Downing Street Memo

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

"Gitmo is a Russian Gulag" would win--no?

Even if someone were to actually say that, it still wouldn't come close to that "don't disrespect the Navy" nonsense.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

McCain and company closer to the middle seem to understand that... its a shame the rest of the jackasses are the ones not listening.

McCain and company are frauds. It's one thing to vote for bad policy, it's another thing to SAY it is bad policy and then vote for it anyway. Until the moderate Republicans actually start voting against policies, their rhetoric is empty.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The mission those Navy Boys accomplished had nothing to do with what you are suggesting. The banner was for their part in toppling Saddam Hussein and they did a marvelous job without *.

The hard-line Democrats use that sign against the military for political gain. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Sorry, but that's utter bullshit and spin. You don't believe that any more than anyone else. It degrades the level of debate to Bush=Hitler levels.

They put it up, they knew what it meant, they knew the message they were sending and they were wrong. Period. There is no debate unless you're a partisan hack with no brains whatsoever.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The fact of the matter is that no one spelled out exactly what that banner meant, but it is pretty reasonable to believe it was applicable to the situation at hand. He was celebrating on a ship that was returning from a successful campaign to overthrow a foreign capital. For the sailors in that battle group, the war was over. I have pretty well always maintained that the war in Iraq ended with the capitulation of the Iraqi government. From that moment on our soldiers weren't fighting a war, they were essentially enforcing the rule of law...or trying to do so. I sometimes get flack for referring to "post war" Iraq, but in reality that is what it is.

bullshit. as blakcy said everyone knows what it was supposed to mean including the peons that physically hung the sign.

So now you're arguing that our army should be the police for other nations? Excellent use of resources....

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Chubby

bullshit. as blakcy said everyone knows what it was supposed to mean including the peons that physically hung the sign.

So now you're arguing that our army should be the police for other nations? Excellent use of resources....

I think it is only bullshit if you want to protray it in a way that makes it look like someone was caught with their pants down. The administration's mistake in putting that banner up was that they failed to see that it could be used against them in the way it has. They gave the other side ammo, whereas they had avoided that in other areas. It was a mistake, but not in the way you or Blackadar characterize it.

Oh and I believe using our army as police in other nations...Yes I believe it is an excellent use of resources. It could have worked in Somalia. It did work in Serbia and Kosovo. It's working to some degree in Iraq, althought the resistance to progress is stiffer there than in other countries. Oh and I think we should be doing the same thing in The Sudan.

[John Galt]

Arles, apparently your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds. Your track record is horrendous after citing an admitted defamer, but this is a new low. Just admit you made a mistake rather than providing post hoc distinctions and pretending I'm slurring you. Here is your original post in full from March 27, 2003 from this thread, http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=7021:

Originally Posted by Arles

This story is a joke. Ricks has been anti-war, anti-administration and anti-Rumsfeld since day 1. Essentially, this is an opinion piece "masked" as a legitimite news story.

He doesn't have one quote in the entire story giving credence to the idea that the war will last months. Instead, he writes a couple unnamed "senior officials" said it could last longer than expected. His top quote of the story (and should be the most supportive quote, according to journalistic style) is:

"Tell me how this ends," one senior officer said today.

There are over 20,000 US miliary "officials" that Ricks could have talked with. And, undoubtably, some of these officials are fairly pesimistic on the war, for whatever reason.

With the exception of the blatently Anti-War McCaffrey, there is no quote by any listed official that even hints at this war taking months. Most regard certain tactical issues that most conceded weeks ago, and are just a part of any war situation.

This story is a disgrace. Essentially, the Post grabbed a few ambiguous quotes from "unknown officials", quoted a very vocal anti-war retired general and shaped generic pentagon quotes into the story they wanted.

Remember, the post is also the paper that projected a long, drawn out "quagmire" war in Afghanistan and 15,000 US casualties in the first gulf war. There were also guised as "news stories" with no direct coraboration. I would take this story with about a pound of salt.

Also, to the length of the war. I don't know of anyone that gave an physical length in the administration. Some people said things like "easy" and "it shouldn't be that long". Now, the first Gulf War is viewed as one of the easiest and shortest wars in history. In that conflict, it took 43 days and had 300 US casualties.

So, if that's your reference point for "easiest", then I would say an "easy or short" war would be 1-2 months with 500-800 casualties. And, the current conflict should fall pretty close to those numbers.

It's almost like when someone says "short and easy", the press thinks this means a week with no casualties. And that is completely unrealistic.

I think the whole thing just makes you look worse than the part I quoted.

Then, this was your second post on May 25, 2004, in this thread, http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...d.php?t=25917:

Originally Posted by Arles

I guess my question is what was your expectation for this Iraqi war? It seems to me that much of the media and some of the citizens felt this would be a 4-5 month "skirmish" with few lives lost and a completely changed Iraq in a year. I don't know that the expectations people had for this were realistic.

Again, going into a country like Iraq and uprooting its regime and completely changing its form of government is a pretty big undertaking. And to think it would take less than a year and with only a handful of lives lost seems unrealistic to me. And maybe that's the difference. We live in a soundbite nation and expect immediate results on everything - including war.

To summarize, in 2003 you said:

1) Iraq will not be a quagmire.
2) The war would likely be 1-2 months.
3) The media was being crazy by arguing the war would be long.

In 2004, you said:

1) It was unrealistic to believe the war would be less than a year.
2) The media was being crazy in 2003 by arguing the war would be short.

You now say that in 2003, you were only talking about the invasion and toppling of Saddam. And in 2004, you are asserting you were describing the whole rebuilding process. I leave it to any readers to decide if your distinction is justified by your words and the threads they are contained in (as opposed to a post hoc rationalization that isn't supported by your words).

I would point out, though, that later in the 2003 thread, you said: "If we oust Sadaam and liberate the Iraqi people, I would think that hatred would subside a great deal, wouldn't you?" That sure sounds like you thought toppling Saddam would pretty much calm things down, doesn't it?

Arles, people make mistakes and that is ok. They recognize those mistakes, admit them, and move on. Hacks, on the other hand, make mistakes, but never admit them. And Arles, you are looking to be a hack without any hope for redemption.

[John Galt]

As to the actual substance of this thread, Bush continues to link 9/11 to the Iraq invasion. From his June 18th radio address defending the invasion of Iraq, he said:

"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens."

Of course, the apologists will continue to say he didn't say the Iraqi invasion specifically, but was talking about the entire war on terror. However, if you look at the whole speech, you will see that he was talking about the Iraqi war, but was non-specific in this sentence. If you support the apologist technically-viable, but contextually-unsound view of that speech, you really will defend anything.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think it is only bullshit if you want to protray it in a way that makes it look like someone was caught with their pants down. The administration's mistake in putting that banner up was that they failed to see that it could be used against them in the way it has. They gave the other side ammo, whereas they had avoided that in other areas. It was a mistake, but not in the way you or Blackadar characterize it.

Again, bullshit. The damn speech he made leaves little doubt as to the intent of the banner.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030501-15.html

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended".

And, of course, this "Navy" banner was designed, paid for and contracted by the White House.

Not to mention that Ari Fleisher, Bush's own SPOKESPERSON, debunked the Navy myth a year later with this quote. "We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein."

So which is it? Or is this a multiple choice test?

[Blackadar]

Oh, and Bush's Mission Accomplished speech leaves little doubt as well.

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on."

That ONE phrase leaves little doubt about Bush linking Iraq to 9/11.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Gault

To summarize, in 2003 you said:

1) Iraq will not be a quagmire.
2) The war would likely be 1-2 months.
3) The media was being crazy by arguing the war would be long.

John, you are failing once again distinguish between comments made on the military effort to remove Saddam Hussein and the actions needed to restore Iraq into a new representative government capable of defending itself. The discussion in March of 2003 was focused entirely on the effort needed to remove Saddam and take Baghdad. I hadn't even begun discussing the post-war nation building that would need to happen at that point. Remember, in March of 2003, everyone was just hoping to capture Saddam without him fleeing or the US leaving early like it did in Gulf War I.

In 2004, you said:

1) It was unrealistic to believe the war would be less than a year.
2) The media was being crazy in 2003 by arguing the war would be short.

In early 2003, the "Iraq war" meant removing Saddam from power and defeating Baghdad. In the fall of the 2004, the "Iraq war" had morphed into the entire effort to rebuild Iraq and get to the point where US troops would leave and return home.

In order for people to believe your claim is correct, they would have to believe I honestly thought that it would take 1-2 months to completely defeat Saddam, institute a new government, help rebuild the Iraq economy and get Iraq to a point of self-sufficiency back in 2003. That is completely rediculous and most people with half a brain would see in the context of the original post that my comments were strictly geared towards the attack on Baghdad and defeat of Saddam's regime.

I would point out, though, that later in the 2003 thread, you said: "If we oust Sadaam and liberate the Iraqi people, I would think that hatred would subside a great deal, wouldn't you?" That sure sounds like you thought toppling Saddam would pretty much calm things down, doesn't it?

I think the elections that were held and the participations of the Sunnis in the process show that much of the hatred by Iraqis towards the US has indeed subsided. But, what I did not account for is that massive amount of foreign fighters that have fled places like Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and other spots to help reinforce the dwindling number of native Iraqi in the insurgency. And, I do think you can put some blame on the Bush administration for not taking stronger actions to secure the Iraqi border on this issue.

But thinking the hatred would subside and thinking that the rebuilding process would be "easy" are not even in the same ballpark. John, read the premise for each of the threads you lifted the comments from and I think you will have a better understanding of the arguments I was making.

Heck, if you have enough time to skower the FOFC board history looking for every comment I've made over the past three years, you certainly have enough time to read them in context before jumping to conclusions.

Now, I will certainly admit that I had hoped the post-war effort would have gone much smoother than it has. And I also admit that the Bush Administration has made numerous errors in post-war leadership that have exposed certain flaws in their plan to establish a free Iraq. But, this isn't something that is done everyday and history shows how difficult a process rebuilding a major country after a regime change (and war) can be.

But, John, I agree. We should let everyone read the comments in context and decide whether:

A. I felt that Iraq would be changed from a Saddam-run dictatorship to a democratic form of government in 2-3 months - in which case you are correct.

B. The context of the term meant by "Iraq war" changed drastically from 2003 to 2004. In 2003, the sole focus by myself (and many others) was removing Saddam, his regime and capturing Baghdad. Something I felt would take a couple months (as it did). Then, in 2004, the "Iraq war" morphed to include the effort to also change the regime and institute a new government - something that was going to take much longer.

I think anyone with any degree of intellectual honesty will see that item B is much more representative of my statements from March of 2003 to 2004 than A is. If people want to be critical of certain aspects of my prior arguments, you could certainly look at my confidence that WMD would be found or my claims that the administration had a very good plan for the post-war period (early on). But to take two statements out of two entirely different threads (one on the assault on Baghdad and the other on the rebuilding of Iraq) and jump to conclusion A would be quite a stretch (I would think) for most of the fair-minded people on this board (be it from the left or right).

[John Galt]

Arles, your continued defense is ridiculous and I can only leave it to other readers to decide (if anyone actually cares). You really have no credibility left in my eyes. If you had just admitted you were wrong, it would have been fine, but instead you deny, deny, deny. The post hoc story isn't supported by your words or the threads in their entirety.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Arles, your continued defense is ridiculous and I can only leave it to other readers to decide (if anyone actually cares). You really have no credibility left in my eyes.

John, it really hurts me to hear you say that. My sole purpose on this message board is to have credibility in the eyes of someone who has little credibility even with the people on his own side of the political aisle. I will survive without your blessing.

If you had just admitted you were wrong, it would have been fine, but instead you deny, deny, deny. The post hoc story isn't supported by your words or the threads in their entirety.

If that's the case, John, then people will think you are right and nothing else will need to be said by you. We'll see if you agree with that and move on or keep realizing that your comments were not completely accurate and continue to push this idea that I felt Iraq would go from a repressive dictatorship to a full-fledged representative government in "1-2 months".

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Again, bullshit. The damn speech he made leaves little doubt as to the intent of the banner.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030501-15.html

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended".

...

You are correct. It leaves little doubt about the intent of the sign. It is exactly what I said it was, a celebration of the fact that "Major Combat operations in Iraq have ended", the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

More from the speech on the deck of that carrier.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. (Applause.)

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq

Again you are absolutely right, the speech leaves little doubt as to the intent of the banner.

[Blackadar]

Sorry Arles, but you look like you're putting "spin" on statements you made months or years ago. It's pretty pathetic. Take this statement for example:

In early 2003, the "Iraq war" meant removing Saddam from power and defeating Baghdad. In the fall of the 2004, the "Iraq war" had morphed into the entire effort to rebuild Iraq and get to the point where US troops would leave and return home.

Do you really think that those weren't one and the same back in 2003? Or did you think that we should remove Saddam and leave immediately?

Why not just admit you were wrong? It's obvious to all that you were, so grow some balls and admit it. Geezus, Clinton was more forthcoming about his BJ than you are about this.

[Blackadar]

Oh, and another Bush excerpt that links Iraq and Al Qaeda together.

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."

Of course, apologists like Arles and Glen will continue to try to say that Bush didn't ever try to link Iraq and Al Qaeda or Iraq and 9/11...

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Sorry Arles, but you look like you're putting "spin" on statements you made months or years ago. It's pretty pathetic. Take this statement for example:

In early 2003, the "Iraq war" meant removing Saddam from power and defeating Baghdad. In the fall of the 2004, the "Iraq war" had morphed into the entire effort to rebuild Iraq and get to the point where US troops would leave and return home.

Do you really think that those weren't one and the same back in 2003? Or did you think that we should remove Saddam and leave immediately?

To be honest, I completely seperated the efforts. I look at "the war" as the actual effort needed to be remove Saddam and take Baghdad. I think looked on the next stage as "the reconstruction" and didn't have much of a clue on how long it would take. But, I most certainly didn't think the reconstruction would take a few months. Perhaps I should have included that in my early rhetoric.

Why not just admit you were wrong? It's obvious to all that you were, so grow some balls and admit it. Geezus, Clinton was more forthcoming about his BJ than you are about this.

OK, I was wrong.

[Chubby]

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."

We are? Could have fooled me

"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq"

What coalition? We've set up a democracy so why haven't we left?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

...

Do you really think that those weren't one and the same back in 2003? Or did you think that we should remove Saddam and leave immediately?
...

I know this was addressed to Arles, but for me. I considered the "war" over when Baghdad fell, or shortly thereafter at least. Call it the war or Major Combat Operations or whatever...that phase was completed, and we were left to secure and rebuild Iraq. I mean face it, we are in Post War Iraq. I've been very critical of the Administration for the initial handling of post war Iraq.

Twisting that banner out of context doesn't win any points in my book. There are plenty of things this president has done that are worthy of criticism. That banner really isn't one of them.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You are correct. It leaves little doubt about the intent of the sign. It is exactly what I said it was, a celebration of the fact that "Major Combat operations in Iraq have ended", the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

More from the speech on the deck of that carrier.

Again you are absolutely right, the speech leaves little doubt as to the intent of the banner.

Thank you for supporting my assertion that the banner just applying to that one Navy carrier or battle group was bunk. Of course, you tried to argue above that "the sailors in that battle group, the war was over." Which is it?

The apolgists need to learn about Occam's Razor. When multiple explanations, the simplest version is preferred and usually correct. It's pretty simple to connect the dots here without these outlandish explanations and spin that Arles and Glen would believe.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Oh, and another Bush excerpt that links Iraq and Al Qaeda together.

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."

Of course, apologists like Arles and Glen will continue to try to say that Bush didn't ever try to link Iraq and Al Qaeda or Iraq and 9/11...

Actually I'd say this is where I got off of the administration bandwagon. I disagreed with their equating of the "war in Iraq" to "war on terror". My contention was that it that change in rhetoric didn't occur until after the invasion. My contention was that Bush didn't claim overtly or otherwise that Iraq was involved in the events of September 11th as a reason for war.

I'm equally critical of the President's characterization above, but then by this time they'd discovered that they could shift money around freely if they declared that Iraq was part of the war on terror all along.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Thank you for supporting my assertion that the banner just applying to that one Navy carrier or battle group was bunk. Of course, you tried to argue above that "the sailors in that battle group, the war was over." Which is it?

The apolgists need to learn about Occam's Razor. When multiple explanations, the simplest version is preferred and usually correct. It's pretty simple to connect the dots here without these outlandish explanations and spin that Arles and Glen would believe.

I NEVER in this thread or anywhere else said that that banner applied only to the navy or the sailors in that battle group. When I did mention the sailors, I also mentioned that I believed that the "war" had ended, the invasion was over.

I think you should read the President's speech, delivered there in front of that banner, and apply Occam's razor. To me you will see that he is clearly talking about completing the first major phase of the mission, and talks of more work to be done over a period of time in Iraq. According to Occam's razor..the banner probably had something to do with the President's message that day.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I know this was addressed to Arles, but for me. I considered the "war" over when Baghdad fell, or shortly thereafter at least. Call it the war or Major Combat Operations or whatever...that phase was completed, and we were left to secure and rebuild Iraq. I mean face it, we are in Post War Iraq.

First of all, I think this is a myopic viewpoint. As we learned from the former Yugoslavia, the removal of a dictator who supressed sectarian violence is followed by sectarian violence. This, combined with Al-Qaeda's stated intent to make inroads to Iraq more or less guaranteed a drawn-out post-Invasion "war".

Secondly, I think it's insulting to the men & women serving in Iraq to tell them they're not involved in a war. You know, it's not as if they're all holed up in nice, clean bases, waiting to come home. They're conducting significant combat operations, patrolling through dangerous territory regularly, and just as regularly getting blown up by IEDs.

This is a War. The enemy is a guerilla force who wants us to leave the country and the region. You people need to accept this.

Now, for a lighter viewpoint:

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I NEVER in this thread or anywhere else said that that banner applied only to the navy or the sailors in that battle group. When I did mention the sailors, I also mentioned that I believed that the "war" had ended, the invasion was over.

I think you should read the President's speech, delivered there in front of that banner, and apply Occam's razor. To me you will see that he is clearly talking about completing the first major phase of the mission, and talks of more work to be done over a period of time in Iraq. According to Occam's razor..the banner probably had something to do with the President's message that day.

next you'll be telling us that "Mission Accomplished" only applied to one specifc mission or something right? I can see it now..."Operation Grapefuit was a success in that we transported a box of guns to our troops, Mission Accomplished!"

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Chubby

next you'll be telling us that "Mission Accomplished" only applied to one specifc mission or something right? I can see it now..."Operation Grapefuit was a success in that we transported a box of guns to our troops, Mission Accomplished!"

Read the Damn Speech. It describes exactly what the celebration/moment was about. The president went there to declare an end to "Major Combat Operations".

Furthermore, I'm not denegrating our troops one little bit. Well at least that isn't my intent. They are serving our country, and doing so honorably. It is just in my opinion they are now a security force conducting security operations and not an invading army conducting a war. That isn't to say that there aren't battlefields and battles. It is just that the goals are different.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Read the Damn Speech. It describes exactly what the celebration/moment was about. The president went there to declare an end to "Major Combat Operations".

Furthermore, I'm not denegrating our troops one little bit. Well at least that isn't my intent. They are serving our country, and doing so honorably. It is just in my opinion they are now a security force conducting security operations and not an invading army conducting a war. That isn't to say that there aren't battlefields and battles. It is just that the goals are different.

Troops still in Iraq? Check.
Troops still dying in Iraq? Check.
Troops still involved in major combat operations? Check.
Troops still battling a well-funded and organized opponent? Check.
Troops still fighting Iraqis? Check.
Troops still fighting an anticipated opponent in Iraq? Check.
Troops still getting funding for Iraqi operations from the American taxpayer? Check.

Mission Accomplished? Nope.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

...

Mission Accomplished? Nope.

Say what you will, but the banner was what it was, and not what you are spinning it to be. View it in light of the speech spoken in front of it, and you really shouldn't be able to deny that. Occam's razor and all.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Say what you will, but the banner was what it was, and not what you are spinning it to be. View it in light of the speech spoken in front of it, and you really shouldn't be able to deny that. Occam's razor and all.

It's so easy to change your position, isn't it Glen? First, you said the banner applied to just that battle group.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The fact of the matter is that no one spelled out exactly what that banner meant, but it is pretty reasonable to believe it was applicable to the situation at hand. He was celebrating on a ship that was returning from a successful campaign to overthrow a foreign capital. For the sailors in that battle group, the war was over.

Now you're arguing that it was not just for the sailors in that battle group, it was for the overthrow of Saddam.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The president went there to declare an end to "Major Combat Operations".

Which is it? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to spin it whichever way is convenient.

