On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:19:42 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
Don't you have anything better to do than yap at the
President's ankles like a little, deranged chihuahua ?
Ken, I gotta tell you, if the 200 mil a day figure is remotely close to the
actual cost, I do not consider it "yap(ping) at the President's ankles," and I
do not believe for a second that if this were Bush (or any other Republican)
that you would consider it any less than what it would be, if true - a
disgusting thing.
Presidents and their families travel abroad, it's part of the
job. Where were you when Shrub traveled abroad ?
He never went anywhere - ask Sarge...
....but funny you should ask - I remember the Dems going bat**** about some trip
Bush, um, didn't take, that cost something like 3.5 million total, and had a
campaign-ish stop on the return, for which the GOP only paid something like 50
grand and the Dems said it should have been more like a mil (IIRC, it was
something like dropping off a Congressperson "at home," obviously via AF1, and
doing a grip-and-grin with them). Basically, it was some attempt at, er,
bush-league payback for the bush-league Lincoln bedroom shtick, but the numbers
are there as to cost of POTUS travel. Hell, Clinton's little ride on the Orient
Express (or was it the Great Lewinski-Dodging Safari...) only set the taxpayers
back about 40 mil, IIRC, for the entire thing. And I remember some Dems raising
hell with some trip Bush, er, didn't take and around 600 or so people went
(about 1/3 being security) in 3 planes (2 passenger and 1 cargo, which is about
SOP for any such Presidential travel - at least 2 - AF1, generally one of the
VCs/747s, and a large C17 transport for the limo and hardened ground transport,
etc. - the S.S. doesn't book from Avis and cross their fingers for a 2-class
upgrade when they get there...). But this, sheesh, it's the friggin' Berlin,
er, Mumbai airlift...
IAC, the story has been picked up by other media, including, obviously,
Limpdick, Malkintent, etc., but also a few "mainstream" outlets and the White
House commented on it. The "official comments" are not good - basically, they
immediately claimed the numbers were "wildly inflated" (without so much as
checking on _anything_), but for "security reasons" they could not give any
numbers of any kind as to the actual cost of anything. Um, yeah..."security
reasons"...good one, guys...I'm sure every terrorist from al Quida to the
Baader-Meinhoffers are sitting around whining that if only someone would slip up
and let out what the canapes cost, they could destroy the
infidels/capitalists/whatevers...and they really had their lil' ol' hearts set
on a hearty "MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"...
HTH,
R