More Information for the Libs to Try to Debunk

[MrRepublican]

Last Wednesday we were in Colorado Springs for the AF Academy graduation; featured speaker was George W. Bush. A little long winded, but the speech was punctuated with a lot of applause, which suggested that a lot of the military brass in attendance support him. However, what was more impressive to me was the fact that he personally saluted and congratulated
every single cadet that crossed the stage. There were
nearly 1000 cadets and this process took 1 hour, 40 minutes. A dear friend whose son was among the grads watched him through his zoom, and he displayed the personal touch all the way through:
every cadet was saluted; the men were then given a hand shake and often a pat on the shoulder with his left hand or some other personal words; the women were all given a hug and some of the women cadets also gave him a kiss on the check. Occasionally a cadet would ask for a "wave to my parents" and then the cadet and the president would turn to the crowd and wave in the correct direction. He showed as much enthusiasm to the middle and last cadets as to the first ones -- in fact, he looked like he was enjoying himself!

At the Academy graduation, the "top 10%" are noted as Distinguished Graduates (known as "DG's" -- the Academy doesn't have summa, magna cum laude, etc.) and they graduate first. The rest of the graduates walk
across by squadron (36 squadrons). 5 years ago when Clinton was there, he only personally congratulated the DG's (takes about 10 minutes) and then he sat down. Bush was offered the same option, but refused -- said he wanted to recognize every single graduate. This is the stuff about the man that never makes the news.

Name me the last president or senator who ever did such a thing.

Go ahead lefties, flame away and make my day.

[RetNavySuppo]

I agree with Mr. R that this was a lovely photo-op for the Great Leader. It also shows how some people are easily swayed by gestures than real deeds.

In the former Trash Can, I provided examples of how the GWB Administration had, since its inauguration, worked behind the scenes to undermine pay and benefits for active duty personnel and veterans. I won't rehash each item but just as an example, I will zero in on something even more important than pay and benefits, i.e., troop safety. It is here that the GWB played pure partisan politics with his troops' lives.

Remember the body armor fiasco? Something like $30 million was included in the overall $87 billion supplemental appropriation for the Iraq occupation. Republicans would have you believe that anyone who voted against that appropriation was endangering the lives of our troops. Yet it was Republicans themselves that drafted that appropriation and it was Republicans themselves that included a vital safety item in an omnibus spending bill they knew would be contentious and time-consuming. If the Republicans, under the leadership of the Great Leader, actually gave a flying fig about troop safety, there were alternatives available.

1. The Army itself could have diverted funds within the Army O&M (Operations & Maintenance) Appropriation to fund the body armor. The $30 million is below the threshold requiring Congressional approval. The money could have been obtained, just as an example, by delaying maintenance on non-critical equipment. The Navy does this on a routine basis. Guess what? The Army operates under the same budget regulations. Yet, they didn't do this. Hmmmmmmm.

2. The DoD is a part of the Executive Branch of the government. Guess who is the head of the Executive Branch? GWB, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces could have picked up the phone and ordered the Army to execute the above alternative. While the President cannot write checks himself, he can order the armed forces to execute certain missions and to properly equip themselves for that mission using O&M funds. Remember the War Powers Act? The President can commit military forces to combat for up to 90 days without Congressional approval. Do you think this is accomplished at no monetary cost? The President can have a direct influence on how O&M money is spent, yet he chose not to tell the Army to buy the body armor with then current O&M funds. Another hmmmmmm.

3. The Republicans control the Budget Committees, Appropriations Committees and Armed Services Committees in both Houses of Congress. The President is the head of the Republican Party. Therefore, one might reasonably assume that the President would have some influence on these committees. The President, if he really wanted to protect his troops, could have asked for the money for the body armor to have been included in its own supplemental appropriation. After all, the $87 billion was itself a supplemental appropriation. And if he really cared about the time element, he could have asked for an emergency appropriation. By the way, an emergency appropriation is the same thing the President asks for when requesting disaster relief for idiots who build homes right on the seashore that get blown away in hurricanes year after year after year. One might be tempted to think that GWB considers damage to poorly sited vacation homes to be more worthy of immediate funding than body armor for the troops. Another hmmmmmm.

