Mission Accomplished?

[renata]

Yesterday, I listened to the Bush press conference and heard this question.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29127-2003Oct28?language=printer

QUESTION: Mr. President, if I may take you back to May 1st, when you stood on the USS Lincoln under a huge banner that said, "Mission Accomplished," at that time, you declared major combat operations were over. But since that time there have been over 1,000 wounded, many of them amputees who are recovering at Walter Reed, 217 killed in action since that date.

Will you acknowledge now that you were premature in making those remarks?

BUSH: I think you ought to look at my speech. I said Iraq's a dangerous place, got hard work to do, there's still more to be done.

And we had just come off a very successful military operation. I was there to thank the troops.

The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from staff. They weren't that ingenious, by the way.

But my statement was a clear statement, basically recognizing that this phase of the war for Iraq was over, and there was a lot of dangerous work.

And it's proved to be right. It is dangerous in Iraq. It's dangerous in Iraq because there are people who can't stand the thought of a free and peaceful Iraq. It is dangerous in Iraq because there are some who believe that we're soft, that the will of the United States can be shaken by suiciders and suiciders who are willing to drive up to a Red Cross center, a center of international help and aid and comfort, and just kill.

It's the same mentality, by the way, that attacked us in -- on September the 11th, 2001. "We'll just destroy innocent life and watch the great United States and their friends and allies, you know, crater in the face of hardship." It's the exact same mentality.

And Iraq is a part of the war on terror. I said it's a central front, a new front in the war on terror. And that's exactly what it is. And that's why it's important for us to be tough and strong and diligent.

Our strategy in Iraq is to have our strike forces ready and capable to move quickly, as we gather actionable intelligence. That's how you deal with terrorists.

Remember, these are people that are willing to hide in societies and kill randomly. And, therefore, the best way to deal with them is to harden targets, harden assets, as best as you can. That means, you know, blockades and inspection spots.

And as you notice yesterday, one fellow tried to -- was done in as he tried to conduct a suicide mission.

In other words, an Iraqi policeman did their job.

But as well, we got to make sure that not only we harden targets but that we get actionable intelligence to intercept the missions before they begin. That means more Iraqis involved in the intelligence-gathering systems in their countries, so that they are active participants in securing the country from further harm.

Remember, the action in Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein was widely supported by the Iraqi people. And the actions that were taken to improve their country are supported by the Iraqi people. And it's going to be very important for the Iraqi people to play an active role in fighting off the few who are trying to destroy the hopes of the many.

You've heard me say that before. That's just, kind of, the motto of the terrorists. That's the way they operate.

Now when he says the sign was put up by "members of the USS Abraham Lincoln saying that their mission was accomplished" I assumed it was their initiative, because they were coming home and figured it was just a photo op.

However.....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/

Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.

.....
At the time, it appeared that every detail of the day's events had been carefully planned, including the president's arrival in the co-pilot's seat of a Navy S-3B Viking after making two flybys of the carrier.

The exterior of the four-seat S-3B Viking was marked with "Navy 1" and "George W. Bush Commander in Chief."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it.

So is this yet another example of spin? I suppose he is right in as much as it was Navy's idea, but it sounded to me that he was dissociating himself from the banner altogether. Kind of he landed- saying- wow- lookie, a banner, why didn't my staffer think of that? Well, I guess if it has to be in the shot, so be it....


And, for those interested, here is the transcript of the speech on the carrier. I think Bush's recollection is a little different than my reading of it, frankly.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/index.html

 

[Charles Livingston]

Sounds to me like the Navy requested it. No surprise that the white house actually prepared it, as I imagine they keep a pretty tight control over the image of the president (as they should). I am not quite sure how this is 'spin', it was the Navy's idea? You even said something along the lines of "i though it was the navy's ititiative...however..." Seems to me it was their initiative.

This is a bit off topic, but it pisses me off when people say Bush was 'playing make believe' by dressing in that flight suit and flying in on the A-4. NOw, certainly this was an image deal, and a bit overdramatic, but the guy did fly F104's when he was in the reserves didnt he? All of these people (Franken for one) who keep making fun of him have probably never piloted a high performance airplane but Bush has, gives him at least some credibility in arriving on the A-4, at least to me.

 

[roger]

I agree with Charles comment, and will further add that I doubt that the President was ever involved in anything as mundane as who manufactured a banner. I can imagine him seeing the banner for the first time, asking an aide about if they had put it up, and getting the answer "it was the Navy's idea." Or alternatively, if he was given any say about it, they just asked hime something like "The navy wants to put up a 'Mission Accomplished' banner. Is that okay with you?".

I'm just speculating, of course, but I can't imagine them wasting the President's time with details about who exactly manufactured the thing.

 

[renata]

It seems we disagree Let me explain how I came upon my impression, as I listened to the press conference yesterday. The reporter did not ask him whose idea it was to make the banner. When Bush joked that nobody on his staff would have come up with that idea, and said it was "members of the USS Abraham Lincoln " who put it up, saying their personal mission was accomplished, I felt he was given a bum deal about this banner. I thought perhaps all carriers got a banner like this- something like-Job Well Done, or Welcome Home or some such. So if Bush showed up, and the banner was there, he could not very well take it down, that seemed reasonable. I still had some problems with the speech- the cost of the approach via plane vs helicopter, the fact that the carrier was held an extra day at sea for the speech, the fact that it turns out his assessment was overly optimistic.

However, today I saw the White House made the banner (albeit at Navy's request), and my opinion changed again. It appears, again part of a carefully choreographed and expensive photo-op. The Navy requested, sure, but if the White House did not endorse the idea, they could have either declined the idea, or not have it in the background during the televised speech. The fact that it was there seems to fit well with the message of whole appearance.

As to Bush not knowing- I may accept this argument. It is indeed a small detail, and I am much more concerned about bigger things he does not seem to know. And I will also accept that my suspicion of the past spin in this administration makes me prone to focus on this kinds of missteps.

 

[Crossbow]

To: Charles Livingston

Not to be a pain, but Bush flew in on a S-3 and not an A-4. I spent three years on an aircraft carrier, so I know an S-3 when I see one.

However, I do agree that Bush was just being dramatic.

 

[Charles Livingston]

To: Charles Livingston

Not to be a pain, but Bush flew in on a S-3 and not an A-4. I spent three years on an aircraft carrier, so I know an S-3 when I see one.

However, I do agree that Bush was just being dramatic.

Sorry about that, I thought it was the A-4. What is the S-3, a similar type of ground attack plane? Do they sit side by side and eject through the canopy (ouch) like the A-4? Actually, this shouldnt be a surprise to me as if I recall they are replacing/have replaced the A-4's duties with the F-18, right?

 

[AmateurScientist]

I still had some problems with the speech- the cost of the approach via plane vs helicopter, the fact that the carrier was held an extra day at sea for the speech, the fact that it turns out his assessment was overly optimistic.

You're kidding, right? The cost of the approach in a fixed-wing jet aircraft versus one in a huge turbojet Presidential helicopter? Assuming there is much difference, if any, do you have any idea how it compares to the daily amount spent on military defense in the U.S.? Jesus, it is so statistically insignificant as to be hardly worth blinking over. Do you have any idea how many go-arounds aviators have to make on aircraft carrier approaches?

This just smacks of so much partisan grousing. Did you protest or object when then-First Lady Hillary Clinton and First Daughter Chelsea took an extended trip, complete with photo-ops riding elephants, to India? What about their two-week trip to several African nations? They weren't even government officials for Christ's sake. Yet, they spent large sums on getting and staying there, and getting and keeping a huge staff of advance people, attendants, and secret servicemen to guard them. For what? Ostensibly to raise awareness of women's issues. Mostly photo-ops.

Keeping the carrier at sea? The carrier is staffed with U.S. sailors. Their job is to man our nation's fleets. They were honored to host the President's visit. He's the Commander-in-Chief. This kind of thing happens in the military all the time when high ranking officials make visits to inspect their troops, for instance.

Again, I accuse you of engaging in little more than partisan griping. It sounds so petty.

With all due respect, I suggest you pick your political battles more carefully. This is such a petty little topic. If it is all the anti-Bush and anti-Republicans can come up with, then Bush and his administration are doing quite a good job in the public relations department.

AS

 

[Charles Livingston]

It seems we disagree Let me explain how I came upon my impression, as I listened to the press conference yesterday. The reporter did not ask him whose idea it was to make the banner. When Bush joked that nobody on his staff would have come up with that idea, and said it was "members of the USS Abraham Lincoln " who put it up, saying their personal mission was accomplished, I felt he was given a bum deal about this banner. I thought perhaps all carriers got a banner like this- something like-Job Well Done, or Welcome Home or some such. So if Bush showed up, and the banner was there, he could not very well take it down, that seemed reasonable. I still had some problems with the speech- the cost of the approach via plane vs helicopter, the fact that the carrier was held an extra day at sea for the speech, the fact that it turns out his assessment was overly optimistic.

