1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[DeadCanDance]

Only the truly stupid or the truly desperate would ever reach the conclusion that the Administration led or let anyone believe that Bush landed the jet, or that the carrier was anywhere other than off the coast of CA.

Then why didn't he take Marine One chopper out there, which would be far safer, and standard operating procedure for a president of the United States.

Do you suppose Bush wanted to cynically play up a dramatic Top Gun image, of a jet carrier landing?

What a dork. He dodged service in Vietnam, but wanted to play war hero.

 

[Annie]

Then why didn't he take Marine One chopper out there, which would be far safer, and standard operating procedure for a president of the United States.

Do you suppose Bush wanted to cynically play up a dramatic Top Gun image, of a jet carrier landing?

What a dork. He dodged service in Vietnam, but wanted to play war hero.

he wanted good photo ops. Clinton did as close as he could in peacetime. Remember the 'bomber jackets'?

 

[Alpha1]

You can't lie, or mislead people in order to defend your hero by tap dancing around some dates.

It was known, even back in 2003, that Al Qaeda and Saddam were almost certainly not collaborating, they were not allies, and yet your Hero's were asserting that they were.

From the Senate Intelligence Report...Page 70

(U) In January, 2003, the CIA summarized the intelligence reporting contacts with al-Qa'ida:

We have reporting from reliable clandestine and press sources that at least eight direct meetings between Iraqi representatives and top al-Qa'ida operatives took place from the early 1990's to the present. several dozen additional direct or indirect such meetings are attested to by less reliable clandestine and press sources during the same period.

Here we see what the CIA reported PRIOR to the war...they reported at least eight DIRECT meetings between Iraqi representatives and TOP al-Qa'ida operatives,....do they not?....throughout the Clinton admin. to the present(2003)

1. SSCI July 2004 Report Conclusion - Contacts...Page 71

(U) The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded the the CIA "reasonable assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida throughout the 1990's but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship." The Committee concluded that
the CIA reasonably noted limitations on the available reporting on contacts and in most cases was only able to confirm a meeting had taken place,
not occurred at the meeting.

This is the SSCI conclusion....admitting to the "reasonable assessment" of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida....though they conclude that these meetings do not add us to an "established FORMAL relationship......(20/20 hindsight and Monday morning quarterbacking)

During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in mid-February, CIA Director George Tenet added, "Iraq has, in the past, provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates."

----------------

And so posting shit that from 2006 is irrelevant ....

 

[Alpha1]

you should read about the US-3A COD variant of the S-3. It ferried folks in khakis all the time. I rode it three or four times out or back to the Ike while on active duty - each time in khakis. Do you REALLY want to try to "out-Navy" me? think about it.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avs3.html

Out Navy you? Your a dipshit puke....Now you want to change the subject to a different aircraft? give it up...your making an ass of yourself....you're not talking a COD flight, this was a carrier based combat aircraft.....you have to change the aircraft to feed your fantasy .....? What an ass.....
Thats even worse than trying to claim the ship was in the Middle East...
Or that Bush claimed HE landed the plane....
Your cake hole just keeps on blowing the shit....

 

[DeadCanDance]

Alpha, just HOW deeply in love with Bush are you? Are you one of the last remaining dead enders, the 24%, who still think bush is doing a good job?

The claim that Iraq was training al qaeda bomb makers was debunked years ago. In 2002. CIA warned bushCo. that the allegation was a fabrication, by an iraqi prisoner who CIA determined was a serial liar. They warned Bush about it. But, BushCo kept making the claim anyway.

Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Suspicions

By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: November 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 -the Bush administration was warned in February 2002 that its source of knowledge for the claim that Iraq was training al Qaeda in chemical and biological weapons was “was intentionally misleading the debriefers.”

A high Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, "was intentionally misleading the debriefers" in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda's work with illicit weapons.

The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi's credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi's information as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that "we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/p...rss&adxnnlx=1195267514-2L47xzfIFBhNua0lXYYClQ

 

[Annie]

Alpha, just HOW deeply in love with Bush are you? Are you one of the last remaining dead enders, the 24%, who still think bush is doing a good job?

The claim that Iraq was training al qaeda bomb makers was debunked years ago. In 2002. CIA warned bushCo. that the allegation was a fabrication, by an iraqi prisoner who CIA determined was a serial liar. They warned Bush about it. But, BushCo kept making the claim anyway.