So what we have here is GWB and his cronies in Congress using the body armor issue as a political hot potato. Instead of seeing to the immediate funding of the body armor, GWB et. al. stuffed it into the $87 billion omnibus bill, thereby trying to turn it into political hay against opponents of the overall bill.

Actions speak louder than words, gentlemen. Here we have a President who will spend some of his precious time glad-handing new officers with one hand while endangering their lives with the other - all in the cause of partisan politics.

Mr. R may be correct in suggesting that few other politicians would put on such a show. Perhaps it is because those other politicians might have a higher sense of decency than to parade such hypocrisy is such a public manner.

Now if you want a class act, you have to look no further than President Reagan. When his foreign policy backfired in Lebanon, he didn't whine and do the excuse dance or the pass-the-buck dance. He took his lumps and even went to Dover AFB to personally honor the returning coffins - hand in hand with the bereaving families. President Reagan set a standard for honor and dignity that GWB will never even understand, much less rise to.

[Richard]

Shaking hands for hours on end, isn't that what polititians do when running for office. Almost 1,000 votes there folks plus their families, yep if I was GWB I would have shook every hand also, as every vote counts in this neck and neck election.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Actions speak louder than words, gentlemen. Here we have a President who will spend some of his precious time glad-handing new officers with one hand while endangering their lives with the other - all in the cause of partisan politics.

You bring up a good point, and I agree in part that it could have been done differently and a lot quicker if it was such an emergency. But unless the president specifically ordered the DOD to not spend the money, he didn't endanger anyone. Yes it is politics, like any bill that comes up for vote it has the political calculaltion and playability element. I would have no honest expectation for any president to do different, they are all political critters.

[Aerobatic69]

Well said RetNavySuppo !!!

[MrRepublican]

Richard said:

Shaking hands for hours on end, isn't that what polititians do when running for office. Almost 1,000 votes there folks plus their families, yep if I was GWB I would have shook every hand also, as every vote counts in this neck and neck election.

So where was John Kerry while this was going on? In the Senate doing his job? I don't think so.

OTOH, I thought it was the Commander in Chief's job to attend as many academy graduations as possible. The fact he would go the extra mile (beyond what his recent predecessor has) leaves me with a very positive impression of him. It indeed tells me where GWB's heart truly is...(unlike Kerry whose anti-military actions and voting record speak volumes as to where HIS heart truly is)...the POTUS' heart is with the men and women of the US military.

[stetto]

Mark, I think that your point is irretrieveably lost on those who look for nothing but agendas and alterior motives. Yes, they're politicians. ALL of them. So it makes Kerry more legitimate because he makes no bones about not attending these graduations OR attending to his job?

I am impressed by a CIC who at least has the wherewithall to show a modicem of appreciation for those contributing to our nation's security. RetNav wants to hammer his point about Bush's negligence to the troops, which I have logged and noted long ago, but I also notice the absence of other administrations records with military raises and such in favor of hammering Bush exclusively (at least this is my perception). Yes RetNav, I have plenty of issues with the Bush Admin, and that is one of them, but give him his due when he shows the nation's gratitude by his presence at these functions...

[Galvin]

I will be impressed by George W. Bush when he starts quitely and unpublicly going to meet returning coffins to show some modicum of respect to those he has sent off to die and to those who loved them. He would demonstrate that he is not merely a publicity hungry hack by showing up and personally comforting the bereaved families instead of making political hay by taking taking photo ops at other military functions at every chance he gets.

Not bloody likely. Flag-draped corpses and devastated kin aren't the kind of audience he seeks. Not much applause likely there.

[MrRepublican]

Galvin said:

I will be impressed by George W. Bush when he starts quitely and unpublicly going to meet returning coffins to show some modicum of respect to those he has sent off to die and to those who loved them.

I was not aware that you are in the know about what the President does privately or unpublically.

I will have to watch my Ps and Qs, lest Galvin be looking into my own private and unpublic activities and reporting them (or the absence therof) here.

[Galvin]

All of us are intimately in the know about whatever GWB does because there is invariably a photo-op as soon as he does it. It is the height of disingenuous to assume that if he had managed to get to Dover to meet incoming dead and comfort families that the fact he finally had done so would not have leaked out from either the press or the families themselves. That he has not yet done so is glaringly obvious and self evident. If you wish to believe that he regularly sneaks off to do so, sans press and cameras, knock yourself out.

