If by "mission accomplished" you mean....

[SLO-BOB]

1- Invading a country on a false premise. check

2 - Making life actually worse for Iraqis. check

3 - Making the U.S. a more hated target for more terrorists.
check

4 - Entering a war (against your Dad's approval) w/o an exit
strategy. check

5 - And my personal favorite - removing from power the one guy
who hated Iran more than we do thus allowing a more
fearsome enemy to expand it's influence. Iran is buddying up
to Iraq with money and support. What next?

Nice work.

[kach22i]

Bush finally said "mistakes were made", what more do you want?

I'd like him to be at least as specific as your list.


http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0115-30.htm

Instead, I've decided to write about grammar.

That's right. I am zeroing in only one sentence from his speech. And that sentence is:

Mistakes have been made.

For those who have forgotten their high school English, this is called "passive" voice. It places the emphasis on the object of the sentence, not the subject. There is no telling who did what — only that something somehow happened.

Saying Mistakes have been made is like saying The house caught fire. It's as though the house is somehow to blame for burning up. See? And the mistakes in Bush's Iraq policy are somehow at fault for having occurred.

Common sense would dictate that someone made those mistakes, but the person who did so is missing from the sentence. Obviously, then, that person is not to blame.

[lendaddy]

Finally some original thoughts from someone that hasn't been spoonfed their perspective.

[Nathans_Dad]

How long ago was "Mission Accomplished" again?

Don't you have something else by now?

[Jim Richards]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Finally some original thoughts from someone that hasn't been spoonfed their perspective.

Yeah, I'm struggling with the thought of trying to find a strategy that will successfully stabilize Iraq, or should we just admit failure and leave the Iraqi's to their own devices. Normally, I would support the first approach; however, I have no confidence that B2 and his cadre are up to the task. Diplomacy will be required as part of the solution, and one cannot change from being a fervent unilateralist to a diplomat at the drop of a hat. We'll see.

[SLO-BOB]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Finally some original thoughts from someone that hasn't been spoonfed their perspective.

Wow LD-that was fast! Something we agree on. I knew I could count on your rapier like sarcasm to point out that this has been said before. But, I figured the flood gates on cliche were opened with such fine posts as... the "Evil Senate", "Kerry hates America", and a true classic, "Jane Fonda hates America".

This whole "Losing the war thing" is soooo yesterday. But I do feel compelled to cvomment as each losing phase of GW's plan reveals itself. Iran buddying up to Iraq is certainly such a benchmark.

Btw-at what point do I get to say "I told you so."? When we're all wearing turbans?

Edit- I kew I should have waited a bit longer, but I have a busy day. I knew the Bush backers would be quick to jump on this as an old topic while ignoring the tired posts mentioned above. Thanks Nathans-Dad for joining in.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by SLO-BOB

Btw-at what point do I get to say "I told you so."? When we're all wearing turbans?

Yes, turbans.....at that point you can gloat.

[SLO-BOB]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
Yeah, I'm struggling with the thought of trying to find a strategy that will successfully stabilize Iraq, or should we just admit failure and leave the Iraqi's to their own devices.

I couldn't agree more! I was against this from the start and we are exactly where I knew we would be. Yes-I was spoonfed this info from such idiots (sarcasm so LD understands) as the elder George Bush, a person for whom I voted. Now we are truly stuck and in far worse shape than before he started this mess. I don't know what the solution is. Leaving would be a disaster. Staying is a disaster. I have no answer for this one. I do know this, if a democrat gets elected, we will be totally screwed. Unfortunately, GW has made such a bad name for Republicans that we will have a hard time retaining the office.

[SLO-BOB]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Yes, turbans.....at that point you can gloat.

I will say I admire how you stick to your guns.

[lendaddy]

Bob, if you wanted to make a serious point then why lead off with what we know is a pathetic cliche "Mission accomplished".

The story behind and meaning for that banner has been so warped by the Bush haters that no serious person would use it as an argument.

I do agree that Bush has set back the Republican movement, but I think it is because of his lack of fiscal restraint...not the war on terror.

[on-ramp]

Bob , don't forget the 500+ Billion Dollars spent.

[SLO-BOB]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Bob, if you wanted to make a serious point then why lead off with what we know is a pathetic cliche "Mission accomplished".

The story behind and meaning for that banner has been so warped by the Bush haters that no serious person would use it as an argument.

I do agree that Bush has set back the Republican movement, but I think it is because of his lack of fiscal restraint...not the war on terror.

I already said it was a bit tongue in cheek and in reference to the other tired posts that won't let things go. Could there be a more worn out anti Bush mantra than "Mission Accomplished"? It definitely was not used as an arguement, but rather a segway to opining on current events which can trace their ancestory back to the "MA" banner.

The war on terror was hardly a Bush innovation btw. I agree with
that war. It's the execution that I have a problem with.

As far as fiscal restraint, I've chosen to bury my head in the sand on that one. I can only process so much.