Granted, it’s certainly more interesting than the truth, which was probably something like “After takeoff, President Bush watched two of his favorite ‘Ernest’ movies, had dinner, read ‘The Very Hungry Caterpillar’, then napped for the rest of the flight.”
Yeah, the truth sure was boring. The whole sneaking him out of Crawford. The airport manueverings. The flight itself. The fact that they did it all and kept it a secret.
Pretty damn boring… and lame.
It needed some punching up.
/aside
Do you guys even think anymore before slinging this shit?
Seriously.
Because it sure doesn’t look like it to me anymore. It looks like you’re absolutely rabid, foaming at the mouth at the chance to nail this guy for something, anything.
You’re worse than the republicans when Clinton was in office.
I doubt it. They record in a something like 20 minute or 30 minutes chunks over and over and over again. So as long as nothing happens to stop it from overwriting itself (like blowing up) you probably have a very boring last 20 minutes of the flight, if they even keep that once they’ve landed.
*the plane blowing up.
They then have last 20 minutes of audio prior to the explosion.
I’m trying to think of what we lib’ruls have said about Bush that could possibly be worse than the accusations that Clinton had a bunch of people in Arkansas killed because they were in his way. Or that the Clintons had Vincent Foster killed.
Nonetheless, I agree with the basic point that it’s silly to go after Bush over penny-ante stuff like this, when he’s given us so many nontrivial targets.
Jeez, guy, you’re right. We take a paragon of candor and honesty, like good ol’ straight from the shoulder GeeDubya, and make him out to be some kind of fibber, or something.
Must be 'cause us Perfidious Liars [sup]TM[/sup] hate America so much.
Hmmm…
examines checklist
Okay…hawking videos accusing GeeDub of having witnesses to his illegal importation of drugs murdered. Oops…missed that one!
Accusing GeeDub of having people who know too much murdered. Dang, missed that one, too!
Rifling through GeeDub’s old business files for rotten dealings. Nope…we really need to get on the ball here…
Demanding a special prosecutor who is ideologically guaranteed to root through every little speck of GeeDub’s past looking for something, anything to hang him on. Didn’t do that one, either. Boy, we’re never gonna compare to the Republicans at this rate.
Paying random women to tell their sordid stories about GeeDub’s behavior while on a drunken binge at the Texas Oilmen’s and Sports Team Owners’ Convention. You know, we just aren’t even trying here!
Getting Bishops Spong and Robinson to denounce GeeDub from the pulpit as often as possible on their money-begging television and radio shows. Wow…we haven’t even gotten the good bishops a television and radio deal yet. We Lefties are NEVER going to catch up to the Right…
Will you people ever let go of this bullshit Clinton Vs. Bush bullshit? Seriously who the fuck cares? Let’s focus on important things like where we’re headed, and getting Bush the fuck out of office. Fuck Clinton, he’s yesterday.
*…The President forcefully moved aside the injured pilot and seized the controls of Air Force One, executing a perfect barrel roll that caught the Al-Queda Mig-21 fighter off guard, ensuring thier escape.
“This plane is not supposed to be able to do that!” his dusky National Security Advisor exclaimed amid gasps of awe. She panted with excitement as her pert and perky…*
“Mr. President? Wake up sir, we’re almost there…”
An awful lot going on in that short little sentence… guy. Martyrdom. Strawmen. Smarm…
Impressive.
But seriously, I’ve been dying to ask you guys ask a question for some time now: Back when Clinton was in office and the republicans were screaming bloody murder over everything, what were you saying? How did you react?
Were you outraged at their gall? The transparency? The bullshit?
Didn’t you get tired of it all?
If so, then how do you differentiate what they did then with what you’re doing now? How is it different? How are you not in the same league?
Don’t you even care that you look just as childish, just as boorish, and just as full of it as they did?
Agree with the focus being on getting Bush out of office. However, I can’t just sit by when the Righties pop out with such a tremendously false self-martyrization as the idea that the Left are being as horrible to Bush as the Right was to Clinton. From the day Clinton was elected, the Right was mobilized toward finding something that would be fatal to his administration. It took them 6 years and a boatload of money before they could back him into a courtroom corner where he would lie under oath. In those 6 years (and pretty much every year subsequent, but those are the main focus of this issue), the Right slandered Clinton openly, publically and on the record with videotapes (sold by ministers of supposedly Christian sensibilities) that documented alleged drug-trafficking and hit-contracting, with repeated accusations of murder or contracting the murder of Vince Foster, with accusations of rape, with accusations of sexual harrassment, with accusations of financial shadiness…the list goes on. And NONE of those allegations was proved. The only thing they could get him on, after six years of frenzied investigation, was lying under oath about a relationship which had nothing to do with the incident for which he was in court.
Has any president in the last century had to put up with the kind of concentrated, congressionally-sanctioned bullshit that Clinton did over his entire presidency? Criticisms of Bush don’t come close. The right-wingers look awfully silly trying to climb up on that tiny little cross…
Well, now, he’s got a point, you know. If we’re gonna say this kind of stuff, we ought to be able to come up with some circumstance where the President has been less than entirely candid. A “cite”, to coin a phrase.
Ponder, ponder…Nope, can’t think of anything just offhand. Anybody else got any ideas? Some puny little fib we can exaggerate to significance? Anybody?
The initial reports were a little off, but according to this article communication between the British pilot and the air traffic control tower were intercepted.
The pilot asked if that was Air Force One and the tower said no, their records showed it to be a Gulfstream.
Reeder was right, though. It would have made no sense for them to lie about this.
Just to keep track now, is this thread about nothing then?
Pretty much.
Add it to the heap.
Or maybe not
“…A British Airways spokesman told The Associated Press that none of its pilots has come forward to acknowledge either making or overhearing the purported conversation.”
So you think lying about a blowjob is the moral equivalent about lying about a WAR, do you? That attitude seems pretty common among the apologists.
What’s different, you ask? You really don’t know the difference between trying to find something to simply get somebody and WAR??? You really don’t know the difference between virtually everything you do find in an investigation of a personal life turning out to be utter bullshit on the part of the accusers, and virtually everything another person says or does in the capacity for which he’s been hired by us turning out to be verified lies? You do know what truth means, don’t you? Maybe not, if you’re asking the question. That’s a pretty sad commentary on the basic amorality required to be a partisan Republican these days.
Right, because if no pilot is jumping up and down saying “it was me!!!” it didn’t happen.
Note from leenmi’s cite that the White House has itself confirmed the sighting, with time and location.
This thread is not exactly about “nothing”, it’s just another example for those who still think Bush would tell the truth other than accidentally that such isn’t the case. Cognitive dissonance can sometimes best be attacked by a slow accumulation of fact rather than a direct blow - the steady flow is harder to deny.
This has an interesting twist, though - if the White House is assumed to be telling the truth (just hypothetically now), then the BA pilots are lying or withholding the truth. But what reason would they have? Gotta consider motivations, always.
To be fair then you’d also have to wonder what motivation the White House would have to put out a story that does little to enhance an already good tale and who’s adherance to accuracy is easily verifiable. Seriously, what’s to gain?
I’m looking for the simplist explanation, that something was garbled in the retelling or the like. To use this as a blanket indictment of an administration’s veracity just reeks of partisanship.
I’ve enough other concers regarding this administration, just as I did about the previous one. In an effort to pick my battles wisely I’m leaving this little insignificant event alone and patiently await a simple explanation.