Would that be this CIA?

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071116/OPINION01/711160334/1068/OPINION

How were FBI and CIA deceived?

November 16, 2007

It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the war on terror when an illegal immigrant from a family suspected of having terrorist ties can get a job at the FBI and the CIA, one that includes reviewing government files and doing covert work overseas. Covert from whom?

OK, she got caught, and the U.S. attorney's office in Detroit and federal law enforcement agencies here deserve credit for bringing this case to light and getting Nada Nadim Prouty to plead guilty to marriage fraud and illegally accessing an FBI computer system. But that cannot be the end of it. Federal authorities need to establish how she got into such sensitive positions, how much information she got out, and where it went.

Authorities say Prouty, 37, a resident of suburban Washington, was trying to find out if she and family members were being investigated by the FBI and to learn details of a Detroit-based investigation of Hizballah, which the federal government lists as a terrorist group.

A former waitress at the Dearborn-based La Shish restaurant chain who later obtained advanced degrees, Prouty went from FBI agent to covert CIA operative in a span of about eight years with no one in either agency realizing that her U.S. citizenship was based on a fraudulent marriage for which she never made an agreed-upon payment to a downriver man. Through a sister's marriage, Prouty became sister-in-law to La Shish owner Talal Chahine, who is currently a fugitive under indictment on tax charges.

The worst fear is that Prouty's years in government service in Washington were part of a plot to plant someone in highly secret federal operations. Equally important is learning how government agents did not, in routine background checks, discover the sham marriage to a man who never had a relationship with Prouty. Shouldn't he have been interviewed?

For the sake of their future integrity, the FBI and CIA need to know what happened. For the sake of national security, they also need to determine how much damage has been done.

 

[DeadCanDance]

We'll have to recap, for the Bush worshippers:

-DAVID KAY, Bush's Chief WMD Inspector: "At various times Al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there…But we simply DID NOT FIND any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all."

*CIA/Senate Bipartisan Report on Iraq Intelligence, September 2006:

-Conclusion 5: Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi

-Conclusion 1: "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support."

-Conclusion 4: "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."

-Conclusion 6: Prewar interactions between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Islam were attempts by Saddam to spy on the group rather than to support or work with them.. "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group."

Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Suspicions

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 -the Bush administration was warned in February 2002 that its source of knowledge for the claim that Iraq was training al Qaeda in chemical and biological weapons was “was intentionally misleading the debriefers.”

A high Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, "was intentionally misleading the debriefers" in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda's work with illicit weapons.

The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi's credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi's information as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that "we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/p...rss&adxnnlx=1195267514-2L47xzfIFBhNua0lXYYClQ

 

[Alpha1]

Alpha, just HOW deeply in love with Bush are you? Are you one of the last remaining dead enders, the 24%, who still think bush is doing a good job?

The claim that Iraq was training al qaeda bomb makers was debunked years ago. In 2002. CIA warned bushCo. that the allegation was a fabrication, by an iraqi prisoner who CIA determined was a serial liar. They warned Bush about it. But, BushCo kept making the claim anyway.

And NONE of what you say changes the FACT that our own CIA was still making claims that at least eight direct meetings between Iraqi representatives and top al-Qa'ida operatives took place from the early 1990's to the present.(the present being Jan. 2003) [/b] several dozen additional direct or indirect such meetings are attested to by less reliable clandestine and press sources during the same period.[/b]

AND, that even as late as 2004....from the SSCI

1. SSCI July 2004 Report Conclusion - Contacts...Page 71

(U) The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded the the CIA "reasonable assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida throughout the 1990's but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship." The Committee concluded that
the CIA reasonably noted limitations on the available reporting on contacts and in most cases was only able to confirm a meeting had taken place,
not occurred at the meeting.[/b]

The timeline is important in understanding what our intell. was telling the Pres. and at any given time....including what was being presented to Clinton....
if the CIA was giving bad intell. thats one thing, if they, or Bush actually believed what the they were reporting, thats quite another...they act
on what they believed to be the facts at any given time....In 2002 the CIA says one thing, and in 2003 they report another.......

 

[DeadCanDance]

You're letting your Bush worship get the best of you alpha.

It's now been revealed than many of those "contacts" between iraq and al qaeda were unconfirmed, and the few contacts that were confirmed, were because Saddam was trying to spy on, and collect intelligence about al qaeda groups. He considered them a threat to his regime, and he was trying to keep an eye on them. He NEVER offered to help or assist them.

