Actually, it wasn't coded, just wasn't given as much importance due to visual imagery and opening his speech: However, in the middle of the speech he stated: This clearly establishes that the "Mission Accomplished" was but a small part not only in the Iraq war, but also the Forever War. He then ended with a quote: Biblical. More context, Isaiah 49:8-10, freedom comes from God's favor:
I see him saying that there is more work to be done, and that Iraq is part of an ongoing war on terror, but not that the battle thus far was "a small part" of the war in Iraq.
Sorry, totally missed this before; good thing it was quoted. No, no links. I looked for a sec for one, and couldn't find it. Will look again, but it was said on MSNBC, in a piece about Tenet, and I quoted it ( with a type) word for word: "Quietyl but firmly", etc.
If this is anything like World War 2, the Soviet Union (augmented by supplies from the untouched industrial output of the US) is going to have to occupy the attention of most of the terrorist armies and just about more Soviets will die than all other nations combined. Then the US and Britain will have to open up a second front in order to race to terrorist heartland and deny the Soviets the opportunity to conquer all the terrorist lands. Oh wait, that's a bad analogy...
If anyone gets the spike out of the Sibel Edmonds story, maybe those Rove whisper campaigns won't work so well in the future. http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/ See Sibel Edmonds on the right column, Rove at the bottom. Link good for a week. Also: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml
Uhh...OK. It was a "small part" of the war on terror and it was one third of the Iraq makeover: This time now is covered in the "securing" stage. Even if more troops are commited and there is actually more fighting, he covered it by saying that the regime fall was the war and this part is the securing. Is that better for you?
Robert Novak: Is Bush a conservative? Friday, June 4, 2004 WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- After a Memorial Day spent campaigning in his district, a Republican House member turned on the television Monday night to encounter a positive advertisement by George W. Bush's re-election campaign. To the congressman's dismay, it praised the president's education bill (with the tag line: "Because no child in America should be left behind"). That was probably the second least favorite ad possible in the opinion of this lawmaker. The worst possible advertisement for conservative congressmen would have been one praising President Bush's prescription drug bill. Their constituents are unhappy about both the school and prescription drug programs. So, to get Republican voters out of their living rooms and into the polling booth Election Day, they want the Bush campaign to stop talking about these unpopular proposals. These legislators are cheered by public statements by Ken Mehlman, the Bush campaign manager, that this campaign will highlight ideological differences between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. There is a disconnect, however. While conservatives hope for Mehlman to guide a strategy to their liking, the campaign manager believes there is nothing inconsistent between this goal and promoting the education bill on television. Mehlman follows Bush's own beliefs. The president is proud of the very programs his conservative base most dislikes, leading some of the president's supporters to wonder whether George W. Bush is really a conservative. Seeds of this concern were inadvertently planted by the president himself when he went to Capitol Hill May 20, shortly before the Memorial Day recess. Over 200 Republican members of both houses of Congress had been told Bush would make a brief preliminary statement, with microphones set up in the aisles for extensive questioning of the president to follow. Inexplicably, Bush launched into a meandering presentation lasting the better part of an hour with no questions -- exactly the format he uses for fund-raising presentations. Bush was off to a good start by talking about his tax cuts, the heart of his economic recovery program and of supply-side ideology. The lawmakers cheered and applauded. But their response diminished to a few hands clapping when the president turned to his education program. He next encountered dead silence by going on to the prescription drug program. "I guess your eyes just glazed over," an unamused Bush told his congressional audience. Defiantly, he said: "Other presidents have promised help for prescription drugs, but I have actually done it." That generated a little applause. Only when Bush mentioned health savings accounts, the token conservative element in the prescription drug bill, did he again get an enthusiastic reaction from the legislators. The president concluded with an exposition on Iraq that, while a little disorganized, was greeted warmly. For the most part, Republicans on Capitol Hill are not abandoning Bush on the war. The unhappy meeting with Bush preceded what congressmen faced meeting unhappy constituents during their recess. The voters of the conservative base have no use for "no child left behind," but that is a nagging old pain. What acutely torments these voters is the prescription drug bill. Republicans are fearful that the plan will take away benefits they have now and replace them with something they don't want. It was common for Republican congressmen during this recess to be approached by a voter asking this question: Isn't it true that if we had John Kerry as president and a Republican majority in Congress opposing him, we never would have had this prescription drug bill? The implication is that conservatives in Congress could be real conservatives with an ineffective Democrat in the White House. Actually, Bush's defeat more likely would trigger an enormous internal explosion inside the Republican Party between forces temporarily held together in an effort to elect a president. Nor are Republicans still confident that in the wake of Bush's defeat, they would hold the Senate or even the House. Coming back from their recess, Republican House members foresee losses in November. These congressmen believe their constituents will stand with the president on Iraq. They also fear the president does not appreciate the extent of disillusionment in his base. At least, they say, he should stop talking about the education and prescription drug bills.
