Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 05/13/2003 View Mon 05/12/2003 View Sun 05/11/2003 View Sat 05/10/2003 View Fri 05/09/2003 View Thu 05/08/2003 View Wed 05/07/2003
1
2003-05-13 Home Front
To those on the ship, politics played poorly
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by tu3031 2003-05-13 07:57 am|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11137 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 of course the fact that the sailors enjoyed the visit and disliked the sniping hardly proves that it WASNT a carefully choreographed photo op :) Not that thats all that important - apparently LBJ once landed on a carrier, and Im sure Clinton would have if he had had a similar opportunity. Dems need more serious issues - like tax cuts, health care, and making sure Bush doesnt blow the situation in Iraq.
Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 08:51:32||   2003-05-13 08:51:32|| Front Page Top

#2 After being assembled in Hangar 2 on the carrier and searched for weapons, the press was herded from one presidential event to the next, and brought back to the hangar between events. Reporters who hadn't figured out a way to escape from the halo of security people surrounding them sat on their notebooks, frustrated.

The deck of a carrier is one of the most dangerous places in the world, even if you're trained and aware of what's going on. Letting the general run of oblivious newsie run around loose would be like letting three-year-olds play in the hay-baling barn at harvest time.
Posted by mojo 2003-05-13 09:28:13||   2003-05-13 09:28:13|| Front Page Top

#3 Regarding Liberalhawk's comment "... Dems need more serious issues - like ... making sure Bush doesnt blow the situation in Iraq." This is how "liberal hawks" justify their support of the action in Iraq to their liberal friends - diss the Commander-in-Chief.
Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-13 09:38:10||   2003-05-13 09:38:10|| Front Page Top

#4 Drudge is running a picture of Pat Leahy (Donkey - VT) in a flightsuit in front of a jet. Note how he hasn't jumped on the bash wagon...
Posted by Raj 2003-05-13 09:38:24|| [angrycyclist.blogspot.com]  2003-05-13 09:38:24|| Front Page Top

#5 Raj,

Careful with that stuff. Liberalhawk will be all over you whining about partisan politics.
Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-13 09:42:41||   2003-05-13 09:42:41|| Front Page Top

#6 Regarding Byrd's criticism, check out this letter to the editor in yesterday's WAPO:

Showmanship and Serving With Honor
Monday, May 12, 2003; Page A18

Of all people, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) called President Bush's carrier landing and subsequent speech "flamboyant showmanship"

Of course, Mr. Byrd should know about flamboyant showmanship. After all, his home state has several things named after him, including:

The Robert C. Byrd Highway; the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam; the Robert C. Byrd Institute; the Robert C. Byrd Life Long Learning Center; the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program; the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope; the Robert C. Byrd Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing; the Robert C. Byrd Federal Courthouse; the Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center; the Robert C. Byrd Academic and Technology Center; the Robert C. Byrd United Technical Center; the Robert C. Byrd Federal Building; the Robert C. Byrd Drive; the Robert C. Byrd Hilltop Office Complex; the Robert C. Byrd Library; the Robert C. Byrd Learning Resource Center; and the Robert C. Byrd Rural Health Center.

Sort of reminds you of all the statues, pictures and images of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, doesn't it?

CRAIG BOZMAN
Rockville

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-13 09:48:28||   2003-05-13 09:48:28|| Front Page Top

#7 "Letting the general run of oblivious newsie run around loose would be like letting three-year-olds play in the hay-baling barn at harvest time."

Mojo: Too true. Maybe they should have let them run around. *grin*
Posted by Tadderly 2003-05-13 09:55:58||   2003-05-13 09:55:58|| Front Page Top

#8 "Regarding Liberalhawk's comment "... Dems need more serious issues - like ... making sure Bush doesnt blow the situation in Iraq." This is how "liberal hawks" justify their support of the action in Iraq to their liberal friends - diss the Commander-in-Chief"


None of my "liberal friends" are on this site, so this wasnt aimed at them. It actaully represents a serious position.

