Posted on 05/09/2003 1:56:27 PM PDT by doug from upland
After listening to the rantings and ravings of the DemocRATS who are both jealous and livid after seeing a beloved commander in chief do a tailhook landing on the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, I wanted to get the real story.
After about 5 calls and transfers and return calls, I just spoke with a Navy commander who deals with public relations. He is very high level, but because this issue is so sensitive, I agreed that I would not use his name.
When asked whether the visit of the president delayed the arrival of the Lincoln, the answer was a resounding "Absolutely not!" The Lincoln arrived when it was scheduled to arrive. Ships slow down and speed up all the time.
The Navy does not have its ships land early. No. It is just not done. It is a logistical nightmare. Tugs and other port services have to be arranged. In 1991, the USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT arrived 20 hours early off the coast of Virginia. It sat out there looking at land for 20 hours. And they never come to port at night.
There were 20-25,000 families and friends expecting to watch the return of the ship and greet their loved ones.
"Psychologically," said the commander, "it would have been a nightmare. People made plane reservations, hotel reservations, long trips by car. Imagine what it would have been like for them to arrive to meet there loved ones, but it turned out that they came a day late for the event. We would have had 20-25,000 people really angry with the U.S. Navy."
The commander gave me his worst scenario for a public relations nightmare. It would be a grandma who drove all the way from Des Moines to see her grandson arrive, only to be told that she didn't make it in time; that they decided to come to port early. What do they say to her?
The commander is amazed at this flap, which has been totally invented by the media. This should be a non-issue with them. Some in the media were sworn to silence, and they were given the May 2 date about 3-4 weeks ago. They knew it would be coming to port at that time. At the appropriate time, the crew and families were notified. You just do not change the date.
As to the landing on a Viking rather than Marine One. The costs are roughly the same. Fuel and other costs for that Viking were already allocated and spent. If the President was not aboard that plane, it would have made a landing on the ship anyway. It would have done so sooner or later because it was in the budget to do it.
What has been lost in all of this, according to the commander, is that it was the Navy's idea for the President to come aboard and make a tailhook landing. They opted for an F-18. Because of security, however, the White House opted for the Viking, a 4-seater which could accommodate Secret Service.
"We would do this again," said the commander. "Ever since President Franklin Roosevelt, every president has landed aboard a Navy ship."
We finished with a laugh at the media. Members of congress and journalists are flown in and not charged. And these are the people creating an issue where none should exist.
It's the last. They are numbered in the order you pass over them and you never want one because it means you were too close to being short and eating the end of the deck.
April 17, 1984 By the President of the United States
of America
A Proclamation
Since the early days of the Continental Army, the wives of our servicemen have made unselfish contributions to the spirit and well-being of their fighting men and the general welfare of their communities.
Throughout the years, as the numbers of our married men and women in uniform have grown and as their military missions have become more complex and dispersed, their spouses have made countless personal sacrifices to support the Armed Forces. In many instances, they subordinated their personal and professional aspirations to the greater benefit of the service family. Responding to the call of duty, they frequently endured long periods of separation or left familiar surroundings and friends to re-establish their homes in distant places. And there they became American ambassadors abroad.
As volunteers, military spouses have provided exemplary service and leadership in educational, community, recreational, religious, social and cultural endeavors. And as parents and homemakers, they preserve the cornerstone of our Nation's strength -- the American family.
Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 23, 1984, as Military Spouse Day, in recognition of the profound importance of spouse commitment to the readiness and well-being of service members on active duty and in the National Guard and Reserve, and to the security of our Nation. I invite all the Armed Forces, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard, the Departments of Defense and Transportation, the Governors of the several States, the chief officials of local governments, and the people of the United States to observe this day in an appropriate manner.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 17th day of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and eighth.
Ronald Reagan
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 10:22 a.m., April 18, 1984]
So do I. Everytime they're on tv complaining about this film clips of President Bush in the flightsuit and with the troops get shown over and over.
When you catch a wire, the tail hook comes up off the deck and passes over the rest of the wires.
Life is filled with all these nagging little questions. One mystery down, 9 gazillion to go. Thanks.
I hope some of our conservative talking heads get a word in on this tonight during the talk shows.
Leni
All carrier landings are tailhook unless it's a copter or Harrier.
Thank God the Rats haven't noticed one of Rumsfeld's Rules yet, the one that reads:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.