Why lie about it? Bush trip to Iraq.

[SPG]

White House Version of Mid-Air Exchange Disputed
Mon Dec 1, 4:38 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - British Airways said on Monday that none of its pilots made contact with President Bush's plane during its secret flight to Baghdad, contradicting White House reports of a mid-air exchange that nearly prompted Bush to call off his trip.
Honor Verrier, a spokeswoman for British Airways in North America, said two BA aircraft were in the area at the time and neither radioed the president's plane to ask if it was Air Force One.

"We have spoken to the British Airways captains who were in the area at the time and neither made comments to Air Force One nor did they hear any other aircraft make the statement over the radio," Verrier said in response to a question from Reuters.

The White House had no immediate comment on the discrepancy.



Bush aides recounted with excitement last week the moment during the flight to Baghdad when they said a BA pilot thought he spotted the president's blue and white Boeing 747 from his cockpit.

"Did I just see Air Force One?" the pilot radioed, according to the White House.

There was a pause. Then came the response from Air Force One: "Gulfstream 5" -- a much smaller aircraft.

As one of Bush's aides recounted, the BA pilot seemed to sense that he was in on a secret, and replied: "Oh."

The exchange was one of the most suspenseful moments during Bush's secret flight to Baghdad, according to the White House.

With three hours to go, Bush had the Secret Service check if his mission was still secret.

"They assured me that there was still a tight hold on the information, that conditions on the ground were as positive as positive could be," he said afterward.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031201/us_nm/bush_iraq_pilot_dc&cid=1896&ncid=1480


Really, why lie about it?

[Sayhey]

It all about Karl Rove's attempt to create an image of Bush as a "warrior" President. The story is told in breathtaking detail (whether true or not) to communicate to the US electorate the "daring" of this "fortunate son" who finds himself in the White House.

edit: for those of you too young to know what a "fortunate son" is, go to iTMS and look for a song with that title by CCR.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Sayhey
... for those of you too young to know what a "fortunate son" is, go to iTMS and look for a song with that title by CCR.

For those of you too young to know what CCR is, look up Creedence Clearwater Revival.

"Well, at least you got your Creedence tapes Dude."

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by SPG
For those of you too young to know what CCR is, look up Creedence Clearwater Revival.

"Well, at least you got your Creedence tapes Dude."

LOL, thanks for the help SPG!

[IJ Reilly]

Well, none of this story makes much sense anyway. Aircraft in the air don't talk to each other, they talk to the controllers. The way I heard it earlier, the BA pilot made that call to ATC, and it would have been controller who responded with the aircraft type. All of which brings up a question I've had since the day: how did AF-1 traverse US airspace without being identified? They would have had to file as something, with a stated destination and routing.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by SPG
For those of you too young to know what CCR is, look up Creedence Clearwater Revival.


awesome

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
awesome

LOL, why do I get the impression that my totally out-of-date cultural reference is being made fun of? :D

All right I confess, I'm old (same age as Jobs) and love ancient music. It's still a great song! :p Be careful or I'll start in on Gil Scott-Heron and Marvin Gaye next! :eek:

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by Sayhey
LOL, why do I get the impression that my totally out-of-date cultural reference is being made fun of? :D

All right I confess, I'm old (same age as Jobs) and love ancient music. It's still a great song! :p Be careful or I'll start in on Gil Scott-Heron and Marvin Gaye next! :eek:

I love CCR, one of the few bands out there where I like almost every one of their songs.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
LOL, why do I get the impression that my totally out-of-date cultural reference is being made fun of? :D


nah, i'm not laughing at you. it's just that SPG's observation was spot on.

even more OT: ever listen to Big Star?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Durandal7
I love CCR, one of the few bands out there where I like almost every one of their songs.

I always took you for someone much younger than the CCR years. If you are then it reflects well on you that you can appreciate music from a different era. I like most of their songs as well. Especially when "Proud Mary" is sung by Tina Turner in a very short dress. ;)

Originally posted by zimv20
nah, i'm not laughing at you. it's just that SPG's observation was spot on.

even more OT: ever listen to Big Star?

It was and that reference is lost even by someone as old as me. Who is (was?) Big Star?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Who is (was?) Big Star?

an awesome memphis band from the early 70s. one of the lead guys was alex chilton, of the Boxtops ("buy me a ticket for an aeroplane..."), who still tours now and again. the other was chris bell, who unfortunately died in '77, iirc.

the opening song of That 70s Show is a chilton/bell Big Star song (covered by Cheap Trick). you may also remember 'September Gurls'.

chilton is one of the best guitar players i've seen live. you can get the first two Big Star albums (#1 Record/Radio City) on one CD. check 'em out.

[Sayhey]

I will - thanks for the tip.

[mactastic]

Lol, I knew what you meant by CCR! Not that I'm of that generation or anything, but I sure have listened to them a bunch.

And what I want to know is how Air Force One took off with no one noticing. I guess in the dark from a military base the only people who would know would keep their mouths shut, but you'd think someone out there would have come forward for their 15 minutes on the news saying they had seen it take off under blackout conditions and just knew the president was headed somwhere special blah blah blah. I mean a big jet like that can't go completely unnoticed on takeoff. It's not like you can keep it quiet.

Then again, once it hits a hundred feet you couldn't tell it from any other plane in the dark. The moon was pretty dark around Thanksgiving I think.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I always took you for someone much younger than the CCR years. If you are then it reflects well on you that you can appreciate music from a different era. I like most of their songs as well. Especially when "Proud Mary" is sung by Tina Turner in a very short dress. ;)


I am much younger then the CCR years. Music from that era is great, as far as I am concerned there have been few artists in recent years that come close to CCR, Hendrix or the like.

