Another "Who said that?"
 

Who said the following:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."


Sounds kinda familiar, so who said it and when?

A quick google revealed this Q:

"Wasn't that GWB himself when Clinton was in office? I think it was Kosovo."

Aww...YOu guessed....

BTW..."clan liability"...a very scary tactic of control..

Yes - but effective. The "gas station attendants" would be *****scared of that.

Kosovo was different though. The UN backed us there......

........and they didn't have 40% of the world's oil reserves.

Why would we ever leave?

I like my oil, can't live without it.

Money, haven't you figured out that W violated every single principle he claimed to have as soon as he was elected?

'Fiscal responsibility?' out the window.

Decreasing the size and control of the Federal government? The opposite has happened.

'Nation building' has gone from undesirable to the cornerstone of M.E. policy.

There's a rather large difference between the Republican platform and Republican rule.

Good find moneyguy!

And techweenie....couple more things....

Schiavo comments: yet previously signed into law in Texas that removes life support, including tube feeding, if you're poor.

Eminent domain comments: yet previously took advantage of it to build a shiny new stadium (for the common good).

Did we ever get one from Clinton? I mean we are still there right? When will we leave? I want answers:)

CC: yes, there are many more "when was the last time the Right was right" threads possible.

There's a whole "laws are for other people; principles are to be applied at our convenience" ethos underlying neocon behavior.

Yeah, I would also like a strategy plan if soldiers and civilians were dying by the minute...

The one thing that doesn't work on children or adults alike is the "do as I say, not as I do" approach. Never works.

Leading by example is what's effective for raising children, being in management, and leading a country.

Obviously some tongue in cheek going on by me there.

The whole Kosovo deal reminds me of an SNL skit years ago. It was a Hitory channel mock that started with a little boy asking his grandfather "Did we win the war in Grenada pappy?":)

Not sure what your point is, lendaddy, if you have one at all.

Are you saying Kosovo should have been "managed" like Iraq?

Good question, perhaps when we can finally withdraw our troops from Kosovo we can compare results.

So are you suggesting that the jury is still out on comparing 1,76X+ dead U.S. soldiers to zero dead U.S. soldiers?

And I think you have it backwards. When do you think we'll be out of Iraq?

Zero dead? You sure about that?

Anyway, like I said......I thought you can't claim sucess until you leave. Is that not so any longer?

Wait, are you saying that the removal of a corrupt and murderous leader is not only reason enough to invade a sovereign nation, but also reason enough to celebrate great success?

Nice try, but since we don't even have 1,000 troops in harm's way in Kosovo, it's impossible (for a reasonable person) to even begin to compare risk/reward.

Kosovo was and is a NATO mission and, no, there were no U.S. deaths.

The Kosovo invasion was underataken because of an active program of genocide. At no time did the administration have to invent 'threats' to the U.S.

First, you are wrong. There were no "combat deaths" Us soldiers did die. Do they count?

Soldiers are still dying in Kosovo?

Yes ofcourse they are. How many is enough? I thought one was too many. Why are we still there? When will we leave?

lendaddy, maybe you could enlighten us about US combat deaths in Kosovo, since every source I can find says 'zero.'

Getting shot and killed...is getting shot and killed.....regardless if they are defined as "combat deaths."

And what about all the civilian casualties there?....Do liberals think it is OK to kill civilians only if they are white and Christian?

No they didn't.

Hmm suddenly your definition changes. Would you count mine field deaths for instance?

The quote from 1999 came after hostilities had ended in Yugoslavia. Clearly the debate was over who would provide the peacekeeping forces. GW felt it appropriate that our NATO allies share the burden this way. How this is similar to asking for a "timetable" while hostilities are currently a daily occurence is beyond me. Of course if you look at Gov Bush's comment in the context of the period...it looks like this:

"The two front runners in the crowded GOP field, Texas Gov.George W. Bush and former Transportation and Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole, had generally supported the use of American war planes in Yugoslavia. But they found cause for concern with the apparent conditions of the impending peace.
"I would strongly urge that if there are U.S. troops involved, they be under U.S. command or NATO command," Bush said Thursday. "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn. If there needs to be a residual force, it is important that over time U.S. troops are withdrawn and our European allies carry the majority of the load."

fint:

And your point is?? If one individual, seeking power, can seek information on an "exit strategy", then why can't others?

Everything has to be taken in the context of the period, now, doesn't it?

You might say that the so-called left asked for an exit strategy AFTER the "hostilities had ended in Iraq" as well. I still remember the "Mission Accomplished" speech. Was that not considered my many the "end of hostilities?"

Interesting that GWB also said that in such an action, "If there needs to be a residual force, it is important that over time U.S. troops are withdrawn and our European allies carry the majority of the load." So, I find no problem with that concept. Where are the Europeans now? The few that have offered(Great Btitain the sole exception in actual numbers) , as welcome as they are, are not what GWB's comments had in mind. As far as coalition, a far cry from Iraq I.

Actually, no you don't. You remember a banner on the ship that said that not the speech. And it was in refernce to the invasion and overthrow of the government/defeat of the regular army. That was the mission and it had a name, it is done, over and accomplished.

Did that banner make you think we were done altogether and going home? Seriously, did it?

Do you think it was intended to say or convey that message?

Edit: On the end of hostilities statement. Obviously he meant by us, the United States. We were/are done "attacking" Iraq. We now fight alongside Iraqis not against them. That's the difference. And again it's a different mission now, with a different name and we have not declared it accomplished.