Of course, the Administration first argued as Arles is - that it applied only to the sailors of that ship. Then later they argued that it was for just one part of the war - the overthrow of Saddam. SO ONE OF THOSE IS A LIE. Just like your positions above aren't consistent either.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

It's so easy to change your position, isn't it Glen? First, you said the banner applied to just that battle group.



Now you're arguing that it was not just for the sailors in that battle group, it was for the overthrow of Saddam.



Which is it? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to spin it whichever way is convenient.

Of course, the Administration first argued as Arles is - that it applied only to the sailors of that ship. Then later they argued that it was for just one part of the war - the overthrow of Saddam. SO ONE OF THOSE IS A LIE. Just like your positions above aren't consistent either.

You realize that I said just a few posts ago, that I NEVER claimed that the banner applied only to the people on that ship. You cleverly sniped a portion of the only post where I mention the sailors, but you really should have included the next sentence of that post, where I talk about the invasion/overthrow being succesfully completed.

My position remains unaltered, the banner was part of the President's declaration of the end of Major Combat Operations in Iraq. I have always thought the "spin" applied to the now infamous banner was disengenuous, and still do. View it in the context it was presented in, and there is nothing wrong with it.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You realize that I said just a few posts ago, that I NEVER claimed that the banner applied only to the people on that ship. You cleverly sniped a portion of the only post where I mention the sailors, but you really should have included the next sentence of that post, where I talk about the invasion/overthrow being succesfully completed.

My position remains unaltered, the banner was part of the President's declaration of the end of Major Combat Operations in Iraq. I have always thought the "spin" applied to the now infamous banner was disengenuous, and still do. View it in the context it was presented in, and there is nothing wrong with it.

What you wrote is what I quote!

By the way, YOU don't get to pick the the context of the banner. The Administration did and either you support that context or you don't. Given that we knew that the overthrow was going to be the EASY part of this mission, to say the mission was accomplished is disengenuous. All you are doing is attempting to spin this, much like the Administration did. Either they were lying then, or they are lying now. So you are either supporting their lies or not. There really is no two ways about it.

[Flasch186]

my only problem with this is after the day occurred, the Admin. distanced themselves from the banner, claimed it was unapproved, and then blamed it on "one" overzealous [sailor]....again, I just wish they would admit stuff, "We obviously misjudged." I might scoff at the moment, but then I'd say, "good for them. They admitted it...now go get 'em." then they should go get 'em.

[Dutch]

Read the Damn Speech.

Point...Glengoyne.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

my only problem with this is after the day occurred, the Admin. distanced themselves from the banner, claimed it was unapproved, and then blamed it on "one" overzealous [sailor]....again, I just wish they would admit stuff, "We obviously misjudged." I might scoff at the moment, but then I'd say, "good for them. They admitted it...now go get 'em." then they should go get 'em.

I'm not saying that it wasn't a political mistake to put the banner up. It opened them up to disingenuous bumper sticker political attacks, just like the ones in this thread. I really didn't follow how the administration handled the criticism over the banner, because I saw the criticism as petty and disingenuous politics. They shouldn't have tried to disavow it, they should have stood up for it. It was a mistake to put up that banner, but not in the manner in which it is portrayed. It was a political mistake.

I've never needed help interpreting the banner, nor the president's presence on that carrier. He went there, under much publicity and criticism, to announce the end of major combat operations in Iraq. He said at the time, in the speech, that there was much work to be done in Iraq. He never said we were finished there. The message delivered was absolutely to the contrary in fact. It was a "You've done a great job so far, but there is still much to be done" speech.

This thread has made me actually wonder enough about how the Administration handled the controversy regarding the banner to make me want to actually look into it. I'll avoid the Urban Legend Political Sites that say Bush was declaring Iraq was ready to turn over to the locals.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm not saying that it wasn't a political mistake to put the banner up. It opened them up to disingenuous bumper sticker political attacks, just like the ones in this thread. I really didn't follow how the administration handled the criticism over the banner, because I saw the criticism as petty and disingenuous politics. They shouldn't have tried to disavow it, they should have stood up for it. It was a mistake to put up that banner, but not in the manner in which it is portrayed. It was a political mistake.