Though they've got nothing on Mozart or Holst ;)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Durandal7

Though they've got nothing on Mozart or Holst ;)

as long as we're talking music....

i got into Mozart in college. in a music class i took, i was horrified to hear the teacher describe Mozart as 'soupy.' but you know what? i eventually grew tired of Mozart's all-consonance assault and agreed.

now i'm all about Bartok, Stravinsky, Satie, Poulenc, Prokofiev, et. al.

no more soupy! :-)

[G4scott]

Originally posted by mactastic
Lol, I knew what you meant by CCR! Not that I'm of that generation or anything, but I sure have listened to them a bunch.

And what I want to know is how Air Force One took off with no one noticing. I guess in the dark from a military base the only people who would know would keep their mouths shut, but you'd think someone out there would have come forward for their 15 minutes on the news saying they had seen it take off under blackout conditions and just knew the president was headed somwhere special blah blah blah. I mean a big jet like that can't go completely unnoticed on takeoff. It's not like you can keep it quiet.

Then again, once it hits a hundred feet you couldn't tell it from any other plane in the dark. The moon was pretty dark around Thanksgiving I think.

Bush rode in an unmarked car to the airport in Waco, TX. Because there was no motorcade, not many people would've thought that Bush was on the plane. Besides, there is more than one Air Force One, and I'm sure they do routine maintenance flights regularly.

As to why they told the BA pilot that they were a Gulfstream V, they wanted to keep Bush's arrival a secret. If any news had gotten out about it before hand, there would've been people springing up all over Baghdad with shoulder-fired missiles waiting for Air Force One.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by G4scott
As to why they told the BA pilot that they were a Gulfstream V, they wanted to keep Bush's arrival a secret. If any news had gotten out about it before hand, there would've been people springing up all over Baghdad with shoulder-fired missiles waiting for Air Force One.

What BA pilot? There appears to be some dispute about said pilot existing. The question is, why embellish (another word for lie about) a story that is already great?

[SPG]

From the Daily Show:
on Stewart: It sounds like no one in the White House press corps had even a clue that this trip was going to take place...

Stephen Colbert: That's right, Jon! Gotta give the White House credit on this one. My colleagues and I are incredibly impressed by how well we were misled. And this was for a good cause. Just imagine if they were doing something they were ashamed of? We'd never find out! This just proves that we journalists shouldn't even try. Which we don't.

Jon Stewart: ...Clearly an incredible amount of logistics and foresight had to go into all this.

Stephen Colbert: Yes, Jon. This visit was an extremely well-coordinated operation. And the Bush team has learned a lot from this mission that they can now apply to the rest of their work in Iraq. For instance, when it comes to planning - do some.

Jon Stewart: That's interesting...

Stephen Colbert: Yes, this Thanksgiving trip has shown the president that a lot of the best preparation is done in advance. Unfortunately, with regard to our occupation of Iraq, we did all our preparation afterwards. And now it's a seething cauldron of death and rage. But hey! That's why pencils have erasers.

Now lesson two of this Thanksgiving trip: With respect to an exit strategy - have one. What we saw last Thursday was a president with a clear idea of when and how he would leave Iraq: Specifically - at noon and full of giblets.

From the big Lebowski:
Younger Cop: And was there anything of value in the car?
The Dude: Oh, uh, yeah, uh... a tape deck, some Creedence tapes, and there was a, uh... uh, my briefcase.
Younger Cop: [expectant pause] In the briefcase?
The Dude: Uh, uh, papers, um, just papers, uh, you know, uh, my papers, business papers.
Younger Cop: And what do you do, sir?
The Dude: I'm unemployed.
The Dude: Do you find them much, these, stolen cars?
Younger Cop: Sometimes. Wouldn't hold out much hope for the tape deck though.
Older Cop: Or the Creedence.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by SPG
From the Daily Show:

Stephen Colbert: Yes, Jon. This visit was an extremely well-coordinated operation. And the Bush team has learned a lot from this mission that they can now apply to the rest of their work in Iraq. For instance, when it comes to planning - do some.


Thanks, SPG! it took me five minutes to stop laughing long enough to reply. Maybe some the Democratic candidates could hire the writers from the Daily Show for their campaigns. I think it would help.

Thanks also for the "Big Lebowski" dialogue. I wondered where the original quote you used was from. A truly great movie.

[Stelliform]

....

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by zimv20
you can get the first two Big Star albums (#1 Record/Radio City) on one CD. check 'em out.

I've got these albums on vinyl, which gives you a hint of my age. Not the originals unfortunately, but the two-record rerelease set from the UK. I've also got "Big Star 3rd" on my shelf. Both kind of rare, I imagine. Alex Chilton became sort of a cult hero during the late '70s punk/new wave era, which also happened to be my college radio dj days (a nice time to be working on college radio). I understand a new Big Star anthology was recently released. Every 25 years or so, somebody takes an interest in Alex Chilton.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by G4scott
Bush rode in an unmarked car to the airport in Waco, TX. Because there was no motorcade, not many people would've thought that Bush was on the plane. Besides, there is more than one Air Force One, and I'm sure they do routine maintenance flights regularly.

As to why they told the BA pilot that they were a Gulfstream V, they wanted to keep Bush's arrival a secret. If any news had gotten out about it before hand, there would've been people springing up all over Baghdad with shoulder-fired missiles waiting for Air Force One.

