DarthFerret said:
Another example....Bush lands on an aircraft carrier and the media states that he informed America that the war was over. In actuallity, the carrier on which he landed had just finished up an unrelated mission, and had a banner on the deck that said Mission Accomplished. It had not one wit to do with Bush's speech.
Wow.
Don't you think that if the President chooses a ship to deliver the speech, if there was an banner left from another mission, they'd make the effort to remove it if it wasn't applicable? Or, at the least, conveyed something that they didn't disagree with?
Consider also these quotes from his speech (I actually took the time to read the entire thing):
"major combat operations in Iraq have ended.
In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
"In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of
this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it."
"
The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on."
"The use of force has been and remains our last resort. Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace.
Our mission continues. Al Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. "
As you can see, Bush refers to the 'mission' and it being 'accomplished' but in the text you'll find nuances like
major combat operations and that the mission continues.
The problem I have with the banner, is that the kind of sign is undoubtedly interpreted as a summary. Someone holding a speech in front of a sign that says "Drink Milk" is going to tell you you need to drink milk and probably going to give you good reasons for it.
This is of course accepted political behaviour. You can provide your view on the events and say you feel that the mission was accomplished.
But if people comment on the banner later on, and say that it portrays a dishonesty (because the mission in Iraq was far from over), the President seems to find it necessary to turn to excuses to say that banner implied a different mission than the one discussed in the speech. And that the banner wasn't their idea (it supposedly was the Navy's) and all they did was
produce it.
If they could just admit they underestimated the resistence and admit that declaring their mission accomplished was done prematurely (and incorrectly), it wouldn't create the lack of respect this action has.
