|
 |
October 29, 2003
He deserves every bit of snark he gets for this ridiculous contention, but I still have a question: why? Bush knows perfectly well that his staff managed every last detail of the carrier speech, and he knows perfectly well that every reporter at the press conference yesterday also knows it. So why engage in such a trivial and obvious lie? He must have realized that the only result would be a barrage of sarcastic stories saying that he was fibbing once again. So what was the point? Or do you think it's possible that he really doesn't know what his own communications staff does? Posted by Kevin Drum at October 29, 2003 08:46 AM | TrackBackComments
Really, Kevin, what evidence have you seen in past weeks that the man has any scruples at all? As was observed in your earlier posts about the various kinds of lies Bush employs, it's clear that he doesn't limit his choice to just one. This was just an example of the bold day-is-night assertion type. For folks like us, his ridiculous statement only confirms what we've already learned. But do you think Fox News isn't going to give him a pass on this one? What interests me if whether conservatives are uneasy with the cowardice Bush showed with this craven abdication of responsibility. Posted by: Gregory at October 29, 2003 08:51 AM | PERMALINKI've come around to thinking that the administration banks on the phony neutrality of reporters. They expect that in the interest of evenhandedness the media will only report (in this case) that there is a dispute about whether Bush's people put the sign up. Under that world view it would be "liberal bias" to report as fact that Bush's people put the sign up. (Heck, some reporters probably admire the audacity of the lie.) The idea is people will end up viewing this as just another partisan spat. Posted by: Luis at October 29, 2003 08:51 AM | PERMALINKThe man is a pathological liar. He proves it every time he opens his mouth, He needs a psychologist and years and years of therapy. Case closed. Posted by: reef the dog at October 29, 2003 08:51 AM | PERMALINKThe way I see it, there's two options: one is that he really has absolutely no idea about any of the goings on in the White House. The second is that he is such a compulsive, habitual liar that making shit up just comes to mind first, no matter what facts are already on the ground. Posted by: John Yuda at October 29, 2003 08:51 AM | PERMALINKOops, I forgot: This statement wasn't a lie, it's one of those technically-tru-but-misleading statements. It's likely the sailors did put the sucker up. Design it, order it, pay for it (with tax dollars, yet!)? No way, but Bush technically doesn't say that. That's why conservatives will give Bush a pass on this "lie." But again, it confirms that you can't trust anything the man says. And it does show a rather obvious moral cowardice, doesn't it? Posted by: Gregory at October 29, 2003 08:52 AM | PERMALINKIf I could get away with saying whatever I needed to say at the moment even half as much as Bush, I'd be a pathological liar, also. It is also a proven tactic - denying things in steps. By the time that the whole story is clear, it's "old news", and the argument has gotten too tangled for most people to follow. Posted by: Barry at October 29, 2003 08:55 AM | PERMALINKI think it is more of the same. This administration will lie when it doesn't have to, if the substance of the lie seems to make them sound better. From day one with the missing 'W' keys to the non-existant threat agains Ariforce One on 911 they make stuff up or embelllish to try to make themselves look bigger than they are or to get them over the immediate political hump. Another great example had to to with questions abotu the existance of WMDs immediately post-war: When asked where the WMDs were, Bush said "we found them" and referred to the hydrogen generators as Weapons of Mass Destruction. They lie not because they have to, but to reflexively make themselves seem better than they are. it is a very shortsighted practice, almost criminally so, and thankfully it seems to be catching up to them. Posted by: jri at October 29, 2003 08:55 AM | PERMALINKIf it was the crews' and not his accomplished sign, why didn't he say that months ago? Honestly, it doesn't look like the kind of sign the print shop on board usually puts out... But still, he coulda said that back when people asked about it. It even would've made a good talking point! 'Now the mission is accomplished for planes and weapons - but not for the men on the ground, building Iraq into one contry, shattered from decades of war and abuse. We have a new mission, to help the people of Iraq.' C'mon. Why can't they just be honest? Posted by: Crissa at October 29, 2003 08:56 AM | PERMALINKIt is a bit ironic. I think the conservatives who used to deride progressive thinking of "the-end-justify-the means" have finally embraced it themselves. What ever "Dear Leader" needs to say and do to battle terrorists and liberals would be divine lies. Posted by: Chaka at October 29, 2003 08:56 AM | PERMALINKThe real story here is that Bush is admitting that the mission is not, in fact, accomplished. Posted by: praktike at October 29, 2003 09:00 AM | PERMALINKUnfortunatley, Barry, some less scrupulous Bush defenders take full advantage of the so-called "confusion" to give Bush a pass. This comment thread at Blah3 includes a message from someone who says he's in the Navy, and goes on to say that shipboard lithographing facilities couldn't possibly produce something like that. But come on...we know the substance of Bush's words were false. And we know that it's technically true. And we know that Bush cares more about making a political impression than telling the truth. It's beyond spin; it's pure black-is-white-ism. Posted by: Gregory at October 29, 2003 09:02 AM | PERMALINKIt's utterly wrong to claim that 'everyone and his dog' knows Bush lied about this. Probably almost all of your readers do, but blog readers are a miniscule population, and wildly unrepresentative in terms of their knowledge. The NY Times mentions this claim only once, in the 12th paragraph, and never suggests that it's demonstrably false. The question to ask isn't so much, Why does Bush lie?" as, "Why not?" People tend to repeat behaviors that are rewarded; Bush has been lying a long time and doing pretty well by it, so one more isn't likely to trouble him. Posted by: Alex at October 29, 2003 09:03 AM | PERMALINKI did not have public relations with that carrier <pause, gaze averted> Abraham Lincoln... Posted by: Damelon Kimbrough at October 29, 2003 09:04 AM | PERMALINKI love the implications of the "technically true" argument. If Bush
