 2, 2007 at 4:12 am
The “mission accomplished” visit aside, the 11 month deployment of the Lincoln is probably worth discussing in another post. Because for Lincoln it was not just being gone 11 months on THAT deployment-it was makeing TWO MORE six month deployments in the next 2 years. For a JO on Lincoln from 2003-2006 you would have been home less than 11 months out 36. It was the begining of the end as far as respecting PERSTEMPO and thinking about quality of life for the Sailors assigned.
What never made sense to me was why Lincoln had to be extended-Vinson rode the bench in WESTPAC during OIF and it had less time at sea. However Vinson did not have F-18′ E’s and F’s on board…………. (Which is probably the real reason the ship was extended).
Exactly why 5 carriers were needed is probably another good subject for debate-especially given the fact that there were still reserve squadrons then that could have been mobilized and operated out Kuwait….but that’s for another retelling.
27
Michelle
// May 2, 2007 at 4:14 am
“We’re gonna have fun, fun, fun until her daddy takes the T-bird away…”
28
badbob
// May 2, 2007 at 5:13 am
Lex,
Recommend you post a link to your “most excellent” post of the 2004 pre-election-post election “furbal” ,where you So-Expertly deconstructed the myths surrounding GWs fighter days with the TANG. Flying one of the Century series “Widow-makers”…
Blow fliterman’s pea-shooter outta the water son.
b2
29
Kris, in New England
// May 2, 2007 at 5:53 am
Sim said: “…Regardless of what side of politics you sit on you must be joking if you don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t think that was a publicity stunt.”
At its heart, perhaps it was. But I still see it as a very Presidential thing to do - at a time of war, for the Commander in Chief to board an aircraft carrier the same way his troops do, to welcome them home - why wouldn’t any President do the same thing.
You and F-Man throw around the words “publicity stunt” like it’s a bad thing. Politicians are just salesmen in better suits (no offense to salesmen, my dad was one). So what if they have their pictures taken with babies and on aircraft carriers - it’s what they are supposed to do.
So if you are going to rant on Bush’s publicity stunt, what about the other ones I mentioned, recapped here for your convenience (my comment above, #18):
-Nancy Pelosi in Syria
-Nancy Pelosi negotiating to meet with H. Chavez
-Nancy Pelosi refusing to meet with the President of Colombia (the country, not the school?¢‚Ǩ¬¶)
-Harry Reid being Harry Reid
-John Murtha betraying his fellow Marines
-All the pork barrel politics in that farce of legislation
30
MajMike
// May 2, 2007 at 6:24 am
F-man,
accounting for each and every day of a National Guard or Reserve career is not quite so simple as you evidently suppose it to be.
missing personnel records, database entry errors, and multiple sources of funding authority make accounting for the daily head count a priority and challenge even in peacetime, much less in war.
i myself don’t have perfect count over my own days in my career, and that has been solely Active and Reserve. it has taken three years just to get one seemingly minor point adjustment posted. throw in a Nat’l Guard complication and i imagine the number of problems would balloon.
i have also missed physicals, missed evaluation reports, and would be hard pressed to produce conclusive evidence of any one particular day of Reserve attendance 10 years after the fact.
31
Sim
// May 2, 2007 at 6:44 am
Kris-
The last I don’t see as a publicity stunt, just pollies being as worthless as usual. The second last I don’t know much about. The rest I’m inclined to agree with you though again the third I’m hazy on.
In any event I’m not quite sure I was on a rant, it just rankles me when ideologues want to throw mud at one side while conscientiously ignoring or applauding the same behavior by those they support.
In any event not being American I don’t really have a dog in the fight, and frankly the tone of American politics means I’d rather stab myself in the thigh with a fork than wade into another mire. I get my feed of swill from our own domestic machinations.
It’s the one-eyed (and often completely hypocritical) view that gets me, it’s utter intellectual dishonesty. Politicians are usually scum and issues are grey. Cheerleading tends to ignore that.