And nothing I said dissed Bush - OTOH GOP had no trouble dissing a commander in chief when said commander in chief was a Democrat - so come off your high horse.

If people say stupid things about Bush, they should be criticised for saying stupid things. But dont get all hung up about respect for the C-in-C when you and your talk radio pals never had such a thing in the past.
Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 10:05:08||   2003-05-13 10:05:08|| Front Page Top

#9 raj's comment was on topic - why would i have any problem with it?
Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 10:06:38||   2003-05-13 10:06:38|| Front Page Top

#10 the way i justify my support for the war on iraq to my liberal friends

1. Iraq had a profoundly illiberal regime - one that had no respect for human rights, that was downright genocidal. Baathism is fascism, and anti-fascism is a respectable liberal cause.
2. We acted in support of international law - that the UN failed to add an additional resolution doesnt change the fact that we inflicted "serious consequences" as stated in 1441.
3. This is confirmed by the support of the leading "liberal"/3rd way/moderate social democrat politician on the face of the earth - Tony Blair.

I need no further justification.
Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 10:10:17||   2003-05-13 10:10:17|| Front Page Top

#11 rather, i think my anti-war friends have failed liberalism.
Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 10:11:41||   2003-05-13 10:11:41|| Front Page Top

#12 making sure bush doesnt blow the situation in Iraq - is not dissing - its a serious concern.

His father and his fathers pals blew the situation in Iraq in 1991.

His fathers pals tried to get dubya to blow the situation again in 2002.

Something didnt go quite as intended in the diplo lead up to war - for now I'll take it that it was all Chiracs fault.

There is growing evidence that we were unprepared for the occupation of Iraq, the occupation admin was thrown together at the last minute, went in without enough sat phones, furniture, etc. Its being widely said that was because of squabbling between State and DoD.

Of course we're told the State - Dod squabbling over Iraq was all part of a "good cop/bad cop" show. So why couldnt the good and bad cops figured out in advance how to run the occupation?

Maybe, just maybe, the problem is that the smart folks are in DoD, State really is squabbling, and the C-in-C really isnt able to keep them in line.
Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 10:19:14||   2003-05-13 10:19:14|| Front Page Top

#13 "His father and his fathers pals blew the situation in Iraq in 1991. His fathers pals tried to get dubya to blow the situation again in 2002."

And now how about the interim period from 1991 to 2000? Did Clinton "blow" anything? Or will you be a reflexive apologist like the fawning sycophants of the Democratic left?
Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-13 10:46:20||   2003-05-13 10:46:20|| Front Page Top

#14 Hummm, partisan US politics, with a lone LH against a whole bunch of republicans, as usual. Very colorful, but, I'll pass anyway, thanks.
Posted by Anonymous 2003-05-13 10:54:21||   2003-05-13 10:54:21|| Front Page Top

#15 Yea, I hate it when LH insists on injecting partisanship into these forums.
Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-13 10:55:38||   2003-05-13 10:55:38|| Front Page Top

#16 Partisan Politics 101:

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) also demanded an analysis of the costs.

“I would like the Defense Department to determine what the cost to taxpayers was for transporting the president to the carrier, his stay on the carrier, his flight from the carrier to shore, and any changes in the carrier’s or the jet’s schedule or procedure for the president’s visit,” Conyers wrote Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-13 11:07:39||   2003-05-13 11:07:39|| Front Page Top

#17 clinton would have had to start a war against an entrenched regime - at a time when the Republicans were certainly not calling for one.

