Reply
Thu 6 Oct, 2005 10:36 pm
the bush administration kept quiet about foiling terrorist plots? Cmon, these guys like tooting their own horns so much they'd suck their own peckers if they weren't too small to reach.
Forget politics and partisanship for one minute and ask yourself if the guy who staged a landing on a battleship would keep his mouth shut about foiling all these terrorist plots. Bullshit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100600455_pf.html
Are you asserting that the administration did not foil these terrorist plots, and, if so, would you mind picking one specific terrorist plot that you think they didn't foil so that it can be investigated in this thread?
as soon as you prove to me that one of the plots they can't talk about was actually foiled or even existed good buddy. Meanwhile I'll continue to distrust these guys while you continue to worship them.
PS: because they say so doesn't count. I'll mark you down as a believer by the way.
blueveinedthrobber wrote:as soon as you prove to me that one of the plots they can't talk about was actually foiled or even existed good buddy. Meanwhile I'll continue to distrust these guys while you continue to worship them.
I'll try to do some research and come back with a link or two during the next couple of days.
BVT,
Think about what you have said.
You want the govt to give you the details on plots they have foiled?
Do you want to get people killed?
If the say exactly what plots they stopped,then the bad guys could possibly figure out how they stopped them.
Now,if that included human assets (undercover agents),and revealing the specific plot they stopped gets agents killed or compromises how we did it,then we wont be able to use those tactics again.
You complain about things that the govt didnt do,now you demand they give you specifics about how they stopped terrorist plots.
Do you really want to know?
Do you want to get people killed or have intelligence assets compromised?
BTW,it was an aircraft carrier that Bush landed on,NOT a battleship.
Battleships dont have flight decks.
And,it wasnt staged.He actually did land on it.
I remember that landing. "Mission Accomplished" that was the banner wasn't it? Wasn't that the staged photo op where the carrier was so close to San Diego that he could have taken a helicopter out there instead of the Viking? And didn't they have to adjust the carrier so that the tv cameras wouldn't show the San Diego coastline in the background?
Of course the White House wouldn't lie about the foiled terrorist plots.
goodfielder wrote:I remember that landing. "Mission Accomplished" that was the banner wasn't it? Wasn't that the staged photo op where the carrier was so close to San Diego that he could have taken a helicopter out there instead of the Viking? And didn't they have to adjust the carrier so that the tv cameras wouldn't show the San Diego coastline in the background?
Of course the White House wouldn't lie about the foiled terrorist plots.
The carrier was still one days steaming time from San Diego,so there was no need to "adjust" the camera to hide the coastline.
The coastline was still not visible,as it was still over the horizon.
Of course,you wouldnt lie about what actually happened either,would you?
mysteryman wrote:goodfielder wrote:I remember that landing. "Mission Accomplished" that was the banner wasn't it? Wasn't that the staged photo op where the carrier was so close to San Diego that he could have taken a helicopter out there instead of the Viking? And didn't they have to adjust the carrier so that the tv cameras wouldn't show the San Diego coastline in the background?
Of course the White House wouldn't lie about the foiled terrorist plots.
The carrier was still one days steaming time from San Diego,so there was no need to "adjust" the camera to hide the coastline.
The coastline was still not visible,as it was still over the horizon.
Of course,you wouldnt lie about what actually happened either,would you?
Me lie? No way. Just referring to what I've read.
Quote:washingtonpost.com
Explanation for Bush's Carrier Landing Altered
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 7, 2003; Page A20
President Bush chose to make a jet landing on an aircraft carrier last week even after he was told he could easily reach the ship by helicopter, the White House said yesterday, changing the explanation it gave for Bush's "Top Gun" style event.
Bush's televised landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln, for which the president wore a flight suit and a helmet and took underwater survival training in the White House swimming pool, was the dramatic start to a visit to the carrier that included an air show and a televised speech to the nation. In his address, the president declared victory in Iraq in front of cheering sailors and a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished."
White House officials had said, both before and after Bush's landing in a Navy S-3B Viking jet, that he took the plane solely to avoid inconveniencing the sailors, who were returning home after a deployment of nearly 10 months. The officials said that Bush decided not to wait until the ship was in helicopter range to avoid delaying the troops' homecoming.
But instead of the carrier being hundreds of miles offshore, as aides had said it would be, the Lincoln was only about 30 miles from the coast when Bush made his "tail-hook" landing, in which the jet was stopped by cables on deck. Navy officers slowed and turned the ship when land became visible.
Bush wanted "to see an aircraft landing the same way that the pilots saw an aircraft landing," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said yesterday. "He wanted to see it as realistically as possible. And that's why, once the initial decision was made to fly out on the Viking, even when a helicopter option became doable, the president decided instead he wanted to still take the Viking."
Fleischer said the carrier had come hundreds of miles closer to shore than expected because of the weather.
Citing Fleischer's revised explanation, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) wrote to the General Accounting Office to ask for a "full accounting" of the cost of the trip.
After Fleischer's remarks, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) delivered an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, saying he was "deeply troubled" by Bush's actions, which he called "flamboyant showmanship." The octogenarian lawmaker criticized the White House for using the carrier "as an advertising backdrop" and the military "as stage props" for Bush's speech.
"To me, it is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the president to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech," Byrd said. "I do not begrudge his salute to America's warriors aboard the carrier Lincoln . . . but I do question the motives of a deskbound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech."
Replying to Byrd, Fleischer said: "More than 100 Americans paid the ultimate price to defend our country, and the president is proud to have visited the Abraham Lincoln to say 'thank you' in person."
This is the by-line
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 7, 2003; Page A20
Mark me down as a Bush worshipper - Oh; you were talking about the president. Never mind.
This is the reason why many Americans distrust Bush.
Excerpts from President Bush's speech of Oct. 7, 2002, in the Cincinnati Museum Center at Union Terminal, where he made the case for going to war in Iraq:
"While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant.''
"Surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons.''
"We know that the regime has... thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.''
"Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles - far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations.''
"We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.''
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahideen' - his nuclear holy warriors.''
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
Bear, I believe everything
you say.
Bella Dea wrote:Bear, I believe everything
you say.
you would be more comfortable if you took your panties off :wink:
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace