Bush's Military Jacket a Dud
President Bush's handlers created a military jacket, complete with epaulets, a presidential seal, and an embroidered "Commander in Chief" nametag, that he could wear during a speech to Marines today at Camp Pendleton in California.
By appearing in military garb, most notoriously for the "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier landing in 2003, Bush has broken a long-standing presidential tradition, according to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post:
... the experts I checked with said it is unlikely any president had done that since Teddy Roosevelt, and that was before such images would be broadcast into millions of homes. Even true military figures, such as Eisenhower, avoided wearing uniform as president.
President Eisenhower, who as an Army general had led four million troops in the invasion of France during World War II, was concerned that such attire would be contrary to the constitutional principle of civilian control of the military.
Update: Glenn Reynolds weighs in with a link to Clinton looking goofy in his own commander-in-chief jacket back in 1996.
Though I'm a yellow-dog Democrat, Reynolds himself suggested after the flight-suit photo op that a sartorial line was being crossed. He even used Ike to make his point:
... when Eisenhower was President, he made it very clear that he was an ex-General. ... It's the blurring of the lines that bothers me here. The President is the civilian commander-in-chief of the military, not a part of the military himself.
Comments
But emperors are different, aren't they? And the US is an empire now, as we are reminded now and again.
It's amazing how you Socialists were totally in love with a draft-dodger but now you have the gall to make fun of Bush.
BTW, I voted for the U.S. Constitution Party.
Tyranny is our fate, Hillary in 2008.
You guys are pathetic.. It's just a jacket..
I almost wish Kerry had won so you could all stop the cheap sniping..
What is wrong with wearing a jacket that says commander in chief when that is what you are? Your post says it is wrong ,but does not explain why. Therefor you have not providing any information other than a hatred of the man that is trying to improve our country.
In banana republics the dictators wear military uniforms. In the United States, the military reports to the civilian leadership. When he dresses in military garb it says to the rest of the world -- junta. I know you right wing nut jobs don't care about the rest of the world (but you do care about Iraq for some inexplicable reason). Anyway, enjoy your junta. (The J is pronounced like an H, in case you're illiterate.)
I've already articulated what's wrong with it, Nick. Our founding fathers fought for safeguards to protect the republic from military tyranny, and the most important of them was the constitutional clause ensuring civilian control of the military.
The proper attire for a president addressing the military is what it has been for decades: civilian attire. Putting President Bush in flight suits and faux-drab military clothing demeans the office and makes him look foolish. I'm reminded of what Shrek said the first time he laid eyes on Lord Farquaad's castle: "Do you think he's maybe compensating for something?"
"A standing military force, with an overgrown executive, will not long be a safe companion to liberty. The means of defense [against] foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home ... Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people." -- James Madison
"The armed services of the country must be the instruments of the authority by which policy was determined. It is for that reason that we can so truly say that our organization is in no sense militaristic and can in no sense be militaristic." -- Woodrow Wilson
I like the uniform. It sends the right message to everyone.
I hope he wears it for his State Of The Union speech just to piss you loser Leftists off!
LOL!
Don
I call Bullsh*t on Millbank. President Clinton appeared in military jackets many times.
Leather flight jacket
Here's another where he's wearing a jacket with military insignia - presumably that of the group he's addressing.
Today's jacket is the USMC Tanker's Jacket.
Re the flight suit, if you get in a tactical aircraft, you wear the suit and the vest and all the other crap that goes with it, regardless of who you are. It's designed to hold all your safety equipment so that if there's an emergency and you have to eject you have all your gear, and none of your clothes snag.
Finally, any base/ship/unit commander worth his salt will have organizational clothes available as souvenirs for VIP's and their entourages. It's common sense because the VIP's like getting crap and the Organizations like having photos of their bosses wearing stuff with the organizations name on it.
Don't get me started on the hoops we had to jump through when Helen Bentley (D-MD) would visit our ship.
PS Today's jacket is really ugly. It's got that mid 80's Member's Only vibe
It's too bad 1000 young Americans had to die to make men with feelings of sexual inadequacy like "Don" feel better about themselves.
How many years did he fly fighter jets in the national guard? I am a Democrat, but this kind of petty bull**** is annoying.
These kind of arguments probably come most from the "how did we lose the election" crowd. Take a look in the mirror.
"It's too bad 1000 young Americans had to die to make men with feelings of sexual inadequacy like "Don" feel better about themselves."
Wow, it just gets worse.
Hey schmucko, you lost the election too. Dump those dollars, buy euros. Take out a second mortgage. Sell your US airline stocks and buy Asian and European. Your pal Bush is selling us out and "us" includes you, you dumbass.
The jacket is not a "uniform."
Kevin addresses the issue very well, and all one has to do is look back in history to see that nearly all presidents in recent history are provided with such garb, often by the ships, stations and units they are visiting.