Bush, Sr otoh, had an actual rebellion - the Shiites had taken the entire south from Basra to Karbala, and the Kurds had taken Kirkuk - all that would have been required was to use US airpower against Iraqi helicopters, and the regime would have been gone. It didnt happen, because the US admin only wanted Saddam out if they knew there would be a sunni arab general in place - they didnt want Shiites, Kurds, and the rest of the Iraqi people to take over. You know why - it has to do with Bush's relationship with a certain country called Saudi Arabia, and its desire for "stability"
Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 11:13:05||   2003-05-13 11:13:05|| Front Page Top

#18 "Yea, I hate it when LH insists on injecting partisanship into these forums. "

Uh, i didnt make this post. I merely commented on, it and kept to its topic.
Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 11:13:58||   2003-05-13 11:13:58|| Front Page Top

#19 "clinton [sic] would have had to start a war against an entrenched regime - at a time when the Republicans were certainly not calling for one."

Leaders lead. Clinton was not a leader.
Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-13 11:16:16||   2003-05-13 11:16:16|| Front Page Top

#20 "Hummm, partisan US politics, with a lone LH against a whole bunch of republicans, as usual. Very colorful, but, I'll pass anyway, thanks"

Actually beyond my first comment, ive been talking about Iraq. There are however some people who dont know Karbala from Kirkuk, who are more interested in Clinton, Gore, and Dem "dwarfs" then they are in the WOT. I would think there are better places for them to carry on, but i guess im wrong.
Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 11:17:51||   2003-05-13 11:17:51|| Front Page Top

#21 '"clinton [sic] would have had to start a war against an entrenched regime - at a time when the Republicans were certainly not calling for one."

Leaders lead. Clinton was not a leader. "


and dubya was suggesting a war on iraq BEFORE 9/11. News for you - he wasnt.
Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 11:24:12||   2003-05-13 11:24:12|| Front Page Top

#22 leaders lead - very well.

Colorado con:
Is dubya repsonsible for Barbara Bodine?
Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 11:26:37||   2003-05-13 11:26:37|| Front Page Top

#23 "There are however some people who dont know Karbala from Kirkuk, who are more interested in Clinton, Gore, and Dem "dwarfs" then they are in the WOT."

I totally agree. And these people are, for the most part, called DEMOCRATS who still gnash their teeth over how they failed in stealing the Florida election.
Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-13 11:58:47||   2003-05-13 11:58:47|| Front Page Top

#24 "Is dubya repsonsible for Barbara Bodine?"

Geez, I don't know and I don't care. I do know that he isn't responsible for Albright, Christopher and company screwing up our foreign policy in the '90's and laying the foundation for Sept. 11.
Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-13 12:06:03||   2003-05-13 12:06:03|| Front Page Top

#25 The thing about "foundations" is that one can go back much further in time and blame it all on Reagan, during whose time as president, Osama Bin Laden was a "freedom fighter", not a terrorist...

It all depends on how far back one is willing to dig.
Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-05-13 12:41:46||   2003-05-13 12:41:46|| Front Page Top

#26 '"Is dubya repsonsible for Barbara Bodine?"

Geez, I don't know and I don't care.'


No comment.
Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 13:25:57||   2003-05-13 13:25:57|| Front Page Top

#27 Jeez, guys, take a moment and read LH's comments carefully. He's got quite a few valid points in there.
I believe he was suggesting that the Dems are being partisan about this, rather than focusing on the Dem agenda.
I think his concerns are valid. Referring to just 41 and 43 was also valid, because His Willy never had a prayer of getting it right.
Posted by Dishman  2003-05-13 14:41:25||   2003-05-13 14:41:25|| Front Page Top

#28 "I totally agree. And these people are, for the most part, called DEMOCRATS who still gnash their teeth over how they failed in stealing the Florida election. "

they are on both sides, and only one regularly posts and comments here. And he/she is not a democrat.
Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 14:53:11||   2003-05-13 14:53:11|| Front Page Top

#29 Liberal Hawk,

You don't deserve troll treatment. I think you make good, on-topic points. While I most likely don't agree with your politics (unless the "Liberal" refers to classical liberalism), you're a great asset to the board.

