|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
No
Other reasons were given as well....
...No civilian casualties due to terrorists attacks in our borders.
Not in my view. My biggest concern is that we don't have the will to finish the job and we will leave it for future generations to fight.
If you disagree on strategy that is one thing, <b>but I am not sure you agree with the threat to our freedom.</b> If that is true why are you concerned about North Korea, etc, etc.
|
ace, sometimes I envy you. It is so much easier to blot out all of the contradictions and simply <b>believe....like you do.</b> My head is about ready to explode, because of one question....believe ??? Believe what ???
Quote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charle...i_b_37443.html
He didn't attack us on 9/11, nor did any of the hijackers act on his behalf.
He didn't finance the Bin Laden construction company or Osama Bin Laden in any way.
He didn't give safe haven to Bin Laden or any of the terrorists.
He did not condone Al Quaeda.
He did not have weapons of mass destruction.
He did not have a nuclear program.
He posed no credible threat to the safety or security of the United States directly.
He never said he wanted us all dead and then followed that statement up by testing a nuclear device.
He did not financially support madrases directly, training radicalized Islamic fascists that would later threaten our country (that's Saudi Arabia).
He did not cut off the oil supply to the world, or to us.....
....And the truth is the only reason I can come up with as to why he is dead is because George W. Bush wanted him that way, and in a hurry. Bush wanted him dead before our new Congress was even seated, odd, don't you think? Hundreds of my listeners do, people that email my radio show on KGO AM 810. The fact that he was killed before our new lawmakers took to their seats was not lost on them. When opening the phones after Hussein's death, the key phrase for the evening was "dead men tell no tales." Because the Iraqis had plenty of time to rise up and kill him and they didn't, and the international community had almost 25 years to take him to task for the gassing of the Kurds, the killings in a village, but instead of killing him they continued to do business with him, ourselves included....
|
They've consistently used the troops as props, cannon fodder, and muzzled them:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...ck=1&cset=true
Better armor lacking for new troops in Iraq
By David Wood
Sun reporter
Originally published January 10, 2007
WASHINGTON // The thousands of troops that President Bush is expected to order to Iraq will join the fight largely without the protection of the latest armored vehicles that withstand bomb blasts far better than the Humvees in wide use, military officers said.
Vehicles such as the Cougar and the M1117 Armored Security Vehicle have proven ability to save lives, but production started late and relatively small numbers are in use in Iraq, mostly because of money shortages, industry officials said.
More than 1,000 American troops have been killed by roadside bombs since the war began in March 2003. At present there are fewer than 1,000 of the new armored trucks in Iraq. At $500,000 to $700,000 each, they cost more than twice as much as a standard Humvee, but already they are proving their worth.
"They are expensive, but they are going to save lives," said Gen. James T. Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, during a recent trip to Iraq, where he reviewed the service's effort to get more of the vehicles.
Most American troops patrol in the 20,000 Humvees the Pentagon has sent to Iraq. Most of those vehicles have been layered with added armor plating as the Pentagon has struggled over the past three years to counter the increasingly powerful and sophisticated roadside bombs,....
....Today, the Marines are moving quickly to buy and deploy combat vehicles with a key design improvement over the Humvee: They are built with a V-shaped hull that deflects a blast up and outward, leaving passengers shaken, but alive.
Under a $125 million contract, the Marines are buying 100 Cougar and 44 Buffalo armored trucks, known collectively as MRAP, for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, made by Force Protection Inc., a small company in Ladson, S.C. The firm is producing 40 vehicles a month, said its vice president, Mike Aldrich, a retired Army officer educated at West Point.
Aldrich said the design grew out of a joint Army and Marine Corps request "designed to literally stop the bleeding from up-armored Humvees in some of the most dangerous areas in Iraq and Afghanistan."
The military services said last month that they need 4,060 of the MRAP vehicles, with 2,500 for the Army, 538 for the Navy and 1,022 for the Marines. The delivery schedule is uncertain. Meanwhile, a permanent replacement for the Humvee, incorporating the latest design and armor improvements, is years away, Pentagon officials said, and mired in technical and cost disputes.
Separately, the Army is buying the 15-ton M1117 armored vehicle for its military police. The V-hull vehicles were in production in the late 1990s but were canceled by the Army as unnecessary. In June 2004, the service decided that it needed them after all. The Army has said it needs 2,600.
Today, Textron Inc. is producing 48 per month at its New Orleans plant under a contract for 1,250 vehicles.
"That's all they had the money for," said Clay Moise, vice president for business development for Textron's Marine and Land division.
But a lack of money only partly explains why, four years into the war, there is a shortage of vehicles that can effectively survive an IED.......
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011100389.html
At Fort Benning, a Quiet Response to a Presidential Visit
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 12, 2007; Page A12
....To ensure that there would be no discordant notes here, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, the base commander,
<b>prohibited the 300 soldiers who had lunch with the president from talking with reporters..</b> If any of them harbored
doubts about heading back to Iraq, many for the third time, they were kept silent.......
|
|
The Iraq war is in "the shit", ace. Gates is not qualified and he knows that it is a hopeless situation for US troops to be in the midst of:
[quote]
Quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2353049.shtml
Iraq Plan Draws Criticism, Mockery On Hill
President's Plan To Send More Troops To Iraq Meets Opposition From Both Democrats And Republicans
Jan. 11, 2007
.....At one point Gates, just three weeks on the job, told lawmakers, "I would confess I'm no expert on Iraq."
Later, asked about reaching the right balance between American and Iraqi forces, he told the panel he was "no expert on military matters." .....
|
Quote:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002330.php
Gates: Iraq is Four Wars in One
By Paul Kiel - January 12, 2007, 12:19 PM
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, like his infamously inconstant predecessor, still won't admit that Iraq is in a state of civil war, but that non-civil war is apparently, one of four ongoing wars in Iraq.
From today's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee:
Quote:
|
There are four wars going on in Iraq right now, simultaneously: Shia on Shia conflict in the south; sectarian violence, particularly in Baghdad, but also in Diyala and a couple of other provinces; an insurgency; and Al Qaeda.
|
Watch Robert Gates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw6owUAmeXY&eurl=
<br><br>
Quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1989397,00.html
'The jihad now is against the Shias, not the Americans'
As 20,000 more US troops head for Iraq, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, the only correspondent reporting regularly from behind the country's sectarian battle lines, reveals how the Sunni insurgency has changed
Saturday January 13, 2007
The Guardian
.....On his mobile phone he proudly showed me grainy images of dead bodies lying in the street, their hands tied behind their backs . He claimed they were Shia agents and that he had killed them. "There is a new jihad now," he said, echoing Abu Omar's warning. "The jihad now is against the Shia, not the Americans."
In Ramadi there was still jihad against the Americans because there were no Shia to fight, but in Baghdad his group only attacked the Americans if they were with Shia army forces or were coming to arrest someone.
"We have been deceived by the jihadi Arabs," he admitted, in reference to al-Qaida and foreign fighters. "They had an international agenda and we implemented it. But now all the leadership of the jihad in Iraq are Iraqis.".....
|
|
Since it's 2006 purchase of Knight-Ridder, ace, McClatchy is one of the largest US new services. Read this. It is not an op-ed, it is a news article:
Quote:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...hington_nation
Posted on Sun, Jan. 14, 2007
Administration leaving out important details on Iraq
By MARK SEIBEL
McClatchy Newspapers
<h3>WASHINGTON - President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration's statements about Iraq.</h3>
President Bush unveiled the new version on Wednesday during his nationally televised speech announcing his new Iraq policy.
"When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation," he said. "We thought that these elections would bring Iraqis together - and that as we trained
Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.
"But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad - overwhelmed the political gains Iraqis had made. Al-Qaida terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's election
posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis.
"They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam - the Golden Mosque of Samarra - in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate," Bush said. "Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today."
That version of events helps to justify Bush's "new way forward" in Iraq, in which U.S. forces will largely target Sunni insurgents and leave it to Iraq's U.S.-backed Shiite government to - perhaps - disarm its allies in Shiite
militias and death squads.
But the president's account understates by at least 15 months when Shiite death squads began targeting Sunni politicians and clerics. It also ignores the role that Iranian-backed Shiite groups had in death squad activities
prior to the Samarra bombing.
Blaming the start of sectarian violence in Iraq on the Golden Dome bombing risks policy errors because it underestimates the depth of sectarian hatred in Iraq and overlooks the conflict's root causes. The Bush account
also fails to acknowledge that Iranian-backed Iraqi Shiite groups stoked the conflict.
President Bush met at the White House in November with the head of one of those groups: Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. SCIRI's Badr Organization militia is widely reported to have
infiltrated Iraq's security forces and to be involved in death squad activities.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recited Bush's history of events on Thursday in fending off angry questioning from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., about why Rice had offered optimistic testimony about Iraq during a Senate
Foreign Relations Committee hearing in October 2005.
