host

If you agree that one of the most important measures of the success of an
American military mission is the casualty count of our troops, and the trend
of our troops' casualties to increase or decrease versus accomplishing the goal of securing the mission objective, is a fatality count six times higher, now, than the 150 dead when the mission was declared "accomplished", a
strong indication that Bush should admit that, in hindsight, it was premature
on his part to declare "mission accomplished" in Iraq, in his May, 2003
aircraft carrier speech ?

It does not appear that security is improving in Iraq:
<a href="http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6334143">Powell Says Iraqi Security Situation Worsening Reuters - Sep 26, 2004</a>
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133565,00.html">U.S. Arrests Commander of Iraqi Nat'l Guard</a>

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82432,00.html">42 more
U.S. combat deaths since Sept. 9 Fox News website update.</a>

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm">
Washington Post Sept. 25 Troop Deaths update.</a>
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6334313"><Bush: Would Give 'Mission Accomplished' Speech Again
Sun Sep 26, 2004 01:31 PM ET</a>

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush said he had no regrets about donning a flight suit to give his "Mission Accomplished" speech on Iraq in May 2003 and would do it all over again if he had the chance, according to excerpts from an television interview released on Sunday.

When asked by Fox News if he still would have put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in Iraq over, Bush replied, "Absolutely."

When Bush gave his May 1 speech fewer than 150 Americans had died in the war. Since then more than 900 have died.

The interview is to air on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor" on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, just before Bush and Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry face off in their first televised debate on Thursday.

Amid a rising U.S. death toll and a rash of abductions and beheadings in Iraq, some members of Bush's own Republican Party have criticized him for not doing enough to secure insurgent areas in Iraq sooner.

But Bush said he also did not regret the decision to withdraw U.S. forces from the rebel stronghold of Falluja earlier this year because he believed the conflict there could have jeopardized the June handover of sovereignty to Iraqis.

"A lot of people on the ground there thought that if we'd have gone into Falluja at the time, the interim government would not have been established," Bush said.

Also in the interview, the president was noncommittal about whether his top political aide, Karl Rove, knew in advance about ads by the group, "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" which attacked Kerry's military service in Vietnam. Bush himself did not serve in Vietnam.

On the issue of whether he knew ahead of time about the Swift Boat ads, Bush said "no," but replied "I don't think so" when questioned whether Rove had advance knowledge of them.

The Swift Boat ads accused Kerry of lying about the events that led to his decoration for bravery. As a so-called 527 organization, the Swift Boat group is barred under election rules from coordinating its activities with campaigns or political parties.

Democrats has accused the Bush campaign of colluding with the group, a charge the White House has denied.

onetime2

As far as the whole "Mission Accomplished" scandal, Tommy Franks asked George Bush to work into a speech that major combat operations were over. He did this so that those countries who pledged support other than military forces would step up to the plate and start delivering.

The Mission Accomplished piece of it has consistently been pointed to being directed at the ship that he landed on. Certainly their mission was accomplished and they were headed home.

So yes, from my perspective, the Mission Accomplished piece was absolutely appropriate.

I guess I don't understand why the "Mission Accomplished" flap is being tied to the Swift Boat Veteran ads in the article you posted as they have nothing to do with each other besides both being a piece of the O'Reilly interview of Bush.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

irateplatypus

well... it depends on how you look at it. what exactly was the mission in question?

if the removal of saddam hussein from power and the defeat of the iraqi army was the mission, then the answer is most assuredly "yes."

if the mission was to completely secure iraq and have it possess a functioning democratic system, then the answer would be "no."

but onetime did bring up a good point. gen. franks did request the president do precisely that in order to get the ball rolling with the next phase of our operations in iraq. perhaps the administration made a mistake in declaring success in such a dramatic fashion. the media has made the declaration something that it wasn't intended to be. the white house should've had better long-term judgement.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

cthulu23

I have heard a different version of events then those that you offer.

from http://www.iht.com/articles/95871.html
Of course, you can't take this as proof that the Administration version is a lie, but it also seems equally foolish to believe politicians when they are trying to explain away an embarrasing story.

djtestudo

Never have I had a problem with it.

The main mission of the war, the removal of Saddam Hussain and his regime from power in Iraq, was accomplished.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

OpieCunningham

Yes. Clearly the phrase "Mission Accomplished" is accurate. As long as you ignore all the effort in dealing with the consequences of your actions.

For instance, if my mission were to steal a car, I could fairly easily accomplish it. Getting away with it would be the tricky part.

pedro padilla

yeah, they never did really clarify exactly what the mission was. I think it was to get GW in a flight suit in order to shove his brave military war president image down our throats. "Mission Accomplished"?? hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

onetime2

As has been discussed at least once before here in politics, the accusations of the "Mission Accomplished" banner being created by the administration is yet another example of the partisan bullshit of this election year. The crew of the ship suggested a banner congratulating the crew on a job well done. The White House brought one to the ship because it was easier than trying to create one on board.

The "administration version" comes from General Franks' book American Soldier. I have far more confidence in his integrity than I do the political hacks that continually point to this speech as an example of poor leadership or stupidity on the part of the President. Anyone who debates that major combat operations were over has no desire to face reality. The invading force had reached all of their objectives. Nowhere did he say "and now Iraq will be at peace" or "no one else will die" or "and there shall not be another fire fight". But it's always far easier to prod, goad, and criticize than it is to plan, lead, or offer real alternatives.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cthulu23

I didn't know that Gen. Franks said that and I am inclined to believe that he wouldn't lie about something so petty. Regardless of whether the Bush image makers thought of the idea or not they cetainly incorporated it into the choreography of the event. What does this mean? Not too much, but the entire victorious montage does point to an air of overconfidence that permeated the administration with regards to the Iraq conflict. Are we to forget Cheney's predictions of our soldiers being greeted like the liberators of France during WWII?

Are major combat operations over now? We can split hairs about the definition of that term, but there is definitely major combat going on now and there is much more to come.

As for criticizing rather than offering alternatives, I'd say that that phenomena is a two way street around here. I could offer examples but i don't think any of us want to go on a searching and quoting shitstorm.

roachboy

poor george w bush.

all he did was say, as he declared "mission accomplished," that significant hostilities were at an end when they werent.
and did so in the context of a truly repellent photo op, complete with the matador bandana shoved down the front of his flight suit.

poor george w bush--he obviously truly believed that all significant hostilities were at an end when they werent just like he believed the "intelligence" provided him that claimed hussein had wmds when he didnt, etc etc etc.

so clearly, just following the "logic" of his supporters here, it is not possible to criticize him.

and if that is the case, then obviously the problem lay with the people who point out just how untrue the remarks were.

qed.

with every element of the bush "vision" having been proven to be somewhere between wild optmisim and outright falsehood, i would think it might be getting near time for pakistan to "find" bin laden.
this "visionary" crap is not working out so well.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

host

A reminder.....the tirle of this thread is:
<B> In Hindsight: Was Bush's May 1, 2003 "Mission Accomplished" Speech Appropriate?</B>

Bush's response, (linked in a news story in post #1) is:
Here is an example of the type of response I envisioned for this thread;
Comparisons to other Presidents and world leaders faced with similar situations:

<a href="http://www.urbanagrace.org/in_the_smoke_of_war.htm">IN THE SMOKE OF WAR, WHERE IS GOD?</a><i>
When there is war, leaders of nations and factions are fond of solemnly claiming the presence of God on their particular side. Our current president is a very religious man. And he has stated that in this war with Iraq, he is doing the will of God. He has no doubts, no reservations, nor even the pretense of humility.[3] We have to go back to Abraham Lincoln, in this country, to find a wartime president whose soul was healthy enough to make room for those inner struggles that occur when practical necessities collide with principles. Lincoln’s soul was courageous enough to bear those things that keep bad company with each other: hard realities, lofty ideals, and those frequent pangs of guilt that haunt all who try to do the right thing in the midst of unsolvable complexities. Lincoln once said, “In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be wrong, and one must be wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time.</i>[4]

[3] “While interviewing President Bush for his just-published book Plan of Attack, Bob Woodward mentioned what British Prime Minister Tony Blair had said about receiving angry letters from families who had lost loved ones in Iraq: “Don’t believe anyone who tells you when they receive letters like that they don’t suffer any doubt.” Upon hearing this, Woodward reports, the president stiffened and, with hardly a moment’s hesitation, said, “I haven’t suffered any doubt.” Woodward asked: “Not at all?” Bush said: “No. And I’m able to convey that to the people,” (even those who lost sons or daughters in Iraq). (editorial in The Christian Century, May 18, 2004, pg. 5.)

[4] Abraham Lincoln, September 2, 1862(?) “God Wills This Contest,” from the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Rutgers University Press, 1953-55.

Now that Bush has received the 9-11 commission report that found no
verifiable complicity in the plot to attack the U.S. on 9-11, on the part of
Saddam Hussein, or any signifigant cooperation between Saddam's Iraq and
al-Queda, and the reports of the findings of his own post invasion weapon's<br> inspectors with regards to the existance of signifigant stockpiles of WMD's
or of programs to imminently produce such waepons, and knowing that
900 more American troops would die in Iraq, and that Iraq would be in the
dangerous, unstable and financially costly condition that it is in today,
Bush would repeat his carrier landing, in that flightsuit, and again
appear under that "mission accomplished" banner, and make the same
speach. We already know that, given what Bush now knows, he would
invade Iraq again. Bush is doubt free and resolute. Is he exhibiting rational,<br> accurate, and reliable attitudes and behavior, considering the power and <br>authority that he is in possession of ?

charms

I think the Bush PR team went a little bit overboard with the whole thing (flying in wearing the flightsuit, etc), but it's also been completely overblown by the Democrats.

Even though it seems like 'major' combat in Iraq, it mostly consists of small-unit skirmishes, ambushes, patrols, and searches. That's still very dangerous stuff and can get a lot of soldiers killed. But I think most military people would agree that the major stuff did end with the speech, i.e. carrier battle groups, 1000 tank formations rumbling across the desert, major bombing of command and control and infrastucture. In the traditional military sense, those major combat operations were over and were heading home with their 'mission accomplished.'

I think it is fair to say that Bush was overconfident and prematurely congratulating himself on winning the big battle, when he should have been more focused on the 1000 small battles yet to come. But it is insincere to pretend that Bush declared victory fpr the sake of scoring cheap political points.

guy44

Charms - of course Bush declared victory for the sake of scoring cheap political points. In that speech, he never said "Mission Accomplished." That was the sign, prepared by the White House, that he stood in front of.

What he did do is declare that "major combat has ended," which has clearly been shown to be false. If major combat is only defined as U.S. military action vs. Saddam's regulars, then yes, that is true. That will come as little solace to the 800 or whatever it is soldiers who have died since then. You know, after the major combat ended.

He also told terrorists in that speech to "bring it on." Now, I don't know about you, but that sounds EXACTLY like a cheap political point. Furthermore, whether spurred on by his arrogant and inappropriate comment or not, they have brought it on, and it has been nothing short of disastrous.

If victory is defined by toppling Saddam's regime, you are correct. If victory is defined by full, free elections, peace, rebuilding, actually controlling all the major cities, or even the reduction of deaths both military and civilian, then it is absolutely correct to suggest that Bush was busy scoring political points while ignoring what was actually happening.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

ARTelevision

My thoughts on this echo djtestudo's.
He said it well enough for me.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

So i guess if our involvement in Iraq drags on for years or if the country devolves into a three way civil war, we can consider it a victory for Bush. Makes sense to me.

jconnolly

A) Bush was a pilot, which was his only military service. Why not fly in on a fighter?
B) Wearing a flight suit on a fighter jet is common sense.

As for the "mission accomplished", he mentioned that major military operations have ceased in Iraq. That's more or less correct. There are no huge columns of tanks moving north, or mechanized infantry units being stormed en masse anywhere.

Stare At The Sun

Actually, wasn't the main mission to disarm Iraq. As he had "weapons of mass destruction." The impression I got, was he had a few AK's, some tanks, and an erector set. Not a stockpile of chemical weapons that could be prepared in 45 minutes.

cthulu23

I guess large urban operations like the battle for Fallujah or our fight in Sadr city somehow don't qualify as major combat operations. That would probably come as a surprise to the infantry serving and dying there. Unfortunately, we'll be seeing more of these non-major non-combat operations in the near future.

Edit: look, I don't think Bush lied about this or anything, but is it really so impossible to think that he may have been overconfident and, ultimately, wrong? If he hadn't made the announcement in such a dramatic fashion it wouldn't be half the issue that it seems to be today. It just reeks of chutzpah.

hannukah harry

cthulu23 says what i was thinking... when we're still laying seige to citys that have been fortified by the enemy, i'd have to say that counts as major combat.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

powerclown

This is the context in which I understood the comment as well.
An unwise thing to say given the state of things in Iraq at the moment, and understandably capitalized on by his opponents. I believe General Franks' explanation that this was an expression of gratitude to the troops after they bulldozed their way to Baghdad in 2 weeks.

phyzix525

Every time I see the pics of Bush on the ship with the color coated guys standing in the background I think of The Wiggles. (have a 3 year old) anyone got a pic?

__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

onetime2

Feel free to ask them if they would consider the operations to be "major" in terms of numbers of troops, resources, and in relation to the first weeks of the invasion. Almost to a man I believe they will tell you no. Certainly they are and will continue to be dangerous and deaths will be caused by them but they are nowhere near the magnitude of the invasion force.

Was he overconfident? Absolutely. Is it something critically important to dissect? Absolutely not. It comes down to perception and the only reason the story has lived this long is the flightsuit and banner. They are wonderful Kodak moments that his opposition wants to get as much play out of as possible (just like the Republicans did with Dukakis).

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cthulu23

Onetime2,

And if Iraq hadn't proven to be such a disaster after the fact then the Bush team would be plastering those photos all over the media. What's good for the goose...

These images do have a deeper relevance in that they showcase the overconfidence of our commander-in-chief. Isn't overconfidence a dangerous trait in a self-proclaimed war president? This might help explain the long life of this story above and beyond the image assassination aspects.

onetime2

I doubt they would have been plastering them everywhere because he looked liked a dork in the flightsuit (just like Dukakis in the helmet and Kerry at NASA). The Mission Accomplished banner in the background you are right about, they would be using that one if it Iraq was a success at this point.

As for the relevance, I don't see any at all. At the time Bush was on the carrier which position was Kerry occupying on Iraq? If you are fine with him altering his perspectives as time goes on then the same should be true of Bush.

Overconfidence or excessive enthusiasm doesn't bother me so long as a leader learns from it. I don't recall Bush saying anything similar recently. You want to criticize Bush for going into Iraq based on the evidence he had, fine. You want to say his occupation plans were bad, fine. These things come down to real substantive differences. Arguing about what he meant by individual words in a speech from a year ago isn't exactly substantive IMO.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

jwoody

I'd like to know what George actually said in the speech he made under the 'mission accomplished' banner.

Google throws up a million links, but none of the ones I checked had to the content of his speech.

roachboy

seriously, if the carrier photo op was the only moment, or even was among a few moments, when this administration used wild optimism/misreading of situations as a basis for obscuring the effects of their policies, it would not be a big deal.

but things are otherwise.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

cthulu23

Bush did say that, if given the opportunity, he would repeat the same photo op. His presidency has not exactly been known for a willingness to admit mistakes, although that can possibly be blamed on Rove and the other image makers who may not want to admit errors so close to an election. This may or may not blow up in their face.

onetime2

Publicly admitting mistakes and learning from them can be two very different things. And, as you pointed out, admitting them in an election year is frowned upon by current political advisors. I'm sure there are some candidates who could pull it off (Clinton or Reagan for example) but many can't or won't take that risk.