However, today I saw the White House made the banner (albeit at Navy's request), and my opinion changed again. It appears, again part of a carefully choreographed and expensive photo-op. The Navy requested, sure, but if the White House did not endorse the idea, they could have either declined the idea, or not have it in the background during the televised speech. The fact that it was there seems to fit well with the message of whole appearance.

As to Bush not knowing- I may accept this argument. It is indeed a small detail, and I am much more concerned about bigger things he does not seem to know. And I will also accept that my suspicion of the past spin in this administration makes me prone to focus on this kinds of missteps.

Seems to me like you are just splitting hairs here. If I go buy a banner from a local printing shop that I have requested they make and hang it up, do I say that the local printing shop put it up? Who cares who actually made the banner, and even who actually physically put it up. The Navy requested it, the white house just ok'd it and probably made it themselves as they were likely the ones who set up (ie directed, produced, whatever) the speech. As to the comments regarding the whole photo op, I imagine every public appearance the president gives is carefully orchestrated. This is just politics, and you cant really blame bush for something every president does. Of course they could choose to have the banner there or not, they control the entire production during the president's public appearances. That is the whole reason the navy asked them whether they could have it. No matter what, it was the Navy's idea.

 

[Crossbow]

Sorry about that, I thought it was the A-4. What is the S-3, a similar type of ground attack plane? Do they sit side by side and eject through the canopy (ouch) like the A-4? Actually, this shouldnt be a surprise to me as if I recall they are replacing/have replaced the A-4's duties with the F-18, right?

No problem at all guy!

Not to derail the thread, but I think you may be referring to the A-6 (Navy ground-attack plane) and the A-7 (Navy fighter plane) being replaced by the F-18 which can do both ground-attack and air-to-air attack roles. It is much easier for the military to have one plane do both jobs as opposed to having two sperate planes.

I hope this helps!

 

[Charles Livingston]

You're kidding, right? The cost of the approach in a fixed-wing jet aircraft versus one in a huge turbojet Presidential helicopter? Assuming there is much difference, if any, do you have any idea how it compares to the daily amount spent on military defense in the U.S.? Jesus, it is so statistically insignificant as to be hardly worth blinking over. Do you have any idea how many go-arounds aviators have to make on aircraft carrier approaches?

This just smacks of so much partisan grousing. Did you protest or object when then-First Lady Hillary Clinton and First Daughter Chelsea took an extended trip, complete with photo-ops riding elephants, to India? What about their two-week trip to several African nations? They weren't even government officials for Christ's sake. Yet, they spent large sums on getting and staying there, and getting and keeping a huge staff of advance people, attendants, and secret servicemen to guard them. For what? Ostensibly to raise awareness of women's issues. Mostly photo-ops.

Keeping the carrier at sea? The carrier is staffed with U.S. sailors. Their job is to man our nation's fleets. They were honored to host the President's visit. He's the Commander-in-Chief. This kind of thing happens in the military all the time when high ranking officials make visits to inspect their troops, for instance.

Again, I accuse you of engaging in little more than partisan griping. It sounds so petty.

With all due respect, I suggest you pick your political battles more carefully. This is such a petty little topic. If it is all the anti-Bush and anti-Republicans can come up with, then Bush and his administration are doing quite a good job in the public relations department.

AS

You said it much better than me, AS. Should that be 'I'?

 

[Charles Livingston]

No problem at all guy!

Not to derail the thread, but I think you may be referring to the A-6 (Navy ground-attack plane) and the A-7 (Navy fighter plane) being replaced by the F-18 which can do both ground-attack and air-to-air attack roles. It is much easier for the military to have one plane do both jobs as opposed to having two sperate planes.

I hope this helps!

Crap! You are right, I meant the A-6 the entire time. The A-4 must have been the instructor plane in top gun. I didnt even know there was an A-7.

 

[renata]

You're kidding, right? The cost of the approach in a fixed-wing jet aircraft versus one in a huge turbojet Presidential helicopter? Assuming there is much difference, if any, do you have any idea how it compares to the daily amount spent on military defense in the U.S.? Jesus, it is so statistically insignificant as to be hardly worth blinking over. Do you have any idea how many go-arounds aviators have to make on aircraft carrier approaches?

At the time, AS White House claimed that the carrier was too far for the cheaper and available helicopter, and the plane had to be used instead. That was later shown to be incorrect.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/06/byrd.bush/index.html

Last week, the White House had said that such a landing was necessary because the carrier would have been too far out for a helicopter landing. In fact, the carrier was close enough to the California coast for a helicopter landing.