"The president has talked repeatedly now about the changed circumstances that we faced after the Samarra bombing of February `06, because that bombing did in fact change the character of the conflict in Iraq," Rice said. "Before that, we were fighting al-Qaida; before that, we were fighting some insurgents, some Saddamists."
She cited the version again in an appearance later that day before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "This is a direct result of al-Qaida activity," she said, asking House members not to consider Iraq's sectarian violence as
evidence that Iraqis cannot live together.
Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley used the same version of events in an appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Much like the administration's pre-war claims about Saddam's alleged ties to al-Qaida and purported nuclear weapons program, the claims about the bombing of the Shiite mosque in Samarra ignore inconvenient facts and highlight questionable but politically useful assumptions........
.....Beginning in 2002, the administration's case for a pre-emptive war in Iraq was plagued by similar oversights, oversimplifications, misjudgments and misinformation. Unlike the administration's claims about the Samarra bombing,
however, much of that information was peddled by Iraqi exiles and defectors and accepted by some eager officials and journalists.
The best known of those pre-war claims was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program - Bush's primary stated reason for invading Iraq.
Administration officials and their allies also claimed that Saddam had trained terrorists to hijack airplanes; that a Saddam emissary had met with lead Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta in Prague; that Iraq had purchased aluminum
tubes that could be used only to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons; that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from the African country of Niger; that Iraqis would greet American troops as liberators; and that Iraqi oil revenues
ould cover most of the cost of the war.
The administration has continued to offer inaccurate information to Congress, the American people and sometimes to itself. The Iraq Study Group, in its December report, concluded, for example, that the U.S. military was
systematically under-reporting the violence in Iraq in an effort to disguise policy failings. The group recommended that the military change its reporting system.
Whether many of the administration's statements about Iraq for nearly five years have been deliberately misleading or honest but gullible mistakes hasn't been determined. The Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to complete an
investigation into the issue that was begun but stalled when Republicans controlled the committee.....
..."Madam Secretary," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., "I have supported you and the administration on the war, and I cannot continue to support the administration's position. I have not been told the truth over and over again by administration witnesses, and the American people have not been told the truth."
|
Both of Bush's press secretaries have been habitual liars, ace:
[quote]
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/12/...kin-media-war/
Snow: Michelle Malkin Is A Soldier In The ‘New Media War’ On Biased Iraq Coverage
The American public overwhelmingly opposes Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq and the White House blames the media.
Yesterday on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, Tony Snow vowed to fight a <a href="http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=3cebc08f-de3c-4c12-9135-16c922d27712">“new
media war”</a> to combat the coverage:
HH: All right, yesterday, the President also mentioned that there will be lots of carnage on television
screens. Is the administration, and especially the Pentagon, prepared to fight the new media war when that starts
to happen, Tony Snow?
TS: We’ve been fighting it. I mean, it’s not that it has started to happen, it’s been going on for some time.
Snow specifically <a href="http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=3cebc08f-de3c-4c12-9135-16c922d27712">cited
right-wing blogger</a> Michelle Malkin, who is currently embedded in Iraq, as a soldier for truth in the “media
war”:
What is interesting, Hugh, and you know this as well as anybody else, you’re also starting to see little
glimmers of guys like Michael Yon and others who get over there and they basically embed themselves in Iraq, and
Michelle Malkin’s over there now.
Several times during the interview, Tony Snow referenced Malkin’s work on the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/columns/200612120001">Jamil Hussein “story</a>.”
Michelle Malkin has been obsessed in recent months claiming that Hussein — an Iraqi policeman cited as a source by
the Associated Press in a story about the burning of six people during a sectarian attack — <a href="http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/credibility-of-right-wing-blogosphere.html">does not exist</a>.
The Iraqi government recently debunked the conspiracy theory, acknowledging that the AP’s source was in fact a <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_jamil_hussein_1">police officer in Iraq.</a>
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070109-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 9, 2007
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
White House Conference Center Briefing Room
...Q Tony, this goes to your previous acknowledgment that the President is aware of public anxiety about the
situation in Iraq. What would your guidance be to a public that has seen the President stand under a "Mission
Accomplished" banner, proclaim an end to major combat operations, the Vice President talking about the "last
throes" -- how should the public go into viewing this speech tomorrow?
