Another Bush Story the MSM isn't covering...
By GordonTaylor Posted in The White House — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
...truthfuly that is. They continue to twist and contort every word President Bush says.
To that end, Dave Hinz has taken a special interest in squelching the rhetoric being thrown around by Democrats. We have reprinted the entire speech at The HinzSight Report and he never ever once said what they say he said.
Now, I know no one here is surprised by that fact, but Dave is sick and tired of hearing one phrase repeated over and over, that he absolutely DID NOT SAY!
but this does:
Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. (Applause.
"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" never appeared in his speech. Instead, they were hung as a backdrop to his speech. He also began his speech with, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
Sure he acknowledges that there is still work left to do, but even that paragraph you cite above was not in direct reference to Iraq, but to the overall war on terror.
My point stands: It's silly to quibble that Bush never "said" "Mission Accomplished" when the White House made a banner declaring it for the world to see as the backdrop for his speech.
Honestly, what would happen if tomorrow Bush declared that the "Mission" HAD been accomplished (Saddam toppled, no weapons of mass destruction, the majority - Shiites - in charge - thus a kind of democracy - the kind likely to kick Sunni Al Qaeda's @$$). I know there's a civil war in Iraq, but how is that our problem? We got what we wanted to accomplish there, I say it makes sense to leave. Al Qaeda is toast once we pull out. It may not be Canada once we're gone, but hey, no Saddam, and Canada was never in the cards anyway. Saddam being gone ought to count for something. I'm not calling for us to leave because of any kind of anti-war feeling. I'm just wondering what we're expecting to achieve now that we've already achieved what we set out to achieve. You can't make the Parthenon out of particleboard!
Our goal was to topple Saddam. Mission Accomplished.
I supported a minor diversion from the fight against al Qaeda because Iraqi oil revenue was going to pay for the $3 billion budget (remember that?) and occupation wasn't going to last more than 6 months. It didn't really make sense that Saddam would suddenly be in cahoots with the religious extremists he was killing every day, but heck, the administration had a lot more information than I did. And if they didn't think the UN inspections were putting a lid on Saddam's allegedly active nuclear weapons programs, then neither did I.
But now, 3/4 of our military say they're stretched too thin and only half think success in Iraq is likely. Amazingly, only 41% say that we were right to go there in the first place. (http://www.militarycity.com/polls/index.php#2004)
Obviously we have a moral obligation to help prop up security, but with the Iraqi Parliament adjourning for the summer, the essential political cooperation won't be there until Fall at the earliest.
Meanwhile the Taliban is re-emerging in Afghanistan...
I think we really need to re-examine the strategic value of our continued investment in Iraq. Exactly what would be gained if we spent another 10 years there? Would our blood and treasure be better spent elsewhere? In the interests of our own security, I think we should be bolstering our forces in Afghanistan, and providing all of our troops some well-deserved rest.
Girliegun - If you're new and haven't read the posting rules, you should take a look. A lot of folks around here are highly offended by foul language, even implied. Though I read far more than I post, I find it to be an enjoyable restriction. People come up with some very entertaining ways to express thoughts that would be otherwise be demeaned by "cop out" verbiage. So I hope you are able to have some fun with it.
but a retread of bozo that got banned last week. Sorry bozo :>)
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Are you quibbling over the fact that, despite the fact that he gave a speech in front of a giant banner with the words "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" emblazoned on it and made by the White House (at the Navy's request, I'll admit), he never actually "said" the words "Mission Accomplished"? If he was so sure that those words did not apply to the state of the war at that time, why make the banner and then stand smack dab in front of it to give the speech?
And I thought that Clinton's quibbling over "is" and "sexual relations" was ridiculous!