But a "uniform" goes through a series of design and approval steps before it's issued or required for wear by military members. Creating a jacket with the presidential seal, a name/rank embriodered and an American flag patch doesn't make what the president wore a "uniform."
In fact, I could walk across this Naval base to the Exchange and buy that same jacket with nothing on it, than add the name and patches with very little work. And those are not "epaulets" added to the jacket. The standard Navy khaki "Eisenhower" jacket comes with those loops so officers and chief petty officers could add their rank devices. CPOs usually just use gold anchor pins indicating their ranks. Officers will use either gold pins or actual sholder boards with their rank embriodered on.
And in case Dana Milbanks and the rest of you forgot, President Bush is the commander-in-chief, which means he can wear any damn thing he wants. And you know what? None of those Marines would mind one bit if he strolled out there in camos.
You all need to get over this. He won. Find something of substance to fight him on, okay? God, almighty...
Both of those Clinton jackets are less military looking than the tanker's jacket Bush wore yesterday. Even so, for years his critics derided all of those dress-up games, and on this point I think they were correct.
As for the flight suit, of course Bush had to wear one for that landing stunt. But they didn't have to do the stunt.
And in case Dana Milbanks and the rest of you forgot, President Bush is the commander-in-chief, which means he can wear any damn thing he wants.
With all due respect to a fellow Jacksonblogger, Joe, there isn't a chance in hell you would have written this in 1996:
President Clinton is the commander-in-chief, which means he can wear any damn thing he wants. And you know what? None of those Marines would mind one bit if he strolled out there in camos.
If the office of president is harmed by military dress up, as Eisenhower believed, Bush shouldn't get a special set of rules that apply only to him.
Milbank is a partisan hack-- Clinton wore flight jackets all the time, and Milbank knows it.
But I agree with you on the larger point -- both Clinton and Bush look look like third world dictator dorks in their respective jackets. Presidents should stick to suits.
Where does this trend go from here? Will the next president have to don camoflauge gear in order to establish the next trend in presidential military wear?
And you know what? None of those Marines would mind one bit if he strolled out there in camos.
Yeah! And what pleases a bunch of 19-year-old Marines is way more important than what stuffy old Dwight Eisenhower thought about civilian control of the military!
America -- F*ck Yeah!
Man, you need to chill out. I didn't think it was a big deal until you bought it up. What's next? A fashion show for the next presidential election?
Here's a pic of Clinton and Bush wearing the same olive drab jacket at the DMZ.
Well, yeah, anyone in that position on the DMZ would have to wear the same jacket. It's called safety, 'cause the enemy is looking through binoculars right back at you.
The President of the United States is a civil leader and should dress accordingly. This is just as true for presidents from the left as for those of the right.
Still, it's not like he showed up at a press conference wearing a full uniform with medals and such. If people didn't already see him as way too right-wing, no one would even comment on this.
Perhaps Dubya and Wifey get a sexual charge when the the Big Dub sports the garb of human hunters. Scary
Marx/Lenin/Castro/Pol Pot lied.......millions died! You socialists sure are chickenshit.
You have got to admit that the jacket is very International Male.
I can't believe you boneheads are arguing about something this stupid.
Oh...wait. Stupid things like this are exactly the sort of thing boneheads argue about. My error.
Carry on.
Both of those Clinton jackets are less military looking than the tanker's jacket Bush wore yesterday
With "less military looking", you just lost your argument.
"less military looking", more gayer!
Do MSM types deliberately refrain from doing simple research now? Millbank says that 'experts' said it's unlikely...blah blah blah...and here's pix of Clinton, and Ike(who, for some reason is the authority on Presidents not wearing uniforms?)doing precisely what those 'experts' said was so unlikely.
I swear, some days it seems like they're competing to see how fast they can destroy and shred of credibility they still have.
Jeez, will you left wing types ever stop sniping? I concur with the comment above about Milbank: this reporter is a left winger masquerading as an objective journalist, always looking for low hanging fruit with which to criticize this President.
When the President visits the military, he generally wears something representing that unit's uniform. Not a big deal.
Understand the concern about civilian control of the military, but really, is this the only reason you are concerned about the clothing?
It is possible, if not likely, that the host unit had the jacket made for the President. During my career it was common practice to present dignitaries with similar gifts.
That being said, you're right, this one is a dud, wherever it came from. The leather flight jacket is much better. If I'm not mistaken all fo the recent Presidents have worn one.
Rogers:
With all due respect to a fellow Jacksonblogger, Joe, there isn't a chance in hell you would have written this in 1996...
Wrong. Having been in the military, I understand that no matter who holds the office, they're still the CIC, whether I like it or not. I will ad mit it would have been hard to say, but I would.
Ipso:
Walk across this Naval base to the Exchange and kiss my ass
Break it out, let's see what you got.
I can't believe I'm responding to that moron...
"Our founding fathers fought for safeguards to protect the republic from military tyranny"
You, on the other hand, have never fought for anything.