32
MajMike
// May 2, 2007 at 6:47 am
..and that wiki entry is quite a hoot.
whoever wrote some of those portions in there about the proper ways to fill out paperwork is in need of a major league clue-batting.
“term of enlistment” vs “indef”
“stripped of his medals”
it is to laugh. heh.
33
Michelle
// May 2, 2007 at 7:28 am
Sim, Sim, Sim…..LOL
As they say in the Canadian House of Commons (and that ain’t no place you would ever want to be either, eh)
Hear Hear! … [banging shoe on desk]
34
Kris, in New England
// May 2, 2007 at 9:19 am
Sim: “…when ideologues want to throw mud at one side while conscientiously ignoring or applauding the same behavior by those they support.”
On this we agree, I don’t like it either. However I don’t believe I was throwing mud at either side. It was F-Man who began the tirade against the Bush publicity stunt, while steadfastly ignoring the ones from the “other side”.
For the 3rd one on my list, please see the article HERE re’ Pelosi refusing to meet with President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, a strong US ally in the war on drugs. We all know she’s already refused to meet with General Petraeus. The article also refers to possible plans in the works for her to visit Venezuela and Chavez in the fall.
35
jpr
// May 2, 2007 at 10:24 am
Side note- don’t forget that Rep. David Hobson (R-OH) was on that same trip to Syria with Pelosi. Is he taking the same kind of heat she is?
36
Casca
// May 2, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Is Hobson still alive? If his district would elect a democrat, he’d be one. For the sake of “fairness”, I’d be willing to personally hang Hobson alongside Pelosi, Lantos, and Murtha. I’ll need some of that polypro rope though. He’s a food blister.
FM isn’t even in the ballpark. As WFB would say, “One does not argue transubstantiation with an alterboy.” An extra day at sea to see this Prez? The horror, lmao. Must be why the youngsters love to crowd around, and get their pictures taken with him. Plain fact is that the Clintonistas loathe the military. That is the word that William Jefferson Blythe used in his letter to the ROTC Colonel isn’t it? Small wonder that the feeling is mutual. They demean the stature of a good and truly courageous man, in order to elevate their truly loathsome coward.
37
MajMike
// May 2, 2007 at 12:04 pm
you mean THE David Hobson??
isn’t he like the Deputy Almost Speaker of the House Cafeteria?
he’s what, #238th in line of succession? or don’t they just go in height order or alphabetically once you get that far down the list??
38
unkawill
// May 2, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Thanks all for backing me up on the revisionistic history thing.
1. I believe when you delay the Abe?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s long beleaguered crew for an unnecessary, excruciating extra day ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú at the end of an extremely long 10-month cruise, and painfully in sight of San Diego and their long awaited homecoming -
?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú so you can dress up in flight gear and trap aboard, instead of a short helo-ride out of NAS North Island - that sir, is a stunt!
I think any military unit would be Quite honored to be visited by our current CIC, even if you had to delay coming into port. Not quite so sure about a visit from the previous CIC.
10 month deployment, big whoop, at least in the Navy, you get 4 hots and a cot plus entertainment, showers, E-mail and clean clothes.
You didn’t hear the WWll sailors griping about the length of their deployments, except perhaps Captain Queeg’s crew.
As far as researching Bush?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s spotty military record, I have. Maybe you should too.
I don’t think that Dan Rather’s Forged document’s
are pertinent to the discussion, I don’t trust Google or wikipedia as a source, Google because of it’s demonstrated Lib Bias, and need I say anything about wiki.
I was in the military approximately 8 years, not subject to the draft.
Pray tell Filterman what was your MOS?
39
badbob
// May 2, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Lex,
Wake up! Help me out Lex! unkawill needs the treatment, too!
b2
40
badbob
// May 2, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Here is one of ‘em. Lex had another more eloquent post on the subject but I couldn’t find it:
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/11/07/common-sense/
With a link to this. Scroll down and read the quick thing on the F-102:
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000136.html
I have 3800 jet hours and 712 arrested landings-8 different CV/CVNs. Even I’d approach a Delta-Dagger with caution….Maybe Lex, too. Get it?