"The ship did make much faster progress than anticipated," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Tuesday, when asked about the matter. Still, he said the president "wanted to arrive on it in a manner that would allow him to see an arrival on a carrier the same way pilots got to see an arrival on a carrier."

As to the extra cost, White House refused to release the details. I recall large figures batted around at the time, but I cannot find all the sources now. The one I did find, is certainly not impartial, and talks about fuel costs only

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-05-07-bush-landing_x.htm

Staffers for Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, calculated that the visit delayed the ship's arrival in San Diego by at least one day and cost taxpayers as much as $1 million in extra fuel costs, plus $100,000 in additional pay for the crew.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said though the ship was making unexpected good time to port Thursday, it would have remained offshore until its scheduled arrival Friday — even without Bush's overnight visit.

Navy Rear Adm. Stephen Pietropaoli said it's procedure for ships to arrive as scheduled out of courtesy for the waiting families: "They do a lot of planning, and you don't surprise them and show up (early) before moms and children get there."

....
The White House initially said the carrier was too far out at sea to use a helicopter. Tuesday, Fleischer acknowledged that the ship was close enough and said Bush took the jet because he wanted to experience a carrier landing.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., asked Congress' investigative arm for a "full accounting" of the costs.

And the GAO declined. Of course, as you know, Republicans asked GAO to investigate Clinton's travel costs as well .

This just smacks of so much partisan grousing. Did you protest or object when then-First Lady Hillary Clinton and First Daughter Chelsea took an extended trip, complete with photo-ops riding elephants, to India? What about their two-week trip to several African nations? They weren't even government officials for Christ's sake. Yet, they spent large sums on getting and staying there, and getting and keeping a huge staff of advance people, attendants, and secret servicemen to guard them. For what? Ostensibly to raise awareness of women's issues. Mostly photo-ops.

I did object and protest, just as Republicans protested and called Bill Clinton the photo op president and requested GAO to investigate some of his travel expenses. AS...you are not going to accuse me of being a hypocrite again, are you? Haven't we been down this path before? Did you object when George Bush travel and when Nancy Reagan decorate the White House? Some of it is partisan grousing, of course, as I already conceded.

But some of it smacks of spin and shifting of responsibility. My main issue, as you recall was not the cost, or the banner, or even the photo op itself. Apparently, the carrier was supposed to come to port ahead of schedule, but was delayed for Bush, and came on schedule- however, the Navy says if a carrier ever is ahead of schedule they just do lazy circles anyway, they never come to port early, because families prepare a homecoming. This seems strange to me, because I thought if people had a chance to see their families 2 days early, that would be a good thing, but I guess port schedules are a strict thing.

Keeping the carrier at sea? The carrier is staffed with U.S. sailors. Their job is to man our nation's fleets. They were honored to host the President's visit. He's the Commander-in-Chief. This kind of thing happens in the military all the time when high ranking officials make visits to inspect their troops, for instance.

Addressed above.

Again, I accuse you of engaging in little more than partisan griping. It sounds so petty.

Addressed above

With all due respect, I suggest you pick your political battles more carefully. This is such a petty little topic. If it is all the anti-Bush and anti-Republicans can come up with, then Bush and his administration are doing quite a good job in the public relations department.

AS

First of all, I am not a partisan person, as you should know. Second of all, I am not anti-Republican, or pro Democrat. I make my comments and observations on issue by issue basis, and I am not sure why you chose to bring up partisan politics into it. I also indicated in that it was indeed a small detail. Are people not allowed to bring up small details? Should I run by my topics by you next time, to make sure the crticism is grave enough? I posted it as a question, to see if people thought it was yet another example of spin. Instead I am being jumped at by you, I think rather unfairly, for picking unfair political battles and petty partisan griping. I really urge you to recall the last time you and I went down this road, and think again before you throw these accusations.

 

[Crossbow]

...

This just smacks of so much partisan grousing. Did you protest or object when then-First Lady Hillary Clinton and First Daughter Chelsea took an extended trip, complete with photo-ops riding elephants, to India? What about their two-week trip to several African nations? They weren't even government officials for Christ's sake. Yet, they spent large sums on getting and staying there, and getting and keeping a huge staff of advance people, attendants, and secret servicemen to guard them. For what? Ostensibly to raise awareness of women's issues. Mostly photo-ops.

...