Ok, I'm not going to repeat this again. All right, I might have to, but I really don't want to: Pilots in controlled airspace rarely speak to each other. They talk to ATC. Got it? Consequently, this whole story makes no sense at all.

Yes, yes, I know -- which doesn't mean it won't live on, and on, and on...

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly

Yes, yes, I know -- which doesn't mean it won't live on, and on, and on...

"if you're gonna lie, lie big"

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
"if you're gonna lie, lie big"

You know I think someone folks named Hitler and Goebbels said the same thing. Think Rove is taking lessons?

The broad mass of a nation...will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), Mein Kampf

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Think Rove is taking lessons?

i'm thinking of the "threat" against AF1 on 9/11. is that now commonly accepted as a rove invention, or something true but yet to be commonly recognized?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i'm thinking of the "threat" against AF1 on 9/11. is that now commonly accepted as a rove invention, or something true but yet to be commonly recognized?

Do you mean the false alarm as reported in the Washington Post?

The threat to the plane turned out to be false. Someone inside the White House had heard a threat to Air Force One, perhaps in a phoned-in call, and passed it up the line using the code word "Angel." Others thought the threatening caller had used the code word. It took days for the incident to be sorted out and weeks before the White House publicly acknowledged it.

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43708-2002Jan26&notFound=true)

I think Rove will have most people believing that Bush landed through "ack-ack" fire with one engine out before he is done.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey

I think Rove will have most people believing that Bush landed through "ack-ack" fire with one engine out before he is done.

but _we_ all know it was Harrison Ford ;-)

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by zimv20
"if you're gonna lie, lie big"

I honestly don't know where the BA pilot talking to AF-1 story came from. The way I heard it last week, the BA pilot asked ATC whether he was looking at AF-1. I wonder if anyone's thought to ask the controller who was on duty on that sector what he heard and said. The FAA also keeps taped records of all ATC communications, though I'm not sure for how long.

[G5ROCKS]

zimv20, you are giving Rove way too much credit, IMO. Don't be paranoid. He's smart, but he's not god. There were all kinds of reports on 9/11, including a car bomb at the State Department. Do you think Rove made that up? Rove, BTW, wasn't on board AF1 on the trip to Iraq, according to reporters' notes, and that's where the story started, on the plane. We should be able to admit that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

As for AF1 and the alleged converstation w/BA pilot, I didn't hear that there was a conversation with ATC. Reports I read said that it was a plane to plane transmission, but it may have just been a rumor that got repeated and circulated in the press cabin and among the staff of AF1 on the way over there. The story started on the trip over there. Ever play "telephone"? Journalists aren't much different from others in this regard. It isn't really an issue worth talking about, as far as I can tell, unless one is just looking to be critical. I agree, it will live on and on just like false stories that show Clinton in a negative light or false stories that show Bush in negative light will live on and on among various partisans.

IJReilly asked how AF1 traversed the US without being identified. What makes Air Force 1 Air Force 1 is when the president is on board. When he (or she) isn't, it's just another military airplane. It wasn't known as it went across the US that Bush was onboard. I'm sure it didn't fly without a call sign or using stealth technology. It just wasn't announced that the president was on board. There's no need to over analyze the thing.

macrastic, that plane takes off all the time from that airport, sometimes with the president on board, sometimes not. It isn't that unusual of an event there. An airplane taking off from that airport, even a blue and white 747, just wouldn't set off any alarm bells among the locals.

It's funny how that trip made a lot of people more impressed with Bush, and a lot of people more irritated.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
IJReilly asked how AF1 traversed the US without being identified. What makes Air Force 1 Air Force 1 is when the president is on board. When he (or she) isn't, it's just another military airplane. It wasn't known as it went across the US that Bush was onboard. I'm sure it didn't fly without a call sign or using stealth technology. It just wasn't announced that the president was on board. There's no need to over analyze the thing.

Yes, I realize that AF-1 isn't officially AF-1 unless the President is on board, but the aircraft the President uses aren't "just" another military airplane -- they are a few specially outfitted and designated aircraft. As a pilot with some practical knowledge of the ATC system, I was simply wondering out loud how they might have filed for the overseas trip without any controller here or abroad scratching their head and asking, "what's that all about?" I have to assume they fictionalized the tail number of the aircraft.

[G5ROCKS]

They wouldn't have needed a different tail number for the trip from Texas to Andrews AFB. They might have used a different tail number on the other plane, which they took to Iraq, but I don't think they have mentioned it one way or another.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
that's where the story started, on the plane.

how do you know that?

[G5ROCKS]

I wasn't on the plane itself, but I did read this from CNN, emphasis addeded:

"According to a pool report from aboard Air Force One, reporters were told a British Airways pilot spotted the president's plane and radioed, "Did I just see Air Force One?"

What is there to show that Rove started the scare about an attack on Air Force One on 9/11, yet you are confident of it? Confidence is easily misplaced, and imagination is a powerful force. Ususally it is a good thing, but sometimes we should keep it in check, especially when the stories we start to believe tend to reinforce our already strongly held beliefs.

