off course , but that was the easy part
just like the germans managed to Blitzkrieg Europe
and only got in trouble after they got bogged down in the east...

i'll agree, the Blitzkrieg was very succesfull
but nevertheless, in the end the jerry's lost the war.

They took a moment to celbrate the quickest and least bloody overtaking of any (non french :)) country in the history of warfare. I don't think they were out of line. I listened to that speech and he made it clear that there was plenty of hard work ahead. What did you think that meant?

First, I've got news for you ... I'm not "the left." Why would you think so, because I'd like to fight this war to win?

Secondly, you didn't answer my question. Why no beautiful "mission accomplished" footage for the Bush campaign? You know they had it ready to go.

Because it would be ineffective politically. Because the mission was NOT accomplished, and everyone knew that by November of 2004.

Why don't you know that now?

None of that footage was used because the left had co opted the moment as I have described earlier. Great political move..honest or not.

Also, THAT mission was accomplished. How do you not understand that?

True I don't know where you sit politically, but your statements put you right in line with Michael Moore and Al Franken so I calls em like I sees em.

Do you really, truly believe this? Really?

Come on ... serious?

Kinda blows your whole argument, I know.

Equivocation can be great fun . . . until someone points it out. :cool:

Tough for ya, I'm sure. esp when you're Stuck on Stupid

As LenD pointed out; Bush was VERY clear that more work lay ahead. (read: no way can you claim "Mission Accomplished" as meaning "war is over" . . . he was VERY clear. Only a left leaning tool would spin it otherwise)

Sorry, I usually follow you, but have no idea what you mean.

How did "the left" co opt this moment? How did "the left" make this footage politically unusable for the Bush campaign?

I do understand that THAT mission was accomplished. I also understand that this was no reason to celebrate. And more importantly, I understand that the "mission" sold to the American public that day was not this scrawny, limited, thing you are selling today.

I understand that the real mission lay ahead.

What bothers me is this administration did not know the war was just beginning. What bothers me is an administration that goes to war and does not think things through enough to realize that the real battle, the true test of victory, would come much, much later.

I'm off to drink some beer and forget this argument. :)

It is so obviously true that your confusion astounds me.

No I did not. How weak (and dishonest) the liberal argument must be if the only way they can make a point is to misquote a conservative.

Clearly they are not concerned about the truth..or what is right. As always...the end justifies the means.

I beg to differ. If you can’t even remember the baloney you are typing, why should any of us pay attention to it? Seriously, why?

And your brother-in-arms Mul was right behind you. At least he is can remember his irrational positions from one week to the next.

Flint, where are you man???

You accused me of being "weak (and dishonest)." You accused me of misquoting you, and said that I was not "concerned about the truth, or what is right."

Then I showed you, my man Flint, that in fact I had quoted you accurately and precisely.

I posted exactly what you had said, which happened to be exactly what I said you said :)

You’ve been all over these boards in the last couple of days, dude, but nothing here, nada. No apology, no explanation, nothing

How lame. You have no credibility. And, yes, you can quote me on that.

Seems you would have had time to edit your post for one that is more truthful...but it is your choice.

This is what you posted that you claimed I said

Originally posted by Rodeo
and then when asked who said that, you posted:

Originally posted by Rodeo

Once again...not only did you fail to show where you quoted me "accurately and precisely"...and now have dishonestly claimed you have. Why do you continue the facade that you were making an accurate quote? It is black and white...Unless, of course, you don't know the definition of "quote."

Please, either quote me...or argue what you seem to think I said...but don't continue to misquote me to fit your argument. You are better than that...

One of those "quotes" taught at the Dan Rather school of debate. The quote doesn't have to be real if its content is accurate.

heh

Originally posted by fintstone:
Amazing the lengths the left will go to to take quotes out of context... The "mission" of the ship and crew were "accomplished." …

PLEASE FORGIVE ME. I feel like a real dolt. I thought you were saying saying that "Mission Accomplished" meant that the "mission" of the ship and crew were "accomplished." I guess you did not mean that at all.

Remember Flint, give up nothing. Just keep insisting that black is white. That strategy is sure to help your cause ... at least with some people.