AS

Excuse me AS, but in regards to the above point, I thought that the Clintons paid for that trip with their own money.

Or am I wrong about that?

 

[Cain]

You're kidding, right? The cost of the approach in a fixed-wing jet aircraft versus one in a huge turbojet Presidential helicopter? Assuming there is much difference, if any, do you have any idea how it compares to the daily amount spent on military defense in the U.S.? Jesus, it is so statistically insignificant as to be hardly worth blinking over. Do you have any idea how many go-arounds aviators have to make on aircraft carrier approaches?

These White House events are unbelievably scripted. An article was posted awhile ago from Elisabeth Buellmer ag the NYTIMES documenting the lengths Bush's staff goes to create the right impression. It's all propaganda.

Bush had the aircraft carrier make lazy circles so he could have the ocean in the background. Then he wanted to look like Tom Cruise in Top Gun so he had to land in a stupid jet. Before the press even asked a question he cried out, "Yes, I flew it!" He's a goddamn chimp. Oh, and he delayed the soldiers arrival (longest crew out at sea ever).

 

[renata]

Excuse me AS, but in regards to the above point, I thought that the Clintons paid for that trip with their own money.

Or am I wrong about that?

I have not heard one way or the other about this, but it is well known Clinton traveled quite a bit, and the costs for his trips were very high, and he was roundly criticized for it. George Bush was also seriously criticized for traveling extensively during his presidency, interestingly.

Here is one criticism of Clinton, about his 2000 trip to India,

After days of diplomacy and discussions with Indian leaders, U.S. President Bill Clinton turned tourist on Thursday and Friday as he visited the Indian outback with his daughter Chelsea.
.....
Some congressional Republicans maintain that the trip, initiated with the intention of diffusing tensions between IndiaÊand Pakistan over the disputed region of Kashmir -- the flashpoint for two of the three wars the between these neighbors -- isn't worth the trouble because both sides have steadfastly refused to curb their nuclear weapons programs.

"You minimalize and marginalize the impact of the President of the United States when you do these kinds of things that end with nothing more than photo ops," charged Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska).

I find this last quote particularly funny today.

Originally posted by Cain


Oh, and he delayed the soldiers arrival (longest crew out at sea ever).

According to the articles I linked to in my prior posts, the ship arrived on schedule. They were a day or two ahead of schedule, but, apparently, it is regular procedure to "arrive as scheduled out of courtesy for the waiting families". That seemed counterintuitive to me, but not having ever served, in Navy or any other military branch, I shall defer to Navy Rear Adm. Stephen Pietropaoli. I suppose it makes some sort of sense, I suppose ports are very tightly regulated and scheduled.

 

[aerocontrols]

Re: the cost of staying at sea an extra day.

It's my understanding that the planning for the visit, and the staying at sea was based on the Navy's original schedule to arrive back in port at a particular date. Sailors had purchased plane tickets, families were arriving to pick up sailors and/or visit, etc... based on a particular date of arrival. Would the ship have docked a day early and 'not paid' the salaries and fuel costs that are described? Does the navy have a policy of kicking sailors off boats to give them a day off? Sort of: "Gee, we're sorry you bought a plane ticket to fly home, and it doesn't leave until tomorrow. Have a day off without pay, and take a cab to a Motel 6 tonight"

This scenario seems unlikely, but it seems to me to be very much what is described by the 'docking early would have saved $x' people. Can any Navy people clear up my misconceptions?

MattJ

 

[Crossbow]

Crap! You are right, I meant the A-6 the entire time. The A-4 must have been the instructor plane in top gun. I didnt even know there was an A-7.

Sorry to be a further nag, but I think the Top Gun instructors were using A-5's.

A-7's go back a ways, and the Navy started using them in the 1960s.

 

[AmateurScientist]

I did object and protest, just as Republicans protested and called Bill Clinton the photo op president and requested GAO to investigate some of his travel expenses. AS...you are not going to accuse me of being a hypocrite again, are you? Haven't we been down this path before? Did you object when George Bush travel and when Nancy Reagan decorate the White House? Some of it is partisan grousing, of course, as I already conceded.

Hey, I'm not the one objecting or protesting at all. I didn't do it then, and I'm not doing it now. I fully recognize that in the bigger scheme of things, these costs are negligible.

As I said, it's nothing but partisan grousing, even if you claim to be non-partisan.