Lastly learn about the TANG circa 1970:
http://www.glcq.com/
Summary-When I hear folks besmirching Bush’s aviation record I get pissed. Every second of every flight he flew (350hrs total?)George’s life was in danger in that 102 and that is worthy of everyones respect, including you circumspect aviation junkies who come here.
click-click/b2
41
jpr
// May 2, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I would take a look at Lex’s original post regarding a 10-month deployment —
“…Six months is a long time at sea, enclosed inside a noisy, dangerous machine, working 14-hour days for weeks and months on end - no weekends off, no holidays aboard a carrier - surrounded by 5000 people you might not ordinarily choose to associate with, far removed from the creature comforts of home, family and friends.
Not everyone is built to hack a six-month deployment, people quit the service from the strain, families fly apart.
Ten months is unutterably longer. Especially when the sixth month comes and goes and you?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢re still in the Arabian Gulf and frankly no one knows when you?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ll be heading home. It can seem like forever…”
I haven’t been there, haven’t done that. Don’t know how I would hold up, to be honest.
42
Babs
// May 2, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I know I am a bit late to the discussion but, it doesn’t take a therapist to know why I find the picture of the CIC to be so compelling.
Do All you aviators look “like that” in a flight suit with a harness on?
Ater I noticed this “first thing” the other thing I noticed was how tired the CIC looked…
Mission Accomplished… Yeah, at what cost to the crew of the Lincoln and ther CIC? God Bless the crew of the Lincoln that stayed at sea for 10 months…
43
unkawill
// May 2, 2007 at 4:06 pm
10 months deployed on a carrier, while it might be dangerous and tedious, is a cakewalk compared to daily missions outside the wire, where you are subjected to IED’S, Snipers and Ambushes. For a year or 15 months now tour for the Army and I believe still 7 months for the Marines.
Myself, I have two wespac’s under my belt and a tour in Iraq doing convoy duty for the troops,
13 IED’S within a 100 yards and three ambushes.
I would much rather be Haze Grey and Underway, than playing dodge ball with “insurgents”.
44
unkawill
// May 2, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Babs, Every body looks like that in a parachute harness.
At least our CIC HAS the Stones to catch a wire.
45
Skippy-san
// May 2, 2007 at 5:35 pm
He caught a wire? Or the pilot flying the plane did? He rode through a trap-same as I did 890 times.
46
Kris, in New England
// May 2, 2007 at 5:47 pm
“…Every body looks like that in a parachute harness…”
Wondered about that…hmmm…
47
sid
// May 2, 2007 at 7:12 pm
One should be careful when brandishing “Mission Accomplished” banners. This one took on a bit of a clouded meaning as well.
It wasn’t but quite weeks later we were all back there again.
48
Michelle
// May 2, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Psssst… Lex! Over here! Are you out there? Still trapped in The Great White North?
It would be nice that you come back. Shhh… trust me. We need you. To post something. Anything. Thanks.
49
fliterman
// May 2, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Indeed, it did take a more than a modicum of intelligence, skill, and yes-even courage to fly the F-102 in the Texas Air National Guard.
But I submit those who walked the point through the VC infested jungle, manned the repeatedly attacked firebases, were in the “brown-water” delta Navy, commanded troops in the field, or plied the flak-filled skies above Hanoi might have an edge in the “courage” department . . . and perhaps character too, given the times and circumstance of the day.
I am often amused at how it is often pointed out that the F-102 was a dangerous aircraft to fly, and had an extraordinarily high accident rate. Well, all the “century-series” fighter/interceptors had high accident rates back in the day; in the F-104 in Germany service alone, 292 of the 916 Starfighters crashed, claiming the lives of 115 pilots.
Regardless, comparing old aircraft accident rates to modern aircraft which are 2-3 generations improved is misleading. Naval aircraft of the day had horrendous accident rates then too, when compared to today’s superb aircraft safety records.
