TexasCHLforum.com

Quit trolling, now.

G26ster wrote:A. Bush was a military pilot.
B. That attire and equipment is required to fly in a Navy jet.
C. He flew out to congratulate the troops, NOT himself.
D. The Democrats and MSM used that day to pound G.W. Bush as as a "grandstander." Compare that to the lack of coverage the current POTUS is getting over his grandstanding. There is very little.

Compare Bush's speach to Mr. Obama's. Show me one place that G.W. Bush took any individual credit for anything!

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500257_162-551946.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The media pounded Bush? Sure, years afterwards and after realizing just how stupid the whole "Mission Acoomplished" spectacle was. The fact is that, at the time, the media gave Bush a standing ovation and days of fawning coverage. This was quite possibly the photo-op of the deacade. Here's Chris Matthews, (yes, that Chris Matthews) fawning over Bush (transcript):

"MATTHEWS: Let's go to this sub--what happened to this week, which was to me was astounding as a student of politics, like all of us. Lights, camera, action. This week the president landed the best photo op in a very long time. Other great visuals: Ronald Reagan at the D-Day cemetery in Normandy, Bill Clinton on horseback in Wyoming. Nothing compared to this, I've got to say.

Katty, for visual, the president of the United States arriving in an F-18, looking like he flew it in himself. The GIs, the women on--onboard that ship loved this guy.

Ms. KAY: He looked great. Look, I'm not a Bush man. I mean, he doesn't do it for me personally, especially not when he's in a suit, but he arrived there...

MATTHEWS: No one would call you a Bush man, by the way.

Ms. KAY: ...he arrived there in his flight suit, in a jumpsuit. He should wear that all the time. Why doesn't he do all his campaign speeches in that jumpsuit? He just looks so great.

MATTHEWS: I want him to wa--I want to see him debate somebody like John Kerry or Lieberman or somebody wearing that jumpsuit.

Mr. DOBBS: Well, it was just--I can't think of any, any stunt by the White House--and I'll call it a stunt--that has come close. I mean, this is not only a home run; the ball is still flying out beyond the park.

MATTHEWS: Well, you know what, it was like throwing that strike in Yankee Stadium a while back after 9/11. It's not a stunt if it works and it's real. And I felt the faces of those guys--I thought most of our guys were looking up like they were looking at Bob Hope and John Wayne combined on that ship.

Mr. GIGOT: The reason it works is because of--the reason it works is because Bush looks authentic and he felt that he--you could feel the connection with the troops. He looked like he was sincere. People trust him. That's what he has going for him.

MATTHEWS: Fareed, you're watching that from--say you were over in the Middle East watching the president of the United States on this humongous aircraft carrier. It looks like it could take down Syria just one boat, right, and the president of the United States is pointing a finger and saying, `You people with the weapons of mass destruction, you people backing terrorism, look out. We're coming.' Do you think that picture mattered over there?

Mr. ZAKARIA: Oh yeah. Look, this is a part of the war where we have not--we've allowed a lot of states to do some very nasty stuff, traffic with nasty people and nasty material, and I think it's time to tell them, you know what, `You're going to be help accountable for this.'

MATTHEWS: Well, it was a powerful statement and picture as well."

BTW, you miss my point. It's not about what kind of media coverage a president receives for chest-beating and shameless football-spiking. It's that they all do it. It's not exactly a partisan phenomenon.

matriculated wrote: BTW, you miss my point. It's not about what kind of media coverage a president receives for chest-beating and shameless football-spiking. It's that they all do it. It's not exactly a partisan phenomenon.

The only point you made in the posting of pictures only, was to show G.W. Bush as a grandstander, but you left out his words too. Words matter, and Bush never took credit for anything personally. The current POTUS did. To military personnel and veterans, when commanders praise the troops, they respect the commander. When the commander takes credit for himself, that does not sit well. Mr. Obama may well believe that all the credit belongs to the troops, but his words do not reflect that.

G26ster wrote:A. Bush was a military pilot.
B. That attire and equipment is required to fly in a Navy jet.
C. He flew out to congratulate the troops, NOT himself.
D. The Democrats and MSM used that day to pound G.W. Bush as as a "grandstander." Compare that to the lack of coverage the current POTUS is getting over his grandstanding. There is very little.

Compare Bush's speach to Mr. Obama's. Show me one place that G.W. Bush took any individual credit for anything!

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500257_162-551946.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have to admit that though I really, really dislike GWB ... he did give credit where credit was due. And that is indeed one mark of a leader.

So, Obama should have had a big banner behind him instead of the armored vehicles, right? Mission Accomplished actually seems pretty appropriate now.

gdanaher wrote:So, Obama should have had a big banner behind him instead of the armored vehicles, right? Mission Accomplished actually seems pretty appropriate now.

The problem is, the mission is NOT accomplished. I will agree we needed to be out Iraq, but not Afghanistan. There are still terrorist cells in these areas, the government is corrupt in Afghanistan and Pakistan and in cahoots with the terrorists. All Obama is doing is pulling out the troops without really looking at what it will do. he is even trying to talk to the Taliban and telling them if they will play nice we will work with them. Yeah, right.