MR. SNOW: I think the public ought to just listen to what the President has to say. <b>You know that the "Mission
Accomplished" banner was put up by members of the USS Abraham Lincoln. And the President, on that very speech, said
just the opposite, didn't he? He said it was the end of major combat operations, but he did not say it was the end
of operations. Instead, he cautioned people at the time that there would be considerable continued violence in
Iraq, and that there would be continued operations for a long period of time. That single episode has been more
widely mischaracterized than just about any aspect of the war.</b>
Q We can debate whether the sign should have been there, whether the White House should have not had it there, but
the fact is he stood under it and made the speech.
<h3>MR. SNOW: You're right, after people had been on a 17-month deployment, and had said "Mission Accomplished" when
they're finally able to get back to their loved ones, the President didn't say, take down the sign, it will be bad. </h3>
Instead what he did is he talked about the mission. And I would direct you back to the speech he gave then, Peter,
because the President -- .....
|
|
The preceding indicates that Tony Snow dredged up lies told by Bush and McClellan, et al, that were already exposed as such, by the press in 2003:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030501-15.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 1, 2003
President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended
Remarks by the President from the USS Abraham Lincoln
At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham
Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States
and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that
country.....
|
Quote:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/05/16/nyt.bumiller/
<h3>Keepers of Bush image lift stagecraft to new heights</h3>
By Elisabeth Bumiller
New York Times
Friday, May 16, 2003 Posted: 1108 GMT ( 7:08 PM HKT)
.....The most elaborate — and criticized — White House event so far was Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham
Lincoln announcing the end of major combat in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people, including
the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days
before Mr. Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.
Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even
down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the
"Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single
shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on
Mr. Bush.
"If you looked at the TV picture, you saw there was flattering light on his left cheek and slight shadowing on his
right," Mr. King said. "It looked great.".....
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0031028-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 28, 2003
President Holds Press Conference
Press Conference by the President
The Rose Garden
..... Q Mr. President, if I may take you back to May 1st when you stood on the USS Lincoln under a huge banner that
said, "Mission Accomplished." At that time you declared major combat operations were over, but since that time
there have been over 1,000 wounded, many of them amputees who are recovering at Walter Reed, 217 killed in action
since that date. Will you acknowledge now that you were premature in making those remarks?
THE PRESIDENT: Nora, I think you ought to look at my speech. I said, Iraq is a dangerous place and we've still got
hard work to do, there's still more to be done. And we had just come off a very successful military operation. I
was there to thank the troops.
<b>The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their
mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they
weren't that ingenious, by the way.</b> But my statement was a clear statement, basically recognizing that this phase
of the war for Iraq was over and there was a lot of dangerous work. And it's proved to be right, it is dangerous in
Iraq. It's dangerous in Iraq because there are people who can't stand the thought of a free and peaceful Iraq. It
is dangerous in Iraq because there are some who believe that we're soft, that the will of the United States can be
shaken by suiciders -- and suiciders who are willing to drive up to a Red Cross center, a center of international
help and aid and comfort, and just kill.
It's the same mentality, by the way, that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001: we'll just destroy innocent life
and watch the great United States and their friends and allies crater in the face of hardship. It's the exact same
mentality. And Iraq is a part of the war on terror. I said it's a central front, a new front in the war on terror,
and that's exactly what it is. And that's why it's important for us to be tough and strong and diligent. ....
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0031029-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 29, 2003
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
... Q Scott, did the President misspeak yesterday in the Rose Garden when he talking about the banner that was
behind him when he was on the USS Abraham Lincoln? Did he misspeak when he said the White House --
MR. McCLELLAN: In what way?
Q When he said the White House press advance had nothing to do with --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's not what he said. That's not what he said. Do you recall what he said?
Q He said, I believe --
MR. McCLELLAN: He said -- he said that it was put up by members of the USS Abraham Lincoln saying that their
mission was accomplished. The President was pleased to personally thank our sailors and aviators and naval officers
on board the USS Lincoln for their service and sacrifice after what was a very lengthy deployment. It was the Navy,
the people on board the ship who had the idea of this banner and made the suggestion, because they wanted to have a
way to commemorate the fact that these sailors and the crew on board the ship had completed their mission, after a
very lengthy deployment. And the President was --
Q He also said that his advance team hadn't had any part in it. And you're now -- you're now saying that you
actually did create the banner.
MR. McCLELLAN: That's not what he said. That is not what he said. Look back at what he said. We said all along, and
we said previously that it was the idea -- that the idea of the banner -- for the banner was suggested by those on
board on ship. And they asked --
Q So who ordered --
MR. McCLELLAN: And they asked -- they asked if we could help take care of the production of the banner. And we more
than happy to do so because this is a very nice way to pay tribute to our sailors and aviators and men and women in
the military who are on board that ship for a job well done.