Having said that, I will concede that he has gone to Walter Reed and other hospitals to schmooze with some of the wounded. Such visits have hardly been low key and are always very well covered by the press and are accompanied with lots of picture taking, limited to the more intact examples of wounded by the way. Those guys can still vote after all.

[MrRepublican]

Galvin said:

All of us are intimately in the know about whatever GWB does because there is invariably a photo-op as soon as he does it.

Sure there is, Dave. Suuuuuuuuure there is. ;D

It is now 10:14 AM EST. At this moment, please tell us all exactly where the POTUS is, precisely what he is doing, and why.

In fact, that would make a good assignment for you. Please do this everytime you log on here.

[Galvin]

Oh I have no doubt he is sneaking off to watch those coffins come in. Grow up Mark.

[Cablemender]

While some might be impressed with Bush greeting the bodies at Dover, it's a hard political fact that those images would be used against him by the anti-war factions and all these "independent" support groups that officially aren't coordinating with the DNC. What a coincidence that so far none of them have had the same message overlapping, huh? Suuuuure, they don't coordinate at all!

If I was advising Bush, I'd keep him as far from Dover as I could get him, and NEVER let him go there. You saw how he got taken to task by a 6-person group of partisan 9-11 family members over his first campaign ad, a group who all made exactly the same talking points on a number of different talking head shows at the same time. Later it was learned that they already had this strategy planned for the first mention of 9-11 in a campaign ad. Don't fool yourself into thinking there isn't the same thing already in the wings for the first picture to surface of Bush standing over a flag-drapped coffin at Dover.

The Dems can hope all he wants he'd go there so they can use it against him, but that road's been travelled before and it's full of potholes. I don't blame him a bit for steering clear of it. There is ample opportunity for him to use his communication privately with those families to express his condolences and thanks for the service of their loved ones.

[MrRepublican]

Galvin said:

Oh I have no doubt he is sneaking off to watch those coffins come in. Grow up Mark.

I have no doubt that you have considerably less firsthand experience in exactly who the POTUS is interacting with and how this is happening regarding our military casualties than do I. Rather than to intrude on the grief of their family members or the privacy of the injured with specifics, I'll just leave it at that with only the dismissive that in neither case do either group of fine people need your help or assistance. And most would prefer that you not politicize their loss with needless speculation which not only questions their own intelligence and motivation for their their loyalties, but is in and of itself baseless left-wing spinspin. It is a volunteer military. And it is you, sir, that needs to grow up.

[JohnC]

All this complaining about Bush not meeting the coffins of our returning dead soldiers... for the life of me, (except maybe for a photo-op) I can't think of of ANY president who has. I'd say that is probably because if they met one, they'd probably be expected to meet all of them, no matter the nation's problems.

I'm not trying to stick for GW- until he calls off his "Non-amnesty" Amnesty program for illegal aliens and closes our borders he's on my "watchlist". But I think it quite unfair at the least to keep throwing this up in the air,,, all it does is stink the place up when it hits the ground.

As to RNS's comments concerning what he claims (and I'm not doubting them) the current administration is doing to screw up the military, I remember what Klinton (and his Pentagon buddies) did, are we supposed to believe that Hanoi John Kerry is "here to help us?" JohnC

[Galvin]

John, if you read RNS's comments, he referred to Ronald Reagan as a class act for doing just what you say you have never seen a president do. He went to Dover AFB with the bereaved families and took responsibility of seeing home those killed in Lebanon on his watch.

As far as the rest of you giving GWB a pass on his failure to acknowledge by example that these were people he was responsible for sending to a far off corner of the world to die, men and women he owes at least one measly token visit to acknowledge each of their supreme sacrifices, I expected no less than your attempts to justify it. You are, after all, highly partisan and Conservatives/Republicans first and foremost. The label "American" on you seems to come in a distant third. Or maybe forth.

Speculations about the reactions of GWB's enemies be damned, he has a responsibility to the fallen and he is avoiding it like anthrax for fear that such a trip would harm him politically. I might even have to raise my opinion of him a little if he actually did so without making it into some smarmy photo op. Since there is about as much likelihood of him doing so as of him admitting that he or his administration ever made a bad decision, I obviously have little to worry about in that regard.

