![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
libertangoOrcinus has posted a great letter by a fellow named Pedro from Brasil regarding the odd way Americans view the world, and vice versa. An excerpt regarding Jorge and Thanksgiving:
"Take, for instance, Mr Bush’s visit to Iraq -– an apparently harmless stunt -- and try to look at it from the other side of the fence: this guy secretly flies into my country to celebrate an American national holiday at the time of the Eid, a very important Muslim date; he speaks of Thanksgiving as if we knew what it is about; he makes no mention whatsoever to Ramadan, which obviously means nothing to him; he issues advice and stern warnings to Iraqis; and he has the gall to call the Iraqis present at the dinner "our guests" in their own country."
Great stuff.
"Take, for instance, Mr Bush’s visit to Iraq -– an apparently harmless stunt -- and try to look at it from the other side of the fence: this guy secretly flies into my country to celebrate an American national holiday at the time of the Eid, a very important Muslim date; he speaks of Thanksgiving as if we knew what it is about; he makes no mention whatsoever to Ramadan, which obviously means nothing to him; he issues advice and stern warnings to Iraqis; and he has the gall to call the Iraqis present at the dinner "our guests" in their own country."
Great stuff.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-12-06 04:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-06 07:42 am (UTC)B
no subject
Date: 2003-12-06 09:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-06 09:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-12-06 09:46 am (UTC)http://www.counterpunch.com/madsen12012003.html
B
no subject
Date: 2003-12-06 11:00 am (UTC)He's nuts. Or inarticulate, because I don't understand the points he's making.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-06 11:19 am (UTC)Washington DC is GMT -5:00 (aka Eastern Standard Time)
That is, Baghdad is 8 hours ahead of the east coast US, and when it's 9am in Washington DC (or 7am in Arizona) it's 3 in the afternoon in Baghdad.
As I understand it, Thanksgiving dinner in the US is kind of like Christmas dinner in the UK - it's a big meal that you may have appropriately any time between noon and 8pm.
There was a lot that was phoney about Bush's visit, but the soldiers having Thanksgiving dinner at an appropriate time wasn't. (I assume someone got the timezones reversed, or didn't add up the timezones, or something - I've seen this meme more places than one.)
no subject
Date: 2003-12-08 08:26 am (UTC)First, we are told that Air Force One traversed the Atlantic at night, in radio silence, "blacked out" (i.e., no internal lights on, or windows draped) and showing no navigation lights. But then we get the "dramatic" mid-air "spotting" of the flight by a British Airways jumbo who radios out "Did I just see Air Force One"... and Air Force One RESPONDS - saying "No, we are a Gulfstream 5". That is the slackest RayTel security I have ever heard of.
All they left out of that concoction was for the BA pilot to say "What-ho, old chap! Lord Bosey Chalmondley-Warner of Blighty Airways here. I say, you aren't that President fellow are you? 'zounds! They wont believe THIS back at the Club! Well, must dash, old boy. Tally Ho!".
Sunset in Baghdad was at 5:00 p.m.; that coincides with 2:00 p.m. London time (sunset was at 3:54 p.m.). Using the London-Baghdad travel time of 6 hours (and reducing it a bit for the stated route), it means that in order to land at Baghdad at 5:20 p.m., the aircraft would have overflown Europe at about 9:30 a.m. Sunrise in London was at 7:50 a.m.
So Bush could not have overflown Europe during the NIGHT and landed in
Baghdad shortly after dusk. So the "blacked out Air Force One" is a myth - why would you black out an aircraft which is flying in daytime, with a FIGHTER ESCORT (a bit of a giveaway!!)???.
Sunset in London was at 3:54 p.m., which coincides with 6:54 p.m. in
Baghdad. So IF Air Force One overflew Europe after 4:30 p.m. (to make the "blacked out" story plausible), it would arrive in Baghdad no earlier than 7:50 p.m. - but then the news would not have been ready for US TV in time (since arriving at 7:50 p.m. makes dinner for, say, 9 - which is 1:00 pm. NY time... the story doesn't break for another hour or two, and nobody gets to watch it with their lunch...).
If they were over Europe at 4:30 p.m. London time, it means they would have left US soil at about 6 a.m. US Eastern time; sunrise in Phoenix was at 7:00 a.m.
In short, if Air Force One was flying in light (or "near light") then the "blacked out" story is crap. If it was flying in dark then the BA pilot story is crap. It is almost possible to keep a 747 in darkness all the way from the US to Baghdad (bearing in mind that it is only important for it to be dark at takeoff and landing), but it would be a WHOLE lot easier if you were leaving in the EVENING in Texas and arriving in the MORNING at Baghdad.
I think that someone at a subeditor's desk let slip the 5:20 a.m. arrival in Baghdad, and now there is all manner of arse-covering going on to try and keep the facade of a DINNER with the Turkey-in-Chief rather than a Turkey Breakfast at 0630... and all that is required is to keep the actual details off the TV for a news cycle and nobody will care any more...