You, on the other hand, have never fought for anything.
That's a vicious slander, sir, and I demand that you retract it. I fought like hell to "let the rabbit eat trix!" in the '70s, and the failure of that movement still ranks among my greatest disappointments.
"Both of those Clinton jackets are less military looking than the tanker's jacket Bush wore yesterday"
Rogers -- give me a break. With all the substantive issues to argue about and the criticisms of Bush that might hold water, you're still going to beat this dead horse? Your snarky "uniform" argument has been blown out of the water. Let it go. You and those who've echoed your criticisms sound (or read) every bit as petty as the vociferously anti-Clinton crazies.
"When he dresses in military garb it says to the rest of the world -- junta."
"Both of those Clinton jackets are less military looking than the tanker's jacket Bush wore yesterday. Even so, for years his critics derided all of those dress-up games, and on this point I think they were correct."
I think this is what could be called "projection". With the exception of the "CinC" badge, I can go down to A&F or Old Navy or dozens of other retailers on-line and essentially buy the exact same "uniform". When you see a fellow in the grocery store wearing a ship's ball cap with scrambled eggs on it is that a uniform? When Bush 41 went sky diving with the Army's Leap Frogs he wore the same military jump suit they did, so was that a uniform? Did you see any rank insignia on that "military looking" jacket? Or a chest full of bogus gaudy medals and ribbons a la Kadaffi? I think your biggest problem with Bush and his "dress-up games" is you projecting your dislikes, fears, paranoia onto what is largely unremarkable behavior.
Roger, no one is saying the army should not be led by civilians ,but that has nothing to do with Bush wearing a jacket that says commander in chief. You still can not explain why wearing the jacket is wrong. When I asked you to explain yourself you swithced topics. I expect a strait answer this time. What is wrong with Bush ,our commander in chief, wearing that jacket?
idiot. try doing some BASIC research before opening your whiny piehole.
Both of those Clinton jackets are less military looking than the tanker's jacket Bush wore yesterday
The dark leather jacket looks nearly identical to the standard Air Force fighter jock jacket, except for the furry Clinton collar.
But why a collarless, pale-olive jacket? If you took the badges off it would look disturbingly Kim Jong Il and/or Dr Evil. The colour also makes him look really old. All in all, it's a fashion disaster, if not a constitutional one.
But apparently, having such jackets is a Presidential tradition, one of the many pointless Presidential traditions that helps make President of the United States such a fun job. Personally, if I were CinC, I'd have a bright purple velvet pimp jacket, with "Hail to the Chief, baby!" written on the back in big yellow letters, but that's just me.
I feel a little guilty for piling on, but Kerry has his own jacket issues.
Kerry bragged about his "lucky" leather flight jacket he wore on the campaign trail, that he says he wore in Vietnam. This is set forth in hard copy in his book Tour of Duty.
Yes, Vietnam.
90 degrees in a humid swamp, and "Flipper" is talking about wearing his lucky leather jacket.
I can only assume it must have been during that Christmas in Cambodia.
Excellent post. You hit all the right points. At best, this sort of lame PR is beneath the office of the presidency. At worst, it is cynical manipulation of the electorate.
Rogers
Wow. Talk about getting Fisked. Let your anti-Bush hatred out and pull a libbie (criticize a Republican for doing something that you never would a Democrat) and get smacked.
Give me a break. As Instapundit points out - they all had jackets. But you couldn't help but think you had an original line to smack Bush around - and you used it. And hence - got smacked right back. You are just a whiny liberal upset about the fact that your boy got a good ass-whooping in the election.
Why can't we ever discuss issues without people resorting to 'I can't believe he actually wore that jacket' kind of comments? I mean, how lame is that? You guys really are the party of NO IDEAS.
Not that you'll wade this far through all of the Instatroll posts, Rogers, but I wanted to point out that you seriously misrepresented Glenn's original post regarding Bush's aircraft carrier stunt. I think it's pretty clear that Glenn's objection was Bush's flight on the fighter jet. He had nothing to say -- nor, frankly, would any reasonable critic -- regarding Bush's jacket.
And, for what it's worth, Glenn was right. Bush got an earful in the campaign about that fighter jet nonsense and the Mission Accomplished banner. I'm pretty sure no one mentioned the jacket, though.
Hey guys, come on, don't insult me by saying it is a Navy jacket. It is a Marine Corps "bus driver's" jacket.
Goddamn, what a pathetic sight. How representative of Instapundit readers.
Check out the Millbank link - that's from May, 2003. He's talking about the flight suit Bush war. Try digging up pictures of Clinton in a flight suit. Then talk about doing basic research.
Idiots.
Wrong call, Heh^2. It was Rogers -- not Glenn -- who erroneously linked the Milbank quote to Bush's CIC jacket. Rogers appears to be suggesting that Bush has crossed the line with that jacket. Glenn pretty convincingly refuted that.