[Cablemender]

Where does it say that Presidents MUST show up as bodies arrive home in order to accept responsibility for sending them, as you put it, "to die?" This is YOUR idea, not any kind of requirement. Certainly it shows respect when they DO do something like that, as Reagan did, but I disagree it shows any kind of DISrepect if they don't show up. As I pointed out, there are Presidential phone calls and letters that can also relay the President's respect to the servicemembers families.

I might even have to raise my opinion of him a little if he actually did so without making it into some smarmy photo op.

I doubt it. No matter what he did there, you'd find something wrong with it and not give him any points for going, and you are by no means alone. He's smart enough to figure that out, that's why he doesn't go.

During Reagan's Presidency, anyone trying to position him as un-American would have been laughed right out of publication. That is NOT the case today, as there are several tens of thousands out there who believe anything served up for them by the likes of Michael Moore and others like him, all of it "anti-Bush." Now you can deny that, if you want, but anyone with half an ounce of realistic viewpoint can see it exists. Given that environment, which is NOT the environment Reagan operated in, there is no compelling reason for Bush to go pay this tribute when he doesn't have to, and it will only be used to provide more "images" against him.

Don't think images work? You just posted one a couple weeks ago in which you told us how, with just a few minutes of film you could tell what Bush was thinking. When I suggested alternative thoughts, you dismissed them as me merely making excuses for him. Why? I have no reason to make excuses for him, I'm not part of his campaign, and I have my own issues with him - but my issues are proven, factual, and backed up with real data, not based on my mystic understanding of his facial expression. For instance, he promised to not grow government - he DID grow government; he added THOUSANDS of government positions in airport security and homeland security, but he didn't reduce them anywhere else, nor, that I can see, even tried.

Because someone differs in opinion with yours, they can't be American first anymore? Gee that sounds pretty fair. It sounds just like Hillary Clinton bitching about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" who differed with the Administration's opinions, then when the Administration changed hands she goes on stage in NY and wails "We have a right to disagree with any Administration" without being cast as un-American. So I gather then that this only works unidirectionally.. that it's fine for liberals to criticize all they want, but that sort of thing is un-American if a conservative disagrees with something. And you wonder why people can't tell the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist anymore.

[stetto]

Galvin said:

As far as the rest of you giving GWB a pass on his failure to acknowledge... I expected no less than your attempts to justify it. You are, after all, highly partisan and Conservatives/Republicans first and foremost. The label "American" on you seems to come in a distant third. Or maybe forth.

Ah Line Goddess, it's been so long since we've had the honor of your debating style; Put your position on a loftier height by putting everyone else on a lower one...Welcome back, we've missed your undeniable wit and superior grasp of all things.

...So are you the pot or the kettle today?

[JohnC]

Sorry about missing Reagan's paying tribute... I was living in Crescent City, Kalifornia at the time and din't have much TV coverage due to the lack of cable for most of the time and lots of natural interference (called Redwoods). And yes, Ronald Reagan was a very class act.

Still, as far as showing respect to the military, while Hanoi John has been strutting around squawking about how much he cares for our military, I just can't swallow it. He proclaimed our troops (including me, for all practical purposes, even though I wasn't in Viet Nam) to be murderers, torturers, rapists and worse, publicly lied about his so-called "tour of duty" and insinuated that HE could possibly be the ONLY decent minded military man over there.

Now he wants to be CIC of these "murderers" and I wonder just what he has in store for our Military in light of what Bevis and Butthead (Klinton and Gore in case you're puzzled) did to it.

Bush might lose this election because of many voter's feelings and perceptions, but Kerry definitely isn't the man for the job, either!

Who will I vote for? I'm not completely sure yet, but it certainly won't be Kerry - probably write in Tom Tancredo as a protest vote. JohnC

[Cablemender]

Well, if Bush or Kerry scare you, you need to check out these guys, the "Constitution Party." They opened up their local campaign headquarters here Saturday, featuring handshakes from the VP Candidate who is also a local preacher. To say he's a "fire and brimstone" type just doesn't do it justice.. more like flamethrowers and napalm. Next to him, Jerry Falwell is nearly as far left as Barney Frank.

www.politics1.com/const04.htm

These guys get elected, they'll be no question about "under God" being in the pledge. The question will be how to get everyone in the state to recite it lest they lose their federal school and highway funding. You ought to hear his radio show.. one caller gets him going and it's a rant all the way to the end.