Wow. Thanks man, I really appreciate that. Same to you! I think we two may be the only ones left in here with double digit Member #'s. I'm so glad that Clutch put those up; I'm proud of mine. Remember when the BBS had a small number of people like you, me, Will, AntiSonic, Clutch posting all the time? Oh, uh, and... the wheels are coming off the administration!
Hey, I'm still around. I don't think I'll ever leave. BTW, I share Pole's sentiments and I extend the same to him.
Oops! No offense. I knew I'd forget a few. How many of the old-timers are lurking out there? Thanks dude.
How can you think that? The "securing" stage was predicted (incorrectly) as a simple policing activity in the eyes of this administration (Bush). Not another battled filled, quagmire. The initial operation of moving in on Iraq was something that many people, U.S. citizens, thought could be done easily (relatively speaking) in a military sense. Yes, it's true, we could march in and occupy Iraq (raise our flag, then replace it with an Iraq flag). But merely occupying the capital isn't a "victory" or "mission accomplished" within itself. The administration thought it was (symbolic and tactical). Bush, clearly underestimated the tasks at hand. Else, he wouldn't have flown that "mission accomplished" banner in the first place (even if it was for political and/or troop morale reasons). If you remember the scene of the Saddam statue being pulled down? That was a big influence on Bush's assessment of the war and caused him to think "mission accomplished" incorrectly. This elusive thing we call "terrorism" is not a country or standing army. This is why Bush is being pressed even by the moderate republicans to hand over power. Else, we stay and continue to lose more troops. What's the catch-22? At the same time, the neo-cons want a perpetual war and trying to achieve their dream of PNAC. At any human cost. That means that we really wont leave anytime soon. Not really. Not unless Bush wants to piss off the neo-cons. Don't you find it peculiar that Bush is a so-called "Christian" yet he's in bed with the secular neo-cons? I'm sorry, but those ideologies don't mix. So I guess, "mission accomplished" is a synonym for "forever war?" Heh!
I can think that because Bush said that. Bush never gave a timetable for securing, so one can only assume that we are still in the securing stage and that, since he labeled it as the second stage, we are finished with the first one. He will then appear again and let us know when the third stage has begun. That makes it easier for the slow people. Well, the post-stated purpose of the war was overthrowing Saddam. They did that, so it was a "mission accomplished." In the next breath, though, Bush informed us that the work was not finished, that there was still much to do. That is what we are doing now...much. Are you suggesting that Bush should only have Christian leadership? Besides, his Isaiah quote clearly establishes religious context. Remember that the quote is about God's grace freeing people, a bond being formed and the lost then being guided. This was clearly also said to Bush, and so now he is trying to do God's will and bring the lost Iraqi's into a covenant with God. I don't know how you got that. I was saying that "War on Terrorism" and "Forever War" were synonymous. An infinite number of "mission accomplished" can occur within said war.
Huh? An "infinite number" of symbolic "mission accomplished" banners can be imagined in ones mind, but never shown to the public. Great... How convenient. Maybe he should have shown a "war on terrorism continues" banner instead...Come on man! You're dealing with Karl Rove here and Bush is just following along. He made a error in judgment, plain and simple. Cutting the banner in phases is convenient now, but not then. It had a political purpose. To persuade, to influence, to change public opinion. To say, "Looky, the waring part is over, but the rebuilding part will continue..." Looks like the rebuilding phase had more "war" in it that the initial phase, now doesn't it? That's an error in judgment. If the "simple people" didn't believe that back then, then why is public support on his side falling now? In the end, it still mislead people.