...oh HOW I miss him!!!

Barry hasn't earned the right to wash GWB's skivvies.

Rail away against GW as much as you want. The dems track record of their last three presidents including the current disgrace is abysmal at best.

The only thing the lefty socialist elite can do is cut down the others.

I served under Carter so I can sympathize with the thoughts, feelings, and opinions of our military today.

Anygunanywhere

matriculated wrote:
BTW, you miss my point. It's not about what kind of media coverage a president receives for chest-beating and shameless football-spiking. It's that they all do it. It's not exactly a partisan phenomenon.

And you miss the point entirely. You need to dig a bit deeper into things, and consider this at a level beyond "knee jerk reaction".

1) equivalency is not an excuse for poor behavior. "But Bush did it!" is the excuse of a 3rd grader caught stealing candy, not a President of the United States.

2) Think back to a year ago, when Obama made the decision not to release the bin laden death photos because Americans don't "trot this stuff out as trophies" and his concern that celebrating bin ladens death in such a way might lead to retaliation against our troops, etc.

So all the sudden when he needs something to brag about for the campaign, those concerns go out the window? It is his own hypocrisy that is sickening here, not the fact that he is touting the fact we got bin laden.




Again, this is all pretty silly. As I explained on page 1, I think its pretty darn funny he's using this as a campaign slogan. His base won't like that at all.

Keith B wrote: The problem is, the mission is NOT accomplished. I will agree we needed to be out Iraq, but not Afghanistan.

bin Laden started the fight in East Africa, then New York, The president said he was going to get him and he did. The mission is accomplished. As long as we enjoy freedom and prosperity, there is going to be a group, or groups out there who will want to kill us. al Queda is just the flavor of the decade. The Iranians are likely the next ones.


The problem is that we should never have gotten ourselves involved in Iraq to begin with. And people believed Chaney time and again. The war wasn't short, they did not welcome us as saviors, and the oil production expected that was to pay for the bullets never happened. Iraq was never the source of the problem--Afghanistan was and continues to be, along with Pakistan. Saddam was an tyrant, but he was THEIR TYRANT, and he pretty well had occupied the interests of Iran for over a decade. What you have now is a vacuum with tribal sects back to business as usual. Yep, Bush and Chaney did a jim dandy job didn't they? And y'all are unhappy that the POTUS flew to Kabul on the anniversary of bin Laden's death? How is this any different at all from the POTUS landing on a carrier deck to proclaim a premature Mission Accomplished? Get real, and get patriotic.

Yup. They all do it, but the meaning or intent is considerably different when most liberals do it.

I wish the Obamanation were on Seal Team 86.

The Liberals, through President Clinton, said it best, "...the downside would have been horrible for HIM!" Not horrible for the Seals, not horrible for the country, but horrible for HIM. Once again, words have meaning. And as for the "Mission Accomplished" banner, yes, the mission to topple the regeim was accomplished. The downside was the aftermath in rebuilding a new Iraq. The same was true after WWII in Europe. In 1945, the mission was accomplished, and the aftermath was a divided Germany into two states. A Free state and a totalitarian state, where the people suffered far more than their free brothers and sisters. But no one would quibble that toppling the Nazi regeim was not "accomplished" in 1945.

If Mr. Obama had spoken under the same banner as Mr. Bush, and did not take personal credit for the success such as,"I said I'd go after Bin Laden, if we had a clear shot at him, and I did), there would be no flap today if he gave full credit to the Seals that accomplished the mission.

Note to Mr. gdanaher. I think it's pretty sorry when you question someone's patriotism because they don't agree with you.

C-dub wrote:Yup. They all do it, but the meaning or intent is considerably different when most liberals do it.

I wish the Obamanation were on Seal Team 86.

...and Pres. Bush's FACTUAL history...and his political FACTUAL HISTORY...BOTH testify as to his sincere support and love for our military...and they're proud to have his HONEST appreciation...which he actively shows to this day through greeting troops at the airport and participating (read LEADING) in Wounded Warrior-type events...now THERE'S PATRIOTISM...

...contrast that with bo's FACTUAL history and political FACTUAL history and track record of ignoring, slighting, and snubbing our fighting forces...and our flag...and you'll begin to understand the disdain and distrust he's EARNED...NOTHING in his history remotely resembles patriotism...much less support for our military....the FIRST thing our next Commander-in-Chief will have to do is clean off the chair that this one sat in...

speedsix wrote:....the FIRST thing our next Commander-in-Chief will have to do is clean off the chair that this one sat in...

It would be cheaper (and far more sanitary) to just get a new chair.

74novaman wrote:So all the sudden when he needs something to brag about for the campaign, those concerns go out the window? It is his own hypocrisy that is sickening here, not the fact that he is touting the fact we got bin laden.

It's not like he's going to pose for a campaign photo with the Colombian prostitutes his bodyguards hired.