http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030929/whispers/29whisplead.htm
Give me a break. If Bush’s handlers didn’t want that sign to mean exactly what it was taken to mean, it would have come down.
Talk about backwards spin.
The Lincoln’s mission was accomplished, unless you believe that resumed air attacks are an appropriate response to the guerrilla attacks and bombs.
Do you?
Y’know, “end of major combat operations” does not mean “everyone gets along, no more fighting.”
What part of “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended” do you not understand?
Let it go Reeder, let it go.
Oh please Manny. You sleeping with Bush or something?
If that were the case they would have mentioned it earlier.
Wow, that blows manhattan’s argument right out of the water. Yessiree. :rolleyes:
**
Who are they?
It’s good to know that so much of the ‘loyal’ opposition is composed of half-wits like Reeder.
I gotta go with Reeder on this one.
The dude flew onto the carrier in a war plane, popped out wearing a combat flight suit, and stood at the podium and beat his chest about how we kicked the shit out of Iraq … all while standing under a banner reading “Mission Accomplished.”
We weren’t supposed to infer the banner was referring to Iraq?
Whether the mission was actually accomplished isn’t the issue. It was hype. Fine. I expect hype. But don’t tell me, “Oh that’s not what we meant when we hung the banner.” That’s bull shit.
Earlier, like on May 1?
Your decemberesque, blog and blub-fueled idiocy does far more to put Bush in a good light than anything I (or, I daresay, he) could ever do.
Please accept my sincere condolences that you get your foreign policy information from big signs on ships.
Hey, dude. An ad is an ad no matter where it’s hung.
That’s a fact, Jack.
Were they suppose to take it down because you and Reeder might get the impression that Iraq was now considered all lollipops and chocolate covered WMD’s?
:wally’s
-LC
That dog won’t hunt.
Bush and company knew exactly what that banner was selling to the American public, and so do you.
I never even considered that it was refering to anything else until I read this thread.
And hey, I’m not all up in arms about it – like I said, I don’t mind the hype. But don’t try to tell me “Mission Accomplished In Iraq” wasn’t the message that was sold during that speech.
I’m pretty amazed people are arguing about this. Like it or not, “Mission Accomplished” was the message Bush was trying to put forward. Yes, I know what he said about the mission continuing, but HE is the one who declared major combat operations over and the war over and gave his big speech in combat gear on the aircraft carrier. The fact that there’s a convenient alternate explanation doesn’t change the impression that was given.
In my normative ethics class, we were taught that “moral reservations” aren’t legitimate. You can’t avoid lying to someone by saying “no” while secretly meaning “yes” with that word.
That’s really what’s going on here: the Bush administration is arguing that the visual didn’t really mean what the obvious interpretation means, because there’s a secret, reserved fact of the matter. I’m with Jack Batty on this.
Argument? I don’t see any argument from manhattan. I see an obtuse fool ignoring the obvious implication of the backdrop to Bush’s speech. But no argument.
Argument? I don’t see any argument from manhattan. I see an obtuse fool ignoring the obvious implication of the backdrop to Bush’s speech. But no argument.
You know, at this point, busting GeeDubya for this puny little mendacity would be like citing Jack the Ripper for practicing medicine without a license.
The “war plane” is the only kind of plane that traps on a carrier, those “peace planes” don’t have that hook thingy underneath. Formal attire is not generally recommended for wear during flight in a “war plane” as the ties get all wrapped up in the com lines. Once the decision was made to fly to the boat, his choice of dress becomes limited, and the differnce between a “combat” flight suit and a “training” flight suit includes such things as a loaded pistol, which I do doubt he was wearing (the SS man, on the other hand…). You may feel free to criticize the choice to fly out on such an aircraft, but after that, it all flows quite naturally to the style of dress.
But you knew that.
I disagree, elucidator. While this isn’t on the level of some huge scandal, it’s a pretty petty argument for them to be making, not their detractors.
Bush stood beneath that banner and said, “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
And now he’s saying, “the banner wasn’t referring to what I was saying when I was standing right beneath it giving a speech to the country.” It’s just a dumb thing to do.
If they were smart, they would have kept on ignoring it and the worst Bush’s critics could have accused him of is overblown hype. And, shit man, this is America. Land of the overblown hype.