The most amazing thing to me is that there are still a few people who believe that “Mission Accomplished” was nothing, just nothing that was blown out of proportion. In related bygone news:
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]rascals’ pic and its bone-headed balloon quotes? Wanna run that one through the ‘truth machine’?
Beat that dead dog like a cheap drum?[/quote]
You are of course welcome to do your own source and fact checking, and reach any conclusion - right or wrong - that you like.
[quote]The most elaborate — and criticized — White House event so far was Mr. Bush’s speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of major combat in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people, including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush’s landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.
Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush’s right shoulder and the “Mission Accomplished” banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call “magic hour light,” which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.
“If you looked at the TV picture, you saw there was flattering light on his left cheek and slight shadowing on his right,” Mr. King said. “It looked great.”
–CNN[/quote]
Damned right. As I posted earlier, it was on the White House agenda, was curtailed in the speech by Rumsy but the banner flew nonetheless. Then twitwit reused the term while visiting a base in Iraq.
Even that lame excuse about it being the ship’s mission that was accomplished fails to fly when you consider how carefully that banner was placed. If not directly addressed after the edits, the imagery still screams mission accomplished.
What you got for your next re-write of murky 'merican history, TC? The raghead plot that toppled the Kennedys?
HG
HGC -
[quote]“What you got for your next re-write of murky 'merican history, TC? The raghead plot that toppled the Kennedys?
HG”[/quote]
Stunning from the thumping you’re getting on this?
Tsk tsk tsk…reduced to creating “raghead” fantasies? (Is that term allowed on Forumosa.com?)
Plots about toppling the Kennedys? Perhaps if it was a story about Kennedys tippling I could find some anecdotes about a drunken Teddy K. playing dry-hump with a less than co-operative cocktail waitress in an Alexandria tavern…will that suffice?
More from CNN…of all places:
[quote]White House pressed on ‘mission accomplished’ sign
Navy suggested it, White House made it, both sides say
From Dana Bash, CNN Washington Bureau
Wednesday, October 29, 2003 Posted: 9:18 AM EST (1418 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) – What was once viewed as a premier presidential photo op continues to dog President Bush six months after he landed on an aircraft carrier to declare “one victory” in the war on terrorism and an end to major combat operations in Iraq.
The president told reporters the sign was put up by the Navy, not the White House.
“I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff – they weren’t that ingenious, by the way,” the president said Tuesday.
Now his statements are being parsed even further.
Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy’s idea, the White House actually made it.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a “Mission Accomplished” banner, and the White House agreed to create it.
“We took care of the production of it,” McClellan said. “We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up.”
The banner has been used by critics of the Bush administration as evidence of bravado and an unclear sense of how dangerous the postwar conflict in Iraq would be.
Assigning responsibility elsewhere, especially to the military, is not a typical move for the Bush administration and raised suspicions among critics.
[b]Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, defended the president’s assertion.
“The banner was a Navy idea, the ship’s idea,” Chun said.
“The banner signified the successful completion of the ship’s deployment,” he said, noting the Abraham Lincoln was deployed 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history.[/b]
cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/ … omplished/[/quote]
A well managed and much appreciated appearance by the President of the USA as he welcomed home and congratulated returning Sailors and Marines.
What’s that, you’ve picked up a trick or two from the Fred Smith “black is white even under clear light” school of fumbling arse twistery? Good for you! Maybe you could now try and match that new found wit with some readin’ comprehenshun.
Believe that and you really must be as big an idiot as you appear. But I’m feeling generous today, so I’ll call your nonesense what it is and instead presume you’re just up to some good old fashioned truth twisting, flag waving, Amerikkkan silliness. Go get 'em, Butch!
HG
What a desperate thread.
-
Was the mission to remove Saddam and defeat Iraq’s army accomplished? YES.
-
Did Bush lie about wmds? NO.
Anyone who disagrees is free to prove his or her point. EVERY time someone has been challenged on this, the answer is well no wmds were discovered were they? But no one has EVER proved that Bush lied. AND no one has ever responded as to why almost every major intelligence agency of every major country was on record as saying that he had wmds. This Bush lied has been repeated endlessly DESPITE the conclusions of both the Butler and Duelfer reports. Stating that Bush lied is slanderous and a lie in itself. It reminds one of the 16 words in Bush’s State of the Union address in which he stated that the US had learned from the British that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. The British stand by that. Bush was not lying. It should NOT have been removed later.
Kenneth Pollack also cited in his recently published Persian Puzzle that it was discovered in Iraq that Saddam was far closer to developing a nuclear weapon that the IAEA believed. He cited 6 months to 24 months away from being able to do so. This was a referenced point in his book.
So I take that as you agreeing, the prez did indeed go with "mission accomplished’ and this other nonesense about the ship’s mission being accomplished is simply that? I agree.
Cheers
HG
Presidents never ‘lie’. They have people who do that for them so they can deny culpabiity later:
“The Iraq-al-Qa’ida controversy continued, even after Saddam was long gone from power. Once U.S. forces reached Baghdad, they discovered—stacked where they could easily find them—purported Iraqi intelligence services documents that showed much tighter links between Saddam and Zarqawi and Saddam and al-Qa’ida. CIA analysts worked with the U.S. Secret Service to have the paper and ink checked and tried to verify the names and information in the documents. Time and again, documents that were supposedly produced in the early 1990s turned out to be forgeries. CIA officers interviewed Iraqi intelligence officers in Baghdad who also discounted the authenticity of the documents. It was obvious that someone was trying to mislead us. But these raw, unevaluated documents that painted a more nefarious picture of Iraq and al-Qa’ida continued to show up in the hands of senior administration officials without having gone through normal intelligence channels.”