-Conclusion 6: Prewar interactions between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Islam were attempts by Saddam to spy on the group rather than to support or work with them.. "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group."

 

[maineman]

Out Navy you? Your a dipshit puke....Now you want to change the subject to a different aircraft? give it up...your making an ass of yourself....you're not talking a COD flight, this was a carrier based combat aircraft.....you have to change the aircraft to feed your fantasy .....? What an ass.....
Thats even worse than trying to claim the ship was in the Middle East...
Or that Bush claimed HE landed the plane....
Your cake hole just keeps on blowing the shit....

DIFFERENT aircraft???? it's a ******* S=3....configured as a COD ... Bush could have taken a S-3 COD flight out....he could have taken a helo out...he didn't need to get himself all dolled up in a ******* flight suit to take the three mile trip to the Abe..... he was dressing up...playing like a ******* pilot...it was pathetic. Here's a ******* clue: toi the guy with the stick between his legs, the US3-A and the S=3 are exactly the same aircraft...and to the rest of the passengers, unless you are on a real ASW mission, you are passengers....just like I was on a US-3A.... in khakis. Bush wearing a flight suit for that little three mile hop was no different than my little son wearing a ******* batman outfit on halloween...it was dress up, bullshit, make-believe theater from the kiing of the chickenshit pissant cowboys.

and you don't know what the **** you are talking about.

******* douchebags who try to talk like veterans when all they know is what they ******* read in books or on websites.

you chickenshit chickenhawks...I can't deside whether to laugh or to puke

 

[Alpha1]

You're letting your Bush worship get the best of you alpha.

It's now been revealed than many of those "contacts" between iraq and al qaeda were unconfirmed, and the few contacts that were confirmed, were because Saddam was trying to spy on, and collect intelligence about al qaeda groups. He considered them a threat to his regime, and he was trying to keep an eye on them. He NEVER offered to help or assist them.

I know whats been revealed NOW....and I know that quite a abit of the intell was either unclear, unconfirmed, or just plain bogus.....it just fine we NOW know the truth and facts....fine and dandy.....

but its also important to realize what was being passed anound as truth and intell in the past....thats what drove the policy, knowing it was bogus now doesn't help matters that have already occured....we can't turn the clock back to 2002 or 2003.....

What you keep referring to as Bush worship is nothing but me trying to understand events in the time frame they occurred in...every President, every government must act on the information they have at any given time.....

IF and when it becomes clear that man-made global is in fact wrong, in latter years or decades more facts come to light, are we to condemn the actions made in good faith by those that believed it...that were in latter times confirm those actions were useless and un-necessary? Quite unfair, no?

And by the same token, if the reverse should prove to be true....

The past will always remain the past....but understanding why actions are or are not taken, and digging for the truth is a noble practice.....its quite useless digging for blame, as you and your comrades are prone to do....

WE all act on what we believe to be the facts, even when those 'facts' turn out later to be wrong.....

 

[DeadCanDance]

DIFFERENT aircraft???? it's a ******* S=3....configured as a COD ... Bush could have taken a S-3 COD flight out....he could have taken a helo out...he didn't need to get himself all dolled up in a ******* flight suit to take the three mile trip to the Abe..... he was dressing up...playing like a ******* pilot...it was pathetic. Here's a ******* clue: toi the guy with the stick between his legs, the US3-A and the S=3 are exactly the same aircraft...and to the rest of the passengers, unless you are on a real ASW mission, you are passengers....just like I was on a US-3A.... in khakis. Bush wearing a flight suit for that little three mile hop was no different than my little son wearing a ******* batman outfit on halloween...it was dress up, bullshit, make-believe theater from the kiing of the chickenshit pissant cowboys.

and you don't know what the **** you are talking about.

******* douchebags who try to talk like veterans when all they know is what they ******* read in books or on websites.

you chickenshit chickenhawks...I can't deside whether to laugh or to puke

Bush wearing a flight suit for that little three mile hop was no different than my little son wearing a ******* batman outfit on halloween...it was dress up, bullshit, make-believe theater from the kiing of the chickenshit pissant cowboys.

LOL WTF was wrong with Marine One? Why couldn't he have choppered out the three miles to the Lincoln. What was up with the Halloween costume, and the Top Gun carrier landing. What a chickenhawk!