But some of it smacks of spin and shifting of responsibility. My main issue, as you recall was not the cost, or the banner, or even the photo op itself. Apparently, the carrier was supposed to come to port ahead of schedule, but was delayed for Bush, and came on schedule- however, the Navy says if a carrier ever is ahead of schedule they just do lazy circles anyway, they never come to port early, because families prepare a homecoming. This seems strange to me, because I thought if people had a chance to see their families 2 days early, that would be a good thing, but I guess port schedules are a strict thing.

Nope, just a well-coordinated event and perfect venue for giving a "victory speech" of sorts. He never said or implied that operations in Iraq were over, just that the main strategic objective was accomplished and that the main tactical fighting was finished. It was.

First of all, I am not a partisan person, as you should know. Second of all, I am not anti-Republican, or pro Democrat. I make my comments and observations on issue by issue basis, and I am not sure why you chose to bring up partisan politics into it. I also indicated in that it was indeed a small detail. Are people not allowed to bring up small details? Should I run by my topics by you next time, to make sure the crticism is grave enough? I posted it as a question, to see if people thought it was yet another example of spin. Instead I am being jumped at by you, I think rather unfairly, for picking unfair political battles and petty partisan griping. I really urge you to recall the last time you and I went down this road, and think again before you throw these accusations.

Maybe not, but your post was most definitely partisan. It was a made up issue. It wasn't made up by you, but by the partisan press, and you swallowed it.

Fine, I expect to see some posts in the future critical of Democrats on petty issues, then. Until then, I'll be waiting.



BTW, the last time we went down this road you accused me of being insensitive and uncaring. You even hinted that I am a misogynist. I also recall others scolding you for being unduly emotional about it. To your credit, you confessed that perhaps you had been. Nevetheless, I will do my best to avoid insinuating that you are being hypocritical, even though I never used the term here, Ms. Sensy McSensitive Pants.



AS

 

[tamiO]

It appears, again part of a carefully choreographed and expensive photo-op. The Navy requested, sure, but if the White House did not endorse the idea, they could have either declined the idea, or not have it in the background during the televised speech. The fact that it was there seems to fit well with the message of whole appearance.

Mr. Bush has a whole team of people working on his image and his re-election campaign. I watched a great documentary on HBO a few months back, entitled "Travels with George" made by Nancy Pelosi's daughter. She flew with the press plane during the 2000 campaign and documented George Bush on the road campaigning.

The eye opener for me were the signs the campaign workers provided the people in the small towns the visited along the campagn trail. All those signs the people held up that looked like they had been made at home with magic markers and poster board were actually created by Bush campaign staff and passed out ahead of the cameras.

Every single thing at a Presidential visit is carefully orchestrated for optimum marketing. The reelection campaign started before Bush was even in office.

I can't believe the sign was just what the boys on board wanted, it was carefully weighed and decided by campaign staff. Bush is not involved in the details.

The President is not allowed to actively campaign for reelection until a certain time. So we have these grey areas, this event for example. While legally, he was not actively campaigning for reelection; he did do up quite a production at taxpayers expense and kept soldiers from their family just one. more. day. I am sure it was exciting for them and the extra day passed quickly, but still. It felt so wrong. It was over the top.

 

[renata]

Maybe not, but your post was most definitely partisan. It was a made up issue. It wasn't made up by you, but by the partisan press, and you swallowed it.

Fine, I expect to see some posts in the future critical of Democrats on petty issues, then. Until then, I'll be waiting.

My post, had you bothered to read it, Mr Big shot lawyer, was about dissembling and spinning. It qouoted from his press conferences, and from a CNN story that said his answer was incorrect. Partisan, sure.... And I have criticized Democrats, plenty of times, on big and small issues. Most recently in California, but in other places as well.

BTW, the last time we went down this road you accused me of being insensitive and uncaring. You even hinted that I am a misogynist. I also recall others scolding you for being unduly emotional about it. To your credit, you confessed that perhaps you had been. Nevetheless, I will do my best to avoid insinuating that you are being hypocritical, even though I never used the term here, Ms. Sensy McSensitive Pants.

Oh please!! You said this was a petty topic, said it was partisan grousing and griping, and wondered whether I protested to Clinton's travels- you implied I was a partisan hypocrite! You are guilty,- book'im bailiff! Three days detention in sensitivity training camp!
(And, the last time we went down that path I had good reason to imply that at the time...recall my analysis of your posts had good reasons to assume what I did at the time, but we apologized to each other and all was well. Don't dig up the hatchets )


Don't accuse me of being a partisan or a hypocrite again without evidence, just to score polemic points, AS....you won't like to see me angry