But certainly, flying an F-102 over south Texas was far, far less risky than flying an A-4 off the USS Hancock in the Gulf of Tonkin; or for that matter, off the USS San Jacinto in a TBM Avenger, like his father did in WWII. Now that was flying, and that was service!
…and then there was the matter of the son quitting ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú both his flying, then later his ANG commitment - early…
50
lex
// May 2, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Excuse me all, I know I’ve been busy and unable to gently steer the conversation as I ordinarily would attempt. And forgive me in advance if I am overly blunt, but I have a drop taken, as me old grandma used to say.
So I’ll hope you forgive me in advance for saying this, but this is undoubtedly the most comprehensively stupid discussion I have read on line in the last several months, which is saying rather a great deal. And in my own house.
Our country - indeed our civilization - is either facing an existential threat, or it is not. That is a useful area for us to explore and debate. The decisions that our political class make in the upcoming months or years will decide whether or not our civilization survives in the form we’ve come to know and love if in fact - for argument’s sake - we are facing that existential threat. Which would be a useful topic to explore and debate.
But you have busily occupied yourselves engaging in vulgar tu quoques and debating the nearly metaphysical elements surrounding whether or not a man who was twice elected to serve as our president and military commander in chief both before and after the worst terrorist attack recorded in history upon our native soil not quite six years ago did, or did not miss a drill weekend or two as a national guardsman 35 years ago.
For shame. I had come to expect so much better from you.
51
fliterman
// May 2, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Lex ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú accept my apologies. But please understand, this issue has long been a bitter and personal sore spot with me, and one I really can’t repress.
Nevertheless, given the exigencies of our current and imminent, treacherous state of national and world affairs, I do believe it is of great importance to thoroughly examine our leaders, warts and all ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú the current, past, and most importantly, the new candidates who would be the next President of the United States in the approaching dire straits - in detail, beneath the surface and beyond all the usual political facades.
Past is prologue, and needs to be exposed.
All would agree that over the years, we have had an easily discernable range in the qualities, character, and leadership ability of those we have elected to occupy the Oval Office.
But at this juncture, we no longer have the luxury of electing lesser men to that august and almighty office. In fact, our nation’s future viability may well depend upon the him (or her,
) we elect.
Our next Commander in Chief could well be one of the most important in our entire history, given the mounting threats - perhaps eventually and hopefully taking a place alongside with the Washington’s, Lincolns, and the FDR’s … if they can lead, prevail and succeed.
While we all may have our favorites, the greatest Presidents, we all usually agree upon who they were.
Conversely, we can also mostly agree on who the weaker ones were too, regardless of political party. Many Presidents never quite fulfilled our expectations; a very fine few wonderfully exceeded them.
Lee Iacocca ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú an accomplished leader himself ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú has something to say here that you may not like. But if we are to understand, and to grow, and perhaps even survive as a great nation, his words are appropriate and instructive.
Meanwhile, I’ll probably just go off somewhere else and hide for a while in a sand-bagged bunker, waiting out all the “incoming.”
52
Justthisguy
// May 2, 2007 at 11:54 pm
He tightened up the harness good and tight because of good advice, and remembering his training, too.
Maybe Laura gets to have an opinion about his actual physical “package”, but certainly nobody else.
53
Justthisguy
// May 3, 2007 at 12:00 am
Oh, I voted for the man twice, but really had to grit my teeth to do it the second time. Had his fraternity brother Kerry gotten in, well, OMGWTFBBQ!!!
54
Kris, in New England
// May 3, 2007 at 5:25 am
“…Our next Commander in Chief could well be one of the most important in our entire history,…”
And to Lex’s larger point, then what does President Bush’s military record have to do with anything now? It’s been hashed and re-hashed by pundits great and not-so. IMHO the focus should now turn to who we elect in 2008, bearing in mind the statement above.
55
Skippy-san
// May 3, 2007 at 7:22 am
His record from 2001-2008 is the issue. And it provides more than enough to debate and make a decision on. Problem is, it won’t be a vote for the next guy so much as a belief in who can do the best job of undoing the damage this particular President has done. In that regard the election of 2008, is very like the election of 1968. Bush gets to play the role of Lyndon Johnson-the roles of Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon have not been cast yet.
