Chirstianity

[Guest Keith's Mom]

Actually that "ship" wasn't going anywhere at all. It was in port in thge US and was taken out to sea a few miles just for "GW's Mission Accomplished Flight Suit Wearing Photo Op". The ship wasn't coming from the gulf or going anywhere else, at least at that time. It was all a set-up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is my son's brain on drugs.

[Stixx3969]

This is my son's brain on drugs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, what did this response accomplish?

[Stixx3969]

"Carrier Air Wing 11, assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, announced that it was lending four of its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 14, currently aboard USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), to provide a mix of fighter/tanker capabilities to support coalition forces on the ground in Iraq. The first day, the Super Hornets will fly 1,700 miles with drop tanks and be refueled from tankers aboard Nimitz. The second leg of the trip will be 2,300 miles long and involve an in-flight refueling before the Super Hornets will touch down aboard Lincoln."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops...freedom_d12.htm

"Story Number: NNS030414-07

Release Date: 4/14/2003 2:12:00 PM

By Chief Journalist (SW) Tim Paynter, Navy Region Hawaii Public Affairs

PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii (NNS) -- Following images of liberated Iraqis in Baghdad April 9, news quickly broke that the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) Battle Group was relieved by the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) Battle Group, and the ships of the Lincoln Battle Group were headed home after one of the longest naval deployments since the Vietnam War."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...30414-nns01.htm

Here's a transcipt from CNN interviews with the crew after it arrived at its home port.  Note that the sailors refer to the Bush visit as an event in the past.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/06/se.05.html

"CORONADO, California (AP) -- More than 70 aircraft left the USS Abraham Lincoln on Wednesday for Navy bases along the West Coast, as the first sailors from the aircraft carrier returned to the United States.

A crew of more than 5,000 remains aboard the Lincoln, awaiting a visit from President Bush, who will address the nation Thursday evening from its deck. The 1,100-foot ship will dock May 6 at its home port of Everett, Wash."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/30/linc...g.ap/index.html

Bush landed on the ship on May 1, days before it reached its home port in Washington.

You could have counted Hawaii as the ship's homecoming.  Why didn't you think of that?

"USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) entering Pearl Harbor, 26 April 2003, on her way home from Operation Iraqi Freedom."

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/72a.htm

The time line (along with home port in Washington state) makes your claim look pretty silly, Keith.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have a buddy who's son was on the ship and that's what he said. Sorry that's all I can offer. So, you can relax now, if I was mistaken then I apologize. Hopefully you will be able sleep now.

[Strife767]

This is my son's brain on drugs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How utterly childish. Ironically, the person who wrote this is probably over double my age.

[Guest Guest]

How utterly childish. Ironically, the person who wrote this is probably over double my age.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't you have anything else to say? Everytime someone goes against you, you write that! Get a life!

[Guest Guest]

How utterly childish. Ironically, the person who wrote this is probably over double my age.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so, they're what, 18?

[Guest Guest]

God bless our President and Commander-in-Chief, George Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hopefully someday you'll learn to look for subtance and not showboat fluff, but I doubt it.

In all your wisdom why don't you tell us just WHAT mission was ALLEGEDLY accomplished and if it was why we're still there?

Remember, the mission was SUPPOSEDLY to get those responsible for 9/11, NOT destabilize the region and settle a personal score.

And WHAT of this supposed new plan wasn't called for and couldn't have been done more than two years ago? And how many have died because of the man's PIG-HEADEDNESS and FAILURE to act in a timely fashion?

God WILL punish you for blaming him for this fiasco.

[Guest Guest]

God bless our President and Commander-in-Chief, George Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact that he hasn't been impeached shows he already leads a charmed life.

[Strife767]

so, they're what, 18?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know, even if I was 9, that would just contrast your childishness even more.

Such pathetic "insults"--and they come so proudly from the "guest"s. How sad.

