Wrong. He never proclaimed mission accomplished but I suspect you already knew that.

Well, we were treated to a feel-good scene reminiscent of Top Gun when W proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier three and a half years ago.

 

There's your story book ending. The only thing missing is they couldn't get a big white horse for W to ride up the deck on.

Wrong. He never proclaimed mission accomplished but I suspect you already knew that.

 

Right.....W "the end of MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS in Iraq."

 

and the 3 foot high sign reading MISSION ACCOMPLISHED was not there to send the American people a message?

 

They could have taken the sign down just as they took the "mission accomplished statement out of the speach.

 

Don't worry, we don't expect the right to acknowledge this.

Wrong. He never proclaimed mission accomplished but I suspect you already knew that.

 

I realize that you are making the point that, technically speaking, he never actually uttered those words. This staged photo op, however, was set up to deliver that very message:

To be honest with you, 75 Center, I understand exactly what Bush was really trying to say. He was telling us that the drive to Baghdad was completed, and that the Americans were now in control of Iraq.

 

The reason that this has come back to haunt him is not that what he was saying wasn't true. Rather, it was because the administration adamantly refused to even entertain dissenting opinion, believing that they were infallible throughout the entire ordeal. The awful truth was that many people - VERY many - recognized that getting to Baghdad was only half the battle. Unfortunately, the scope of the mission, as it was defined by this administration, was shortsighted at best, and absolutely disastrous at worst.

 

At this point, the "best case" scenario isn't panning out for us.

 

 

Frances

I realize that you are making the point that, technically speaking, he never actually uttered those words. This staged photo op, however, was set up to deliver that very message:

 

There are conflicting stories about who put up the banner and why, right?

Right.....W "the end of MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS in Iraq."

 

and the 3 foot high sign reading MISSION ACCOMPLISHED was not there to send the American people a message?

 

They could have taken the sign down just as they took the "mission accomplished statement out of the speach.

 

Don't worry, we don't expect the right to acknowledge this.

 

Why acknowledge democratic talking points? The left does that well enough.

To be honest with you, 75 Center, I understand exactly what Bush was really trying to say. He was telling us that the drive to Baghdad was completed, and that the Americans were now in control of Iraq.

 

The reason that this has come back to haunt him is not that what he was saying wasn't true. Rather, it was because the administration adamantly refused to even entertain dissenting opinion, believing that they were infallible throughout the entire ordeal. The awful truth was that many people - VERY many - recognized that getting to Baghdad was only half the battle. Unfortunately, the scope of the mission, as it was defined by this administration, was shortsighted at best, and absolutely disastrous at worst.

 

At this point, the "best case" scenario isn't panning out for us.

 

 

Frances

 

I can agree with much of your post except for entertaining dissenting opinion. It depends if you're referring to Bush or Rumsfeld.

There are conflicting stories about who put up the banner and why, right?

75 this statement loses you credibility points. The President has the authority to decide what is put up and where or he doesn't show up. This sounds like a political ploy or trick and doesn't become you.

I believe the vote was more anti-Bush than pro-Democrat. I believe the Dems would be wise to realize this and work in the next two years to win the trust of the voters in 2008, because I do not think they will be able to rely on anti-Bush vote come 2008.

 

 

:thumb: I do agree that the dems would be wise to work to win the trust of the voters. I disagree that they wont be able to use the anti-Bush vote. A lot of people may vote Democratic because they dislike Bush so much.

Step 2 of the dems plan for Iraq. The #3 man, John Murtha is in charge of Military Budgeting. Sell your Halliburton stock.

Step 2 of the dems plan for Iraq. The #3 man, John Murtha is in charge of Military Budgeting. Sell your Halliburton stock.

Don't you know where Halliburton got all their contracts? Bill Clinton. In the early 1990s, the Army Corps of Engineers decided they needed to retain a US company under a long term contract to provide random services to the Army as needed. The Army needed a method to get things done on short notice without having to go through the exhaustive government procurement and bidding process for every project. This was dubbed “Logistics Civil Augmentation Program“, or LOGCAP.

 

In 1992 Halliburton won the bidding process for this contract, and lost it in 1997 to Dynacorp.

 

Despite having lost the contract in 1997, Halliburton was awarded a no-bid contract by the Clinton administration to conduct work needed by US Peacekeepers in the Balkans because it made little sense to change contractors in mid-stream. Halliburton already had boots on the ground, and had experience doing what the Army needed them to do. In fact, Halliburton became one of the Clinton administration's favorite outsourcing contractors, doing work for them in Haiti and Somalia, as well as Bosnia.

Don't you know where Halliburton got all their contracts? Bill Clinton. In the early 1990s, the Army Corps of Engineers decided they needed to retain a US company under a long term contract to provide random services to the Army as needed. The Army needed a method to get things done on short notice without having to go through the exhaustive government procurement and bidding process for every project. This was dubbed “Logistics Civil Augmentation Program“, or LOGCAP.

 

In 1992 Halliburton won the bidding process for this contract, and lost it in 1997 to Dynacorp.

 

Despite having lost the contract in 1997, Halliburton was awarded a no-bid contract by the Clinton administration to conduct work needed by US Peacekeepers in the Balkans because it made little sense to change contractors in mid-stream. Halliburton already had boots on the ground, and had experience doing what the Army needed them to do. In fact, Halliburton became one of the Clinton administration's favorite outsourcing contractors, doing work for them in Haiti and Somalia, as well as Bosnia.

 

Your right. That was back in the day when we had government accountability and oversite under the Clinton Administration. There has not been an auidt by the GAO since 2003 when they found grave overcharges and 9,000,000.00 US Tax dollars missing that the Bush Admin simply has no ideal where it went and no determination to look for it.

Your right. That was back in the day when we had government accountability and oversite under the Clinton Administration. There has not been an auidt by the GAO since 2003 when they found grave overcharges and 9,000,000.00 US Tax dollars missing that the Bush Admin simply has no ideal where it went and no determination to look for it.

 

:laugh:

That is one of the funniest things I have ever read on BGP. Kudos, DD! Well done.

:laugh:

That is one of the funniest things I have ever read on BGP. Kudos, DD! Well done.

 

Kind of got a chuckel out of that one myself.