If your and Rogers's complaint here is with that Bush wore a flightsuit last year, then please make clear. But I don't think you'll do that for two reasons: (1) It's pretty old news; and (2) you guys made the flightsuit into an issue in this past election -- with now very well known results.
It's an ordinary tan jacket, people, I don't see anything particularly martial about it.
I do admit it's kinda dorky, though, he could have done better.
Boy, Glenn's missing out by not having comments on InstaPundit. Who knew my admiration for a belief held by President Eisenhower would make me a source of shame for my family?
People act as if I was just born this morning. I've seen presidents play dress up in various ways for years, even to the point of embroidering a "commander in chief" nametag.
But I think that Bush's photo-op obsessed advance team has gone a step further here by doing it for a speech and dressing him in a military-drab tanker jacket with epaulets and side patches. Like the "Mission Accomplished" overstep that proved to be a subject of ridicule throughout the campaign, it makes him look foolish, demeans the office, and on a symbolic level shows disregard for an important constitutional principle.
It's pretty strange to be derided as a Bush hater for holding an opinion that's in 100 percent agreement with Eisenhower.
"Bush's Military Jacket a Dud". Former military (AF) pilot here... First, Bush's jacket is *not* a military uniform, and neither was the flight suit he wore on the carrier. Military uniforms are very specifically proscribed in various regulations as is the wearing of same. The CIC jacket is closer to a 'company' jacket that might be worn to show affiliation with some business. In this case the business is the top echelon of the US government. It’s ceremonial nothing else and certainly nothing official. Regarding the flight suit, when flying in certain types of aircraft a flight suit *must* be worn as it is regulation - and common sense for many reasons. Flight suits can be uniform, but only when insignia are properly placed and mounted per regulation. If one wears a plain green or orange flight suit on duty one would be ‘out of uniform’. Also, if one wore a flight suit that did not have properly placed insignia, one would be ‘out of uniform’. I provided incentive flights to many civilians both government and non-government and each one of them wore a flight suit. Most of the flight suits were plain loaners for the flight but on occasion (celebrities, really big wigs) the PR people made semi-custom suits that the person wore and kept as a souvenir. While I may not be a Bush fan, I find it comical and sad that otherwise intelligent people waste time on such trivial non-issues. Frankly, to me it shows a significant ignorance of the military at best to even refer to that ugly jacket as "Bush's Military Jacket...". A bit less reaction, and bit more proactive research could have prevented this whole mess. While the jacket is, fashion wise, ugly, the reactions to it as a 'military' uniform are weightless fluff.
If Bush's "handlers" outfitted him, I would be criticizing them instead of Bush himself. But that wouldn't provide the vitriol release would it.
By the way, he should wear his flight suit more often. It fits him to a tee, like he must have worn it before in a past life....oh yeah, he did! He still has the strut too. Of course non military wouldn't recognize any of this.
I've got an idea for those who take jabs at Bush and his feat aboard the Lincoln. Get yourself a ride aboard a fighter for one short spin and see if you can come back down without puke all over the front of your flight suit. After that, I will respect your opinion on the subject.
"It's pretty strange to be derided as a Bush hater for holding an opinion that's in 100 percent agreement with Eisenhower."
Hmm. JOHN Eisenhower, maybe...
Okay I puked on my shirt. Now kiss my ass.
Rogers
Did you ever stop to think, even for a minute, that Eisenhower was concerned that a military uniform would convey that bad image BECAUSE HE WAS A FORMER GENERAL? Do you honestly think that he meant that no President should ever, EVER wear even a military jacket?
I don't know your opinions from Adam - but it certainly looks like you're hopping around your room patting yourself on the back because you think you have found another Bush-ism, when in reality you have just found another way for a liberal to look like a dumbass.
Everyone in the country knows you wouldn't say a WORD about something as stupid as this if it were a Dem. You are not fooling anyone. All the Dems nod in agreement b/c they hate Bush, too, but inside they are saying, 'Geez, is this the best we've got? This dumbass beat the crap out of us in the last election, and this is ALL we've got?'
Man it must suck to be a Dem right now.
Hey, RCade,
First, you post this:
"By appearing in military garb, most notoriously for the "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier landing in 2003, Bush has broken a long-standing presidential tradition, according to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post"
Then in your last comment you say this:
"I've seen presidents play dress up in various ways for years, even to the point of embroidering a "commander in chief" nametag."
Didn't it ever occur to you to say, "obviously, Dana MIlbank is WRONG"?
"But I think that Bush's photo-op obsessed advance team has gone a step further here by doing it for a speech and dressing him in a military-drab tanker jacket with epaulets and side patches. Like the "Mission Accomplished" overstep that proved to be a subject of ridicule throughout the campaign, it makes him look foolish, demeans the office, and on a symbolic level shows disregard for an important constitutional principle."