Q Scott, just to follow up , did you not have anything to do, though, with the placement of the banner? I know the
White House often makes sure that things are placed right, behind the President so that when it's on the TV --
MR. McCLELLAN: Of course, our advance people work closely with people at event sites when the President is
participating in an event. But again, this was an idea that was suggested by those on board the ship.
Q Scott, knowing what we know now, that the Navy, apparently they say that they did request this banner, that what
the President said was technically accurate, but would you concede that the gist of what he was saying was
misleading because it left the impression for -- that he was saying that the White House didn't have anything to do
it. You don't think it was misleading?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not what he -- no, that's not what he said.
Q It's not what he said literally, but --
MR. McCLELLAN: And keep in mind what this -- what this --
Q It's what he suggested.
MR. McCLELLAN: That is not what he said. This was about paying tribute to our men and women in the military for a
job well done, for a mission that they had accomplished after a very lengthy deployment. And the President was
proud to do that.
Q Now, given the fact that this was six months ago, and there were lots of questions about this, why did he feel
the need to talk about who made this banner now, as opposed to --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, it came up in a question. But there's been some reporting --
Q -- specifically asked --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- there has been some reporting that mischaracterized the actual event.
Q What do you mean by that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Mark.
Q Are you denying now that the President had the distinct intention at the time of that speech that Americans would
see that picture and think the mission in Iraq has been accomplished, the overall mission?
MR. McCLELLAN: What I'm saying is that this was about paying tribute to our sailors and aviators and naval officers
on board the USS Lincoln. That's what this was about. Let's keep that in context. And the President was pleased to
personally go on board the USS Lincoln and thank our men and women in the military for an outstanding job, for
accomplishing their mission, and for -- when they were returning to the United States.
Q The President did not want Americans to see "mission accomplished" and think, great, the war is over?
MR. McCLELLAN: The idea for the banner and the idea for the sign was suggested by those on board ship. And we were
pleased to help them with that.
Q And he never knew that would be the interpretation, that the mission -- his mission was accomplished?
MR. McCLELLAN: The mission for those people on board the ship was accomplished.
Q But the President didn't know that this would be interpreted throughout the world that we had -- that the combat
mission was over, basically?
MR. McCLELLAN: The major combat operations were over. That's what the President said in his remarks. But he also
went on to say that there are difficulties that remain and dangers that continue to exist, and that it's important
that we stay the course and finish our work and continue to work with the Iraqi people to help them realize a
better future. And that's exactly what we are doing right now.
Q Let me follow up on that. When this happened, when the event happened, all of us reported that the President made
this speech under a banner "mission accomplished." Why at the time did you not say -- take pains to tell us,
actually, it was the Navy's idea, it wasn't ours?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the reports -- it was later, after the fact, that some of the reports mischaracterized what
had happened. You had a number of men and women in the military on board that ship, sailors, aviators, naval
officers, that were on board that ship, they were returning back to the United States and returning to -- one stop
along their way -- to their home port up in Washington, I believe -- the state of Washington, stopping in San
Diego. And those on board the ship thought it was nice way to say to all those on board the ship, thank you for a
job well done. And the President personally went there to do that.
Q But the President did --
Q I just want to take a break from bannergate for a minute --
Q Could we stay on this, Scott?
MR. McCLELLAN: We can stay on banner. We can stay on banner, and I'll come to it. Go ahead, Ken.
Q I believe you said a little while ago that we previously said that the banner was the idea of the Navy. When did
you previously say that? Can you point to any statements before yesterday?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think that some of our staff has previously pointed out when asked that the Navy came up with
the idea for the banner. The Navy themself -- if you'll call the people involved --
Q I understand yesterday --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- they would say that.
Q Before yesterday, when did you say that? Can you point us to something?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, there was reporting -- I believe others had said previously that this was something
that was asked for by the Navy because there was previous reporting about this, about the whole banner. And we
pointed out at that point that the banner was something that was suggested by the Navy.
Q When was that?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't have the exact dates. I didn't bring the articles with me, but if you look back at some of
the coverage, I think you will find it.
Did you have one?
Q Why wasn't this said at the very beginning? Because any reasonable person would look at the photographs and look
at the video and say the President is saying that what the U.S. forces have been doing in the Iraq theater is
essentially over.