As far as whether he'd do that speech/photo op again I suspect that he sees it as something he did for Tommy Franks and views it as a sign of strong leadership that he supported his General in what he said he needed at risk of great political and personal attack. I think it says quite a bit about Bush's character that he hasn't passed the buck on making the "major combat is over" statement. Some will say it's his stubborness in admitting an error but, at least in this case, I think it has more to do with loyalty to Franks.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

charms

My fault for an unclear sentence. My point was that Democrats should not try to score cheap political points by pretending Bush declared victory. He did not, and for Democrats to pretend he did is insincere.

Surely, he was trying to get political points and photo ops. Anything the president does is political, and Bush certainly doesn't hesitate to take advantage of it. I certainly think he went over the top with it and I don't support it. But I won't fault him for celebrating the end of the initial, major combat phase of the war, which by most accounts went pretty well. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the small victories along the way.

We can argue all day about the semantics of what constitutes "major combat," but Bush was celebrating the return of a carrier battle group and an end to theater-wide operations. A carrier battle group is just about the most major thing you can have on the battlefield: destroyers, cruisers, frigates, supply ships, submarines, 9 aircraft squadrons, etc. Just about anything else is minor in comparison.

That's not to say that we haven't seen recent escalation in the past few months and perhaps a return to 'major' combat operations. But criticism of Mission Accomplished started long before the recent operations into Fallujah, at a point where most military actions were along the lines of peacekeeping and low intensity operations.

Which brings us to the heart of Democratic criticism. It wasn't the speech or the proclamation so much as the swagger and style that really burns the Democrats. That's okay, but it has a tendency to overshadow the reasonable criticism. There is plenty of criticism to go around about Bush's post-war planning, but I think Democrats have overextended themselves by trying to make Mission Accomplished into some sort of gigantic metaphor.

host

Onetime2,
Bush ordered our troops into a war of choice. When Bush staged his carrrier photo op,<br> there were 138 dead troops as a result of Bush's decision to send those troops to war in Iraq. <br>As of Sept. 25, (17 months later), there were
1043 dead troops, or 905 post "mission accomplished" dead U.S. troops.

The likelyhood for signifigant further U.S. military casualties appears imminent
in a continuing conflict of undetermined length. As the initial justifications for
this war that were articulated by Bush, proved to have little or no merit,
Bush was forced by the facts to admit that the mission in Iraq was not the
defense of the U.S. from an imminent and growing threat posed by Saddam,
but instead was an invasion and occupation that was about
"getting rid of a brutal dicatator", and bringing freedom and democracy
to the Iraqi people.

My wife and I have a son in the army, and perhaps
because of that, we can put ourselves in the place of a family who has lost
a loved one in Bush's war of choice. Your earlier comment, an inquiry as to
Kerry's position on Iraq back on May 1, 2003, seems irrelevant. Bush brought
the Iraq war plan to the U.S. legislature. Bush defined the threat level to the
U.S. that Saddam posed. Bush had the most intelligence information and the
advice of experts; certainly much more than Kerry, a legislator could possibly
have had personally available. Bush also, in early 2003 had something that he
has completely squandered now.......he had credibility
because of the perception, domestically and internationally, that he would rise to a capability to confront the attacks of 9-11.
Kerry represents the people of Massachusetts. He voted on behalf of his constituents to back Bush.

When and where does the buck stop, in your
opinion, Onetime2? If you were part of a family that lost a young soldier in Bush's war, how do you think your idea, that "Publicly admitting mistakes and learning from them can be two very different things", and Bush's answer, "When asked by Fox News if he still would have put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in Iraq over, Bush replied, "Absolutely.", would play at that American family's dinner table, the one with the permanently empty chair, on this coming Thanksgiving day?