56
Casca
// May 3, 2007 at 8:57 am
SS, the only thing Dubyah has in common with Lyndon is that they both came from Texas. The only thing Hillary has in common with Hubert is that their first names start with an H. At least Nixon and Gingrich get to use the same campaign slogan, “Rested & Ready”.
57
badbob
// May 3, 2007 at 9:00 am
Scratching non-erudite bone-head, Is “tu quoques” good or bad? Or, are two better than one?
F-man-
re- “circumspect aviation junkies”.
Commonly referred to as “adoring fans” if respectful, irritating strap-hangars if not.
BTW, not that I want to add more to this buffoonex, but Algwhore was in the stifling heat o’Nam too, using his Harvard edumacation to write about others harrowing combat……Hand salute.
Skippy- WOW. 890 traps logged in an unlit tube facing backwards-Cojhones!
b2
58
Skippy-san
// May 3, 2007 at 9:20 am
Correction: facing forwards-with the hatch open after 1985. VAW-115 accident that year scared everybody pretty good.
My original goal a long time ago was to be an A-7 pilot. God in His infinite wisdom had other ideas for me. So I became a rider rather than a flyer. There is probably some sort of sarcastic mileage that can be gotten from that…………..
59
badbob
// May 3, 2007 at 10:13 am
Don’t be so defensive Skippy- I couldn’t take NOT seeing! Once I trapped sitting backwards in a C-2..Now that I think about it after joining on E-2’s a cuppla times long ago, those heads in the winders WERE facing forward! Me wrong.
b2
60
Jeff
// May 3, 2007 at 10:40 am
We can sit here as long as we want and debate the particulars of decisions made by folks (to serve or not to serve) a long time ago. We can sit here all day and debate the particulars of why one of those men wore a flight suit four years ago. It’s a waste of time, space, and oxygen.
The situation we are faced with now (this being the one that still matters because the outcome has not yet been determined) is that a number of elected non-leaders are trying to lose a conflict we have invested much in for no other reason than they are afraid that the other guy might look good. It’s a conflict that a large number of those detractors voted in favor of, when the decision was put to them.
To those politicians, a bright, stable future for the Iraqi people and the validation of the efforts of our troops just isn’t worth the damage it might do to their chances for re-election. A few years ago those politicians were given a choice: war, or not. They chose war. Now the choice is the lives of millions or the careers of a few… and we know where they stand on that.
61
Skippy-san
// May 3, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Jeff,
Why does a vote made 5 years ago continue to be binding now? Especially in light of the fact that all of the assumptions that vote was based on have been proven to be incorrect. Congress has the legal righ to vote to change such a vote-regardless of the wisdom of such a change. (Which is what the country is really debating here). Bright future for Iraq? Not anytime soon. Stable-also not happening anytime soon and the reasons for that lie with the inability of the Iraqis themselves to capitalize on the opportunity that they have been given by the work of the Armed Forces.
Even the President himself is backpeddling from his previous definitions of “stability”. That’s because the conflict there is no longer ours to win or lose and he knows that. We can continue it in its current form or we can do something that changes the chemistry enought the inevitable violent reaction gets done and over with.
The real question is deciding which course is really in the US interest. That course may or may not be aligned with Iraqi interest ( and I am in agreement with those who say it is different). If the US is to stay in Iraq, the public has to be shown something besides the prospect of war without end, which is all they are seeing now.
There always was a limited amount of time to do this. The President knew it when he started it, the Congress knew it and in the end the public knew it. We are in the fourth overtime now and the people are frustrated. The game was supposed to be over long before this. Nobody is showing them that there will not be a fifth or a sixth overtime. January 20, 2009 cannot come soon enough.