You completely side-stepped the points already raised by multiple commenters and simply re-stated your rather baseless comments. I highly doubt that you will address these, since you failed to do so the first time, but I'll list them again in case you choose to reconsider your ill-thought out arguments:
1. How is Bush wearing a customized military-issue tanker jacket any different than Clinton wearing a customized military-issue flight jacket?? How is it different than ANY past POTUS (or any VIP) wearing customized military items?
2. How exactly how does wearing such a jacket (or ballcap or whatever) demean the office of the President?
3. A flight suit, g-suit, helmet et al are absolutely required for functional and safety reasons when flying in certain types of military aircraft. Civilian celebrities and government VIPs ALWAYS wear these items when given incentive or demonstration flights. So why does the President's wearing of this mandatory gear suddenly send you and others into hysterics? Remember, he was NOT wearing a uniform. A uniform is not clothing alone, which is why I can wear my cammie pants as work pants out in the back yard. A uniform is made up of certain prescribed clothing ensembles IN CONJUNCTION WITH the appropriate accoutrements, such as rank insignia, name tapes, unit patches, etc. Again, as previously pointed out, all of which were noticeably lacking on Bush's flight suit.
3. Re Ike, it's clear he was talking more about himself as an ex-General now finding himself the civilian Commander-in-Chief, and the importance of separating those two roles, more so than he was commenting on the wider, more encompassing situation.
4. Re Ike again, you didn't comment on Ike wearing of military gear in the photo taken of him along the DMZ. Nor did you comment on how this obviously derails your argument and totally debunks Milbank's statement of "... unlikely any president had done that since Teddy Roosevelt, and that was before such images would be broadcast into millions of homes. Even true military figures, such as Eisenhower, avoided wearing uniform as president." (Ignoring for the sake of argument that both Ike and Bush were not wearing uniforms, just military gear.)
I was always told it was more important to acknowledge your mistakes and learn from them, than it to worry about making mistakes themselves. I guess that's a lesson you never learned...
1. Bush's jacket looks like a dress uniform designed to espouse the authority of the military, while the pictures of flight jackets on Instapundit appear little different from common civilian clothing. The point isn't that Bush is wearing "customized military items", it's that he's wearing a uniform designed to give the appearance of military authority. The flight jackets don't have that air of authority. You look at the picture of Clinton and he could be in a biker gang, while you look at Bush and the picture says "soldier", as it was intended to.
2: The Presidency is a civilian office. Wearing a uniform is something only third-world fascists and dictators are supposed to do, not the President of the United States. Bush is not merely demeaning the office, he's demeaning you and me and the entire United States of America by making us look like passive sheep willing to put up with a leader waging an assault on our collective values and institutions.
3: Maybe you had your TV off the day of the carrier landing so you missed how Bush paraded himself around in the flight suit and his PR men played up how he was a soldier like the men fighting in Iraq. The flight suit stunt was a major prepared media event, not something that was caught in passing before he could change out of it. Also, when you're the President, you can waive the regulations. And of course, he could have taken a helicopter in the way that Presidents usually do and not have had the excuse of supposedly needing the flight suit.
Unless you care to point out the official military uniform of the President and how it differs from what he wore, the attempt to redefine "uniform" so that Bush suddenly wasn't wearing one even though he was is just silly pedantic goal-shifting which avoids the point of the argument.
4: Shifting the goalposts again to "military gear" is even stupider, and in no case does it make it right for Bush if past Presidents got it wrong too.
Rogers Cadenhead and other gits are putting words in Eisenhower's mouth and then are using them as a club to beat up Bush. Nice rhetorical dodge, but it won't do.
If someone wants to cite a primary source concerning this, please do so.
I think all this yelling back and forth is telling. People have been very suspicious of Bush and his people ever since they were (s)elected, and are even more so now. We see constitutional rights being chucked out the window in the name of "homeland security" and "GWOT" (that's "Global War on Terrorism", an actual military acronym), invasions of other countries being mounted with forged evidence, raids on the treasury to benefit the wealthy and well-connected. We see all this and we get very nervous, and then Dubya shows up wearing what looks like the New Presidential Uniform, and we all freak out.
I'm sure the explanations were right, that this was just a gift to him by the base commander, etc., but I have to confess that I got a little shiver of dread when I first saw the picture too.
By the way, my opinion on the bomber jacket thing is that, even though these things started out as military jackets in WWI, they are definitely civilian fashion accessories now. I've seen pictures of every president since JFK at least wearing one. And they do look sharp.
Dubya's new jacket, on the other hand, looks definitely military. Again, hopefully it's just a one-off. If he starts wearing it everywhere he goes the next step will be to throw out our arms and yell a hearty "Sieg Heil" whenever he walks by!