Frankly, the reporters were chattering like a bunch of junior high students on that plane (if you read the reporters notes), and, let's face it, it was really exciting for them to be in a a secret like that. We really don't know the full context of how that story came about. It was known that any security foul up would abort the trip, and someone may have been having a little fun with a reporter. What starts as a hypothetical question can easily be transformed into an actual event given the right set of circumstances.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS

"According to a pool report from aboard Air Force One, reporters were told a British Airways pilot spotted the president's plane and radioed, "Did I just see Air Force One?"


once BA said they couldn't verify the story, it made me question the legitimacy of the entire "AF1 was spotted by BA jetliner" story.

the entire thing could have been invented in DC the day before and relayed to the reporters mid-flight. do i believe that's what happened? not sure. but i believe it's possible.

i want to know:
1. why no BA crew, as required, filed such a report
2. did any of the AF1 reporters see the BA flight?
3. how/why the two planes conversed w/ each other instead of ATC

if this thing turns out to be a fabrication, what would you think?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
What is there to show that Rove started the scare about an attack on Air Force One on 9/11, yet you are confident of it? Confidence is easily misplaced, and imagination is a powerful force. Ususally it is a good thing, but sometimes we should keep it in check, especially when the stories we start to believe tend to reinforce our already strongly held beliefs.


Never said Rove started such rumors. As far as I know there was a real phone call that took place. I'm willing to bet it was one of many phony threats placed by lunatics on that day. It was given currency because somewhere along the line the President's code name, "Angel" (or maybe that is AF1's code name) got falsely reported as being used by the threatener therefore giving it a more ominous character.

The only comments about Rove were directed at his willingness to use false symbols and stories to make Bush's image into what he clearly isn't. The use of the Aircraft carrier off San Diego is just such a cynical use by Rove. I would also classify the Rove inspired tactics in the Georgia Senate race to question the patriotism of a real life hero, Max Cleland as an example of the depths to which he can sink.

[G5ROCKS]

Usually, zimv20, the more simple explanation is the accurate one. Put yourself on the plane, in the press area and imagine the stories and excitement that would be flying around. It takes a good imagination to have Rove scheming back in Washington about telling the reporters about a small detail on the plane, but there isn't any evidence for it. You probably think it is possible (ie likely) because you've apparently created a god-like figure in Karl Rove. Right wingers do the same thing with left wing activists. They think that every little thing in the press is some liberal plot, but it isn't.

sayhey, it was zimv20 who seems to be confident that Rove was behind the the reports of the threats to Air Force One on 9/11, not you. Maybe you lack the imagination!

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Usually, zimv20, the more simple explanation is the accurate one.

yes, i applied ockham's razor and concluded, absent answers to my questions above, the story was likely fabricated.

you haven't answered my question -- what would you think if it turns out it was all made up?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Usually, zimv20, the more simple explanation is the accurate one. Put yourself on the plane, in the press area and imagine the stories and excitement that would be flying around. It takes a good imagination to have Rove scheming back in Washington about telling the reporters about a small detail on the plane, but there isn't any evidence for it. You probably think it is possible (ie likely) because you've apparently created a god-like figure in Karl Rove. Right wingers do the same thing with left wing activists. They think that every little thing in the press is some liberal plot, but it isn't.

sayhey, it was zimv20 who seems to be confident that Rove was behind the the reports of the threats to Air Force One on 9/11, not you. Maybe you lack the imagination!

I don't have to have any imagination to know what kind of tactics have been used by Republican political operatives since at least the days of Nixon. Rove is only the latest in a long line of hacks capable of the dirtiest of tactics and lies to get his boss elected. I gave you one of the worst examples in the Georgia Senate campaign, but you seemed to not want to comment about it. Nothing God like about him - he's just sleaze.

[G5ROCKS]

I don' t think it happened at all, just like a lot of stories that circulate, and I don't think it's very newsworthy one way or another. I think it went around like the party game "telephone," ending much different than it started. Stories like that are generally not fabricated, they tend to grow from person to person.

If I found out that Rove had planted that particular story in the press from back in DC, I would think he was pretty stupid to do that.

What would you think if it turned out there wasn't a plot to plant a false story in the press? That either something approximating the story happened, or it was the result of misunderstanding and relying information between several people?

Ever hear the one about the lighthouse and the navy ship asking it to change course? It's a great story that didn't happen, but it won't die.

[edit] Sayhey, I don't live in Georgia, and don't care much about the Georgia senate race. However, I do know enough about politics to know that unfair political attacks are not the exclusive property of either party. They're both pretty awful in that respect, but it beats shooting each other and blowing up each other's campaign HQs.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS

If I found out that Rove had planted that particular story in the press from back in DC, I would think he was pretty stupid to do that.


you wouldn't be calling for his head? should bush fire him, if true? it's beyond stupid, imo, it's manipulative and indicative of what this administration believes -- rightly so -- what it can get away with.


[edit] Sayhey, I don't live in Georgia, and don't care much about the Georgia senate race. However, I do know enough about politics to know that unfair political attacks are not the exclusive property of either party.

they painted the nearly-limbless vietnam vet cleland as unpatriotic. if there's an equivalent democratic party dirty trick, i'd like to hear about it.

[Sayhey]

I think zim's reply about sums up my feeling. Do you know of such tactics from the Democratic side? From Watergate through Bill Casey and the hostages in Iran, to Willie Horton ads, it is clear to me that it is hard to imagine the depths some Republican political operatives are willing to go in order to win. Democrats, I'm sure have done some stupid things, but I can't think of anything comparable.

[G5ROCKS]

When certain Democrats put out ads in St. Louis that the election of Republicans would lead to the burning of black churches, that was as bad or worse. When certain Democrats tried to link Bush to the horrible dragging death of James Byrd, that was at least on the same level.

In elections, crap like that happens.

It's not my job to call for someone's head in someone else's office because of the vivid imagination of someone else on the internet. If he worked for me, and planted a false story, I'd fire him on the spot, but so what?