 

[DeadCanDance]

I know whats been revealed NOW....and I know that quite a abit of the intell was either unclear, unconfirmed, or just plain bogus.....it just fine we NOW know the truth and facts....fine and dandy.....

but its also important to realize what was being passed anound as truth and intell in the past....thats what drove the policy, knowing it was bogus now doesn't help matters that have already occured....we can't turn the clock back to 2002 or 2003.....

What you keep referring to as Bush worship is nothing but me trying to understand events in the time frame they occurred in...every President, every government must act on the information they have at any given time.....

IF and when it becomes clear that man-made global is in fact wrong, in latter years or decades more facts come to light, are we to condemn the actions made in good faith that believed it...that were in latter times confirm those actions were useless and un-necessary? Quite unfair, no?

And by the same token, if the reverse should prove to be true....

The past will always remain the past....but understanding why actions are or are not taken, and digging to truth is a noble practice.....its quite useless digging for blame, as you and your comrades are prone to do....

WE all act on what we believe to be the facts, even when those 'facts' turn out later to be wrong.....

Your Bush worship is really getting quite pathetic.

I just gave you the link, that the CIA told BushCo in 2002 that the reports of Saddam training al qaeda in "poisons and bombmaking", were the dreams of a serial liar. And CIA told BushCo in 2003, that Iraq was unlikely to be helping al qaeda.

But, your liar president kept saying Iraq was an ally of al qaeda, and cooperating with al qaeda. He's a liar, and your a liar for continue to run interference for the worst president in history

 

[maineman]

write has always had bush shit on his nose, and bush jism dripping off his chin.

and he thinks that folks cannot SEE that?

lol

 

[Alpha1]

DIFFERENT aircraft???? it's a ******* S=3....configured as a COD ... Bush could have taken a S-3 COD flight out....he could have taken a helo out...he didn't need to get himself all dolled up in a ******* flight suit to take the three mile trip to the Abe..... he was dressing up...playing like a ******* pilot...it was pathetic. Here's a ******* clue: toi the guy with the stick between his legs, the US3-A and the S=3 are exactly the same aircraft...and to the rest of the passengers, unless you are on a real ASW mission, you are passengers....just like I was on a US-3A.... in khakis. Bush wearing a flight suit for that little three mile hop was no different than my little son wearing a ******* batman outfit on halloween...it was dress up, bullshit, make-believe theater from the kiing of the chickenshit pissant cowboys.

and you don't know what the **** you are talking about.

******* douchebags who try to talk like veterans when all they know is what they ******* read in books or on websites.

you chickenshit chickenhawks...I can't deside whether to laugh or to puke

"Bush could have taken a S-3 COD flight out....he could have taken a helo out"......No shit, Tinkerbell....he could have swam out or taken a freekin' a submarine or tugboat or yacht like Clinton might have done wearing his new flight jacket for draft dodgers too.....whats your point? He wanted to take an F-18 Hornet too, but that was squashed....

So your point, as usual, is ..... you have no freekin' point...

He wound up on a Viking combat aircraft, in a flight suit and after some necessary training for any unforeseen emergency, he flew the damn thing for a few minutes....

You should "deside" to puke for being such as asshole hack.....

 

[DeadCanDance]

"Bush could have taken a S-3 COD flight out....he could have taken a helo out"......No shit, Tinkerbell....he could have swam out or taken a freekin' a submarine or tugboat or yacht like Clinton might have done wearing his new flight jacket for draft dodgers too.....whats your point? He wanted to take an F-18 Hornet too, but that was squashed....

So your point, as usual, is ..... you have no freekin' point...

He wound up on a Viking combat aircraft, in a flight suit and after some necessary training for any unforeseen emergency, he flew the damn thing for a few minutes....

You should "deside" to puke for being such as asshole hack.....

Yeah, but does your president EVER tell the truth?

The white house lied, by initially saying the Lincoln was out of range of choppers. Turns out it wasn't. He could have made a chopper trip. BushCo lied. He wanted a top gun landing, in a halloween costume. And he lied about it.

Do they lie about everything?

 

[maineman]

"Bush could have taken a S-3 COD flight out....he could have taken a helo out"......No shit, Tinkerbell....he could have swam out or taken a freekin' a submarine or tugboat or yacht like Clinton might have done wearing his new flight jacket for draft dodgers too.....whats your point? He wanted to take an F-18 Hornet too, but that was squashed....

