Byrd Blasts Bush's Aircraft Carrier Use

AP via NYTimes.com ^ | 05/06/2003

[bybybill]

Until GOD and the devil figure out just who has to take, Sen.KKK will hang around flipping his lip and proving that mental clarity is not a requirement for the Senate. What a fool.

[capitan_refugio]

The carrier was too far out to sea to take a helicopter, unless you would be willing to do an in-flight refueling.

[KQQL]

Oh look .....It's the Tweety Bird....

[Destructor]

Better the aircraft carrier should be used as a personal yacht/party boat like the Clinton gang did?

[biblewonk]

You gotta see this. Grand Kleagle Byrd makes our Tom F. Harkin look like a friggin' statesman.

Grand Kleagle sounds so vaginal to me. A big one!

[barker]

William J. Clinton (1992-2001) Carrier Carl Vinson (1993; 1995) Carrier George Washington (1994) Carrier Independence (1996) Carrier Harry S. Truman (1998)

From this thread: Presidential Visits to Naval Ships

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/907081/posts

[M0sby]

You are funny!

See You Soon!

Love,
ME
M0sby

[votelife]

Dems are just upset that the natioanl guard "awol" story won't fly...

Good response to this nonsense from realclearpolitics.com
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html#5_7_03_0726

BUSH'S MILITARY RECORD: I should have nailed Krugman on it yesterday but Andrew Sullivan does the job this morning. I wrote a piece on this subject nearly two years ago, specifically detailing Bob Kerrey's involvement in pushing AWOL accusations against Bush. I suggest you read the entire piece, of course, but here is a brief chronological summary:

May 2000: The Boston Globe prints a story about George W. Bush's "missing year" in the Texas Air National Guard. Bush issues brief statement rebutting the charges.

Late September 2000: TomPaine.com prints column from an Iowa farmer attacking Bush's military record.

Early October 2000: Paul Begala brings up questions about Bush's service record on Meet the Press saying, "He never showed up for an entire year. Bush tells us to our face he’ll restore honor and integrity to that Oval Office when I believe he’s not telling the truth that he never, in fact, reported to the National Guard in Alabama."

October 31, 2000: The Boston Globe prints a reprise of its original accusations under the title "Questions remain on Bush's service as guard pilot." Senator Bob Kerrey calls The Globe and gives an unsolicited interview charging that Bush went "AWOL." The charges make national headlines.

November 3, 2000: The Friday before the election, Kerrey holds press conference with fellow Senator and Medal of Honor recipient Daniel Inouye and calls on Bush to make all of his military records public. Later that day The New York Times prints a review of Bush's military records saying that the claims are "unfounded."

November 5, 2000: Two days before the election Kerrey appears on Meet the Press and is questioned as to whether his attacks on Bush's military record are "way out of bounds." Kerrey replies, "They're not way out of bounds. Certainly, if -- I mean, if I'd gone over the line and implied that he didn't serve honorably, I apologize. He did serve honorably. But I don't think he understands that when you come forward and represent your military service, you've got to represent it right, and he didn't."

The point of my article, written in May 2001, was to highlight Kerrey's hypocrisy in light of his admissions about his service in Vietnam and his willingness to leverage his status as a war hero against Bush for partisan political gain in the 200 election.

But as you can see, questions about Bush's military record - which liberals like Krugman now accept as absolute fact - all stem from a single article printed in The Boston Globe nearly six months before the election. Not coincidentally, these charges were then recycled right before the election by Gore operatives like Begala and prominent Democrats like Senator Kerrey.

Now, I suppose you can believe original The Globe story is accurate and then ignore the fact that not one single news organization followed up and substantiated the charges over the next several months - despite being in the middle of a heated Presidential campaign.

And I suppose you could also believe that the only indisputable fact about the entire affair - that George W. Bush received an honorable discharge from the Texas Air National Guard - was just part of a cover up orchestrated by Poppy and the U.S. military. It's your right to believe this stuff, it's just not supported by any real evidence. - T. Bevan 7:26 am

[Stone Mountain]

I have to say that seeing Bush in a military uniform did make me a little uneasy. Particularly when you think about all the other world leaders who wear military uniforms - they generally tend to be scary dictator types. Bush had every right to do what he did, but I don't know that it was sending the right message.

[Texas Eagle]

if clinton had done it first, he would have had no problems with it.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com

[Texas Eagle]

If Clinton had done it first, he would have no problems with it

Photo courtesy
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com

[Texas Eagle]

Sorry about the double post. I was trying to do a side-by-side with the photo of President Bush captioned "TOP GUN" and the photo of disgraced ex-president Clinton captioned "POP GUN".

Obviously I screwed it up.

[liberalnot]

yeah, but dubya did it with the military's admiration, that's the difference! and probably why this galls the dems so much.

remember, hillary in 1993 was using white house military staff to serve snacks.

[Paleo Conservative]