I've never needed help interpreting the banner, nor the president's presence on that carrier. He went there, under much publicity and criticism, to announce the end of major combat operations in Iraq. He said at the time, in the speech, that there was much work to be done in Iraq. He never said we were finished there. The message delivered was absolutely to the contrary in fact. It was a "You've done a great job so far, but there is still much to be done" speech.

This thread has made me actually wonder enough about how the Administration handled the controversy regarding the banner to make me want to actually look into it. I'll avoid the Urban Legend Political Sites that say Bush was declaring Iraq was ready to turn over to the locals.

are you looking into it...i'd be interested to see what you find....I believe, in layman's terms, I hit the nail on the head in my recap portion.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

My position remains unaltered, the banner was part of the President's declaration of the end of Major Combat Operations in Iraq. I have always thought the "spin" applied to the now infamous banner was disengenuous, and still do. View it in the context it was presented in, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Ah. So there are no longer any Major Combat Operations in Iraq? Or to be even more accurate: there were no Major Combat Operations in Iraq after that speech?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Twisting that banner out of context doesn't win any points in my book. There are plenty of things this president has done that are worthy of criticism. That banner really isn't one of them.

Glen, I can't speak for anyone else, but the problem I have always had with the 'Mission Accomplished' banner is that Bush taking the jet out to the aircraft carrier was an obvious photo op, that he declared victory when there was still much work to be done, and that he didn't seem to do any planning for that post-war period. It fits together with the general perception that I have had that the Bush administration did not care about what they were going to do with Iraq once the bombs stopped flying, a perception that has been backed up once again by the DSM's. I don't think it would be nearly as insulting to me if it looked like they hit the ground running with any kind of actual post-war plan. But they ran around like chickens with their heads cut off and it cost American lives and American capital, not to mention Iraqi lives and capital.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Point...Glengoyne.

Only because obviously you haven't read it.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Glen, I can't speak for anyone else, but the problem I have always had with the 'Mission Accomplished' banner is that Bush taking the jet out to the aircraft carrier was an obvious photo op, that he declared victory when there was still much work to be done, and that he didn't seem to do any planning for that post-war period. It fits together with the general perception that I have had that the Bush administration did not care about what they were going to do with Iraq once the bombs stopped flying, a perception that has been backed up once again by the DSM's. I don't think it would be nearly as insulting to me if it looked like they hit the ground running with any kind of actual post-war plan. But they ran around like chickens with their heads cut off and it cost American lives and American capital, not to mention Iraqi lives and capital.

You won't find me defending the administration's record in post-war Iraq. Hell I'm still disappointed with their decision to go in without waiting for the Division that was supposed to route through Turkey to join the fight in the south. I still think that decision left our supply lines with little to no protection, and needlessly cost lives. I'm also not discounting the likelyhood that the Admin "misunderestimated" how entrenched and resiliant the resistance movement would become.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Ah. So there are no longer any Major Combat Operations in Iraq? Or to be even more accurate: there were no Major Combat Operations in Iraq after that speech?

Well I think it is largely a technical point, but no. Major Combat Operations as used in the context we are discussing involve the maneuver of troops and divisions, the need to establish and secure supply lines, coordination of air support, and the goal to take objectives and real estate.

Those things still happen to some degree in post war Iraq, but essentially our troops are security forces now. As I said before that doesn't mean that there aren't battle grounds or battles. It just means the objectives and the situation in which those battles are occuring are fundamentally different than before the Government of Iraq fell.

That doesn't mean that someone couldn't rightly still describe what is going on now as combat operations. I'm saying that when Bush declared an end to Major Combat Operations in Iraq, he was saying that we had successfully defeated Iraq's army, taken their capital, and the like. I don't think there were many who interpreted that announcement any other way at the time.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Only because obviously you haven't read it.

Actually I'm beginning to think that if you have actually read the speech, Blackie, and come the the conclusions that you have, that you probably need to do some work on your reading comprehension.

-He announced an end to major combat operations in Iraq(Mission Accomplished).
-He said there was still a lot of work to do in Iraq.
-He said it would take a lot of time and effort.

Not once did he say we were done(Mission Accomplished) as you are suggesting.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well I think it is largely a technical point, but no. Major Combat Operations as used in the context we are discussing involve the maneuver of troops and divisions, the need to establish and secure supply lines, coordination of air support, and the goal to take objectives and real estate.

