In article ,
says...

On 10/27/2011 1:21 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/27/2011 12:43 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/27/2011 10:12 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/27/2011 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/26/2011 2:44 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...

On 10/26/2011 1:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:


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.




Got it, it was a Navy request... Thanks for clarifying..

But this means nothing to you?

Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech
declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission
Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq
since then have surpassed those before it.

If Bush didn't know about it, why did he offer up that excuse? Are you
really so blinded by your party that you can't see?

Add to that that every aspect of his appearence aboard the ship was VERY
well detailed and orchestrated, right down to his landing, TWO fly-by's,
his name already on the plane..... Right, the White House, (who had the
banner made) knew nothing of it.

Add to that the fact that the banner is now in the Bush Presidential
Library..... Nope, he knew nothing.... RIIGGGHHHT.....

And here's more!!!!

At his news conference yesterday, President Bush said the decision to
put a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier where he
gave a speech following the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a "mistake."

It was not his mistake, however, according to CBS News political analyst
Dan Bartlett, a former senior advisor to Mr. Bush. Asked this morning by
Harry Smith, co-anchor of CBS' The Early Show, who was responsible for
the banner ? Smith pointed out that both the Navy and former White House
Press Secretary Scott McClellan have taken the blame in the past ?
Bartlett said that it was actually his call.

"Quite frankly, yours truly was the guy who actually signed off" on
posting the banner, Bartlett said, after people on the aircraft carrier
approached the White House with the idea. "I regret it to this day,
because it did send the wrong message."

So, you don't know who signed off on the banner, but you know it was
Bush..Riiiight...

Yes, it was. If you think Bush didn't know about it, you have got your
head in the sand so far you can see China.

Oh, now "he knew about it"... So, the Navy requested it, I get it...

You are completely insane!!!!! Bush ADMITTED knowing about it, Rumsfield
ADMITTED knowing about it and trying to get Bush to not use the banner.
Bush's aide has admitted having a hand in it as well as Bush's Press
Sectretary. Do you REALLY think that Bush didn't know about it? Even
after Rumsfield tried to talk him out of it?????

Who requested it, the Navy and so what if Bush didn't think it was a bad
idea or have someone pull it down as he walked to the podium? Bull,
let's talk about "Fast and Furious" if you want to talk about things
folks knew about and lied about too...

Changing the subject, ala Harry again, I see. And the only thing the
Navy requested was that the White House have it made.

not at all changing the subject. You say President Bush had it made, I
say the Navy requested he do that...

Let me try to get this through your head ONE more time. Eisboch said,
and YOU agreed, that the banner was put up for the SHIP'S "Mission
Accomplished". As I've demonstrated several times in this thread, that
is just not the case.

You have demonstrated nothing but a kind man, George Bush trying to
smooth over another issue manufactured by the left snerk

Oh, so then Bush LIED about the banner? Got it.

On 10/27/11 1:40 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/27/2011 1:21 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/27/2011 12:43 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/27/2011 10:12 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,

says...

On 10/27/2011 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,

says...

On 10/26/2011 2:44 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In
,
says...

In ,

says...

On 10/26/2011 1:13 PM, iBoaterer wrote:


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.




Got it, it was a Navy request... Thanks for clarifying..

But this means nothing to you?

Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his
speech
declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission
Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S.
casualties in Iraq
since then have surpassed those before it.

If Bush didn't know about it, why did he offer up that
excuse? Are you
really so blinded by your party that you can't see?

Add to that that every aspect of his appearence aboard the
ship was VERY
well detailed and orchestrated, right down to his landing,
TWO fly-by's,
his name already on the plane..... Right, the White House,
(who had the
banner made) knew nothing of it.

Add to that the fact that the banner is now in the Bush
Presidential
Library..... Nope, he knew nothing.... RIIGGGHHHT.....

And here's more!!!!

At his news conference yesterday, President Bush said the
decision to
put a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier
where he
gave a speech following the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a
"mistake."

It was not his mistake, however, according to CBS News
political analyst
Dan Bartlett, a former senior advisor to Mr. Bush. Asked this
morning by
Harry Smith, co-anchor of CBS' The Early Show, who was
responsible for
the banner ? Smith pointed out that both the Navy and former
White House
Press Secretary Scott McClellan have taken the blame in the
past ?
Bartlett said that it was actually his call.