Oh, and one other thing: the flight suit thing was ridiculous. Sure its important safety gear whenever you fly in a military jet, yadda yadda, but the whole point is that the whole thing was organized as stunt! Why did he need to go out on that aircraft carrier like that anyway? As I recall, the carrier was actually just a handful of miles off-shore, and its arrival was actually delayed substantially by Dubya's little stunt. Plenty of Presidents have landed on carriers in helicopters, but El Generalissimo El Busho wanted to do "Flight of the Intruder"!
Pathetic macho posturing.
Cecrops
A flight suit is an all-day, everyday, work uniform. All aircrew members wear one all day every day. It's comfortable, functional, and easy to get on and off...just step in and zip up. Why would anyone want to take it off until he had to. By the way, IIRC Bush did change into a suit before his speech that day.
What an awesome sight that event was. I think that is what really underlies the rancor of the lefties and Dems. They have no one who can convey such an image.
Cecrops Tangaroa:
1. The jacket Bush was wearing is no more of a "dress jacket" than the flight jacket worn by Clinton. As far as the respective levels of authority represented by each jacket, the flight jacket is found much more frequently on officers (flight crew have a much higher percentage of officers than most military disciplines) than enlisted while the Marine jacket pictured is not worn primarily by officers but by both officers and enlisted personnel equally. How it's read by those such as yourself who are ignorant of the military is irrelevant. That's your fault.
2. It's not a uniform. And I hardly think that donning a souvenir version of a Marine jacket whilst visiting Marines somehow demeans the entire county or can be construed as an assault on our freedom. Dramatize much?
3. The carrier landing was overboard and a jackass move. I think everyone acknowledges that. But the problem was with the staging of the entire event. The flight suit was a necessary part of the bigger picture for a variety of reasons.
4. This entire subject is stupid beyond belief. Moving the goalposts? It's incredibly asinine to even attempt to score points on this field of play.
This whole issue is ridiculous beyond the pale. It helps to perpetuate the image of Democrats that lost them the election: unserious, carping little bitches.
Bryan
Why is the POTUS arriving by S-3 trap a jackass move. You obviously have no experience with operational flying ops. Bush does, the Lincoln troops do, and it fit to a tee. To those in the military, he is the CINC walking the talk. To armchair bozo's, it was a circus event.
It wouldn't be so bad if it didn't have that "embroidery-r-us" look about it... very much the crazy Korean dictator look.
It makes him look like head janitor or head buzz boy, not CIC.
Very sad, very nazi, very junta. USA, where have you gone? Come back, we miss the good old days.
Let's all jump on the President, who afterall is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF of all US military forces for wearing a jacket with the words COMMANDER IN CHIEF on it. I know I will lose sleep tonight worrying about a military takeover.
No wonder you idiots lost.
You see, that's the thing about absolutism...you assume because someone is critical, they are on the other side...I'm not.... it just looks cheesy and definitely gives him that "crazy dictator" look. If that's what Karl is going for here, fine.
"Marx/Lenin/Castro/Pol Pot lied.......millions died! You socialists sure are chickenshit."
Same goes for you fascists.
No wonder you idiots are idiots.
Kee-ripes! It's a sorta-kinda flight jacket. That ain't necessarily military.
Even the presidential seal wouldn't be so bad.
But did he HAVE to spell out "Commander-in-Chief" as if nobody knew who or what he was?
It's tacky, folks -- just what we've come to expect from the Bush family.
RoveCo international is proud to announce two fine additions to our fall fashion lineup. From POTUS-gear, makers of fine casual attire, come authentic replicas of recent jackets worn by Our Leader. No more "chilly receptions" in one of these "Like Ike†jackets of either fine wool or synthetic! Whether for that special "Man of the House" or the multibillion-dollar corporate chief executive, these jackets ooze "command presence"!
The styling is a modern take upon the traditional "Ike Jacket" from World War II. Reputedly designed by Ike himself, this jacket was rough and tumble and ready for action, just like the wearer! From the epaulettes, to the cinched waistband, to the easy access waist pockets, everyone will know that you're ready for "business".
While personalized embroidery is available, we cannot reproduce "Commander in Chief" or include the Presidential Seal patch, as this would be disrespectful to both the man and the office. We will be happy to personalize them with a name, a corporate title, or logo as you see fit. Each comes with the mandatory and traditional American flag patch on the sleeve.
The "Like Ike" jacket comes in two different styles as above. On the left is the lightweight wool polyester blend model for only $395. To the right is the waterproof version, cotton lined, and made of Rip-Stop Poplin for only $495. Both are manufactured internationally with only the finest materials that the world has to offer America. Both also include the custom padded privacy pouch between the shoulder blades for an MP3 player, communication device, or insulin pump. No one will be the wiser, or your money back, guaranteed!
Wearing one of these fine jackets instantly aligns one with two of America's great Republican leaders! Whether in the European Theater or in the Oval Office, Ike was the definition of strong leadership. In leaving office, he wisely cautioned America against the growing threat of the military-industrial complex, and now you, too, can be a proud participant as President Bush fulfills this dream!