Bush says, that even knowing what
he knows now, he would do nothing differently if he had to decide whether
to invade Iraq, or land on that aircraft carrier for a photo op. Maybe for Bush
and for you, the deaths of 1043 other peoples' family members who joined
the U.S. military to serve and to protect their country, isn't an outrageous
price to pay for removing Saddam and for bringing freedom to the Iraq people. <br>I am outraged because I believe Bush put our troops in harms way when it
was not absolutely necessary, and now he will not accept any responsibility
for their deaths. He demonstrates no personal sacrrfice; his vacation rate is
the same 40 plus percent of his time in office as it was pre 9-11. Bush made
Iraq an important enough issue and mission for our troops to die for. Bush
will not admit to wanting to change anything he has done in Iraq, even with
the benefit of hindsight. Bush is either hollow and unfeeling, or he is <br>misleading the American people. He cheapens the deaths of our troops by
not showing any inclination to have avoided some of them having to die in
the past, or in the future. My outrage at Bush for failing to take responsibility
for his actions is understandable, given these circumstances and the cost
in blood, money and presitge to our country. What motivates you to defend
Bush so often, and try to shift the buck over to people like Franks and Kerry?
Are the lives of other family's children worth so little to you that you advocate <br>their sacrifice in Bush's cause in Iraq? Can you honestly say that
Bush would commit his own child to the cause of bringing freedom to the
Iraqi people, or that the life of your child is worth the sacrifice that you
apparently can justify when that sacrafice falls to another American family?

host

charms,

I started this thread because of this:

"When asked by Fox News if he still would have put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in Iraq over, Bush replied, "Absolutely."

The word "still", before "would have put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in Iraq over", means to me, "in hindsight", which means to
me, "if you knew then what you know now".

What Bush knows now is that 905 more troop deaths have occurred in Iraq
since he "put on a flight suit" on a day that the troop deaths numbered
138. He also now has the 9-11 commission report and the weapons inspectors' final report. Bush knows that the 9-11 commission found no
substantive link between Saddam and al Queda, and the inspectors found
no signifigant WMDs and no WMD programs nearing a state of readiness or
completion. The signifigance of these developments is that Bush knows that
we know what these new reports say about his justification for war in Iraq.

Add the 905 post "flight suit" day troop deaths, and the current instability in
Iraq, and the continued U.S. troop casualties there, to this body of knowledge that did not exist when Bush "put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in Iraq over", and it defies credulity and rationality for
Bush to answer that, "he still would have put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in Iraq over, Bush replied, "Absolutely."

This is not a critique of Bush's aircraft carrier landing and speech under the
banner, because it can be argued that it was appropriate given the circumstances at the time, and given what was public knowledge about
the justification for the Irag war at that time, the perception that the invasion was a success, that our casualties then, while signifigant, were not
alarming, and that an end to hostilities was anticipated, and that the country
was safer because of the Iraq war. Time has since passed and, knowing what
we now know, I am outraged that Bush would "still put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in Iraq over", if he had to make that choice
today.

onetime2

It's quite easy to play at being President and making decisions based on information filtered after more than a year of analysis from thousands of people. It's quite another to make the decisions when there isn't clear information.

You defend Kerry's actions when he had access to virtually the same information as Bush. He and the rest of our representatives in Congress approved his plans. If you're so concerned with the buck stopping somewhere why is it you give all of them a pass and focus solely on Bush?

When it comes to military service I have placed myself at the mercy of the DOD before and could just as easily have ended up in the 1st Gulf War. Every life we lose from one of our members of the military is a tragedy. Don't for a second think that my opinion discounts their sacrifices or the sacrifices of their families and friends. Your insinuation that these deaths play no part in my decisions or the decisions of the President is naive and misplaced.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Paq

on oreilly last night, bush said he was giving the speech as a "Thank you" to all the troops and that he would do it again. He said he would take any opportunity to thank the troops for their service. He basically said the speech wasnt' made as an end to operations, but as a morale booster for the troops.

take it as you will. I'm looking for transcripts from the oreilly show..

__________________
Live.

Chris

guy44

harms - why is it OK for Bush to score cheap political points, because everything the President does is political, but not for Democrats? Everything Kerry does is political, as well.

And why not make the Mission Accomplished thing a metaphor for this administration? It really is. They didn't care about the reality of the situation, engaging in a war for personal or ideological reasons on the basis of lies, and then bragged about how tought they were. In fact, that is Bush's campaign message. I'm tough on terror, dammit, I'm so goddam tough. Ignore everything that has actually happened, pretend nothing bad is going on, and vote for me.

