Aircraft of Imfamy
 

Recently I did some fieldwork down at Fort Barrancas, FL, and decided to stop at the National Museum of Naval Aviation located nearby. The Navy vets at the front desk were nice enough to set me up with a private tour of their flightline out behind the museum. Within seconds a golf cart pulled up and I was off.

After looking at dozens of historic aircraft from WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, my Navy vet guide pulled up to a strange looking jet and told me in hushed tones "That's the jet that George W. Bush landed on the Abraham Lincoln." We both looked at each other with an awkward "I guess we know what that plane is famous for" expression. We quickly drove off to look at some other aircraft.

http://www.wildfreshness.com/brian/archives/wb2.jpg
Here's the pic I took of W's "Mission Accomplished" Jet


http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/3...fp-300x245.jpg
The plane is a S-3B Viking, W. was in the copilot's seat when he landed.

The whole drive back to Atlanta, I couldn't keep thinking about that jet, and how it ended up in a museum. What does it symbolize? How will it be interpreted? I felt compelled to go back in time, so I used "the Google" and perused "the Intenets (you know, that "series of tubes)," and found an article that kind of summed up the situation:

The Battle of Iraq is now one for the history books. In his May 1st speech aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush announced that our forces have prevailed, the major combat phase in Iraq is now complete, and the nation expresses its considerable gratitude for all the efforts of American and coalition troops.

Most telling was the author's take on what people want in a President:

Most Americans want their presidents to be real men -- forthright, resolute, reliable, uncomplicated guys that adeptly get the job done. These are the type of men that are not particularly verbose, but do exactly what they say they'll do. And, essentially, that's what President Bush is all about. Instinctively, people understand that complicated intellectuals, charismatic double-talkers, and pathological narcissists rife with personal foibles are not the makings of a great commander-in-chief. Americans expect solid leadership that can capably evaluate national security threats and effectively utilize military force when warranted. This is not complicated stuff.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archi...litaryteam.htm

Your guide is misinformed, Bush did not do the landing and never claimed to. He did get some stick time enroute.

Guiding Light
 

We both knew that W did not actually land the plane, but that's not really the point. Is it?

in the foot steps of Beestie I will practice restraint...

Cool pics. Thanks for posting them.

Was this plane about to be retired anyway? Because Dubya and his PR trip to the Lincoln is *not* historic. Jesus, it wasn't even correct. You can arbitrarily declare that a conflict is over anytime you want, but if you don't bother convincing the opposition of that "fact", well...

So please tell me that they didn't retire this aircraft just because it was a part of a now-legendary spin effort?

The point may be that saying "That's the jet that George W. Bush landed on the Abraham Lincoln" then turning around and saying "We both knew that W did not actually land the plane." may indeed be the point...imprecision in language.

As much as criticising the statements "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country." as being somehow untruthful.

"Major combat operations have ended" is certainly not "arbitrarily declaring that a conflict is over"...and whether you have "convinced the opposition of that 'fact'" is pretty much dependent on who "the opposition" is. Characterizing that as "spin" is...well..."spin".

In that context "the opposition" was viewed as Saddam & Co...and *that* conflict is very much over. Since then Al-Queda has managed to get the Shia and Sunnis at each others throats...(not a terribly difficult thing to do, considering) and making "securing and reconstructing that country" difficult in the extreme.

How about because it was flown by a sitting US president?

So far only Bush 41, Bush 43 and Eisenhower had pilot's licences, and Eisenhower gave up flying after WWII. A Stearman PT-17 flown by Bush 41 is in a museum in Florida.

I also recall seeing a TBM Avenger at EAA Oshkosh restored to the colors of the plane Bush 41 flew in WWII, although the original aircraft was lost during the war.

Presidential Pair Pilot Picture

NSFR

So, are you cool with this because:

A) You're a pilot
B) You're a fan of Bush
C) You think that "Mission Accomplished" was a valid and non PR-based statement
D) All or none of the above

Bush flies in Air Force One all the time. Should it be retired? What about all the other aircraft he flew during his illustrious military career? Are those headed for the Udvar-Hazy Center as we speak?

Unless this $27 Million aircraft was done with anyway (citation for cost here, because I know someone will challenge that), was that such a momentous occasion that it merits parking it on the aeronautical version of a scrapbook instead of letting it continue to serve the taxpayers?

Wow, that's a pretty roomy cockpit.

Excellent find Pangloss, you are truly a professional as that S-3B embarrassment was hidden pretty well.
I imagine it'll go to W's library so the visitors will have something to look at.
Thank you. :notworthy

Hey, Bill had the jizz stained blue dress, Dubya will have the shit stained copilot's seat.

They's a difference between flying *in* a plane and *flying* a plane, or we'd all have ATP certificates. And I doubt any of the TX ANG's F-102 escaped the scrap heap long ago, even though none of them were flown by sitting presidents.


You researched the original $27M so thoroughly you may have missed this:
Somehow I doubt Chile is about to pop $27M for any of these. Sure, the "unit cost" (presumably the entire program cost divided by the number of airframes delivered) was $27M...in 1974. There's a scrutload of S-3s sitting in the desert at Davis-Monthan, I hope you feel similar outrage about them not serving the taxpayers, too.

What we see here are the dorks being dorky (and I question the necessity) and the good folk being good folk.

George Bush looks better in a flight suit than anyone who's posted here, and done more to walk the walk.

You can be a good man, or you can be an asshole: I'd suggest being a good man.