"Quite frankly, yours truly was the guy who actually signed
off" on
posting the banner, Bartlett said, after people on the
aircraft carrier
approached the White House with the idea. "I regret it to this
day,
because it did send the wrong message."

So, you don't know who signed off on the banner, but you know
it was
Bush..Riiiight...

Yes, it was. If you think Bush didn't know about it, you have
got your
head in the sand so far you can see China.

Oh, now "he knew about it"... So, the Navy requested it, I get it...

You are completely insane!!!!! Bush ADMITTED knowing about it,
Rumsfield
ADMITTED knowing about it and trying to get Bush to not use the
banner.
Bush's aide has admitted having a hand in it as well as Bush's Press
Sectretary. Do you REALLY think that Bush didn't know about it? Even
after Rumsfield tried to talk him out of it?????

Who requested it, the Navy and so what if Bush didn't think it was
a bad
idea or have someone pull it down as he walked to the podium? Bull,
let's talk about "Fast and Furious" if you want to talk about things
folks knew about and lied about too...

Changing the subject, ala Harry again, I see. And the only thing the
Navy requested was that the White House have it made.

not at all changing the subject. You say President Bush had it made, I
say the Navy requested he do that...

Let me try to get this through your head ONE more time. Eisboch said,
and YOU agreed, that the banner was put up for the SHIP'S "Mission
Accomplished". As I've demonstrated several times in this thread, that
is just not the case.

You have demonstrated nothing but a kind man, George Bush trying to
smooth over another issue manufactured by the left snerk

You think Dubya is a "kind man"? You really are the dictionary
definition of "**** for brains."

"jps" wrote in message ...


Let's let the man speak for himself...

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq,
the United States and our allies have prevailed." —speaking underneath
a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1,
2003

Were the rest of combat operations in Iraq non-major? That's not my
impression nor do I believe that most soldiers that did 3 or 4 tours
over there would subscribe to that notion.

Was the "surge" a minor operation? Why did we need the surge since
the US and allies had prevailed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With due respect (and I have a *lot* of it) to those who fought, died and
were injured in Iraq following the
initial, US led attacks ..... you have a different idea in your mind as to
what "major" combat operations are
when compared to a military definition. What happened after the invasion
and conclusion of the military
major operation was basically a civil war in which we .... having sparked
the fuse .... were obligated to
remain involved in.

What ended was massive, around the clock air sorties and the overwhelming
ground invasion and penetration
into Bagdad and other major Iraqi cities which forced Saddam and most of his
henchmen into hiding.
Over 9,000 air sorties by American warplanes were conducted during this time
frame.

In military circles *that* was the major combat operation.

Your definition may be different, but Bush was referring to the military
definition and not what happened
after ... much of which was not anticipated or even planned for.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:21:48 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"jps" wrote in message ...


Let's let the man speak for himself...

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq,
the United States and our allies have prevailed." —speaking underneath
a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1,
2003

Were the rest of combat operations in Iraq non-major? That's not my
impression nor do I believe that most soldiers that did 3 or 4 tours
over there would subscribe to that notion.

Was the "surge" a minor operation? Why did we need the surge since
the US and allies had prevailed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With due respect (and I have a *lot* of it) to those who fought, died and
were injured in Iraq following the
initial, US led attacks ..... you have a different idea in your mind as to
what "major" combat operations are
when compared to a military definition. What happened after the invasion
and conclusion of the military
major operation was basically a civil war in which we .... having sparked
the fuse .... were obligated to
remain involved in.

What ended was massive, around the clock air sorties and the overwhelming
ground invasion and penetration
into Bagdad and other major Iraqi cities which forced Saddam and most of his
henchmen into hiding.
Over 9,000 air sorties by American warplanes were conducted during this time
frame.

In military circles *that* was the major combat operation.

Your definition may be different, but Bush was referring to the military
definition and not what happened
after ... much of which was not anticipated or even planned for.


Shock and awe was certainly the big show but the real war didn't start
until our troops went into Bagdhad.

Major combat operations resulted in how many American deaths? Minor
combat operations cost over 5,000 lives, tens of thousans of injured
and over a million Iraqis dead or displaced.

Semantics may be skillfully used to frame an argument but they don't
make the argument either accurate or truthful.

"jps" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:21:48 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


Semantics may be skillfully used to frame an argument but they don't
make the argument either accurate or truthful.

--------------------------------------------------------

Exactly right.

There's also a lot of broad-brush accounts of very complex and detailed
issues by Monday morning quarterbacks.