quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

FR

Major combat operations were over and sucessfully acomplished. The Taliban Government, and Saddam's Government had been destroyed, and removed completely from power. Major Combat Operations were over and the occupation had begun. That is clearly what was said in the speech. And it is clearly what occured in reality.

This has been left wing Spin, from day one. And it is a testament to the Left leaning bias of the media, that this is the first time you have ever heard these things.

No Politsub we certainly do not know that, why don't you provide some sort of evidence.

RML, where did I say he was singling out that aircraft carrier? Can't you debate with out making stuff up?

This isn't New Spin, it is what has been said all along.

quote:

ORIGINAL: housesub4you
Dana Perino said the other day that the "Mission Accomplished" sign Bush stood under was suppose to say “Mission Accomplished For These Sailors Who Are On This Ship On Their Mission.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

And the mission of removing the Taliban and Saddam from Power ws accomplisged, incredibly fast (remember we had the left, screaming about how we would lose 50,000 troops, and Micheal Moore screaming about a fake was-and those were just from afghanisan, the predictions of the casualties and time for iraq were even more incorrect), and with very low loss of Coalition troops and civilian casualties lives. Bush specifically says in the Speech on the aircraft carrier,

"Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. "

He is specifically talking about "major combat operations, and declaring the start of Reconsrtuction and Recuring <occupation>.

He specifically did not say we are done in Iraq, he declared the begining of a different phase.

He specifically did not say Iraq is fixed
he specifically did not say the War on terror is over
He specifically did not say the Mid east is solved


In the speech, which has been posted, he specifically says what he is talking about....To pretend he said something different, than what he actually said...Is just dumb.

You are actually referencing a different speech, polite sub???...whatever, makes no sense at all

The troops accomplished thier mission, incredibly well. With an almost absolute professionalism. Everything that was asked of them by our nation, was delivered almost 100%.

The accidents were so few, that every single one was big news. Which is an incredibly good thing.

The troops accomplished thier mission, and deserved a speech recognizing it.


Whether it was a good mission is a completely different discussion...but in no way takes away from the performance of the US and our Allies Millitaries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

then what are you saying?

That the troops did not accomplish thier mission? Or that you have a problem with acknowleging that they did accomplish thier mission? Or something else?


I really do not understand your fixation with rumslfed's editing being overruled..So what?

What is the problem with Bush's speech? You clearly have a problem with Bush giving the troops an "atta boy",after successfully accomplishing thier mission. Why?

quote:


Consider Mr. Obama's comment in his interview this past Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes" that the Bush administration made a mistake in speaking in "a triumphant sense about war."
This was a slap at every president who rallied the nation in dark moments, including Franklin D. Roosevelt ("With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph"); Woodrow Wilson ("Right is more precious than peace and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts"); and John F. Kennedy ("Any hostile move anywhere in the world against the safety and freedom of peoples to whom we are committed . . . will be met by whatever action is needed").

quote:

Karl Rove, who seems evil to Progressives because his first name starts with a 'K', discussed this particular issue in an Op Ed piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal thusly:
ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

Karl Rove was considered evil because he brought dirty campaigning down to a whole new level. If nothing else, I would say that attacking a man who spent years in a prisoner of war for being "not a hero" would offend even you.

As for the WSJ, it, like Fox News, is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Take a read of the NY Post and you know that the op eds are worth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Im sure all the dead presidents are turning in their graves... Im sure they relished war
waggles my eyebrows
Karl Marx begins with a Karl which kinda kicks that supposition in the arse doesnt it
Rove is just a waste of human skin

quote:

Discuss the ideas, Spinner.

Anyone can cast aspersions on the character or motives of a given messenger or medium but it takes a special mind to counter the actual argument that has been offered. Do you have what it takes to quit constantly calling the people you disagree with Nazis and tell us why the ideas being offered up are erroneous?
ORIGINAL: Sanity