Oh I can think of a few people who would look better...
Elspode and xobruce as examples
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f8...flightsuit.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f8...flightsuit.jpg

Man, I look fuckin' *good* in antlers and a flightsuit!

Mags...I love you, girl, really. You are so unabashedly in favor of whoever will let you pack heat, and I so unabashedly in favor of whoever will let me get my knob polished...

This is what makes America great.

Hark! A sudden outburst of avuncular misdirection...

I'm very much in favor of knob-polishing, myself...for all kinds of knobs, and all kind of polishers. And I certainly don't support everything that Bush has done. But your reflexive reaction that Something Evil And Outrageous Must Be Afoot just because the "imfamous" aircraft is sitting on the ramp of a museum of naval aircraft is yet another classic illustration of mindless BushBashing on the Cellar...more so even than the childish Photoshoppery.

Ironically, the very fact that your reaction was so hysterical establishes that the aircraft in question *is* of historical interest sufficient to justify preserving it rather than sending it to the scrapyard with its many squadronmates.

It's clearly the most famous S-3 in the entire fleet.

Here's a thought: learn to take a joke Maggie, it'll make life much more enjoyable.

Here's a thought: learn to make better jokes. It'll make life more enjoyable for everybody else.

My jokes don't require your acceptance or approval. Sorry.

here's a good joke.....

pink pistols....


lmao.......

Then you know how I feel about your advice. :-)

Sounds like serious sour grapes coming from the UK. There's no danger your government will let you defend yourself with a sharp stick, much less an effective weapon.

Not to worry; if you're mugged it will show up clearly on the security cam.

Well, in my case, your first point is certainly accurate.

As to the second point, I doubt I would have landed in the Air National Guard if I had been drafted, much less been in pilot training, much less been allowed to transfer myself (or go AWOL) to work on a political campaign.

As for only taking advice that one already agrees with and making simplistic decisions based on a black and white worldview, I will admit the Mr. Bush has certainly walked that path farther and more resolutely than any other rational being.

Do bear in mind that Mr. Bush is not alone in wanting America to win her wars.

However, too much of the Democratic Party leadership seems determined to leave him alone in it, for all shame. Not in any fundamental way knowing you're engaged in a war is just plain stupid, in my book. This is why more than a few Americans are working up a chronic resentment towards the Dem Party as currently constituted.

More than a few, but, happily, fewer and fewer as the Republican BS used to stir up the resentment is exposed.

Hysterical? Since when is asking aloud whether a given governmental expenditure was prudent hysterical? Or have we finally reached the point where anything that our Exalted Leader or his minions does is automatically Good, and anyone who questions such things Bad?

Not "bad," but "hysterical."

But I think we can generally agree that hysteria is seldom referred to in a positive way. Like, you really never hear, "The crowd is hysterical! That's so *cool*!"

It's a standard practice of conservatives to refer to their opposition in effeminate and emasculating terms. Can't get too much more feminine that "hysterical."

I do look nice in a dress. And I'm very much in touch with my feminine side. Perhaps I should join The Republican Alternative Sexuality Caucus? I mean, it isn't like the meetings would be real crowded or anything...

Eonist, Elspode?

Like Milton Berle and Monty Python, only when it is funny.

Only if you are guided by the Greek etymology of the word, which has been obsolete since we stopped believing that wombs cause panic attacks. We also no longer believe the moon causes "lunacy".

What other word would you prefer to denote "behavior exhibiting overwhelming fear or emotional excess" that you would consider nonsexist? (Not that I care to buy into your tacit premise that hysteria is a female trait; I've seen lots of behavior from men that I consider "hysterical".)

How about "Rabid"?

There's more of us than you might expect. Gay conservatives in general aren't very prominent because too many queer folks have been buffaloed into beleiveing that Liberals Are Your Only Friends. Which is hogwash...and probably has a lot to do with Log Cabin Republicans being the joke it is today.

Stop by http://www.gaypatriot.org sometime; there's blogroll there you may find instructive.

Because I had have a residuum of unusable frequent flier miles, I agreed to accept a subscription to The Advocate in partial payment.

After reading two issues I'm sorry I did; while it cost me nothing it does encourage them.

Isn't it possible to be gay, patriotic and liberal? Or does Patriotic nave a new meaning too?

[pedant]
and the word is iNfamy as in "infamy, infamy, they've all got it in fer me"
could just be a typo...
[/pedant]

So now you are stating that Elspode was exhibiting overwhelming fear or emotional excess? Where exactly?

I believe I can field this one. The answer is: "because."

Or it could simply have lot to do with using the term 'log cabin' for a gay men's group.

When any group of minorities feels let down by Democrats, we can always point to the Log Cabin Republicans and say 'yeah, but we didn't f**k you over anywhere near as bad as the GOP did those guys'.

Yes. Actually, it should, in my mind, be possible to be gay and *anything* else you want, since gayness/transgender/etc does not render you nonhuman.

Now, can you be a gay Republican? Sure, but why would you want to be automatically marginalized and seen as an aberration? That's what I can't figure out.

Elsp, I tend to like the Log Cabin Republicans. They do a good job of unscrewing a stereotype.

They're a brave lot, I'll give 'em that. I mean, they aren't taken seriously by their own party, the main voter base of which is absolutely certain that they're all going to burn in Hell. It must be tough to be a Republican candidate. You want the votes from a gay constituency, but at the same time you revile them and all their lifestyles stand for. I think there's a word for that...now what is it? Hmmm.

Oh, I know. Hypocrisy.