[Strife767]

Don't you have anything else to say? Everytime someone goes against you, you write that! Get a life!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, every time someone slings a personal insult instead of actually arguing against me in any mature or rational way, I point out how immature that person is (funny how you tell me to get a life when I am not the one making those sophomoric comments). If you want to see me stop doing that, then stop slinging childish playground insults. It'll be win-win. Good luck suppressing your childlike urges.

[Guest Guest]

God bless our President and Commander-in-Chief, George Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please God, give the man some damn brains.

He admits in November that a change in strategy is needed yet proceeds to go on vacation and talk proudly of having spent three whole hours one day talking about it?

People are in harm's way directly on his orders and he should have been working eighteen hours a day on the problem every day until a solution was fpund, not diddling around on vacation.

What a sad excuse for leadership.

[Stixx3969]

Please God, give the man some damn brains.

He admits in November that a change in strategy is needed yet proceeds to go on vacation and talk proudly of having spent three whole hours one day talking about it?

People are in harm's way directly on his orders and he should have been working eighteen hours a day on the problem every day until a solution was fpund, not diddling around on vacation.

What a sad excuse for leadership.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I heard the other day that since GW has been president he has spent a total of 365 days @ Camp David, not counting his other vacations

[Bryan]

Hopefully someday you'll learn to look for subtance and not showboat fluff, but I doubt it.

Is that why you responded with showboat fluff?

In all your wisdom why don't you tell us just WHAT mission was ALLEGEDLY accomplished and if it was why we're still there?

You mean you still don't know?

Here the mission is described:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021007-8.html

And this is the part of the mission that is not yet done:

"If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors."

Remember, the mission was SUPPOSEDLY to get those responsible for 9/11, NOT destabilize the region and settle a personal score.

The mission was never about getting those responsible for 9-11. It was about checking a regime that supported terrorism and had the capacity to spread WMD techologies if not WMDs proper.

The mission referred to in the banner on the superstructure of the ship on which the president spoke referred to the long mission on which the USS Lincoln had been deployed.

At that time, the president also noted the cessation of major combat operations in Iraq, since Hussein's regime had been crushed.

Some major combat operations have taken place since then, probably because of the actions of Syria and Iran in support of various insurgent movements.

It's arguably a different war, now.

And WHAT of this supposed new plan wasn't called for and couldn't have been done more than two years ago?

It could have been utilized, in principle, but different generals were in charge and the plan grew out of experience with enemy tactics.

It's hard to concoct a plan based on the tactics of the enemy before the enemy has a chance to demonstrate his tactics. Unless you know a good psychic?

Additionally, Iraqi forces have not performed as well as had been hoped when past plans were implemented. They have not held areas cleared out by other forces.

This plan is designed to support Iraqi troops in doing what they had tried unsuccessfully to do on their own previously.

And how many have died because of the man's PIG-HEADEDNESS and FAILURE to act in a timely fashion?

Almost certainly far few than would have died with Defeatocrat leadership.

They (not counting Joe Lieberman) still don't seem to have a plan other than "phased redeployment."

So, to review the showboat fluff:

What was the mission and what was accomplished?

The mission supposedly to get those responsible for 9-11.

Why couldn't the new plan be implemented earlier (as though learning by experience is achieved by clairvoyance)?

How many have died because of Bush?

Not anything of substance, in other words.

[Guest Guest]

  Almost certainly far few than would have died with Defeatocrat leadership.

They (not counting Joe Lieberman) still don't seem to have a plan other than "phased redeployment."

I don't know abut YOUR so-called "Defeatocrat" ideas, I DO know that your use of such an ASININE term just shows what a partisan ASS YOU are.

And by the way, a Democrat, John Kerry, said in 2005 that we needed more troops on the ground, something iy took YOUR arrogant, pig-headed, decidering, MISleadering, cowboy hero an awful long time to realize.

[Guest Guest]

I heard the other day that since GW has been president he has spent a total of 365 days @ Camp David, not counting his other vacations

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rumor has it he's actually spent almost two hours trying to think, thus the reason for his great need of vacation time.

[Guest Guest]

Is that why you responded with showboat fluff?

You mean you still don't know?