Because in one case, all hostilities had ended and a timetable for withdrawal to another appropriately sized peacekeeping force was indeed appropriate. In the current case, a timetable would allow the enemy to wait us out (as in Vietnam) and snatch victory from a certain defeat. The only reason that the terrorists and their allies, the anti-war left, really want a timetable for is political fodder. If it is too far off...political hay, if any goals are not met....more political hay. there is no value to the nation or the warfighter to impose such. In fact it would increase the danger to our troops.

FInt..

I am not advocating a timetable. That was not my point. I would be surprised if you didn't get what I meant, but was making an attempt to blunt the message.

Simply put: Why is it right for one person to ask for an exit strategy and it is terrible for others to ask for the same? The assumption in Iraq was, when GWB claimed "Mission Accomplished" that hostilities had ended. SO what is the difference? Giving one in Kosovo would have also resulted in insurgents just sitting back clipping their nails and waiting.

I really cannot make it any clearer.

Still want to know...Why not the assistance from Europe in the second phase of the Iraq war? Isn't it in their interest to see a stable Middle East?

Sorry Money, I just cannot remember a speech where the president said: "mission accomplished" in regards to the war in Iraq. Perhaps you could post the actual quote in context to refresh my memory.
In Kosovo they were clearly discussing timetables to remove troops after there were no hostilities...sorta like we are currently bringing folks home from Germany.
Most of europe is getting a free ride on this (taking the easy way out)...much as they did in Kosovo. I hope we remember next time they need help.

No. It was broadcast from the deck of an aircraft carrier. Remember the pretty banner?

fint...You are a perfect "Manchurian Candidate", brainwashed to an extent that is nearly impossible for rational people to imagine.

Continue to warp facts, and I am certain that, like the Pied Piper, your supporters will back you every inch of the way...

P.S. Don't forget you talking points.....

So the President said it as quoted?..and then his voice was broadcast from the deck of a carrier?...or was there a banner on the ship with those words.. so the liberals think it is safe to claim the President said it?

If it was only a banner on ship returning home...would it not be more logical to assume it meant the ship's and it's crew's mission were accomplished instead of an entire war? Especially if the President did not say otherwise? One would expect that if he gave a speech on the carrier....and he felt the war was over and all troops would soon be home....he would have actually said so....instead of all the crap about it being a long hard job.
Please direct me to the "talking points" so I can do like the liberals and not have to think for myself.

fint..parse away..YOu are SO good at it. I love your irrefutable logic (or lack thereof)

"Never met a liberal I liked, never met a conservative that I disagreed with"..THat about sum it up, fint? Has the president, in you mind, ever made a mistake? Oh, come on..not even a little one?

As for the talking points, saying the same things over and over and over, just like a Manchurian Candidate; brainwashed and robotic in nature. Seems like more of a neo conservative thing than a looney left. They latter is far too disorgnized to agree on a bunch of talking points. So, for the present, we have to leave that to the With House.

Actually, I have met few liberals or conservatives that I liked or agreed with.
Actually, I just hate to see the President quoted out of context and then misquoted all in one thread. Lefties never seem to do that with the enemy. Even if I did not like him (and I never said I did)...it is just not right. When the left starts playing fair, perhaps more will listen to their argument (if they actually still have one).

Fint:

YOu want the entire speech? It is available, even including audio. All you have to do isdo a wab search for lots of sites that will spin it any way that suits your fancy.
One of the articles is from Reuters September 26, 2004:

"President Bush said he had no regrets about donning a flight suit to give his 'Mission Accomplisned' speech on Iraq in May 2003 and would do it all over again if he had the chance."

The CBS site (damn those liberal press folks) has the audio of the original.

WHite house sources also carry the speech, defending it from time to time (various WH pages)

And, in the Rose Garden, standing beside the Canadian PM, the president said the following:

"A year ago I did give the speech from the carrier saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we had accomplished a mission...." and went on to say the mission was now defined as getting rid of Heussein.

Page after page of documentation, fint, from the right, the left, from foreign sources, etc. etc. etc. We can argue semantics, but the fact is clear that assumptions were made as to the aftemath of the first stage of the action.

Len? Still waiting...

President Bush said he had no regrets about donning a flight suit to give his 'Mission Accomplisned' speech on Iraq in May 2003 and would do it all over again if he had the chance."

President Bush said that he had no regrets about donning a flight suit...and that means he said the "Iraq mission was accomplished?" Clearly "mission accomplished were the words of the commentator.

I cannot find the actual quote...apparently, neither can you. If you can, could you post it for me?

Incredibly naive or disingenuous? The jury will decide.

--------------McClellan----------
...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.
----------------------------------

Cameras and the podium were positioned in such a way that the banner was behind the president as he spoke.

His opening lines:

"my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

...Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision and speed and boldness the enemy did not expect and the world had not seen before.

...America is grateful for a job well done.

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

all of this seems to echo what the banner said.

HOWEVER, despite both the banner and opening remarks, the closing line of that speech was:

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

...Our war against terror is proceeding according to the principles that I have made clear to all.

...Our mission continues..."

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

So, I'd say it's a confusing message, at best. Anyone who knows the first thing about communications knows that "everything communicates." If you stand in front of a banner placed there by your approval, and give a speech, you are de facto endorsing what's printed there.