Regardless, Mr Bush's display was purely campaigning for 2004 and should be payed for out of HIS CAMPAIGNS office or the White House, not the United States tax payers.

"Looks like Our Great Leader's Great Money-Wasting Top Gun Photo-Op may have backfired on him. After Dubya made his carrier landing two weeks ago, a lot of people have been asking such questions as: how much money did this little exercise cost? Why did Ari Fleischer originally say that the Abraham Lincoln was hundreds of miles offshore when it was actually only 30 miles away? And if that was the case, why take a Viking when a helicopter would have done? Why was the carrier ordered to cruise around in circles when it saw land, instead of heading home so the sailors could be with their families? (Idiot answer from Navy chief of information Rear Admiral Stephen R. Pietropaoli: "We're not doing the families any favors by tricking them and coming in sooner.") And why was Dubya dressed like some kind of third-world military leader? The flight suit question has been vexing conservatives who claim that Dubya had to get togged up like that to fly on the Viking. As Ari put it at a press briefing last week, "If you noticed, everybody who came off the Viking wore a flight suit, as you were required to wear a flight suit if you were going to participate in a flight on the Viking. That is what you wear if you're on a Viking." Funny, because when Republican congressman Mike Pence was asked on CNN's Crossfire if he had to wear a flight suit when he made a tail-hook landing on the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman, he replied, "If they offered me one and if I could fit in, I would have put it on in a heartbeat." How peculiar!

Why complain about this part of the tax money.

How about complaining about the Democrat instituted Unconstitutional regulation comittees some even being able to legislate their own laws, when only congress is supposed to have that power.

Thank you stupid Democrats, spending hundreds of billions of dollars on stuff to destroy the constitution.

Oh and the reason he had to wear a flight suit is because he's the president, the flight suit is to force blood into your body, they could afford to lose a senator and so be lacadaisical, but they could not afford to lose the president to heart failure because of such a little thing.

I guess you'd like the Pilots to stop wearing their Flight suits now too?

Stupid democrats. Fighting over one million dollars when we have a GDP of 10trillion. And a tax revenue of almost 1.2 trillion.

You buttheads, when will the new 2nd party come in? It's time for the Democrats to retire.

[Edited on 13-5-2003 by ELSFAW]

insults like generalising a group of people and calling them "stupid" will only show your ignorance. congrats, you have the maturity of a 6th grader.

As far as destroying the constitution, as with most things over time...changes are needed to fit current circumstances. In the words of Dennis Miller, "how do we know the right to bare arms didnt literally mean you had the right to show your bare arms?" lol.

People like to make it out as if we are out to completely throw out the old constitution and make a new one which is absurd. lets remember, liberals like change...think of it as evolution...all governments must evolve or face certain death(IE ROMAN EMPIRE). Change is not always good, but neither is staying the same forever and you wont know unless you give change a try.

I hate to see such bashing with terms as "lefties" "liberals" "commies" "pinkos"...
I see "conservatives" calling "liberals" commies all the time but very rarely if at all hear liberals call conservatives nazis...so why all the hate from the other side of the isle? instead of being right or left, how about we be people with differing opinions who love our country?

Btw, the money amount isnt as much as an issue as what the money was spent for...and thats BUSHS RELECTION CAMPAIGN FOR 2004... sorry, but i even republicans ive talked to in my area saw it as publicity stunt...only different between me and them is that they think hes genius for doing it cause they want him to be relected

[Edited on 13-5-2003 by pezcore64]

this is great!

hey, how come the LEFT was asking how much the taxpayers were shelling out for our last president's excursions around the country in air force 1?

you think it's expensive to fill the tank of a jet? how much do you think it costed us to fill the tank of that 747?

Ah, but that 747 carries a lot more than one man who has very bad flying skills.

And I dont care if he did this publicity stunt. If he crashes, then all the better. Who cares about the cost of a single jet? How about all of those planes in Iraq, all of those billions of dollars used in a publicity stunt just as petty.

XAOS

Gee Xaos, that was some pretty harsh and uncompassionate stuff there. Are you sure you're a love-filled and sensitive liberal?

Pez64, you might see it as campaigning, but you see, these guys just went to war and along with the rest of the military, did a fine job. There was a good reason for shrub to do this.
Also, carriers make a good backdrop when speaking to or about the military, a carrier group is used to project our strength where needed around the world.
As a matter of fact, I don't think shrub is the first to speak from the deck of a carrier:
(The spaces are where pictures should be. They are obviously not there)

As commander-in-chief, William Jefferson Clinton gave speeches on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Independence and USS John F. Kennedy carriers to name but three military photo-ops. Taxpayers paid to send Senator John Glenn back into space as a payoff for his scuttling of the investigation into Red China's Democratic Party contributions. Mr. Clinton traveled more than any other president, and his wife used Air Force One as a jet for her campaign. People died in three countries because Clinton used the military to distract from Monica Lewinsky's testimony. We could go on and on, but why bother? Bush did what he did and looked great doing it. Democrats want to whine that he's acting like president, but that's one of the reasons it's so hard to beat an incumbent - any incumbent.



President (Clinton) Photo-Ops on Aircraft Carriers



May 8, 2003
















On March 12, 1993 - in his first visit as commander-in-chief to a navy vessel - President Clinton walked on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt. Notice that the cockpit is open and Clinton is walking away from the jet as if he just landed it there. And looky! He's wearing a flight jacket! Asked why he made the trip, Clinton said, "I think I need to be here because I'm commander in chief."