If you can't se that childish bit of melodrama on the aircraft carrier for the meaningless, BS act of fluff that it was your head is even farther up your digestive tract than previously thought.

[Guest Lyin' Bryan]

All you cowboy fans remember at least one thing.

If you can't dazzle 'em with brillince you can always try to baffle 'em with bullsh*t.

I been doin' it for years and many actually bite.

[Bryan]

I don't know abut YOUR so-called "Defeatocrat" ideas, I DO know that your use of such an ASININE term just shows what a partisan ASS YOU are.

The term sums up the views of the majority of the Democrat Party at present, as well as a few congressional Republicans.

They appear willing to bear the consequences for declaring defeat in Iraq.

You need quotations?

And by the way, a Democrat, John Kerry, said in 2005 that we needed more troops on the ground, something iy took YOUR arrogant, pig-headed, decidering, MISleadering, cowboy hero an awful long time to realize.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The present need for more troops on the ground springs from underperformance by the Iraqis--which you would know if you were really paying attention.

John Kerry's campaign rhetoric ("I have a plan") from the 2004 election cycle certainly does not take the past two years of the Iraq experience into account.

The dominant position today among Democrats is that sending more troops will make things worse.

[Bryan]

Rumor has it he's actually spent almost two hours trying to think, thus the reason for his great need of vacation time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And that's not just showboat fluff!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/12/...in2356734.shtml

[Guest Guest]

At that time, the president also noted the cessation of major combat operations in Iraq, since Hussein's regime had been crushed.

Some major combat operations have taken place since then, probably because of the actions of Syria and Iran in support of various insurgent movements.

Or...............in other words, just more proof of Bush's lies.

[Bryan]

Or...............in other words, just more proof of Bush's lies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'd very probably be a worse liar than Bush if you applied a similar standard to yourself.

It is not reasonable to hold Bush to the statement that major combat operations in Iraq have concluded when no additional operations were planned at the time.

For Bush to reasonably be accused of lying, he would have to believe that future combat operations in Iraq were intended (at the same time and in the same sense that he denied in his speech).

That's doubtful, and it's doubtful that you have any evidence at all to support a claim of that nature.

Your reasoning, unfortunately, is typical of the far left Bush-bashers who make such claims.

[Bryan]

Or...............in other words, just more proof of Bush's lies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, no, unless you unreasonably expand "lie" to mean any utterance of an untruth whether or not it is sincerely believed.

Wouldn't you be quite the liar using that definition?

(sorry about replying twice to one post--the former reply was slow to appear so I thought it lost)

[Guest Guest]

And that's not just showboat fluff!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/12/...in2356734.shtml

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You sure do know your way around meaningless internet links.

We hardly need your help to know the cowboy has vacation down pat, if only he'd do something to earn a vacation.............................

[Guest Guest]

The present need for more troops on the ground springs from underperformance by the Iraqis--which you would know if you were really paying attention.

John Kerry's campaign rhetoric ("I have a plan") from the 2004 election cycle certainly does not take the past two years of the Iraq experience into account.

The underperformance of the Iraqis has been evident for quite some to those who aren't so damn pig-headed to keep insisting they know all and aren't changing their narrow little minds like Dummy, Rummy, and the Dick.

Kerry said more troops were needed in '05, nothing to do with the '04 election.

[Bryan]

The underperformance of the Iraqis has been evident for quite some to those who aren't so damn pig-headed to keep insisting they know all and aren't changing their narrow little minds like Dummy, Rummy, and the Dick.

Some thought that more troops would help, some thought more troops would be worse. And that's still the case.

Kerry said more troops were needed in '05, nothing to do with the '04 election.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What makes you think that Kerry was right back then, but that more troops now isn't the answer?

The beauty of the Democrat criticisms is that there is always someone in disagreement that you can call on.

If Bush heeds one camp, he ignores the other by default. Thus the same number of troops is wrong, and more troops is wrong.

Maybe fewer troops wouldn't be wrong to some--until the dire results for the Iraqis became apparent.