Mission Accomplished isn't as bad as the actually terrible policies he has had, but it is an apt metaphor for Bush's incompetence and uber-massive failures.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

host

If Bush really understood and thought through the sacrifce that he set the troops up for when, as Commander-In-Chief, he ordered them (and continues
ordering them) to "serve" in Iraq, the only just way to "thank them" and to
honor their service, is to only send them into harm's way when it is absolutely
necessary. To order these troops into service that leads to their deaths in a
war that was pre-ordained at least since his first cabinet meeting in 2001,
and then to feign that it is still a necessary and justified war after the 9-11
commission and the weapon's inspectors' reports, is an outrage,

Our American families have paid a cost so far of 1050 dead, several thousand
more grievously wounded and permanently disabled, and more than
$100 billion dollars.....for what ? I hear the same platitudes that politicians
30 years ago used to explain away the deaths of 58,000 American troops
in a war to defend the Viet Namese people from a brutal dictatorship.
The majority in this country decided 30 years ago that such a noble mission
to protect a foreign people from oppressive dictatorship did not meet the
criteria of meeting the "absolutely necessary" criteria required to order our
troops into harm's way. Bush personally avoided putting himself in harms way
back then, yet he has the gall and the hypocricy to order other's sons and
daughters into harm's way now.

In his zeal to go to war, Bush did not even consider waiting until the UN
weapons inspectors, who asked for more time to complete their inspections
in early 2003. He did not follow the direction of congress (that Kerry voted
for) to exhaust efforts to seek a UN resolution authorizing an invasion of
Iraq. Bush promised to go to the UN one last time before going to war, and
then did not do so. He failed to build a coalition that conceivably would
have resulted in troops from other countries standing in for the 90 percent
American force that ended up in Iraq. If Bush's rush to war cost one additional American life than would have been lost if he had expended the
effort he promised the country in going to the UN on last time, after agreeing
to give the UN inspectors the additional time they had asked for, dead
Americans and Iraqis would still be alive.

If you allowed yourself a less parochial and partisan mindset, would you not
have asked yourself (it's still not too late !) why Bush, so soon after the
shocking 9-11 attacks, with a supportive and empathetic attitude still
permeating the diplomatic atmosphere of the western world; Bush.....the
son of a recent U.S. president who, only 12 years before had assembled a
broad consensus among nations and a coalition of troops to fight a war
against the very same enemy, could not obtain approval from the UN to
invade Iraq, or to build a coalition anywhere near the size and scope of the
one his father had assembled, maybe you would at least consider that the
evidence to justify an invasion of Iraq was not convincing enough to persuade our former Gulf War coalition allies to join us, and the words of
Bush's father, (which he admits giving no consideration to) were too strong
to ignore:

‘‘We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq,’’ Bush wrote. ‘‘The coalition would have instantly collapsed. ... Going in and thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish.
‘‘Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.’’

So, now what ? We will pull out of Iraq in failure, just as we did in Viet Nam.
How many more American troops will die so that politicians like Bush, as
Nixon and Johnson before him, can attempt to "save face" ? I think that
1,050 is quite enough, but I doubt that Bush or his apologists can quickly
come to my conclusion. They will, inevitably order thousands of other American families' children to fight and die in Iraq before they will conclude the obvious and retreat from their failed imperialistic expedition!

charms

I never said it was ok. I said it was "overboard" and "over the top" for him to be "overconfident and prematurely congratulating." I bluntly stated "I do not support it." Exactly where do you get the impression that I said it was okay? Likewise, I resent the Democrats feeling entitled to score cheap political points just because Bush did. It is not acceptable in either case.

If you're trying to paint me into some ideological box of pro-Bush or anti-Bush, you'll likely end up frustrated. I am neither. What I am is willing to consider that he falls somewhere between an "all-American terror-fighting superhero" and a "liar, cowboy, AWOL, smirk-chimp."

In this particular case, I see no problem with congratulating returning troops on a job well done, but do have some objections about the manner in which it was done. However, their particular mission was accomplished and no amount of hindsight will change that. Knowing what we know now still doesn't change the fact that the initial invasion and occupation went pretty well. I do not blur the distinction between the pre-speech and post-speech operations. I am quite comfortable with congratulating Bush on the former and admonishing him on the latter.