• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nope, it wasn't west of Baghdad, it was south of Baghdad. Found something on it at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/733893/posts

"Salman Pak: Iraq's Smoking Gun Link to 9-11?

With all the talk about how little evidence the Bush administration has tying Saddam Hussein to the 9-11 attacks, we're more than a little surprised at how quickly reporters, not to mention the White House, seem to have forgotten about Salman Pak.

That's the name of the Iraqi training camp located south of Baghdad where, according to the accounts of at least two Iraqi defectors quoted in the New York Times last November, terrorists from around the world rehearsed airline hijackings aboard a parked Boeing 707 that bore an eerie resemblance to what transpired on 9-11.

"We could see them train around the fuselage," one of the defectors, a five-year veteran of the camp, told the paper. "We could see them practice taking over the plane."

And that's not all.

A few days before the Times report, the London Observer revealed that one of the defectors, a colonel with the Iraqi intelligence service Mukhabarat, had drawn an even more direct link to 9-11.

The former Iraqi agent, codenamed Zeinab, told the paper that one of the highlights of Salman Pak's six-month curriculum was training to hijack aircraft using only knives or bare hands. Like the Sept. 11 hijackers, the students worked in groups of four or five, he explained.

Zeinab's story has since been corroborated by Charles Duelfer, the former vice chairman of Unscom, the U.N. weapons inspection team, who actually visited the Salman Pak camp several times.

"He saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors," the Observer reported. "The Iraqis, he said, told Unscom it was used by police for counterterrorist training."

"Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter'," Duelfer explained. "I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq. Like, derrrrrr! I mean, what, actually, do you expect?"

Unlike the other parts of Salman Pak, Zeinab told the Observer that there was a foreigners' camp that was controlled directly by Saddam Hussein.

"It was a nightmare! A very strange experience," the Iraqi agent said. "These guys would stop and insist on praying to Allah five times a day when we had training to do. The instructors wouldn't get home till late at night, just because of all this praying."

A second defector said that conversations with the hijacker-trainees made it clear they came from a variety of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt and Morocco.

"We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States," he added chillingly. "The Gulf War never ended for Saddam Hussein. He is at war with the United States. We were repeatedly told this."

Though the Bush administration has been largely silent about Salman Pak, former CIA Director James Woolsey is apparently convinced it was used to rehearse Sept. 11-style hijackings.

In late November he told Fox News Channel's Laurie Dhue:

"We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses - three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors - have said - and now there are aerial photographs to show it - a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives."

Another intriguing coincidence: Salman Pak's hijacking school reportedly opened for business in 1995, the same year al-Qaeda agents in the Philippines hatched a plot to hijack 12 airliners and slam some of them into U.S. landmarks.

If America's press is looking for smoking-gun evidence tying Iraq to the 9-11 attacks, Saddam Hussein's hijack school for Islamic terrorists is as good as it's likely to get."


...

> Didn't find the embedded reporter piece that sticks in my mind. Will keep looking for it.

> Not familiar with the source website. Anyone have an impression? Lunatic fringe? Reputable? Something in between?

> Some of you who are deep into this might have info to refute this. If so, post it up!
 

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
69,451
Reaction score
15,335
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
oldreliable67 said:
Nope, it wasn't west of Baghdad, it was south of Baghdad. Found something on it at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/733893/posts

"Salman Pak: Iraq's Smoking Gun Link to 9-11?

With all the talk about how little evidence the Bush administration has tying Saddam Hussein to the 9-11 attacks, we're more than a little surprised at how quickly reporters, not to mention the White House, seem to have forgotten about Salman Pak.

That's the name of the Iraqi training camp located south of Baghdad where, according to the accounts of at least two Iraqi defectors quoted in the New York Times last November, terrorists from around the world rehearsed airline hijackings aboard a parked Boeing 707 that bore an eerie resemblance to what transpired on 9-11.

"We could see them train around the fuselage," one of the defectors, a five-year veteran of the camp, told the paper. "We could see them practice taking over the plane."

And that's not all.

A few days before the Times report, the London Observer revealed that one of the defectors, a colonel with the Iraqi intelligence service Mukhabarat, had drawn an even more direct link to 9-11.

The former Iraqi agent, codenamed Zeinab, told the paper that one of the highlights of Salman Pak's six-month curriculum was training to hijack aircraft using only knives or bare hands. Like the Sept. 11 hijackers, the students worked in groups of four or five, he explained.

Zeinab's story has since been corroborated by Charles Duelfer, the former vice chairman of Unscom, the U.N. weapons inspection team, who actually visited the Salman Pak camp several times.

"He saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors," the Observer reported. "The Iraqis, he said, told Unscom it was used by police for counterterrorist training."

"Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter'," Duelfer explained. "I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq. Like, derrrrrr! I mean, what, actually, do you expect?"

Unlike the other parts of Salman Pak, Zeinab told the Observer that there was a foreigners' camp that was controlled directly by Saddam Hussein.

"It was a nightmare! A very strange experience," the Iraqi agent said. "These guys would stop and insist on praying to Allah five times a day when we had training to do. The instructors wouldn't get home till late at night, just because of all this praying."

A second defector said that conversations with the hijacker-trainees made it clear they came from a variety of countries, including Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, Egypt and Morocco.

"We were training these people to attack installations important to the United States," he added chillingly. "The Gulf War never ended for Saddam Hussein. He is at war with the United States. We were repeatedly told this."

Though the Bush administration has been largely silent about Salman Pak, former CIA Director James Woolsey is apparently convinced it was used to rehearse Sept. 11-style hijackings.

In late November he told Fox News Channel's Laurie Dhue:

"We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses - three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors - have said - and now there are aerial photographs to show it - a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives."

Another intriguing coincidence: Salman Pak's hijacking school reportedly opened for business in 1995, the same year al-Qaeda agents in the Philippines hatched a plot to hijack 12 airliners and slam some of them into U.S. landmarks.

If America's press is looking for smoking-gun evidence tying Iraq to the 9-11 attacks, Saddam Hussein's hijack school for Islamic terrorists is as good as it's likely to get."


...

> Didn't find the embedded reporter piece that sticks in my mind. Will keep looking for it.

> Not familiar with the source website. Anyone have an impression? Lunatic fringe? Reputable? Something in between?

> Some of you who are deep into this might have info to refute this. If so, post it up!
All I know is that the freerepublic is a conservative website. Other than that I don't know any better than you do. sorry
 

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
RE[ Gordontravel
President Bush never appears in front of unscreened crowds,never ! The only time he takes a chance of getting a hard question is n his rare TV press conferences.
The stilted answers by those soldiers added to the suspicions.
 

ANAV

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
wxcrazytwo said:
The whole Bush Presidency was staged. This is a freaking ruse, and I am ashamed to be an American under Bush.
Hey we agree!!! With a stupid post like that I'm ashamed you're an American too.
 

ANAV

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
JOHNYJ said:
President Bush is afraid of the American people.That is not a secret,his public ppearances are all staged.Only Pro-Bush people are allowed any where near them.Which I personaly believe it violates the Freedom of Assembly clause of the Constitution.Why the ACLU doesn't go after hm for that I don't understand.
AS I said President Bush will not appear befor unscreened crowds.
I've gone to two of Bush's speeches in Charleston, SC. The first was with my command on a military base and the second was in downtown Charleston. At both events I had to have a quick search done on me. But I was not asked any questions pertaining to my political views.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,921
Reaction score
8,685
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ANAV said:
Hey we agree!!! With a stupid post like that I'm ashamed you're an American too.

Bwahahahaha! It's too bad that some people are so feeble minded that their self-pride is determined by outside influences and can so easily be ashamed of who they are.

In the years since terrorists attacked us on our soil, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled Al-Qaeda, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a ruthless dictator who is now on trial by his abusers - not to mention numerous "famous" terrorists that have hundreds or thousands of murders on their bloodied hands.

Sounds to me like you have plenty to be proud of.
 
Last edited:

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
independent_thinker2002 said:
See, you prove my point! You, like many conservatives, love the fallacy of false dilemma. Everything is black and white with you. Either you are with us or against us. France is not our enemy just because they don't send troops to Iraq. They can be our friend and pussies at the same time. I do not oppose our military.I oppose how the non-military leaders choose to implement our military. And please don't tell me that the military is a place for the free exchange of ideas. And if you were in the military you would know that convicted felons have more rights than enlisted men.
Sugar coat it all you want.Blame Conservatives or whatever........Your true colors come to the top........You think our brave military are a bunch of mindless robots just following orders....You could not be further from the truth.........
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
independent_thinker2002 said:
This is why I never signed up for the military. I don't need to be coerced into what I think. Good soldiers don't think for themselves, they follow orders. That is why these soldiers "think" that they are protecting America.
So you must think that because I served in the military during an unpopular war under a Democrat Administration and wasn't drafted but rather volunteered for service - I was either a "good soldier" that couldn't think for myself or I was living a life at 19, 20 and 21 of illusion? I wonder if I was coerced before or after I enlisted; you don't tell me that.

I didn't realize that someone that thinks like I do and expresses myself here like I do was so far below the likes of you intellectually. Imagine the waste my life has been. Imagine all those parents that have failed you by sending their flesh only robots to do their countries work whether you agree with it or not.

But then that's it isn't it? You disagree so those that oppose you are beneath you and your decisions and assessments are the best and come from a superior mind while all others either can't think for themselves, like me, or are simply coerced. Tell me if I'm wrong but you compare yourself to millions that are and went before so I am compelled to ask - am I one of the "Good soldiers don't think for themselves, they follow orders"? Are you so much better than me?

Of course, you don't have to answer; it's one of the perks of freedom.
:duel :cool:
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
If this thread proves nothing else it proves how jelaous some of our left wing friends are of the relationship between out troops and President Bush.....

They make all kinds of excuses that don't hold water and insult the president but the fact remain that are troops have tremendous respect for him and are proud to call him Commander in Chief unlike they were for Clinton who almost singlehandedly ruined the military....
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
JOHNYJ said:
RE[ Gordontravel
President Bush never appears in front of unscreened crowds,never ! The only time he takes a chance of getting a hard question is n his rare TV press conferences.
The stilted answers by those soldiers added to the suspicions.
So you think stilted and unscreened is bad?

During the year prior to the 2004 election, President Bush held 33 press conferences where the press asked questions he had no idea were going to be asked other than knowing the issues at the time. These were both scheduled and unscheduled and the press was represented by all our major news networks and foreign reporters as well. These were 33 press conferences in 12 months and you call it rare?

During the year prior to the 2004 election, John Kerry gave one Press conference. Every other interview that allowed questioning was one on one such as The Today Show, Good Morning America or Meet the Press. These are staged events and for the most part the candidate, in this case John Kerry, has input from his campaign on the questions he will entertain or, if you will, allow to be staged.

So which is worse? A President you don't like because he is stilted or a candidate that leaves you jilted? I think this is perspective which you and I could both use.
:duel :cool:
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
Sugar coat it all you want.Blame Conservatives or whatever........Your true colors come to the top........You think our brave military are a bunch of mindless robots just following orders.
I think he was only talking about you Navy Pride? :mrgreen:
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
If this thread proves nothing else it proves how jelaous some of our left wing friends are of the relationship between out troops and President Bush.
Really? Can YOU PROVE what you just wrote Mr. Pride? Seems like your words are a bunch of BS to me. Newsflash....nothing, and I mean nothing that Bush says or does or has done provokes "jealousy" from me or IMHO, for any Democrat. Jealousy is one of those retarded emotions that mostly under educated people obsess on or write about.

So Mr. Pride (Isn't Pride one of the SEVEN DEADLY SINS?) care to prove to this community that your "jealousy" statement is true? Just because you write something, or maybe in your case, especially because you write something does not make it true.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
gordontravels said:
During the year prior to the 2004 election, President Bush held 33 press conferences where the press asked questions he had no idea were going to be asked other than knowing the issues at the time. These were both scheduled and unscheduled and the press was represented by all our major news networks and foreign reporters as well. These were 33 press conferences in 12 months and you call it rare?
Dear friend, I think you need to check your facts on this one?

Here's what I found out about the total number of SOLO press conferences Bush held during his entire first term:
10: Number of solo press conferences that Bush has held since beginning his term. His father had managed 61 at this point in his administration, and Bill Clinton 33
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0120-01.htm

Do you think this liberal website is lying and that you're correct? Common Dreams is quite liberal, yet also quite legitimate. I believe this fact to be the truth. Please prove me and Common Dreams wrong by sourcing the 33 SOLO Press Conferences that Bush had in 2003?
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
26 X World Champs said:
Dear friend, I think you need to check your facts on this one?

Here's what I found out about the total number of SOLO press conferences Bush held during his entire first term:

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0120-01.htm

Do you think this liberal website is lying and that you're correct? Common Dreams is quite liberal, yet also quite legitimate. I believe this fact to be the truth. Please prove me and Common Dreams wrong by sourcing the 33 SOLO Press Conferences that Bush had in 2003?
If you're trying to prove Bush is not very good at public speeches, you win, but that's not at issue here. The issue was, is the staging of this inappropriate, I don't think so, I would like to hear why you think it is?
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,834
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
26 X writes
If you can find any statistic or any interpretation of a fact or statistic anywhere on Commondreams that could not be interpreted as negative re the current administration, I would give Commondreams a whole lot more credibility. I have found numerous errors or misrepresentations on Commondreams and no attempt whatsoever to support the facts or opinions they put out there. They are a liberal leftwingnut group that is not interested in objectivity in any way. Thus, even if they do get it right once in awhile, I expect them to distort and misrepresent what they post and I do not go there for reliable information of any kind.

Now please explain what is the difference between a 'solo' press conference and one in any other setting in which the President takes unscripted questions?