If you order now, you will be eligible for a 20% off discount towards a commemorative pair of matched Colt 45 semi automatic pistols with matching holsters. What a fine addition to these elegant jackets! The pistol butts are both inlaid with only the finest Texas Longhorn, and these in turn are engraved with the Texas Air National Guard emblem. The holsters are handcrafted from only the finest leather, custom dyed to match the jackets. You can command attention on any occasion, because everyone knows that nothing has the stopping power of a 45!
Order now, our toll-free operators are standing by in Bangladesh. Visa, MasterCard, and the new Political Capital Card are all accepted.
RoveCo international is a proud supporter of the new Political Capital Card from Helluvaburden. As such, cardholders will receive an additional 10% off by mentioning this ad. Just say, "I want to be like Ike!"
Political Capital Card, the card that cares... for you! So you don't have to!
Considering the story ends with a link to Clinton in a flight suit...I think this line of criticism has been made clear what the real intentions are: jealousy.
Don't worry, you get to try again in 2008.
The greatest "Commanders In Chief" in American Presidential history are Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.
To the best of my knowledge, Washington originated the precedent of presidents not appearing in uniform and Lincoln and Roosevelt never wore a uniform in office. (Lincoln may have worn one earlier in life when he was a captain in the militia.)
It is my feeling that a great leader does not need a great uniform to define himself. MacArthur was fond of fancy uniforms until he learned "less is more" during World War Two and Grant was never accused of being a fashion plate.
If Bush's handlers want to make him look like a "commander in chief" they should work on his bearing and diction first and then let him appear in Air Force A-2 flight jacket without any insignia other than the presidential seal. If he has to make a hot weather apperance I would suggest a plain tan, not cammoflaged, fatigue jacket (shirt) with no insignia other than "BUSH" written over his right pocket and "COMINCH" (sort for "Commander in Chief") over the left pocket.
Just My Opinion.
John M. Gould
Why do you all make such a big deal about this crap. When he addressed us on Camp Pendleton w/ that jacket on, most Marines don't wear that jacket, only the big wigs who have to wear dress uniforms all the time. Most Marines I talked to didn't even know what that jacket was, they thought is was Pres. Bush's personal jacket he had modified. As for the flight suit thing, he was flying on a Naval aircraft landing on a Naval aircraft carrier, he had to wear one! Hell we gave the Discovery channel guys flight suits when they flew on my ship in 1998. SO what, get on w/ your lives, why don't you report stories that are a little more important, instead of picking on some man's jacket.
Why don't you people wake up to the fact that Bush is simply the current figurehead of the globalist regime that used 9/11 to gain further control over Americans and the world? There is adequate evidence that the American govt. was instrumental in planning and executing 9/11. The real terrorists are the global elite, the people of Iraq are the victims, the American people the lost sheep. My question is: where are the real patriots? Do your own research. Get educated! Unplug yourself from the influence of the media! Since when did non-compassionatism become an American value? Re-sensitize yourself to the reality of suffering and torture and death of the innocent people of Iraq and elsewhere around the world.
FACT: The United States pre-emptively attacked a sovereign nation (Iraq) and was planning to do so even before 9/11! America is destined to go down. Do you think partisan politics are going to save you? Do you think your nice little cars and DVD players and monpoly money is going to save you? Mark my words:
1. Food and water will become the most precious commodity of the future.
2. Paper money is ultimately worthless.
3. Epic natural disasters will accompany political and social cataclysms.
Brace yourself for the real possiblity that the American life that you are used to will never be the same again. Learn basic survival techniques.
I hope that I'm wrong...
Love the debate...you lefties who never served can't quite understand that ol'Dubya is the "COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF" of the Armed Forces.
For the record, goverment civilians on the battlefield normally wear uniforms as well. Being the head man, he has 'discretion' in what he chooses to wear. (The same way general officers are not required to abide by all rules). "RHIP"
As we say in the Army, "Suck it up. and drive on!!"
Questions for lefties...
Can anyone really justify the UN as anything more than a sad joke?
9/11 with Gore in charge, do you think that he would have made the world safer? (Appeasment is the "Democratic" way...)
What is the "Blue" way for the Armed Forces to behave?
(Play nice with insurgents?)
Did you rat bastards complain when that draft dodging Bill Clinton ran around with a leather flight jacket every chance he got. Don't think so. I have about zero use for Bush. Stop your bitching. He's screwed up enough shit for real you could ding him on.
"By appearing in military garb, most notoriously for the "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier landing in 2003, Bush has broken a long-standing presidential tradition,"
When arriving in a TACTICAL MILITARY AIRCRAFT (as Presisdent Bush did when arring on an aircraft carrier) all passengers and crew REGARDLESS OF STATUS/RANK will be attired in flame-proof Nomex flightsuits. Also, over-water travels requires the wearing of survival/flotation vests.
every president in my nearly sixty years has worn some sort of similar jacket including the deserter clinton.