President Clinton on the carrier USS Independence: April 17, 1996
(Note: That's seven months before he faced re-election. Bush made
his carrier visit a year and seven months before his re-election effort.)













President Clinton administers the oath of enlistment to
recruits on board the USS John F. Kennedy: July 4, 2000.





[Edited on 13-5-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

What, did you not read the post above yours, Rom? Must not have as it makes no sense to argue 2 plus 2 equals 5 after you've just been proven otherwise.

There really hasn't been a need for a reply to the left's whining and whimpering as it has been just that, and there problem, not ours.

This president had sailors crowding to see him and to shake his hand, when Klinton went aboard, the captain had to order sailors to go see the president and to sit and eat with him. See the difference? Probably not.
'Nuff said.

Why aren't we being criticle of the handful of dems who took a navy chopper out to the Lincoln a few days after Bush went when she got close enough? That monster has to burn more fuel than a fighter jet. Since when are we questioning how often or where a president travels? I think we had better glance at Thomas' post before we start adding up gas money. I love how the we dems can justify our rational and trash the other side for the exact same thing. I remember a Clinton photo-op on the beaches of Normandy. Kneeling down to examine a rock he found against a beautiful sunset and then on the cemetary, a flag happened to be blown down which he carefully placed back in order. Such awe inspiring photos that make us proud of the US and its leader...so why do we have to attack the other side for doing the same stuff? President Bush may not be my parties president but he's still my president for the moment anyway so why not back off instead of embarasssing our country in front of the rest of the world and let it stand as a symbol of strength and unity? Why , just once, can't we take the high road?

What dems don't see is that the high road will put us back but we are too hung up on bashing to see that the next ill point we make against the president only makes us look petty to most of America. We should have brought the new tone first and we should show integrity. We need to have a platform..to run for something instead of against something. Complaining and whining about whats currently being done is wrong if we don't have any better solutions.

Originally posted by romantico
Clinton I don't recall landed on a carrier in a flight suit.BIG DIFFERENCE!

you are correct. if you add up all of clinton's "business trips" around the counrty in air force 1 vs. one single jet flight, i suspect that the difference is probably that of several thousand dollars!

Originally posted by astrocreep
Why aren't we being criticle of the handful of dems who took a navy chopper out to the Lincoln a few days after Bush went when she got close enough?

it's called liberal bias. it is alive and WELL.

Well, if half of what one reads about GWB's "military service" is true, the US taxpayer paid lavishly for him to qualify as a pilot -that was by all accounts the only part of his "service" he actually turned up for.
So perhaps he's just saying "Thank you".

I looked at the photos of Clinton and Bush
Does that brown bomber jacket come as part of the package with the Whitehouse?

and lets not forget Hillary's travel as first lady and Madeline Albright - these Dems didn't have a problem with 'cost' then. To me, it seems they think they are the only ones that can spend money, anywhere.

I like that....it's so applicable!

Look, if you don't choke on a desk jockey AWOL son of the devil playing dress up, something that legit WAR HEROS like Kennedy or Eisenhower would never EVER consider doing, and that the carrier was so close to port that they had to swing it around so land would not be visible in the photo op - thus proving false that the carrier was so far out a helicopter couldn't cut it, then you have to be pissed that this idiot would burn money on such an outrageous stunt!?!?!

On your selective memories: Dim Son Bush broke all exisiting records for both number of and frequency in a first term of campaign stops before the mid term elections, flying to every million dollar a plate fundraiser, anywhere in the country, that they could get his mug in front of. He burned through millions in aircraft costs/local security/special security attachments, all during a recession, record unemployment, a "war" and a record number of Americans going on welfare because their U.E. insurance had run out!!!!

Wake me up, I must be in Weimar Germany!! The Reich Boys indeed!

[Edited on 14-5-2003 by Bout Time]

how come the demoncats are evading the issue of the enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars that the clintons took for granted during their regime?

sure.. maybe bush could have taken a chopper out to the boat, but that wouldn't have boosted citizen moral as much. i think for the cost, it was worth it. it was worth it for his campaign and it was worth it for the moral of the american public. remember, there are more people than not who are feeling warm and fuzzy over this.

again, a full tank of gas for one clinton air force 1 ride costs more than 10 bush jet flights.

Originally posted by kramtronix
again, a full tank of gas for one clinton air force 1 ride costs more than 10 bush jet flights.

Can you prove this????

And Bush takes AF1 too. What, do you think he takes a jet everywhere? Every president since the start of the air force flew on air force one. Were they doing bad? You seem like a good republican, do you mind that eisenhower, and nixon and ford and reagan and bush flew on air force one? Clinton didnt start the tradition, you know that right?

And Bush is going to go back to taking air force one everywhere, burning fuel just like clinton, except he will only have half of the time clinton had to fly on the presidential air plane, if that.

Anyway, Air force one is about a hundred times more cost effective than a jet. AF1 can carry about three hundred people. A jet can carry one maybe two people, and if everyone on air force one had to take jets, imagine the taxpayer cost.

So before you diss clinton for traveling, think about all the illustrious republicans that did the same

XAOS