Wednesday, May 07, 2003

Bush's Landing on Carrier Draws Criticism

Okay, this flared up today and I don't understand why. Is the President not allowed to take a victory lap with our troops? Is it so difficult for the Dems to swallow the fact that the military loves this president and wanted him there, and couldn't tolerate the last one? Are they so empty on really important issues that they must harp on this petty one? They are looking more and more desperate every day.

As far as I'm concerned, our President, who risked his political career with his actions against Saddam, has done nothing wrong. I don't question it, and maybe we should be spending more time worrying about more critical issues, such as the slaughtering our education system is taking right now.

But I'd like to indulge in some humor, if I may:

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) took to the Senate floor Tuesday to castigate the president. "I am loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan, and yet that is what I saw," he said.

"I do not begrudge his salute to America's warriors aboard the carrier Lincoln, for they have performed bravely and skillfully but I do question the motives of a desk-bound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech."

Rep. Henry A. Waxman of Los Angeles, the top Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, asked David M. Walker, comptroller general of the General Accounting Office, for a "full accounting of the costs associated with the president's trip," because "last week's event — which had clear political overtones — was paid for by American taxpayers."

Mr. Byrd, don't you have a gown and hood to iron? Nobody can control what you "saw", Mr. Byrd, but perception isn't always reality (who's ad slogan is that??). Honestly, I have to question the motives of a former klansman who assumes the garb of a businessman for the purposes of being a US legislator. But that's just me.

Mr. Waxman, while you're at it, can you please find out how many taxpayer dollars went to fund Mrs. Clinton's vacations to Africa, Chelsea's trips to the Olympics, and Mr. Clinton's haircut on the tarmac at LAX? Ah, yes, you won't because that would make too much sense, even though the globetrotting ways of the Clinton's clearly had leisure overtones. Let's not get too excited, Mr. Waxman. Most of us have not forgotten the constant travel of our previous President, or even his use of AF1 when it wasn't his to use anymore.

There must be more important things to discuss today....

Comments: Post a Comment