After all, if any subsequent "expose" of the flawed timeline happens in the print media, a maximum of about 200,000 leople GLOBALLY will ever bother even see it, let alone read it; meanwhile a hundred MILLION people saw the "Abbott and Costello" moment in the hangar in Baghdad.
It is what a former press secreatary to George Bush 1 (I think his name was Tenney) said - "You can say anything you want during a debate," observed George Bush's press secretary in 1984, "and 80 million people see it." But when reporters demonstrate that a candidate misinformed, "so what? . . . Maybe 200 people read it, or 2,000 or 20,000."
B
no subject
Date: 2003-12-08 03:03 pm (UTC)Here's the "Inside Bush's Top-Secret Trip" story in WaPo, by Mike Allen.
Allen does not mention the plane being darkened until the last paragraph, the same one with the 5am typo.
So, all the stuff about the plane being darkened all the way across... meaningless.
*
Here's Allen telling of the BA pilot exchange:
"As Air Force One headed under a false call sign for its unannounced landing in Iraq on Thursday, the Boeing 747 passed within sight of a British Airways pilot who radioed, "Did I just see Air Force One?"
"Gulfstream 5," replied Bush's pilot, Col. Mark Tillman. As one of Bush's aides recounted, the British Airways pilot seemed to sense that he was in on a secret and replied archly, "Oh.""
Note the most important thing missing in this exchange -- the location. Assuming that because it was a BA plane, it must have been near the UK is a huge leap. In region, BA goes to Dubai, Jerusalem, and Tel Aviv. They also go to Delhi and Mumbai, which may or may not involve flying over the region. Using my Encarta globe, a straight-line approach for the flight goes over the northern UK, across Germany, and then over the Balkans. BA flies to a couple of different German destinations, as well as Warsaw, Prague, Sofia, and Istanbul.
There's also no time given, so you can't back calculate the location.
Notice also we're told AF1 was flying under a false call-sign, anyway. I haven't seen any direct mention of any military escort -- all of whom would have needed their own call signs -- and Allen doesn't mention one. As you say, it would've been less than stealthy to use an escort. Absent any evidence of an escort, assuming one was there is, well, an assumption. It would've upped the complication factor something fierce -- at least one mid-air refuel would've been required for the fighters.
But the point is, the BA encounter, if it did happen, could've happened anywhere en route. And there's no mention that the plane was darkened at the time (which would have pinpointed when :)
*
Then we get to timing.
If we assume an 0530 landing in Baghdad for AF1, that means it landed at 2130 Wednesday EST. It means the flight left, per Allen, 10 hours previously, at 1130 Wednesday EST. It also means Bush left Crawford no later than 0900 EST, or 0800 CST.
One quick read of Allen's article should show that none of that matches up at all -- while Allen's article does follow the "official"/CNN timeline in all respects save that last paragraph.
Not only that, but in the main WaPo story about the trip (not Allen's "inside" account, although he helped write both), we see, "Bush returned to his Texas ranch just before dawn (Friday) morning, the Associated Press reported." Again, that's in the last paragraph.
If we assume the 0530 Baghdad landing time, then all accounts say he left 2.5 hours later. He would have then left at 0800 Baghdad, or 0000 EST, which would mean a rough return to Andrews at 1000 on Thanksgiving -- which was just about when the whole story was breaking. Why not just show him, then?
If the "official"/CNN timeline is followed, they left at 2000 Baghdad, or 1200 EST. That means a landing at Andrews at about 2200 EST -- which is about what I remember, and time to do some "atta boys" in DC before stepping in proudfully and boastfully to his folks on Friday morning.
But for your 0530 landing to work, the fact remains it would require POTUS to "go dark" in Crawford 0800 or so on Wednesday -- which I'm pretty sure would've been noticed. Maybe not. But everything seems square, except for one WaPo typo. Is it possible everything was back-cleaned, and that one typo got through. Sure. The likelihood, on the other hand... {shrug}
no subject
Date: 2003-12-08 03:13 pm (UTC)As I recall, the whole "radio silence" angle came from Fox. But a silent 747 would've caused a whole hell of a lot of fuss, especially these days.
If, as Allen seems to imply, what they really did was a fake call sign -- say, a charter -- and kept radio to a navigational minimum... That would make a whole lot more sense on the inconspicuousness front.
It also explains why no one else thought it was strange, and why only the BA flight came within visual of the flight. I think you and I have both flown through some "busy" airspaces, and realize that even if you can spot a plane, it takes being close to know what kind of plane it is, and even closer to see the livery. "Busy" Europe may be, but it ain't so busy that only one VFR spotting is implausible, and as for the rest of the route (also plausible, per BA's network, as above)... Yes. Well.