Bush in Iraq

[Typhoon1244]

I was glad to see the President visit the troops. I wish I could be sure it wasn't a political move. If it was W.'s idea, fine. If this is more Karl Rove manipulation, that's another story.

 

[getonit]

My understanding is that whatever airplane the President is on it goes by AF1. So load him up in your C-152 and you can use that call sign. I doubt if they would take "The AF1" - 747 into Baghdad, I think it is too big, slow, and doesn't have the maneuverability particulary for approach and landing.

 

[bart]

I doubt if they would take "The AF1" - 747 into Baghdad, I think it is too big, slow, and doesn't have the maneuverability particulary for approach and landing.

Yeah, that's what I thought the last time I flew one...

Guess they should have flown a "metroliner"?

Thanks for the well thought out and informative post...

 

[flywithastick]

I was glad to see the President visit the troops. I wish I could be sure it wasn't a political move. If it was W.'s idea, fine. If this is more Karl Rove manipulation, that's another story.

So what if it was. It was a major score for the US.

Would you libs rather NOT score for the US, if it is also a score for Bush. Ahhh! I think we've hit the root of the problem...

 

[cvsfly]

Apparently they flew the larger AF1 to Andrews then got a Gulfstream. CNN had reported that the mission was almost compromised when a BA flight inquired if AF1 had just passed them in flight. The response was "No, its a Gulfstream....(pause) " and the BA pilot responded "Oh ... OK". Way to go George. He's got leadership and courage. Its for the troops. Screw those who have anything negative to say.

 

[de Pez]

Gulfstream?...Nonstop to Baghdad...You don't get it do you?

 

[Super 80]

Apparently they flew the larger AF1 to Andrews then got a Gulfstream.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashbb.htm

That's not what Drudge is reporting. Both flights were aboard Air Force One. There's more than one aircraft. They did not use the call sign though for obvious security reasons.

I doubt if CNN has it right. I'm not sure if the air traffic controllers would let another aircraft get that close to Air Force One which is the normal procedure. If you manage to see it flight, you have good eyes. They may not have had the increased separation that AF1 usually has but it also operated at night without the usual running lights, even the mandatory nav lights according to Drudge.

 

[Super 80]

By the way, this is how a President with guts acts. The first thing I said was, "Wow." Then I said, "Honey, come read this!" The wife was equally impressed and said how nice it was to finally have a real President. If I had been there as a grunt, I would have had tears in my eyes. This will boost morale in a place that sorely needs it.

The message here went far beyond domestic political consumption, although the Democrats will be in fits since GW upstaged darling Hillary. This sends a message to the terrorists, the nations that harbor them, and nations criticizing Gulf War II, or George W's war.

Fly Air Force One in and out of a hostile zone and nobody knows about it! You couldn't read something like that in a Tom Clancey novel! Wanna make a fortune? Make a movie of this with all the behind the scenes drama.

 

[TonyC]

747 from Waco to D.C., another 747 from our capital to the capital of Iraq, nonstop.

Both 747's were the real deal, paint job and all. True, the call sign "Air Force 1" is only used when the President is aboard, but that doesn't mean every aircraft he flies is "Air Force 1" - - witness "Marine 1." I doubt your 152 (getonit) could use the moniker. And the 747 is not the slug you might think it is.

There is a passive defensive system that does a decent job of defeating shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles. We had it on the airplane I flew in that region, and although we never used it, I'm told it's quite effective. I feel pretty certain the AF1 747's have that or better. I doubt DHL has thought to pony up the dough to protect its cargo planes with this very expensive system - - and that's why the mail has less protection than the President.

But then again, shouldn't the President get more protection than the mail?

 

[Timebuilder]

EVERY president has advisors. If Carl was involved, I don't mind a bit.

Let's look back for a moment at the Clinton visit to Normandy. The former president, who is not known to be a particularly religious or even a moral man, takes some refuse on the beach (strategically placed by his handlers, it has been reported) and forms a cross. He pauses, looks pensively at the cross.