Remember James Carville? There's not much difference between Carville and Rove.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
When certain Democrats put out ads in St. Louis that the election of Republicans would lead to the burning of black churches, that was as bad or worse. When certain Democrats tried to link Bush to the horrible dragging death of James Byrd, that was at least on the same level.

In elections, crap like that happens.

It's not my job to call for someone's head in someone else's office because of the vivid imagination of someone else on the internet. If he worked for me, and planted a false story, I'd fire him on the spot, but so what?

Remember James Carville? There's not much difference between Carville and Rove.

I don't know about the St. Louis case, do you have a link? As far as I remember the only linking of Bush around the Byrd case was his refusal to support hate crimes legislation - a very legitimate issue. No one that I can recall tried to say he was in anyway responsible for the Byrd's death.

Carville is flamboyant and says some stupid things sometimes, but he has never run a campaign like Rove or the others I named.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS

It's not my job to call for someone's head in someone else's office [...]. If he worked for me, and planted a false story, I'd fire him on the spot

as would i.

now, since we are supposed to be a representative democracy, i think you do have the right to call for someone to be fired if they've done something illegal.

[IJ Reilly]

I find myself agreeing with G5ROCKS on this one. As much as I find the stagecrafting this White House engages in to be really creepy, I know that with each administration this kind of manipulation of public opinion just gets worse and worse and more and more cynical. No matter who is president next, I have an idea they'll build on Rove's innovative media stunts, because sadly they have the desired effect.

[SPG]

Revising and extending the president's remarks. And revising ... and extending ... And ...


During the president's quick trip to Iraq on Thanksgiving, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett told the press of a scene straight out of a Harrison Ford movie in which a British Airways pilot made an in-flight identification of Air Force One and then had to be warned off the ID by some quick thinking officials on the airborne White House.
Well, that turned out not to have really happened.
Now the story is that a British Airways pilot radioedLondon, not Air Force One. But British Airways seems to be saying that that story isn't true either.
Can't we just cut to the chase and agree that it was on board the plane, as it streaked through the darkness over the misty depths of the Atlantic, that Bartlett decided that it would be a cool story to have appear in Woodward's next book?
I don't think anyone will come forward to dispute that.

-- Josh Marshall
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_11_30.html#002262

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.

Plane to plane or plane to tower, nobody will back this story up.

[G5ROCKS]

Well, no one except for the London area air traffic control people.

"NATS has now concluded its investigations and can confirm that a conversation between the crew of an aircraft belonging to a non-U.K. operator and its control center took place around 9:30 GMT, on Thursday, the 27th of November, 2003.

"The pilot of the aircraft asked whether the aircraft behind it was Air Force One. After consulting the flight plan of those aircraft in the sector at that time, the center responded that the aircraft was a Gulfstream V. NATS notes reports that U.S. officials have said that for security reasons, Air Force One had filed a flight plan which stated that the service would operated by a Gulfstream V."

Looks like I was wrong when I thought it didn't happen.

So, it turns out that the only bit of incorrect information was that the AF1 pilot thought it was a BA flight when he heard the exchange. No plot by Rove, no conspiracy, no lie at all.

[huntsman]

Saw this story on the issue today:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/04/1070351722328.html

The story also mentions the turkey that Mr Bush held when he was with the troops was just for show. Maybe if people applied zero-tolerance toward the petty things like these that mislead or deceive us, they'd be less inclined to accept the bigger lies (like the reasons behind the Iraq war).

[IJ Reilly]

What's a little artifice between friends?

Anyway, parts of this story still don't make much sense. Pilots don't talk to towers until they're a few miles from the airport, on approach to land, and on departure. Did the President land in London? I don't think so. I'd also like to know where this "London Tower" they reference is located. Is it the one on the Thames where Anne Boleyn was beheaded?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Well, no one except for the London area air traffic control people.



Looks like I was wrong when I thought it didn't happen.

So, it turns out that the only bit of incorrect information was that the AF1 pilot thought it was a BA flight when he heard the exchange. No plot by Rove, no conspiracy, no lie at all.

link, please

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by huntsman
Saw this story on the issue today:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/04/1070351722328.html

The story also mentions the turkey that Mr Bush held when he was with the troops was just for show. Maybe if people applied zero-tolerance toward the petty things like these that mislead or deceive us, they'd be less inclined to accept the bigger lies (like the reasons behind the Iraq war).

And the pictures showing him actually serving a few of them in the chow line weren't as colorful, so they didn't make the front page of the papers. The stories reflect that he did, in fact, take a short turn in the chow line serving some of the troops. There were about 600 of them there. Do you think people believed that he carved that one turkey to feed 600 troops? The picture wasn't farked. He picked up the turkey and you can see people smiling and laughing. It shows Bush comfortable with the troops and joking with them. It's a picture that makes Bush look good, and so it seems to make people who don't want him to look good upset. Amazing that people will get all bent out of shape over an undoctored photo that reflected what was actually happening.

IJ Reilly,
United Airlines allows (or did at one time) passengers to listen in of cockpit chatter during the flight on the plane's audio system. You can hear all kinds of flights getting altitude and course adjustments, even when they are in flight and not all that close to the airport. I mean, when they move from 33,000 feet to 36,000 feet, they talk to air traffic control, and they aren't anywhere near landing when they are at that altitude. Having personally heard these conversations, I think you are over reaching quite a bit much to try to say that the story doesn't make sense because the pilots don't talk to air controllers unless they are taking off or landing. Sometimes, you can even hear conversations of planes which are going to land soon when your flight is going somewhere else far away, so it's hard to see why the fact that Air Force One didn't land in London would be relevant to any analysis. Earlier, you said that planes didn't talk to each other, and, it turned out, this wasn't the case here.