MR. McCLELLAN: He said the major combat operations were over in his remarks.
Q That's right. Why wasn't -- but why wasn't it clarified --
MR. McCLELLAN: He was on board the USS Lincoln --
Q -- that the "mission accomplished" banner --
MR. McCLELLAN: He was on board the USS Lincoln that was returning home and there were --
Q But that wasn't said -- .....
|
Quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in580661.shtml
'Mission Accomplished' Whodunit
W. House Changes Stories On Much-Mocked Banner At Carrier Speech
WASHINGTON, Oct. 29, 2003
(CBS/AP) Six months after he spoke on an aircraft carrier deck under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished,"
President Bush disavowed any connection with the war message. Later, the White House changed its story and said
there was a link.
The "Mission Accomplished" boast has been mocked many times since Mr. Bush's carrier speech as criticism has
mounted over the failed search for weapons of mass destruction and the continuing violence in Iraq.
When it was brought up again Tuesday at a news conference, Mr. Bush said, "The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of
course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished."
"I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff — they weren't that ingenious, by the
way."
That explanation hadn't surfaced during months of questions to White House officials about proclaiming the mission
in Iraq successful while violence continued.
After the news conference, a White House spokeswoman said the Lincoln's crew asked the White House to have the sign
made. The White House asked a private vendor to produce the sign, and the crew put it up, said the spokeswoman. She
said she did not know who paid for the sign.
Later, a Pentagon spokesman called The Associated Press to reiterate that the banner was the crew's idea.
"It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew," Navy Cmdr. Conrad Chun said, adding the president's
visit marked the end of the ship's 10-month international deployment.
The president's appearance on the Abraham Lincoln, which was returning home after service in the Persian Gulf,
included his dramatic and much-publicized landing on the ship's deck.....
.....Since Mr. Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq on May 1, 115 U.S. soldiers have been killed by hostile
fire — more than died in combat before the speech.
In his Rose Garden press conference, Mr. Bush told the reporter who asked about the sign: "I think you ought to
look at my speech. I said, Iraq is a dangerous place and we've still got hard work to do, there's still more to be
done. And we had just come off a very successful military operation. I was there to thank the troops."
The president said his statement "was a clear statement, basically recognizing that this phase of the war for Iraq
was over and there was a lot of dangerous work. And it's proved to be right, it is dangerous in Iraq."
In the May 1 speech, Mr. Bush did note that the job in Iraq was not complete, promising "difficult work" in Iraq
"bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous," he said.
Later he added: "The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our
coalition will stay until our work is done."
But Mr. Bush also sounded a triumphant note, describing the Iraqi operation as a "victory in a war on terror."
"In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed," he said. "And now our coalition is
engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."
The president's USS Lincoln speech came under scrutiny almost immediately. Democrats claimed the White House wasted
taxpayer dollars and sailors' time on a publicity stunt.
Despite initial claims that the ship was too far out to sea for a helicopter landing, forcing the president to use
a jet, the Lincoln was actually within helicopter range when Mr. Bush arrived.
The jet flight was much more dramatic than a helicopter arrival would have been, as the president took the control
stick for part of the flight and emerged on deck wearing a flight suit and helmet.
In addition, Pentagon officials told the Washington Post that after the president's speech, the Lincoln waited
offshore for hours while he slept rather than heading into port after its 10-month voyage.
|
|
On Sept. 16, 2001, Cheney told us that Saddam was "bottled up" and that bin Laden "hated us because of our freedom and democracy.
Cheney and Bush did attempt to address bin Laden's grievance, <h3>by lessening freedom and democracy in the US:</h3>
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresid...p20010916.html
Camp David, Maryland
September 16, 2001
The Vice President appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert
....MR. RUSSERT: Osama bin Laden released a training video, 100 minutes long, which was obtained by the Western
media this summer, and I want to show a portion of that to you and give you a chance to respond to it, and we'll
play it right now. ......What's your message this morning to Osama bin Laden?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think he seriously misreads the American people. I think the--I mean, you have to ask
yourself, why somebody would do what he does. Why is someone so motivated? Obviously he's filled with hate for the
United States and for everything we stand for...
MR. RUSSERT: Why?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...freedom and democracy. ......
........MR. RUSSERT: Saddam Hussein, your old friend, his government had this to say: "The American cowboy is
rearing the fruits of crime against humanity." If we determine that Saddam Hussein is also harboring terrorists,
and there's a track record there, would we have any reluctance of going after Saddam Hussein?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he's harboring terrorists?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is--in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein.