*snap, snap, snap, snap , snap, snap*

He walks on.

Leaving a funeral, he is seen yukking it up with another attendee. That is until he sees he is being watched by a camera. They, his expression immediately changes to one of sadness, and he wipes away an invisible "tear".

Now, I have to admit that I helped put that turkey on the table when he first ran for office, before I came to my senses.

But let's think for a moment, and let's assume that someone like Carl Rove beat Bush to the punch and suggested a trip to Bagdad. Was Bush's heart in it, and was he on board 100%, or was he only interested in the promotional value of the visit, a la the Clinton visit to Normandy, an out of character gesture that he would never naturally do left to his own devices?

I think it beyond the obvious that this visit was entirely in character for Bush, and that he could think of no place better to be that day, as he is thankful to God, which is the historical signifigance of the Thanksgiving Holiday, and he is thankful to our troops, who are doing a wonderful job in their difficult circumstances.

God bless our troops, God blesss our President, and God bless the USA.

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

great, throw god in the mix as well, but then again, it's the root of all problems in that region anyway

 

[Timebuilder]

Actually, Vlad, you are very close to a truth there.

God isn't the root of all problems in the region, it is the lack of attention to His teaching.

Ignoring the messiah and following false "gods" are the roots of the problem. This a manifestation of man's sinful nature: disobedience.

One God, one truth, one word. It's that simple. The other stuff has been made up by man.

Nomex suit ready.

 

[Flying Illini]

less you forget, Vladimir, our country was founded with "god in the mix."

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

hence the separation of church and state
if you want to practice it at home, like a cult of some sort, fine...

but, lets separate them, and not turn every state function into a sermon

 

[Super 80]

hence the separation of church and state
if you want to practice it at home, like a cult of some sort, fine...

but, lets separate them, and not turn every state function into a sermon

Please quote me chapter and verse out of the Constitution for your separation of Church and State.

The First Amendment guarantees the Right to exercise your religion and for over 170 years that was done, by Presidents, by acts of Congress, by Governors and Legislatures throughout this land.

Cults are very well defined, but you are belittling Christianity by calling someone else's invocation of God a cult practice. This hostility on your part against just a superficial exercise of religion and your general antipathy towards Christianity on a whole only demonstrates your intolerance.

 

[Timebuilder]

hence the separation of church and state

Here's a little tidbit.

The phrase you mentioned comes froma letter written by Jefferson to some Massachusetts bishops about the concern of America having an "official" religion, such as was the case with the "Church of Engalnd". There is no movement whatsoever to make that happen here.

It isn't in the law.

It isn't in the Constitution.

The so-called "establishment clause" has been widely and officially misinterpreted. Why do I say that, when even our highest court has ruled? Because you only have to understand what is written in this clause, and understand the intent of the founders, which is easily done from reading what they wrote within the documents and their personal letters. The intent is plain. "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Somehow, this means to some people that government employees cannot demonstrate religious beliefs on government property, or lead a prayer in a classroom.

This convoluted interpretation was never the intent of the founders. Period.

Here is the entire paragraph:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

As you can see, by telling a teacher they canot lead a prayer, the governemnt has "prohibited the free exercise thereof".

The government has no standing whatsoever in telling a teacher, or an Alabama Chief Justice for that matter, where and how they may practice, advocate, show or honor a religious belief. The founders specifically wanted the government's nose OUT of that area.

Fuuny, The Supreme Court displays the Ten Commandments.

You explain that to me, okay?

 

[saabcaptain]

You know what... say what you want... it was a political move etc. It was courageous.

For the man to stand in harms way, an obvious target #1 for every single "thug and assassin" in Iraq, it is plain heroism. It speaks volumes to our troops, our people at home, and the people of Iraq about what kind of man our President is.

Bravo.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

Class Act on W's part.

I just wonder how many Iraqi Nut Bags were kicking themselves when they realized their biggest target was in their own back yard?

 

[Timebuilder]

I'll bet they're cursing in seven dialects.

 

[sky37d]

Just absolutely cool of GW to do this. Just the best.