You are giving "the public" too much credit. We, as a mass organism, have very short memories. They can show a "mission accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier behind a smiling president and everyone will feel good. It is how we are wired and expecially how we are trained in today's visual culture. I think that is a great idea, or perhaps "The War on Terror Marches On" or "The War on Terror...to be continued..." I would stand up and cheer for those slogans. It as not an error in judgement, it was effective politics. Further, his quote that I highlighted earlier about the three parts was an effective catch-all backup to which the president can always return. I said "slow people" not "simple people" but it is all the same, so I can work with that. The reason support is failing now is the president is losing the visual battle. He needs another banner and his popularity will go back up. I think he could kill two birds with one stone with "God's Mission Accomplished...Coming Soon!"
Finnally, I was waiting for you to say that. Lets get to the truth of the matter. It's nothing but politics. That's right. This is how the people in power fool the "slow" or "simple." The "catch-all back up" is used for that. But really? Do you think they buy it now? Nah. Sure, it was a "feel good" used to fool the public back then. But it's not a "feel good" now. Hmmmm, I wonder why Rove hasn't tried that new slogan? Maybe you give the "simple" too little credit. Especially, when they are the ones dying. Sooner or later they will catch on. Maybe we should bring back the draft! Ya think? That's what happens when you can't fool the "slow and simple" anymore.
"Bush [told Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state], 'Not all the American bishops are with me' on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism. Other sources in the meeting said that while they could not recall the president’s exact words, he did pledge aggressive efforts on the cultural front, especially the battle against gay marriage, and asked for the Vatican’s help in encouraging the U.S. bishops to be more outspoken. That's an excerpt from the National Catholic Reporter, picked up in a full-length article in The New York Times. As you probably know, there has been a movement afoot in a number of Roman Catholic diocese to deny communion to Roman Catholic politicians who oppose certain Catholic moral teachings as matters of public policy, as opposed to ones of personal conscience. The key example is abortion. One bishop, I believe, has even held out the option of denying communion to ordinary voters who don't vote a consistently pro-life line. According to today's Times ... In his recent trip to Rome, President Bush asked a top Vatican official to push American bishops to speak out more about political issues, including same-sex marriage, according to a report in the National Catholic Reporter, an independent newspaper. In a column posted Friday evening on the paper's Web site, John L. Allen Jr., its correspondent in Rome and the dean of Vatican journalists, wrote that Mr. Bush had made the request in a June 4 meeting with Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state. Citing an unnamed Vatican official, Mr. Allen wrote: "Bush said, 'Not all the American bishops are with me' on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism." Mr. Allen wrote that others in the meeting confirmed that the president had pledged aggressive efforts "on the cultural front, especially the battle against gay marriage, and asked for the Vatican's help in encouraging the U.S. bishops to be more outspoken." Cardinal Sodano did not respond, Mr. Allen reported, citing the same unnamed people. I guess on one level we can say we've come a long way since 1960 when John F. Kennedy had to foreswear that he'd follow the instructions of the Pope in his decisions of governance. Today we have a Protestant born-again who tries to enlist the Pope to intervene in an American election. Now, let's look at this phrase 'more explicit activism'. The key point of activism we've been hearing about is that of denying communion to pro-choice Catholic pols, or perhaps those who support gay marriage -- seemingly always Dems, pro-choice GOPers seem always to find a special dispensation, shall we say. This creates at a minimum a political nuisance which affected Democrats must deal with. Now, just what sort of activisim is it Bush is asking the Pontiff to press upon the bishops? It seems a pretty small leap to think that pressing the denial of communion issue is one of them. And sources told the National Catholic Reporter that "while Bush was focusing primarily on the [gay] marriage question, he also had in mind other concerns such as abortion and stem cell research." Presidents regularly meet with Popes. Certainly they talk about matters both political and moral, perhaps even theological. But is it the president's place to press the pope to sow religious divisions among American Catholics, a majority of whom seem uncomfortable with the efforts of some in the hierarchy to discipline pro-Choice Catholic politicians? And all that aside is it proper for the president to enlist the Vatican as an arm of his political campaign? The articles noted above make it pretty clear these requests were made for electoral political purposes. Remember the words ... "Not all the American bishops are with me" -- Josh Marshall