The conversation was confirmed as taking place between a non-BA flight and ground controllers by the ground controllers themselves. The question that comes to mind is "why would one feel a need to discredit such a conversation?" There is no sign of a "Rovian" conspiracy, no radio transmitter on the grassy knoll. etc. etc.

zimv20,
The White House press briefing on removing steel import taxes also had the quotes read out from the NATS in response to reporters' questions. You can find it there, and, I suppose, you could contact the reporters themselves for a copy of the release from NATS, but I have copied it over as it was given to them. Here's a link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031204-11.html), but it's well down in the page so I didn't link it before.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
IJ Reilly,
United Airlines allows (or did at one time) passengers to listen in of cockpit chatter during the flight on the plane's audio system. You can hear all kinds of flights getting altitude and course adjustments, even when they are in flight and not all that close to the airport. I mean, when they move from 33,000 feet to 36,000 feet, they talk to air traffic control, and they aren't anywhere near landing when they are at that altitude. Having personally heard these conversations, I think you are over reaching quite a bit much to try to say that the story doesn't make sense because the pilots don't talk to air controllers unless they are taking off or landing. Sometimes, you can even hear conversations of planes which are going to land soon when your flight is going somewhere else far away, so it's hard to see why the fact that Air Force One didn't land in London would be relevant to any analysis. Earlier, you said that planes didn't talk to each other, and, it turned out, this wasn't the case here.

The conversation was confirmed as taking place between a non-BA flight and ground controllers by the ground controllers themselves. The question that comes to mind is "why would one feel a need to discredit such a conversation?" There is no sign of a "Rovian" conspiracy, no radio transmitter on the grassy knoll. etc. etc.

United still does this. I was on a United flight last month and listened to ATC for much of the coast to coast trip. As a pilot, I have practical knowledge of how this system works. When an airplane departs the immediate airport environment, they are "handed off" from the tower to approach/departure control, and then at higher altitudes, to the regional ATC centers. The latter two are not located in the "tower" or in most cases, anywhere near an airport. They are windowless concrete bunkers full of men and women hunching over radar screens. The flight is handed off from center to center as they traverse the country. When you are eavesdropping into the ATC chatter this is what you are hearing, for the most part.

So as a pilot, what I find humorous in yesterday's story are the references to "London tower" or some such thing, when it's obvious to me that not only doesn't this thing exist, AF-1 would never have been talking to a tower anywhere in Great Britain on this trip. All of which would be a moot point, had the White House's story on this incident not mutated into three versions (and still counting), none of which completely makes sense. As of today, the pilot from an unnamed airline who supposed saw AF-1 did so from ahead of the President's airplane. Now, that's one mean feat!

I'm not saying it's a "conspiracy," but just a ham-fisted effort to spin the event for maximum political effect, and with laughable results, especially to those of us who understand the mechanics of the ATC system.

[G5ROCKS]

The story makes perfect sense.

Air Force One files flight plan as a Gulfstream V (probably not the best choice, shouldn't they have filed a larger aircraft?)

A pilot on another plane saw the aircraft and asked ground controllers whether it was Air Force One.

ATC comes back ands says it's a Gulfstream V.

(Pilot wonders if there's something wrong with his eyes, starts thinking about early retirement, LOL).

Air Force One crew hears the conversation, thinks it's a BA flight, relates it to staff, it goes around and some details are jumbled.

It isn't a mystery, and makes complete sense.

You shouldn't expect journalists who don't primarily cover aviation and others who don't have a detailed knowledge of every element of ATC procedures to differentiate between a "tower" and and ATC center all the time. It comes from over-analysis of the story.

[IJ Reilly]

Yeah, that pilot better have his eyes examined -- they're evidently in the tail of the airplane instead of in the front of his head where they belong. The pilot of AF-1 also seems to need to his hearing examined, since all ATC calls to and from commercial flights are clearly identified by company and flight number.

Nice spin control effort, though. You're doing a better job at it then the White House.

[mactastic]

I heard Halliburton provided the turkey for the dinner/photo op. I wonder how much that cost per pound?:p

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
The story makes perfect sense...
It isn't a mystery, and makes complete sense.

If you want to ignore the obviously ridiculous assertion that a pilot somehow saw a plane behind him, yeah, then I guess it makes complete sense.

Those new 747s come with rearview mirrors nowadays, dontchaknow?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Here's a link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031204-11.html)

ah, the quote came from mcclellan. i don't suppose there's ANY chance the WH convinced the NAT to release a statement to avoid embarrassing the WH.

mcclellan also sez:

this conversation was relayed to you all to help you all have a little more color for your stories


nice misdirect. though it benefitted the WH, it's painted as a benefit to the media and the public.

now let's see how uninformed the press is about aviation:

Q Scott, so -- let me just ask you a question. The other day you were saying that Tillman said -- or at least Dan Bartlett said that Tillman said he heard the call sign, Speed Bird.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct.

Q Which is the designator for British Airways. You're now saying he didn't hear that? He just heard a British accent?


and

Q What are the legalities of filing a fraudulent flight plan?


and my favorite part:

Q So the White House has no compunctions about having misled the American people on this trip?


from what i've observed, the answer is: no, the WH has no compunctions about misleading the public.

one more...

Q So did the President then -- I mean, he made a decision that it was worth telling a white lie to accomplish this policy goal -- or a political goal.