62
P-3 wife
// May 3, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Sorry, Skippy-san, but I respectfully disagree. We’re still in Korea, still expecting a fight there. We’re still in Japan and Germany. How is Iraq that much different, besides the man in charge. No one is crying for all our armed forces to be brought home from all foreign ports and bases; only from Iraq where there is actual fighting going on. If we leave Iraq (IMHO) then we are opening up ourselves to permanent warfare here at home in all theaters of our lives. If we contain the fighting there, where the jihadis come to fight us, then we are safer here at home.
No matter how much people disagree with the president, I am amazed at the things he has accomplished that seemed impossible. When he announced the tax cuts (way back when) he said he wanted to cut $600 Billion or so. All the democrats screamed and cried about raising taxes instead, but he stuck to his guns. Next thing I heard was the democrats saying the tax cut was too big, and no more talk of tax increases. Next was the tax cuts in place, and darn if they weren’t record breaking in size. He gets what he wants, slowly by surely.
I think he is terribly “misunderestimated” and maligned mainly because of the priggishness of Al Gore in losing the election. By dragging everything out instead of conceding gracefully, he delayed most of Bush’s appointments and set the tone for Democrats to be uncooperative in the extreme.
I blame Al Gore and the Democrats for not being able to face reality and staying in denial that there is a world outside the US where people really do want to kill ALL of us.
63
unkawill
// May 3, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Well said Mrs. P3,I would have to add, Wmd was but one reason to go and depose Saddam out of more than a dozen violations of UNSC mandates, including violating the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement.
Skippy-San postulates-The game was supposed to be over long before this.
I distinctly remember The CIC saying that this WAR was going to take a very long time, Generational, I believe the term was.
64
PeterGunn
// May 3, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Go girl, P-3 wife. I like the way you say it! I can remember W also saying this was going to long, hard work. I think the left had so much fun with throwing George’s colorful metaphors back in his face, they didn’t listen to what he said… or even think about it.
Skippy… despite all of the missed assumptions by Tenet and his crew (after all, even he said intelligence is collecting data and making assumptions in his book), wouldn’t you agree that our troops staying in Iraq is in the interest of the USA?
If we leave precipitously, I think the giant sucking sound of the vacuum that would be Baghdad and Iraq would be disastrous. Wouldn’t it be better to avoid the chaos remaining after our departure? What kind of threats would our homeland experience then?
One of my own who’s served there says, “at least we have them all in one place… and we can shoot at them when the need arises.” What kind of terrorism would AQ engage in, if scattered across the globe?! My family and millions of others live here; I think protecting them is surely in our interest.
65
Skippy-san
// May 3, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Being in Iraq does not keep AQ from coming to look here though. They are scattered across the globe already and they do have a sanctuary to operate from-(Waziristan), Sudan and pockets within Asia. The course of events in Iraq has no affect on what happens in those other locations. Europe has an ever growing pool of Muslims who are potential terrorists. In other words the supply of terrorists is not finite. And its not soley found in Iraq. Being in Iraq does nothing to make your family safer. Improved law enforcement does. Improved homeland defense does. Fixing immigration does. Improving border security does.
What I continue to object to is defining our whole Middle East policy in terms of Iraq when there are a lot more important actors there whose governments are far more important to the overall interests of the United States than the Sunni and Shias of Iraq. Egypt and Turkey are far more important than Iraq will ever be. So too is Saudi Arabia and the GCC states. 4 years of fighting in Iraq did not stop 74 terrorists from planning to do harm in Saudi Arabia.
To quote a smarter man than me, “I mean, you take what you can get after a while, and what we?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve got is a free and safe Kurdistan, and relatively stable and safe and recovering Shiite Iraq, and that hell-hole called Sunni-land. The notion that we somehow ?¢‚Ǩ?ìlose Iraq?¢‚Ǩ¬ù unless we fight it out in Sunni-land until all the bitter-enders have all met their bitter end is just goofy.” -Thomas Barnett.
Bush had Republican majorities in Congress till 2007. Tax cuts are a no brainer-except in what they do to the distribution of income between the wealthy and the middle class. I agree with the Lou Dobbs theory that the rich are getting richer and the middle class and poor are being squeezed. We could argue that to till the cows come home. And never resolve it. Plus truth be told-my personal taxes have been about the same for the last 5 years so if the tax cuts gave me more spendable income-I sure never saw it.
