Bush never actually *said* "Mission Accomplished"!

Is it not known as rewriting history? Somewhat too soon in this case?

I was also taken by the his delayed rebuttle to the charges levelled at him for that day.

Re: Bush never actually *said* "Mission Accomplished&q


You are not the only one to whom that image occurred:

But he DID say "Oh, sh*t!"

And who could disagree.

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


W ducks real nature of the war U.S. is in

At yesterday's White House press conference, President Bush was asked about the chilly reception he received from Islamic leaders at an Asian summit last week in Indonesia.
These leaders asked Bush why Americans think all Muslims are terrorists. Bush replied that the leaders were mistaken - Americans know perfectly well that terrorism is restricted to "the acts of a few."

The President has been saying this since 9/11. It's possible that many people here believe him. But quite obviously, the Islamic world doesn't.

Why not? The answer isn't complicated. Muslim leaders know better. And they think Bush does, too.

Part of the problem derives from what Bush would call fuzzy language. He insists on talking about "the war on terror." But terrorism is a technique, not an enemy, and you don't make war on a technique. You make war on enemies.

For reasons of domestic political correctness and international diplomacy, the Bush administration refuses to name its enemies, even in a general way.

The President talks about terrorism as if it existed in a vacuum. He never uses the terms "Islamic terrorism" or "Arab terrorism." At his press conference, he blamed the recent spate of bombings in Baghdad on "foreign terrorists" - as though these fighters could easily be Belgian Catholics, Chinese Buddhists or Indian Hindus.

The administration also dissembles by using surrogate demons. Osama Bin Laden is the enemy, but not Saudi Arabia, the source of Bin Laden's anti-American doctrines. Saddam Hussein and his band of followers are the enemy, but they are merely a small and unrepresentative band of outlaws who can be rounded up and rooted out. Yasser Arafat is an enemy, but he is the false leader of a people yearning for compromise and peace. The ayatollahs are the enemy, but the Iranian masses love America and yearn for democracy.

This is sheer nonsense, and nobody knows it better than the Arab and Iranian dictators of the Middle East and their Islamic allies. They know perfectly well that America is hated and feared by the clerical and political classes - the only ones that matter - from North Africa to Southeast Asia.

This hatred is so widespread and powerful that it unites ancient rivals. Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Baathists and royalists, tribal leaders and urban intellectuals, theologians and supposedly secular military officers - all gather under the banner of jihad.

Bush can insist all day long that America isn't at war with Islam. But that misses the point. In varying degrees, the Islamic world is at war with the U.S., its interests and purposes.

Muslim leaders know that, obviously, and they think Bush must know it, too.

Last night, Bush hosted his annual dinner marking the Muslim holiday of iftar. The guest list included many dignitaries from Islamic countries and organizations now engaged in undermining U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Mideast and elsewhere. Or, in Bush's own terms, actively aiding and abetting terrorists.

In past years, the President has used this dinner to proclaim that the U.S. isn't at war with the Islamic world, only individual bad guys who happen to be Muslims, that Islam is a religion of peace and there is no inherent conflict between American and Islamic ideologies or interests.

This message always wins Bush a round of polite applause. But not a single one of his guests believes it. They all know better.

We can only hope that the President does, too.

Originally published on October 28, 2003

the white house had the banner made and paid for it. the navy put it up.

I say roll the banner up with a good helping of crow and serve it to Dubya as a giant taquito.

We've had to put up with this kind of "re-inventing history" with almost every recent administration -- but this "gang that couldn't shoot straight" bunch of incompetents seems to make it particularly insulting.

All I can hope is that enough Americans wake up by next November and send this group packin'.

Frank, I don't give much hope for Americans to wake up from their Rip van Winkle slumber. They've been drugged with to much rhetoric that's been repeated so often, they believe it to be true - it's all for the Iraqi People.

We had the Hole in the Wall Gang, no we've got the Hole in the Head Gang.

more likely the gang that could not talk straight.

* aint dumb, he thinks we are.