[toontra]

Back at the turkey, UK C4 news tonight says that the bird was in fact not real at all (implying is was a replica). Not sure what their source was (what source would you serve with a rubber bird - sorry for the very bad pun).

[zimv20]

the turkey stuff, rubber or not, doesn't bug me. it's a photo op, and i expect it.

the stuff that bugs me is the lying. e.g. remember the 'Made in USA' / 'Made in china' fake backdrop thing?

link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/22/bush.boxes/)

[3rdpath]

a Meal Accomplished banner in the background...










:rolleyes:

[mactastic]

If he had emulated Hank Hill, the epitomy of the 'always prepared' Texan, he would have boarded AF1 with a turkey in hand, ready to carry it all the way to his destination.

Cooked only with propane, or in Dubya's case with natural gas.:D

"Oh my god, it's so juicy!"

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
If you want to ignore the obviously ridiculous assertion that a pilot somehow saw a plane behind him, yeah, then I guess it makes complete sense.

Those new 747s come with rearview mirrors nowadays, dontchaknow?

On my way to St Ives, I met a man with seven wives. Each wife has seven kids, each kid had seven sacks. Each sack had seven cats. Cats, sacks, kids, wives, how many going to St. Ives?

Answer: One. (me)

"obviously ridiculous assertion?" Why is it obviously ridiculous?

We have no information on the speed and heading of the other aircraft, or of Air Force One, either at the time the call was made to the ATC, or at the time that the pilot spotted the president's plane. (Which may or may not have been the same point in time) It is, therefore, illogical in the extreme to conclude that the pilot would have had to have a rear view mirror to see Air Force One "behind" him. The sky isn't like a straight railroad track with each plane in a row, unable to speed up or slow down, pass other planes in the air, or change course to go to a different destination. Then how could it be that pilot saw Air Force One but was in front of Air Force One? Well, it may have been going in the oppsite direction to begin with. It may have passed Air Force One in the air. There are any number of possiblities.

The turkey, speaking of unimportant, was real enough, but there for decoration. It is traditional, according to my military friends, to have stuff like that at the front of the chow line during holiday dinners. Sometimes a turkey, sometimes ice sculpture, stuff like that.

zimv20,
Do you seriously think that the British ATC fabricated the converstation? A simple yes or no will do. The quote came from McClellan directly reading the release from the NATS. While on the topic, do you believe in many other dark conspiracies?

Was JFK Jr. murdered?
Did the royal family rub out Princess Di?
Was Mossad behind 9/11?
Did Clinton deal drugs in Arkansas and have people killed to cover it up?

[IJ Reilly]

Ah, now it's the "anything is possible" gambit. I suppose that's why we've heard three different versions of this story so far -- because the two previous versions seemed less than plausible.

Ok, a little physics lesson appears to be in order here. The President's airplane is cruising along the west coast of the British Isles at 35,000 feet at 500 knots. An airplane that is ahead his when it radios ATC was at one time behind him, which means he must have passed him -- going Mach 1, perhaps? Not only that, the pilot of said aircraft saw AF-1 clearly enough to make out that it was in fact AF-1. At night. I think we'd need a metaphysics lesson to explain that one.

You'd better watch out on your trip to St. Ives. I think somebody may be following you.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
zimv20,
Do you seriously think that the British ATC fabricated the converstation? A simple yes or no will do.


i've not been sworn in yet.

i think it's entirely possible that NATS was pressured into making the statement. it's also possible this whole story is a distortion of something that did happen. who knows?

is this administration immue from distortion? not at all. look at the jessica lynch story.

While on the topic, do you believe in many other dark conspiracies?


not as a rule, no. if it's easier to dismiss me by thinking i do, you'll have to try harder.


Was JFK Jr. murdered?


uhhhh... yes?

[mactastic]

Not JFK zim, JFK jr. The one who went down in the plane near Martha's Vineyard.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic
Not JFK zim, JFK jr. The one who went down in the plane near Martha's Vineyard.

ah! you're right, i did misread that.

for JFK jr., i officially blame the Laws of Physics.

[mactastic]

Yeah, the laws of physics have it out for me too.;)

How's that for paranoid?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by zimv20
for JFK jr., i officially blame the Laws of Physics.

I blame poor judgment, but that's another story altogether. Or is it? (What's that weird music I hear welling up in the background...?)

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Ah, now it's the "anything is possible" gambit. I suppose that's why we've heard three different versions of this story so far -- because the two previous versions seemed less than plausible.

Ok, a little physics lesson appears to be in order here. The President's airplane is cruising along the west coast of the British Isles at 35,000 feet at 500 knots. An airplane that is ahead his when it radios ATC was at one time behind him, which means he must have passed him -- going Mach 1, perhaps? Not only that, the pilot of said aircraft saw AF-1 clearly enough to make out that it was in fact AF-1. At night. I think we'd need a metaphysics lesson to explain that one.

You'd better watch out on your trip to St. Ives. I think somebody may be following you.

IJReilly,
OK, a little astromony lesson appears to be in order here. Around 09:30 GMT is not "night" near the west coast of England. I've been there around 09:30, and the sun was shining. (Do you want a link?) Nor is there any indication on the heading and speed of either aircraft, so speculation that one plane passed another at Mach 1 or something going in the same direction is simply not valid from the information given.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
IJReilly,
OK, a little astromony lesson appears to be in order here. Around 09:30 GMT is not "night" near the west coast of England. I've been there around 09:30, and the sun was shining. (Do you want a link?) Nor is there any indication on the heading and speed of either aircraft, so speculation that one plane passed another at Mach 1 or something going in the same direction is simply not valid from the information given.