Finally, comparisons to Korea and Japan are useless. For one thing, the Koreans and the Japanese are light years ahead of the Arabs and always will be. They have more industry and are a better quality of people than any Arab. Secondly, we are present, but we are not fighting anyone there. When we were fighting in Korea there was plenty of public sentiment against it in 1952 and into 1953. Which was why Eisenhower made his promise to go to Korea.
In summary, I’ll stick to my unpopular opinion that I have held for years-less would be more in the middle east. The real models for success for the US are not Iraq. Its the work being done in PI and HOA as well as our HA/DR work being done in Indonesia and other places in the Pacific. None of those place the strain on US forces that 5 years of significant land power in Iraq have.
66
unkawill
// May 3, 2007 at 7:54 pm
I have to say “Good Point” Skippy-san, on The work being done elsewhere in the Global War on Terrorist’s/Islamic Fascists.
We don’t hear much, if anything at all from those theaters.
67
unkawill
// May 3, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Filterman, I must have missed your reply to my previous question.
For clarity’s sake, what was your MOS again?
68
badbob
// May 4, 2007 at 11:43 am
Skippy,
I never walked away from a basketball game when my team needed me in overtime to help ‘em win. I ain’t gonna this time.
What you are trying to convince these good folks here, again.. for the 1000th time, is that Iraq and by extension the Middle East are not in our national interest. As you simyultaneusly confuse ‘em by going in/out of US politics and the vagaries of Shia, Sunni and Kurd…
OK then, SIR, lets break it down to the bottom-line AND NOT even consider that “old terrorism from Islamo-facist variable” that happened to kill 3000 of our population on 9-11….. I say what about all that oil Skippy? We need, no, the world needs access to that oil.
One more thing- All agree, Iraq is a “shit-magnet” for Al Queda. As a result we kill them there. Isn’t that cost effective from a logistics standpoint? How about the fact that they haven’t attacked us CONUS since 9-11?
b2
69
Skippy-san
// May 4, 2007 at 1:51 pm
B2,
They have not attacked the US since 9-11 not because we are in Iraq-but because they can’t do the things they did on 9-11 e.g. our guard is up. So Europe is held more at risk than the US because its probably easier for them to go there-except the Europeans have disrupted more than a few plots.Again that would have happened whether or not we were in Iraq.
The war in Iraq is the war in Iraq. Its not related to the”war on terrorism” except that there are a number of terrorists who go there because that is where the Americans are. However if the Iraq war ended tomorrow and the Iraqis actually got their stuff together and behaved like decent people-the threat from terrorism would still be there. It will be here 10 years hence-until the Muslims get rid of their stupid religion and assimilate into a real society. There are still terrorists in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. An American was murdered in the PI 14 days ago-in Luzon no less. The PI government is struggling against them with our help. That has nothing to do with what whether we are in Iraq. It has everything to do with Islam though. The keys to controlling Islam are not in Iraq.
What about the oil? A nation does not have to be a democracy to be a trading partner. Iraq needs the money and we need the oil. They will sell it-as will Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kazakistan etc etc etc. Problem is not matter what happens, demand is going up because 2 economies are around now that were not 20 years ago-India and China. Japan already uses a lot-so does the rest of Asia. So like it or not we are going to have to compete with them for what we want. And over time the supply will continue to go down so it will get even more competitive.
I did not bring up US politics-someone else did. I just simply took the bait because I cannot resist it.
70 Traveling is teh suxxor! - Neptunus Lex - The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy. // May 4, 2007 at 5:12 pm
[...] ?Ǭ†And then, as though a curtain had been pulled aside at last, it became apparent to me at last the meaning of this strangely compelling tableau: It was b2 and Skippy, vying to the end on the topic of whether Iraq is, or is not, a part of the War on Islamist Terror. [...]
Leave a Comment