Back around 1970, Monty Python did a skit in which a mafioso visits a British Army base to shake down the commander for protection money: “Would be a shame if anything bad happened to all of these tanks.” Eventually, apparently, life imitates art.
Last week we witnessed the spectacle of George W. Bush being afraid for his security while encased in $57 million of weaponry. From http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/ :
Bush wanted to swoop onto the deck of the Lincoln aboard an F-18 Hornet, but the Secret Service nixed the idea — they didn’t like leaving the president unguarded in a fighter jet that only has space for the president and a pilot.
(specs on the F-18: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-fa18.html)
Thus there is apparently some common ground for George W. and the Iraqi people: they are both afraid of F-18 pilots.
A deeper issue is when did U.S. voters become so tolerance of cowardice? Western military leaders traditionally lead from the front and try to demonstrate that they are sharing the hazards of battle with the common soldiers. Eastern commanders, such as Genghis Khan, thought that this was stupid. Why put yourself at risk when you can send the rabble up to the front?
It would have been tough to imagine Winston Churchill slipping out of London during the Blitz and yet George W. spent September 11th “at a secure location”. The risks of being in a big American city were apparently bearable for his subjects but not for his royal personage. Americans have twice voted, or at least sort of, for men who escaped combat service (Bill Clinton famously dodging the draft, George W. in a slightly less obvious manner).
If present trends continue it would seem that whoever gets elected in 2012 will spend his or her Presidency in an MX Missile-style racetrack silo out in Wyoming (unless the winner is William Bennett, in which case perhaps he’ll command the U.S. Empire from a suite at the Bellagio).
Was that $57M worth of social capital, or instructional?
The Greenspun spin. I’m afraid I missed the cowardice part. I’m not sure if you are just grasping at straws trying to find some justification for partisan hatred or if you just were so consummed by irrationality that you forgot to actually make the point. Either way, I missed it. I must be more dumber than George.
“I must be more dumber than George ”
“Ignorance of one’s own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.”
While posted comments record the TIME of the posts , I wish the AGE of the poster could also be displayed .
Good article . I laughed three times .
The difference is that Clinton dodged the draft for a war that he opposed on principle. Bush signed up then went AWOL.
I think the image of Bush in a plane with text/speech about his Air National Guard record is going to be repeated by Dem candidates more often than that famous shot of a helmeted Michael Dukakis in a tank was in ’88.
Under a Vietnam-era Selective Service System whose sheer inequity and corruption would surely warm the heart of Donald Carty or Kenny Boy Lay, I don’t know if Bush’s conduct really qualifies as cowardice. Were that the case, many of the patriotic heroes who now occupy the hallowed halls of Congress and corporate board rooms would be de facto cowards despite their very patriotic support for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
What concerns me much more is how much the public tolerates the substantial expenditure of their tax money to fly the Heroic Commander In Chief to an aircraft carrier so he can make a maximally dramatic campaign speech and subsequent campaign commercial. Compared with the inequity the Bush Regime has foisted on the American public since the day it was (s)elected, this is probably small potatoes. But nobody seems to be questioning the cost of what amounts to a campaign donation involuntarily extracted from all the “little people” who pay taxes (billionaires and executives who make voluntary campaign donations are exempt from this, and from other tax obligations). I guess those who would normally question it are voluntarily refraining from doing so because they know it would be unpatriotic.
PERSPECTIVE
You might find this useful : there are approximately 100 million tax-paying households in this country .
ergo – for every 100 BILLion $’s the govt spends , 100 bill/100 mill = $1,000 is the cost to every household in the country .
It is an AVERAGE , not an ‘ACTUAL-IN-EVERY-CASE’. – An average .
So , campaign costs to jOHN Q PUBLIC (small J)are not really an issue; id est, if campaign costs were a BILLION dollars , it would only cost J.Q. $1.00 per household.
my point ? Don’t get lost in false , non issues .
So, ojsbuddy, you think it’s perfectly fine to steal money as long as it’s a penny at a time? I guess if Bush successfully pushes for a tax cut meant to give back our money, we shouldn’t begrudge him a few pennies to help ensure his re-election (on top of the $200 million in legal bribes he’s planning to raise and spend). Makes sense to me.
If he steals 500 million, it will cost fifty cents per household.
He’s a thief ; don’t vote for him . They’re all thieves. but then ……….who ya gonna vote for that isn’t ??
repeat: don’t get lost in false, non issues .
Hmmm..The article says the Secret Service nixed the idea. It also says that GW wanted to fly the F-18.
Don’t you think by saying that GW is afraid of F-18’s is a little dishonest considering the fact it was GW that wanted the F-18, but the Secret Service was gonna throw a little hissy fit about it?
Or perhaps you should educate yourself a bit more about how presidential security works, because here you are sounding pretty ignorant.
Good article . I laughed three times .
Hopefully for the right reasons…
Oh come on Philip … 20/20 hindsight is quite a convenience in this case. I can hardly imagine you saying this on September 11th or 12th when things weren’t quite so clear. The same thing was going through your head as was going through mine …. “what next?”. I was at the Pentagon, Nikon in hand, and saw it myself.
We now live in a world where anything is possible such as a member of our own military lobbing a few grenades and shooting into the tents of his own troops during war time.
George W Bush isn’t afraid of F-18 pilots and Iraqi civilians didn’t seem to be afraid of F-18’s during the war as covered by CNN. In fact George W Bush has more in common with F-18 pilots than you might think. They’re both afraid of the controlled crash of 23,000+ lbs on a bobbing cork in the middle of the ocean. It’s been proven in tests that F-18 pilots are more afraid of this controlled crash than of being engaged by the enemy.
U.S. voters aren’t tolerant of cowardice, they simply understand that the rules have changed. What good would it do for the country for George W Bush to martyr himself by weilding a sword and standing defiantly on the Whitehouse lawn on Sept 11 or to be needlessly killed putting 23,000 lbs of a moving, bobbing, object in the middle of the ocean in a controlle crash? Well, if you’re a flaming irrational liberal, both would have been a great thing … if your an MIT professor, I imagine that this might not seem to be such logical decisions.
George W Bush’s predecessor was getting a blow job in the Whitehouse while the first attack on the twin towers was being planned, then lobbed a few cruise missiles at some vacant shacks in Afghanistan amidst the height of danger of a political collapse of the Clinton administration.
Global terrorism is on the decline. If present trends continue, terrorism should be nearly wiped out by 2012.
“Well, if you’re a flaming irrational liberal, both would have been a great thing .”
Sumbitch . So THAT’S what I am ??
“… if your an MIT professor, I imagine that this might not seem to be such logical decisions ”
Well , if I am , English is definitely not my specialty .
” Global terrorism is on the decline. If present trends continue, terrorism should be nearly wiped out by 2012. ”
Chris(t) , let’s get back on our space ship and go on back jome . These Terrans just ain’t never gonna get it !
fun post
I agree to a certain extent with Chris that it wouldn’t really be worthwhile for the President to martyr himself in an F-18. On the other hand, I read an article a few years ago (sorry no link) about the increasing power of the Secret Service and the resulting isolation of the Prez and VP and that *is* a problem. The Secret Service spends over $1B/year on the security of a very small number of people. The Prez and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the VP live in a bubble where their contact with citizens is minimal and scrutinized extremely closely. The Secret Service generally starts preparations for each Presidential movement months in advance, and when the President finally shows up, large chunks of the city will be shut down to all traffic until he has left.
I think it’s safe to say that the costs of this over-protective policy are not appropriate for the risk, but the problem is that no-one will stand up to the Secret Service – because what if something subsequently happened?