When a pilot says an aircraft is behind him, that's an indication that it's on nearly the same heading. If it had crossed his path (especially if it were close enough to see and identify), he would have reported it by a clock-face bearing. In fact, had it been that close, ATC would have provided both pilots with a traffic alert. SOP.

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
When a pilot says an aircraft is behind him, that's an indication that it's on nearly the same heading. If it had crossed his path (especially if it were close enough to see and identify), he would have reported it by a clock-face bearing. In fact, had it been that close, ATC would have provided both pilots with a traffic alert. SOP.

One problem with your logic is that you don't have a transcript of the conversation, or any information on the heading of either aircraft at the time the unidentified pilot saw the aircraft. You are reasoning beyond the data. You have even turned day into night.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
You have even turned day into night.

lol. it's not often one sees this phrase used literally.

[IJ Reilly]

I haven't turned anything into anything and in fact I've never even said the encounter could not have happened. I'm simply appreciating the humor of the White House having told three distinct versions of this story, all of them containing logical flaws. It's the gang who couldn't spin straight. Who'd a thunk it?

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I haven't turned anything into anything and in fact I've never even said the encounter could not have happened. I'm simply appreciating the humor of the White House having told three distinct versions of this story, all of them containing logical flaws. It's the gang who couldn't spin straight. Who'd a thunk it?

You didn't turn anything into anything?

"Not only that, the pilot of said aircraft saw AF-1 clearly enough to make out that it was in fact AF-1. At night. I think we'd need a metaphysics lesson to explain that one."

You are simply appreciating the humor? Well, I appreciate the humor of 9:30 GMT being "night" around the coast of England! LOL. You most certainly did say that the aircraft would have had to identify Air Force One at "night," but the report of the conversation is that it took place at around 09:30 GMT. You have actually turned day into night in your argument. Indeed, if it had been night, as you said it did, the encounter could not have taken place. It is logical to conclude that your statement that the alleged encounter took place at night implies that it could not have actually taken place, since you really can't see markings on an aircraft at night.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
9:30 GMT

should i read this in the context of a 24-hour clock? (i.e. 9:30 a.m.)

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by zimv20
should i read this in the context of a 24-hour clock? (i.e. 9:30 a.m.)

Yes.

[Rower_CPU]

If we are in fact talking about 9:30 PM, it was most definitely dark.

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=136&obj=sun&month=11&year=2003&day=1

Sunset on that day was before 4 PM.

Damn short winter days! ;)

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
If we are in fact talking about 9:30 PM, it was most definitely dark.

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=136&obj=sun&month=11&year=2003&day=1

Sunset on that day was before 4 PM.

Damn short winter days! ;)

Of course, we aren't, and anyone who looks at the timeline will know that.

[edit]:
The only way they would have been off the West Coast of England at 21:30 GMT (9:30 p.m.) on that day would have been if it took them 17 and a half hours or so to fly across the Atlantic. I've made that flight a few times, it doesn't take 17 and a half hours in a 747. Trust me on this.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
You didn't turn anything into anything?

"Not only that, the pilot of said aircraft saw AF-1 clearly enough to make out that it was in fact AF-1. At night. I think we'd need a metaphysics lesson to explain that one."

You are simply appreciating the humor? Well, I appreciate the humor of 9:30 GMT being "night" around the coast of England! LOL. You most certainly did say that the aircraft would have had to identify Air Force One at "night," but the report of the conversation is that it took place at around 09:30 GMT. You have actually turned day into night in your argument. Indeed, if it had been night, as you said it did, the encounter could not have taken place. It is logical to conclude that your statement that the alleged encounter took place at night implies that it could not have actually taken place, since you really can't see markings on an aircraft at night.

I've checked the timeline (not contained in most of the articles on the President's flight) and I agree, it was daylight (he arrived at around 17:30 local). But as you must know my objections to the credibility of the story are multiple, and you've chosen to respond to just this one -- for obvious reasons, IMO. Further, anyone who's been reading this thread knows that I have never said or implied it could never have taken place. If this is what I thought, I'd have said so. From the very start I have expressed amusement over the White House's efforts to spin this story every way to Friday, with comic results.

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I've checked the timeline (not contained in most of the articles on the President's flight) and I agree, it was daylight (he arrived at around 17:30 local). But as you must know my objections to the credibility of the story are multiple, and you've chosen to respond to just this one -- for obvious reasons, IMO. Further, anyone who's been reading this thread knows that I have never said or implied it could never have taken place. If this is what I thought, I'd have said so. From the very start I have expressed amusement over the White House's efforts to spin this story every way to Friday, with comic results.

I responded to that one because it was the most ridiculous one. However, I did respond to your other claims that the plane would have to be behind or in front of Air Force One or going a Mach 1 or would have had a traffic alert by pointing out the fact that we have no information on the heading or speed of the aircraft, and we don't have an actual transcript of the conversation. Anyone who has been reading this thread knows that saying something happened at night that could not have happened at night implies that it did not, in fact, happen at all.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
I responded to that one because it was the most ridiculous one. However, I did respond to your other claims that the plane would have to be behind or in front of Air Force One or going a Mach 1 or would have had a traffic alert by pointing out the fact that we have no information on the heading or speed of the aircraft, and we don't have an actual transcript of the conversation. Anyone who has been reading this thread knows that saying something happened at night that could not have happened at night implies that it did not, in fact, happen at all.

I will represent my own opinions, thank you very much.