Those things still happen to some degree in post war Iraq, but essentially our troops are security forces now. As I said before that doesn't mean that there aren't battle grounds or battles. It just means the objectives and the situation in which those battles are occuring are fundamentally different than before the Government of Iraq fell.

That doesn't mean that someone couldn't rightly still describe what is going on now as combat operations. I'm saying that when Bush declared an end to Major Combat Operations in Iraq, he was saying that we had successfully defeated Iraq's army, taken their capital, and the like. I don't think there were many who interpreted that announcement any other way at the time.

This phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Not to mention the fact that I don't think anyone who participated in the Battle of Falluja would be too happy with their role being characterized as mere security enforcement.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

This phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Not to mention the fact that I don't think anyone who participated in the Battle of Fallujah would be too happy with their role being characterized as mere security enforcement.

I mean the troops serving in harms way no disrespect, but what they are doing is the work of a security force. I think they are pretty well aware of that, so I don't think they'd consider it a slight(or would it be sleight?).

As for your Princess Bride reference, I agree that this is largely semantics we are discussing. That said, I think that the specifics surrounding the usage of the phrase in question pretty clearly support my position.

[Flasch186]

...I think it is completely disingenuous to ask the PRes. for a timetable for when troops can leave. He doesn't know and he shouldn't. We can't simply up and leave and create a vaccum that we have to go back into, in 3 years when the terrorists are more entrenched.

While obviously Im upset with the "salesmanship" to get us there, I am glad we are there and am glad that there is no timetable. When it's done, we can leave. this may not be in line with some of my posts before but it's how I feel today.

...but Glen, from the other thread....if your theory held up there would never be any lies anywhere because you could always say, "Well, that my/his opinion." Doesn't float.


BTW Abizaid's comments are completely disheartening and begs to question why is Cheney not abrest of the most recent feelings about the insurgency if he truly believes its in its last throes.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As for your Princess Bride reference, I agree that this is largely semantics we are discussing. That said, I think that the specifics surrounding the usage of the phrase in question pretty clearly support my position.

I suppose we'll have to disagree on that matter. It's clear to me that we've undertaken several major combat operations since the Mission Accomplished speech...which we of course needed to. It was a mistake to claim that they were finished, and by painting himself into a corner on the issue the President invited this kind of (accurate) criticism.

It's just obvious that the war has been much harder than the administration sold it as being, and it undermines our efforts to claim otherwise. Much as it undermines our efforts to then blame "liberals" for these kinds of problems, which the administration seems to have settled on as its new strategy.

Nor do I see how people can continue to support a side that has consistently lied and misrepresented just about every aspect of this conflict. As time goes on more and more Americans are realizing that the side that lies all the time is probably the wrong side...just wish they'd realized it sooner.

[Whar]

I work with Glen and consider him a good friend but he is nuts on this points.

-Bush states major combat operations end
-Bush states that there is still work to do
-Bush states it will take time

However his first statement implies that the coming work will NOT require major combat operations. He was dead wrong. We have suffered more total casaulties since the President's statement than we recieved during the entire American War for Independence. We have conducted multiple major combat operations.

The intellectual contortions that people seems to go too regarding this disasterous photo op is amazing. The President shoved his entire foot in his mouth in a remarkably public way.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Whar

I work with Glen and consider him a good friend but he is nuts on this points.

-Bush states major combat operations end
-Bush states that there is still work to do
-Bush states it will take time

However his first statement implies that the coming work will NOT require major combat operations. He was dead wrong. We have suffered more total casaulties since the President's statement than we recieved during the entire American War for Independence. We have conducted multiple major combat operations.

The intellectual contortions that people seems to go too regarding this disasterous photo op is amazing. The President shoved his entire foot in his mouth in a remarkably public way.

I agree with that. I think if Bush could go back in time he would have done something different that day. Maybe visit the zoo.

[Flasch186]

..or some kindergartners.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Chubby

So now you're arguing that our army should be the police for other nations? Excellent use of resources....

AMERICA! F*** YEAH! Comin' again to save the mother****in' day yeah!

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Oh, and Bush's Mission Accomplished speech leaves little doubt as well.

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on."

That ONE phrase leaves little doubt about Bush linking Iraq to 9/11.

I'm ashamed of our President.
I'm embarrassed as an American.