But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. <b>Saddam
Hussein's bottled up, at this point</b>, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis
are concerned.....
|
Quote:
http://aclunc.org/issues/government_...urn_home.shtml
U.S. Citizens Exiled are Allowed to Return Home
A California father and son, who are both American citizens, were finally allowed to re-enter the U.S. on Sunday
after being barred from returning when they refused to cooperate with the FBI....
...Muhammad Ismail, a naturalized U.S. citizen, and <b>his 18-year-old son, Jaber Ismail, who was born in Lodi,
California were stuck in legal limbo in Pakistan, separated from the rest of their family, for nearly half a year.
</b>
The Ismail family's ordeal started on April 21, 2006, when Muhammad, his wife, Jaber, a teenage daughter, and
younger son boarded a plane in Islamabad, excited about returning home to Lodi. The family had moved to Pakistan in
order for Jaber to study the Quran.
On a layover in Hong Kong, airport employees told the family that Muhammad and Jaber could not continue on to the
U.S. The family was told that there was “no record” of Muhammad and Jaber Ismail in the U.S. and that their
passports did not appear in the computer system. This was the only explanation they were given.
“I showed them my birth certificate, my school ID, but they wouldn’t listen,” said Jaber Ismail.
While the rest of the family was allowed to continue home to Lodi, father and son returned to Pakistan--a country
where neither holds citizenship. ..
....After waiting nearly two weeks for their luggage to be returned to them, Muhammad and Jaber Ismail made a second
attempt to return home. Following the embassy's advice, they booked a direct flight from Islamabad to Chicago, with
a connecting flight to San Francisco.
Upon arriving at the Islamabad airport, the Ismails were told by a Pakistani International Airline employee that
they were on the “no-fly” list and could not board the plane without clearance from the U.S. Embassy.
The Ismails returned to the embassy, where a consulate official said that he would contact them with information
about how to proceed. “I couldn’t believe this was happening to us again,” said Jaber Ismail.
Later that week, Jaber was interrogated by two FBI agents, and the source of the ban surfaced. On his passport
application, Jaber had listed his uncle, Umer Hayat, as an emergency contact. Hayat’s son, Hamid Hayat, had been
convicted in Lodi of a terrorism-related crime earlier this year.
Jaber and his father spent several weeks attempting to complete the interrogations and lie detector tests that FBI
agents said were required before they could return home. When family members advised them not to speak to the FBI
further without legal representation, the Ismails invoked their right to remain silent and sought help from the
ACLU-NC.
“In effect, they were being held hostage in Pakistan by the U.S. government and told they could not come home
unless they gave up their right to remain silent,” said ACLU of Northern California (ACLU-NC) staff attorney Julia
Harumi Mass, who filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on behalf of the Ismails in
August. ..
....On September 6, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties contacted
the ACLU-NC. The Homeland Security spokesperson said that DHS had reviewed the complaint and that “changes have
been made as appropriate,” but refused to confirm that the Ismails were free to return home or to provide any other
information.
On Sunday, October 1 the Ismails attempted, for the third time, to return home. This time they
succeeded......
|
Quote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...r-powers_x.htm
Posted 12/28/2005 8:57 PM Updated 12/28/2005 9:17 PM
War-powers debate on front burner
......The disputes underscore an old power struggle between the presidency and Congress. <b>Sen. Russ Feingold,
D-Wis., said that if Bush "is asserting a doctrine that he can do anything to protect the American people without
the basis of law, we need to know what those things are."</b>
Some conservatives question Bush's decision to forgo court warrants in conducting the NSA surveillance. Bruce Fein,
who worked in the Justice Department under President Reagan, said Bush acted "with a flagrant disregard for the
separation of powers."
"Will Bush concede there are any limits to his authority to conduct the war on terror?" Fein asked.
A few Democrats are throwing around the "I word": impeachment. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., wrote to presidential
scholars, asking them about comments by Richard Nixon's lawyer John Dean that <b>Bush is "the first president to
admit to an impeachable offense."</b>.......
|
|
Bush took a record amount of vacation time, and each August, Cheney was on vacation at the same time Bush was.:
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...03&postcount=9
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A2676-2004Apr10¬Found=true">(Bush
Gave No Sign of Worry In August 2001 By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, April 11,
2004)</a>
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080201703.html
Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record
With Long Sojourn at Ranch, President on His Way to Surpassing Reagan's Total
By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 3, 2005; Page A04
WACO, Tex., Aug. 2 -- President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of -- nearly five
weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time.