I would be amused were it not so tragic that the empowered segment of educationally deprived have reached the level of audacity that they believe they are not only allowed to speak but to actually believe they make sensible statements. It is tragic that so many of you have been validated in your vapidity, but if you will take a deep breath, we might be able to save democracy from its most powerful enemy in decades -- George W. Bush. So many of you who posted on this site have evidenced that you have closed ranks with your fellow developmentally derelict and take great pleasure in sniping in those you secretly despised for actually understanding the concepts of democracy, why minority interests can prevail and that ------- just might be people, too. I promise, these heady days of spouting the lies you have been led to believe because you simply wished they were true are soon to end, and I promise, if we survive with democracy intact, no idiot will be allowed to go unchallenged within my range of my ear/eye. I think I missed most of you in Iraq, I was in Balad last year. Please, to validate your assertions of military roles and acoutrments, list where you serve under the courage of your convictions.
(Please, avail yourselves of dictionaries, at all level of explanation and illustrated educational materials before attempting to reply.)
when you cite "for the record,"there should be a record to cite, and that would be a documentation of factual occurence, not the conjures of Rush Limbaugh's drug-addled flights of fancy....
You are not a yellow dog Democrat, you are a yellow tailed chicken woosy Democrat. You should spend a few years in the military defending democracy in our country so you would understand how it is that you have the rights to open your stupid mouth. Why does this topic even interest you. Your type are the ones that do not want to upset the apple cart ahead of time but then when someting like 911 hapens you want to know why, If you don't defend yourself ahead of time worse things will happen in the future.
You just don't understand real life today! In other words you are stupid!
You're bunch of idiots. A flight jacket is not a military uniform. Calm down and change your diapers, bed-wetters.
I Very Highly Dislike him!he's a loser!
I'm an old uniform watcher from way back and it has always seemed to me that, for bad or worse, it is one of the perks of the office to wear some sort of rediculous military-style jacket -regardless of the President's military policies. As to the observation that Eisenhower never affected the look, one can only say that no civilian dressed in any military style at that time.
I'm an old uniform watcher from way back and it has always seemed to me that, for bad or worse, it is one of the perks of the office to wear some sort of rediculous military-style jacket -regardless of the President's military policies. As to the observation that Eisenhower never affected the look, one can only say that no civilian dressed in any military style at that time.
Well he is the Commander-In-Chief. So I guess he can wear what he wants to. Ex-General or not.
Bush, Clinton, or ANY other president, we need to keep far away from the image of the president as a junta leader, or we risk, more than in any other way, falling into the same collective mental trap that creates people like Hussein, Castro, Pinochet, et al.
And yeah, real mature just calling Bush a "homo." That's good reasonable argument. Argue that he jumps without thinking. Say that he relies too much on idealogues, but equating poor performance as president with a sexual orientation reflects more on you than him.
Looks to me like a jacket with a flag on it. I just don't think the author likes Bush. Because he had the balls to fly an F-104 (which took two men and a monkey to handle), I'll give him a pass on wearing a light brown (plain ol') jacket. Conversely, I recall Clinton wearing (blasphemy) a Naval Aviator jacket on numerous occasions. That would be the same as people not voting for Reagan because they don't like Nancy wearing red.
Now, November 15, 2007 it is getting cold and I have to lookup my old Marine "bus driver" jacket myself.
DT
Ten year Naval Aviator for the Marines.
PS: Maybe if Hillary gets in, she'll just arrest Bin Laden.
Speaking of lies seen on an earlier comment and Bush. I give you...
And do try to understand the following, thinking of him pointing his finger...
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement..."
Military jackets with patches are an american tradition and a form of popular artwork at the same time. They tell stories and bring messages...It's part of the american culture. Everyone his way of expression! Actually he looks good in his little jacket!
wow thats funny as hell cause that pic is so ridiculous it looks right photoshopped. either war who the hell gives a shit? bush never should have been elected anyway
Obviously there are quite a few people here who don't understand. It doesn't particularly matter because Bush is finally out of office... but I feel it is worth explaining.
As the article states, there is supposed to be civilian control of the military. The president is the commander in chief- supreme ruler of the military. Therefore, he /must/ be a civilian, not a military leader. Eisenhower described himself as an ex-general. Not a general. Therefore, he was a civilian. Bush needed to get that though his thick skull: he is not a soldier. He is a civilian, and a leader of the United States. We don't need a soldier. We have enough of those. We need a civilian who is willing to get 'er done.
I feel a little guilty for piling on, but Kerry has his own jacket issues.
Add a Comment
All comments are moderated before publication. These HTML tags are permitted: <p>, <b>, <i>, <a>, and <blockquote>. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA (for which the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply).
Social Media
Subscriptions
Blogroll
Projects
Statistics
This blog has been published since Nov. 7, 1999 (a span of 8,930 days).
Thank you for visiting Workbench.