– At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, by George Tenet, p.356
60% of the American people know the truth now though.
So politicians lie spook, but you are quoting Tenet, a politician to prove that? THAT is funny. Get it?
Yeah, it’s pretty desperate all right.
That’s the thing about these Bush guys. The standard’s never too low for 'em. It can always be pushed lower if necessary, and it usually is.
Still, American rumor has it that May 1 may yet become a new national holiday, Commander Codpiece Day.
Just a good ‘ol boy, down-home, affable, self-effacing US president wearing a codpiece in a completely natural, unself-conscious way. (caveat: placed there by the Navy, natch) Probably wears one all the time while clearin’ brush in Crawford.
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”][quote=“TC”]Stunning from the thumping you’re getting on this?[/quote]
What’s that, you’ve picked up a trick or two from the Fred Smith “black is white even under clear light” school of fumbling arse twistery? Good for you! Maybe you could now try and match that new found wit with some readin’ comprehenshun.
[quote=“TC”]A well managed and much appreciated appearance by the President of the USA as he welcomed home and congratulated returning Sailors and Marines.[/quote]Believe that and you really must be as big an idiot as you appear. But I’m feeling generous today, so I’ll call your nonesense what it is and instead presume you’re just up to some good old fashioned truth twisting, flag waving, Amerikkkan silliness. Go get 'em, Butch!
HG[/quote]HGC -
You’ve got nothing…you’re reduced to hurling cheap insults.
You’re beginning to look sad.
Do try and keep a positive outlook…much better for your liver.
You want to know why? - Then go and ask them. However, whatever the answer is it does not mean that Iraq did indeed have WMDs and thus the answer doesn’t really matter. Especially not since it was the US, not the other countries, that started the war.
Funny that you suddenly care about what others say or think when otherwise it’s always along the line of “the US knows better and doesn’t needs anyone’s help”. Unless of course it’s “Mission Failed”.
So, I will take that as again proof that you have no proof that Bush lied.
So you cannot prove that Bush lied. Thank you.
So again you cannot prove that Bush lied. Also, bit rich. Saddam er sort of started the whole thing when he invaded Kuwait. He made repeated threats about reinvading Kuwait. Given that only the US would be responsible if he invaded (we all know about your precious constitutional stipulations about military deployments), I think that we were the ones to deal with the matter. Who else?
Actually, I am not sure where you got the “suddenly care about what others think.” Reread my comments. My statement was that no one could prove that Bush lied. Can you? No. Got anything else? no? Well then…
And quite frankly, I long since stopped caring what others think, particularly Europeans… Not like it would make any difference anyway. Oh, yes, I forgot you have maybe 2,000 troops in Afghanistan. Making a big difference no doubt. And NATO. Goodness me. I am sure that this is going to swing the whole thing.
Hey! How’re your efforts doing to stop Iran’s nuclear program! Let us know more how Germany is HELPING the effort! If this were not so pathetic, I would laugh, but it really isn’t funny.
So final question: Can you or can you not prove that Bush lied? Can you? It is a simple YES or NO answer. Please answer. Thank you.
[quote=“fred smith”]So, I will take that as again proof that you have no proof that Bush lied.
So you cannot prove that Bush lied. Thank you.[/quote]
That ain’t a logical conclusion based on my reply (which is not an argument if Bush lied).
Irrelevant. It has nothing to do with your question.
Very well, you then do agree that the answer to the question why the other countries claimed Iraq has WMD is irrelevant. That’s all I wanted to hear.
Fred, I am not arguing if Bush lied. Instead I am arguing that the statements of the other countries don’t mean anything if you want to determine that.
You obviously brought it up to somehow prove that Bush didn’t lie - however it does not. Nor does it prove the opposite, hence why I claim the statements (and the answer to your question) are irrelevant. Just like a lot of the other drivel you write. 
Which from this day forth, shall be known as the Fred Smith “black is white even under clear light” school of fumbling arse twistery.
Just a proposal.
HG
Did anyone lie in the entire process or were the false WMD claims just a case of ‘immaculate incompetence’ in your view?
So the summary so far is thus:
Fred Smith is saying that the “Mission Accomplished” sign was completely relevant as the mission “had indeed been accomplished”. 
TC is saying that despite the fact the White house admitted making it, it’s prominent positioning, it’s prominent timing etc etc, it actually had NOTHING to do with George Bush landing on the carrier and then declaring the “End to major combat operations in Iraq”.
Like I said earlier. Let’s keep bumping this nonsense. Well done TC. :bravo:
At least Fred’s arrogance is entertaining…
No one has proved that Bush lied about wmds. The fact is (and this is most important), the Bush administration invaded Iraq because of the “threat of wmds.” Given that both the Duelfer and Butler reports concluded that Saddam was going to restart these programs once sanctions collapsed, I would say that the threat was real even though no actual wmds were discovered. AND given that Bush said we needed to act BEFORE Saddam became an imminent threat, I am satisfied.
Saddam was a threat.
Saddam’s wmd programs would have been a threat.
We were right to remove him.
So “mission accomplished”?
HG