[Oldeconomybuyer]

a stupid...dangerous...publicity stunt

I respectfully disagree. Our CIC had several options for this important war-ending speech. The Oval Office, The Rose Garden, Baghdad, CENTCOM, and others. By definition, he would receive the same national and international publicity.

I think the choice of an aircraft carrier sends the dual message of thanking the troops for their courage while reminding other dictators that America remains ready to defend its national security interests anywhere, anytime. This hardly seems stupid.

It may be a bit dangerous, but I'd do it in a nanosecond if given the chance. Wouldn't you?

[el_texicano]

Probably more chance of getting hurt in the car on the way to work or around town, more chance of that than getting hurt landing on the deck of a carrier in a relatively safe plane.

Personally, I think it would have been cooler if President Bush came in on an F-18 Super Hornet fighter/bomber riding in the second seat. YEAH!!! Talk about balls then. Them sailors/Marines would be pumped for sure.

My COWBOY President - YESSSSS...Ride 'em cowboy

[katana]

I am praying (as usual) for his safety and am jealous to the bone that he's going to get a carrier landing. The son of a good friend made one last year and he said it was the thrill of a lifetime.

Symbolism is an important part of how any leader communicates. Dubya and his people (like Reagan) seem to understand this very well. Throwing the first pitch at Yankee Stadium just days after 9/11 prompted Billy Crystal (no fan of the president, I'm sure) to say "would you look at the guts on that guy!".

[votelife]

I agree. A speech from the Oval Office is more of a this is over message. But from the carrier, it's more of a "let's roll" speech. Syria, NK, Iran, Sudan, and others are much more on alert with this approach. Plus, the military and all but the wacko left will LOVE it!

Go GW!