It's funny that you should say this, Len, because I happen to think that you guys are the ones that are 100% intellectually dishonest on this issue. Let me make my positions clear, in case you have forgotten them from previous posts:

I consider Bush II to be the most incompetent person ever to be born on 3rd base and get batted home in history. At least at the POTUS level. In better times it might not have been so crucial, but in this decade we have needed great, visionary leadership as much as any time in history and he is a miserable failure. The Iraq invasion was and is an unqualified disaster on every possible level, it was mostly predictable and predicted, and no one even slightly informed is surprised by the outcome. (That would not include Bush, Cheney and the neocons of course). Was there ever any doubt that we could beat Saddam's camel riding/spear chucking "Army"?? Not by me. Of course no one really knew just how soft they were, (Saddam was a great bluffer, and it resulted in as much stability as is possible in that immediate region), but come on. The U.S. has the best military in the world. The initial conflict was like the Pittsburgh Steelers vs. the cast of West Wing in a game of full-contact ball. We defeated his Army in what....., 2 weeks??

You guys act as if the insurgency, or as they refer to it in Iraq, "the real war" is just a big surprise. A shock! Who knew?? It could not have been anticipated, so therefore Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc.. are off the hook. :rolleyes:

It called hubris, just FYI. And no one needs to try to make them look bad, they've done it to themselves w/ their words and actions. It's all on the permanent record, and history will be harsh on them. This is not one of the companies that Jr. was handed or professional sports team, it's the fate of the world. The gonads, (and BS), of some of you guys in trying to sell your revisionist lies about Iraq or the U.S. economy are astounding. Simply unbelievable. Baghdad Bob-ish.

Yes, the asshats in power thought that it would be a cakewalk; ie. oust Saddam w/o too much "collateral damage", install a puppet govt. w/ the CIA's buddy Chalabi, give Halliburton all of the service/clean-up contracts, and call it a day. There WAS a cost/benefit analysis done by these fuchs, and they missed by 10,000%. So spare me the "liberals don't have the stomach for a long conflict" BS. Liberals in my family did just fine during WW2 sticking it out, (and fighting and dying), what most of us do not have the stomach for is dishonest, incompetent and corrupt leadership in our own country. I think that those labels apply in various degrees to the major players.

Yes, Bush thought that the mission was accomplished when he pranced around on the AC carrier, he was not celebrating a ship coming in for R&R, for chrisakes. He is not well informed on the history, people and conflicts of that region. No expert on earth is surprised by the way it is turning out, and it will get worse. You can quote me on that. Not what I want, but it's the Pottery Barn now.

Lastly, Jason B. (Mulholland I/II/the sequel), does not "deal w/ me". He is someone that I am friendly with in the real world and I invited him here specifically because I refuse to waste any bandwidth in the real world arguing w/ true believers. Life is way too short. The next one I am sending over to some Ford/Chevy BBS, however. :D

Rodeo - I do not follow.

I suppose I could try harder.



nah.

Denis, glad you made it home ok :)

Bush took a premature victory lap. Way, way premature.

Standing alone, his silly celebration was not the worst thing in the world. But as Denis said, Rove's "Mission Accomplished" theater-at-sea is indicative of just how little he and everyone else in his administration understood about the war they started. That's scary.

I'll leave it at that. If you disagree, there's no way I can convince you otherwise. Stay the course.

Bingo!!!! That is exactly what I said and exactly what I meant. An actual quote! If that is what you thought I said...then why did you say that I said:

Originally posted by Rodeo

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... "mission accomplished" meant that the ship safely returned to port..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly saying the mission of a warship and crew was accomplished is not the same thing as saying that it safely returned to port. Surely you cannot think it is.

I don't know if you guys intentionally misquote others..or are just extremely careless...but it certainly makes your credibility questionable. Especially since the "misquote" always seems to help your argument. Then when it is pointed out...you get all defensive and start insulting the person who points it out...instead of apolygising.
Words mean things. Specific things. You seem to know how to cut-and-paste when it suits you...so why not when you quote someone...does it remove a certain "license" to adjust things slightly so you can make a better case? that does seem to be the liberal tactic. I continually see the President quoted the same way. Sometimes it is retracted on page 37 in fine print...sometimes it is not. The same tactic is used on this BBS quite often. If you cannot argue my posts honestly...pass them up and argue someone elses. You don't fool anyone...even the folks that agree with your position...even if they take your side out of duty.

Nice job parsing words. Let me guess, Bill Clinton is your hero?

So what exactly what was the "mission" of that particular ship that was "accomplished?"

Remember your words: "The "mission" of the ship and crew were "accomplished." That's what the banner meant.

Summing up the mission as coming safely home is apparently not acceptable to you, so tell us how you describe this ship's "mission" that was worthy of such celebration?