The president departed Tuesday for his longest stretch yet away from the White House, arriving at his Crawford
ranch in the evening to clear brush, visit with family and friends, and tend to some outside-the-Beltway politics.
By historical standards, it is the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years.
The August getaway is Bush's 49th trip to his cherished ranch since taking office and Tuesday was the 319th day
that Bush has spent, entirely or partially, in Crawford -- roughly 20 percent of his presidency to date, according
to Mark Knoller, a CBS Radio reporter known for keeping better records of the president's travel than the White
House itself. Weekends and holidays at Camp David or at his parents' compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, bump up the
proportion of Bush's time away from Washington even further....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...123001326.html
Bush Conscripts Aides in Tireless Pursuit of Clearing Ground
By Lisa Rein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 31, 2005; Page A03
CRAWFORD, Tex., Dec. 30 -- <b>On most of the 365 days he has enjoyed at his secluded ranch here,</b> President
Bush's idea of paradise is to hop in his white Ford pickup truck in jeans and work boots, drive to a stand of
cedars, and whack the trees to the ground
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/30/AR2006073000553.html">The president rarely
travels domestically on the weekend and almost never spends the night in a city within easy flying time of
Washington.</a>
|
Just as he was "working from Wyoming, last year, when Bush was playing guitar and delivering a birthday cake to
John McCain, while Katrina was destroying New Orleans, Mr. Cheney was again on vacation, at the same time that Mr.
Bush was....this year, when the first "red alert" terror warning in post 9/11, US history was issued:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060810-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 10, 2006
Press Gaggle by Tony Snow
Aboard Air Force One
En route Green Bay, Wisconsin
9:33 A.M. CDT
.........Q When did the President first learn about this plot and the investigation into it?
MR. SNOW: Again, we're being a little careful on operational details. I think it's safe to say to what I said
before, which is he certainly has been extensively briefed over the last few days as the operation that took place
became more and more imminent.
Q Was part of that during the teleconference on Sunday?
MR. SNOW: Let's see, what day was Sunday, that was the 6th? Yes. Yes. ....
.........Q Are there details about his talk with Blair overnight, you can give? What time it occurred?
MR. SNOW: There was no overnight. That report is false, so there are no details on the fallacious report.
<h3>Q But the President, himself, approved the red alert?
MR. SNOW: Correct. It was a recommendation by the Homeland Security Council, by Secretary Chertoff and others.
Q When did he approve it?
MR. SNOW: Yesterday..........</h3>
.......Q Can I ask you about timing again -- not to keep harping on this, but yesterday when you talked about
raising the white -- you know, saying the Democrats might want to raise the white flag --
MR. SNOW: This was not done in anticipation. It was not said with the knowledge that this was coming.
<b?Q So the Vice President, when he did his incredibly rare conference call with reporters, also didn't know about
it at the time?</b>
MR. SNOW: I don't think so. You'll have to ask, but I can say from our point of view at that point we didn't.....
|
....."yesterday"....that would be on Aug. 9th, the day that Cheney was making a rare teleconference from his vacation
location in Jackson, Wyoming, sending the message of fear against more voting, that is anything similar to the
Connecticut "anti-war" vote agains Joe Lieberman.
|
<b>Read my "sig", ace, the quote about how often "we have to be right"! </b>
Quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2359119.shtml
.....PELLEY: Instability in Iraq threatens the entire region?
BUSH: If the government falls apart and there is sectarian enclaves and violence, it'll invite Iran into the Shia neighborhoods, Sunni extremists into the Sunni neighborhoods, Kurdish separatist movements.....which will end up creating conditions that could lead to attacks here in America.
PELLEY: But wasn't it your administration that created the instability in Iraq?
BUSH: Well, our administration took care of a source of instability in Iraq. <b>Envision a world in which Saddam Hussein was rushing for a nuclear weapon to compete against Iran.</b> My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the correct decision in my judgment. We didn't find the weapons we thought we would find or the weapons everybody thought he had. <b>But he was a significant source of instability.
PELLEY: It's much more unstable now, Mr. President.</b>
|
If Bush's GWOT was intended to be something other than an "Op" to terrorize, and thus, control me, I'd need to see a li'l more truth from the white house, more concern and empathy for "the troops" and their families, a president who guesses correctly at least once in a while, and a lot less grandstanding photo ops and vacation time.
Last edited by host; 01-15-2007 at 09:58 PM..
|