So your point, as usual, is ..... you have no freekin' point...

He wound up on a Viking combat aircraft, in a flight suit and after some necessary training for any unforeseen emergency, he flew the damn thing for a few minutes....

You should "deside" to puke for being such as asshole hack.....

you should wear a halloween costume like your ******* "leader".

"viking combat aircraft"....LOL.... he flew out in an S-3 and it was a ******* show.

he "flew" the aircraft about like I "drove" my daddy's chrysler when I was six...sitting on his lap driving straight and level on a nebraska highway with no one around.

It was a ******* PR show, and you don't have the ******* balls to admit it.

Shit...you're probably a girl in real life without any ******* real balls.

 

[Alpha1]

Yeah, but does your president EVER tell the truth?

The white house lied, by initially saying the Lincoln was out of range of choppers. Turns out it wasn't. He could have made a chopper trip. BushCo lied. He wanted a top gun landing, in a halloween costume. And he lied about it.

Do they lie about everything?

Your so ******* petty, its unbelievable....CNN wrote the report ... not Bush...

When the White House first announced the speech, Fleischer told reporters the president would be going to the Abraham Lincoln in a jet because the carrier would be far off the California coast. But as the day approached, it appeared that no one in the press office had any precise idea of exactly where the carrier would be. On the day of the event, reporters traveling to San Diego aboard Air Force One asked Fleischer how far off shore the Abraham Lincoln was. "I don't have accurate information on it," Fleischer answered. "I've been asking for it. I don't have it yet."

While most of the press corps reported on events from San Diego, a small pool of reporters flew to the Abraham Lincoln. As those reporters were getting ready to leave, they asked the pilots how far they would be going, and were told the ship was about 30 miles offshore. Once on board, the pool reporters sent back word that the Abraham Lincoln was well within range of the presidential helicopter. Navy officials explained that because of good weather, the ship had made faster-than-expected progress and was thus closer to shore than originally planned. The news appeared in some press accounts the next day, with the Associated Press quoting Fleischer as saying that the president "could have helicoptered, but the plan was already in place. Plus, he wanted to see a landing the way aviators see a landing."

The issue did not stir much controversy until the next week, when Democrats claimed that the White House had lied about the distance to the carrier so the president could star in a photo-op for his 2004 reelection campaign. At the regular White House briefing on May 6, a reporter brought up Fleischer's original statement that the ship would be hundreds of miles offshore. "Were you misled?" the reporter asked.

"No," said Fleischer. "The original planning was exactly as I said." Fleischer explained that the president still wanted to take the jet, even after it became clear that the ship was close enough for a helicopter ride. "The president wanted to land on it, on an aircraft that would allow him to see an aircraft landing the same way that the pilots saw an aircraft landing. 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."

Was the story a lie? It appears not. In the days leading up to the flight, Fleischer seemed unsure of how far the carrier would be from shore. On the day of the landing, when reporters learned the actual distance, he quickly conceded that the president could have taken a helicopter but had wanted to fly in the jet — a statement that jibed with statements Fleischer had made earlier that the president had been looking forward to the flight for quite some time.

Moreover, the incident raises the question of why Fleischer would tell a lie that reporters would be able to discover almost immediately — well before the president's speech. "It would have been foolish from a political standpoint to utter an easily checkable falsehood," says one White House reporter. Adds another journalist on the beat: "If you put the pieces together, I think basically what you had was they designed the trip to allow the president to take the jet, and I think what happened was that the ship had good weather and came in too quickly." Which is what the White House said.

 

[Alpha1]

you should wear a halloween costume like your ******* "leader".

"viking combat aircraft"....LOL.... he flew out in an S-3 and it was a ******* show.

he "flew" the aircraft about like I "drove" my daddy's chrysler when I was six...sitting on his lap driving straight and level on a nebraska highway with no one around.

It was a ******* PR show, and you don't have the ******* balls to admit it.

Shit...you're probably a girl in real life without any ******* real balls.

Well...some leaders fly jet fighters and some are draft dodgers that loath the military.....thats just the way it is sometimes.....
Don't let it get to ya.....

 

[Dr Grump]

In other words you have no proof, thanks for playing though.

huh? I even had a link...Do you even read links? And did you read his quotes? You think that is articulate??