When Good Photo-Ops Go Bad

Published: October 30, 2003

Democrats gnashed their teeth last spring when President Bush pulled off what looked like the ultimate photo-op: his jet-pilot landing on an aircraft carrier to announce the end of major hostilities in Iraq. As much as they complained of showboating, the Democrats had nightmares about the campaign commercials that would be made from the pictures of Mr. Bush striding past the cheering sailors in his flight suit.

Six months later, the word "quagmire" is sloshing around the public discourse just as "Top Gun" was back then. This week the president tried to disentangle himself from the message his photo-op created. He blamed the carrier crew for creating the dramatic "Mission Accomplished" banner that hung behind him when he spoke. His own staff members, he claimed, "weren't that ingenious."

But the whole world knows the Bush media team is very ingenious indeed when it comes to that kind of less-than-subliminal background message. Mr. Bush's press secretary later admitted that the banner had been produced by the White House communications office — at the suggestion, he insisted, of unnamed crew members.

At least for the moment, the carrier images seem to be more about overconfidence than victory. Citizens who feel they are constantly being overspun by their elected officials can take comfort in the realization that teams of well-paid consultants can try to convey one thing through a picture and wind up saying the opposite. Michael Dukakis's ride in a tank was supposed to shout "leadership," but wound up saying "dork." Richard Nixon's team went to great lengths to have the cameras record him walking on the beach, looking thoughtful and Kennedy-like. But the whole world saw a man who wore a coat, tie and wingtip shoes when he went strolling in the sand. This heartening fallibility goes back at least as far as Calvin Coolidge, who was persuaded to don an Indian headdress in an effort to be really human and wound up looking really silly.

Right now, Mr. Bush's potential opponents may be enjoying the administration's current embarrassment, but they'll feel different the next time they're in Iowa and a staff member announces it's time for the portrait with the cow.

It is a well-known analysis that the 1960 election between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon might have turned in Nixon's favor had Nixon been more telegenic.

The first of the now-common presidential debates appeared on TV that year. Kennedy used the medium to his advantage. He allowed make-up to be applied in contrast to the not made-up Richard Nixon.

In that age of black-and-white television, Kennedy looked suave and debonair. The heavily bearded Nixon had a 5 o'clock shadow which made him appear swarthy. He also wore a light-colored suit which in contrast made him look like a criminal (which ultimately he turned out to be).

Presidential politics has not been the same since that debate. Dubya flying onto the aircraft carrier after Operation Iraqi Freedom will certainly be remembered, in hindsight at least, for the sham we now know it was.

Dubya, Dick, Condi and Colin probably thought the "Mission Accomplished" sign which appeared over Dubya's shoulder would underscore Dubya's bravura performance as commander-in-chief. If he had it all to do again, I would say Dubya would not have used the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

I know it was almost (sic) anguishing watching Nixon sweat but then Kennedy was making him Sweat more than the studio lights!

Put some really hot Jalapenos in that taquito.

I have heard and read in more than one source that those who watched the debate gave the palm to Kennedy, but that those who listened to it on the radio considered Nixon to have won. However, that could be false, and all derived from the same false source. I should "snopes" that, as i can't recall a specific source . . . then again, i could go make a sammich . . .

Setanta<

As a man who was very much alive in 1960, I remember your history here to be correct.

You would probably find details in The Making of the President 1960 by Theodore White. This book has been praised by Democrats, Republicans, et. al. It is a definitive look at the Kennedy-Nixon campaign.

Hope you enjoyed your sammich!

It was damned good, Boss (the sammich) . . . I recall being told in 1960 that my family would vote for Kennedy because we were Irish Catholics. I pointed out that although my grandparents sent me to catechism because it was my father's wish, they were not Catholic. I then opined that my grandfather would vote for Kennedy, as he was the local Democratic precinct committeeman. That drew scowls, which i did not understand until i was older, and learned just how much the curs in that mostly Republican town hated my grandfather, and feared his ready wit, sharp toungue and quiet mastery of himself and his world. I turned ten right around election day that year, and really didn't comprehend the depth of political animosity.

nemesis is sweet.....except when it happens to me.....

Lies
It was said that the ship was too far out to sea for shrub to fly to it on a helicopter so they flew him in on a jet. False. They actually had to take the ship out further just so he could fly in on a jet with his flight suit. That made the landing more dramatic and him look more heroic.