I always try to remember that without dissenting viewpoints, conversation regresses into intellectual masturbation...
Posted by mjh  2003-05-13 16:23:34||   2003-05-13 16:23:34|| Front Page Top

#30 Ok, I'm not a partisan political animal. I hate the dummycheats and the repuglycons equally. Most of them are out for all they can get, and have their hand as deep in my pocket as they can get it. At the same time, there's a lot of finger-pointing going on that needs to end. That includes a bunch on this site. I'm not an enforcer, I'm just a commenter, like everyone else but Fred.

I hated Bill Clinton because he's a crook. He was a crook in Arkansas, he was a crook in Washington, and he's still a crook in New York. I have relatives in Arkansas, and they KNOW things about the Clintons. They also know how he uses "enforcement" to keep out of trouble.

I was NOT a fan of Bush I. He was an apologetic multinationalist, and in my opinion, a very poor president. However, much of what happened after GW1 was because Bush listened to the multinationalists and the UN. Bush II learned enough to tell the UN to take a hike when UN policy disagreed with the needs of the US. Bush I wasn't that courageous.

As for the problems in Iraq, I wrote once before that the war shocked the US by being over too soon. I'm sure the military and State talking heads said there was no need for an occupation force for at least 90 days, and that's how the plan was written. DoD and State are running around like headless chickens trying to do in a couple of weeks what they believed they had months to do. The political in-fighting is only making matters worse, delaying the start of what needs to be done, and costing lives and money.

Washington is an entrenched bureaucracy. People working for ALL the various "government agencies" have virtually lifetime tenure, whether they do their job or not. In my opinion, it's time to take the whole bunch to the woodshed, and only bring back the ones worth saving.

Posted by Old Patriot  2003-05-13 16:39:51||   2003-05-13 16:39:51|| Front Page Top

#31 Tadderly! Let the Press run around on the active flight deck of an aircraft carrier, get sucked into some jet airtake and ruin a perfectly good aircraft? Hell, it takes only one reporter per engine to muck it up, and the cost-benefit analysis shows that break-even is eight reporters per engine.

There was no excuse for Bush I to not help the Kurds, especially when acting would have prevented dual-use helicopters sold by the USA to Iraq for agricultural spraying as weapons platforms for chemical warfare. However, it just struck me that the south was a different matter: The shias were thick as grass there and still are, and would have joined up with/been infiltratd by Iran immediately after revolting from Iraq. They're trying to do NOW what they WOULD HAVE DONE then. Iran would have had Basara and probably half the active fields of Iraq. Bad news IMHO. Bush I should have been more selective, helped the Kurds and allowed Saddam to keep the south out of Iranian hands.
Posted by Ptah  2003-05-13 17:14:54|| [www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2003-05-13 17:14:54|| Front Page Top

#32 Ptah --- Re: the press running amuck arount the flight deck of the carrier. That is called the Pink Mist Approach™ in propland and it sounds good to me. Just have them sign a release before they are welcomed aboard.

Old Patriot has it right. The entire bureaucracy needs a trip to the woodshed and then we need to sort out the good timber from the punk. I do not feel safer with a huge rearranging of the federal furniture into Homeland Security. We need to be smarter in how we fight this war, and we have to be proactive, and everybody arguing over Bush's trip to the Lincoln is small potatoes when Turban-town is threating our existance.
Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-05-13 20:36:18||   2003-05-13 20:36:18|| Front Page Top

16:13 Tadderly
08:30 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
08:18 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
08:15 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
06:57 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
02:19 R. McLeod
01:57 R. McLeod
01:53 R. McLeod
01:41 R. McLeod
00:24 Phil_B
00:04 Phil_B
23:29 Frank G
22:35 Fred
22:15 Bubblehead
21:50 OKIE
21:42 OKIE
20:36 Alaska Paul
20:11 Douglas De Bono
20:08 Alaska Paul
20:06 Fred
19:38 Tony
19:21 rich_h
19:20 Tony
19:08 Tony
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com