And why should the President schedule a press conference in which the media is going to ask insulting question after insulting question with the obvious intent to embarrass him rather than allow him to explain his policy and agenda? How is that beneficial to him or the American public?
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
26 X World Champs said:
Dear friend, I think you need to check your facts on this one?

Here's what I found out about the total number of SOLO press conferences Bush held during his entire first term:

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0120-01.htm

Do you think this liberal website is lying and that you're correct? Common Dreams is quite liberal, yet also quite legitimate. I believe this fact to be the truth. Please prove me and Common Dreams wrong by sourcing the 33 SOLO Press Conferences that Bush had in 2003?
In the vernacular of our illustrious Senate floor; I thank my friend and he is my very good friend.

It seems we both chose highly liberal sites for our cites. I am refering to MSNBC and a Joe Scarborough program which could be considered leaning conservative but then it was reported in the "news/opinion" regular daily feeding by MSNBC news anchors also. Since this was nearly a year ago and since the only link I can give you is MSNBC you have my liberal source as well. Do you think a liberal media site is lying and that I or they are incorrect?

As for proving it to you I never ask such playground questions of you. I don't want links. I don't want websites although I do go see what's there whether it causes me to spend enough time to find the actual subject. In this case you could have sent me to Media Matters or MoveOn.org for all I saw on your link. However, you are right about one thing. It is a liberal site.

Your reference to "solo" press conferences doesn't take into account all those when he has visiting dignitaries from other countries. Don't discount these because the press never asks questions germain to the meeting but only pursues whatever scandal or hot button issue at hand. These count as press conferences since they aren't staged when it comes to questions asked and answered.

By the way, I am positive of the 33 to 1 figures since they were heard by me a minimum of 3 times in two days. Does your liberal site cite more than 1 press conference given to the open press by John Kerry prior to the 2004 elections? That was the other half of my post.
:duel :cool:
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
26 X World Champs said:
Really? Can YOU PROVE what you just wrote Mr. Pride? Seems like your words are a bunch of BS to me. Newsflash....nothing, and I mean nothing that Bush says or does or has done provokes "jealousy" from me or IMHO, for any Democrat. Jealousy is one of those retarded emotions that mostly under educated people obsess on or write about.

So Mr. Pride (Isn't Pride one of the SEVEN DEADLY SINS?) care to prove to this community that your "jealousy" statement is true? Just because you write something, or maybe in your case, especially because you write something does not make it true.
All you need to do is look at when President Bush meets with the troop or see the wounded in hospitals and you can see the admiration for him........No you can't because you blinded by the hate that is eating you alive for him but any non biased person can...........

Look at how the miltary and veterans voted......Overwhelmingly for this President.....

You can stat in your fantasy world an state of denial but in your heart you know its true..........


THE YANKESS ARE OVERRATED.....THE SUCK BIGTIME!!!!!!!!
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Navy Pride said:
All you need to do is look at when President Bush meets with the troop or see the wounded in hospitals and you can see the admiration for him........No you can't because you blinded by the hate that is eating you alive for him but any non biased person can...........
Funny.. I heard a lot of wounded troops refuse to meet with him.

If they love them so much why does he have to handpick certain members of the military to have a staged conversation with? Why didn't he want them going off script? What's he afraid of?

Is that non-biased person you NP? :rofl
Look at how the miltary voted......Overwhelmingly for this President.....
Have a link to the actual voting results? Not polls... the actual vote results.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
scottyz said:
Funny.. I heard a lot of wounded troops refuse to meet with him.

If they love them so much why does he have to handpick certain members of the military to have a staged conversation with? Why didn't he want them going off script? What's he afraid of?

Is that non-biased person you NP? :rofl

Have a link to the actual voting results? Not polls... the actual vote results.
A link to the wounded troops that don't want to meet with him.........Thanks

Did you even read the thread?

Here you go:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm

Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry
By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY
An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. Two-thirds of those responding said John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam make them less likely to vote for him.

I will find the percentages of how they voted since your the only one in the USA does not know.......

Why do you think the Gore campaign try to disallow military absentee ballots in 2000?
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Navy Pride said:
Did you even read the thread?

Here you go:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm

Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry
By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY
An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. Two-thirds of those responding said John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam make them less likely to vote for him.
Did you even read my post? I didn't ask for a poll. I asked for actual voting results.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
scottyz said:
Did you even read my post? I didn't ask for a poll. I asked for actual voting results.
What part of that do you not understand? Now that Deegan has posted it for you where is your link for all the wounded troops that would not meet with the President??????????

I will find the percentages of how they voted since your the only one in the USA does not know.......
 
Top Bottom