was merely telling us that Navy literally "put up" (physically hung) the
sign, he's admitting that no one on his staff is "ingenious" enough to
have done so. Perhaps some will fall back on the logic used with regard to Valerie Plame. "It is hard to see why Bush would tell such an obvious whopper. That makes the issue far too complicated for me to understand. I will therefore conclude that it did not happen." Posted by: dwight meredith at October 29, 2003 09:11 AM | PERMALINKI think it is testimony to the administration's perception of what it can afford to get caught on and what it can't. It can be caught lying about putting a banner on a ship (and, for that matter, turning the ship around to get the photo-op). But it can't be seen doubting that it had, in fact finished the war. It can be caught engaging in horrible smear tactics involving a CIA operative in order to discredit someone, but it can't be seen to back down on its claim that Iraq had WMDs (recall, too, that when they finally "admitted" that Niger shouldn't have been in teh SOTU, they simply said the statement shouldn't have been there, not that the assertion was incorrect). Bush's "superficial" lies (a formulation I imagine Rove making, not one I believe) offer him cover for his really fundamental failures. And, when you think about it, the scandal has become whether or not he put the banner up, thereby shifting the debate away from the complete failure of his Iraq policy to work out the way he predicted. Posted by: emptywheel at October 29, 2003 09:11 AM | PERMALINKI think, more than any other time, this proves that Bush is not involved in any aspect of governance, and simply goes to the helicopter when told, and reads what he is provided. What reasonbly intelligent politician would have agreed to wear the flight suit (particularly a POTUS and particularly a Bush after the M. Dukakis picture in the tank)anyway. He must not even ask about the coming venues or even look at proposed stage drawings. He went there, the sign was there, therefore the sign was there before him, therefore he did not bring it with him, therefore the ship did it. Posted by: Mary Ellen Moore at October 29, 2003 09:12 AM | PERMALINKMy God! Democracy is in shambles because of A FRICKIN' POSTER!!! You people should get out more.... Posted by: Joey at October 29, 2003 09:12 AM | PERMALINKThe statement Bush made was a "calculated" one. It was given to him and rehearsed with his aides. He tried to make it sound off the cuff, which it was not. The intent was to remove this "sword of damocles" hanging over his administration that the Mission is NOT Accomplished. The thinking being that they need to eliminate this meme from the questioning they are getting incessantly from the press that things in Iraq are not getting better, but worse. Now that it has backfired, they are retreating to slither out of their caves another day and try another lie to change the subject. Unfortunately for them, Iraq is not going to go away and will eventually sink his Presidency, like Vietnam did LBJ. Posted by: Young Turk at October 29, 2003 09:12 AM | PERMALINKI agree with Alex. Most people are *not* aware at this most recent of Bush's lies. Perhaps that will change over the next week or two as columnists mention it, but it isn't really a big news story. Of course, the same blatent misrepresentation, were it uttered by Gore or another Democrat, would be a top story on the cable channels for several weeks and major talking point for every Republican. Except for Clark, has anyone else made a stink about this? There's certainly bigger fish to fry than the origins of some stupid sign, but such a lame excuse by the president at this late date could be an easily-understood semi-scandal, if only the Dems make it one. (Bush did say "Mission Accomplished," or words to that effect, in the speech he made in the shadows of the very sign he now repudiates, after all.) I'm waiting for Instapundit to write that the story over the "Mission Accomplished" sign is "complicated." Posted by: Jim E. at October 29, 2003 09:13 AM | PERMALINKThe fact that Bush's "true lies" seem to be so carefully parsed in clear evidence of how deliberate they are, too. This statement is calculated to give a miselading impression -- and Alex's observation is spot-on that everyone likely doesn't know how false it is -- and also to provide plausible deniability when the accusations based on its substantive falsity arise. Posted by: Gregory at October 29, 2003 09:13 AM | PERMALINKWhat?! No snarky comments from the right yet that Clinton lied more? (Hope this posts before one of them does) Posted by: chris at October 29, 2003 09:13 AM | PERMALINKThis actually makes me wonder whether Duby-uh is a sentient being. Posted by: raj at October 29, 2003 09:14 AM | PERMALINKYes!! Impeach Bushitler over a BANNER hanging from a ship steaming back home after its "mission" was "accomplished"!!! You Dems enjoy the ride over the electoral cliff next fall. Posted by: Joey at October 29, 2003 09:16 AM | PERMALINKMost of the comments posted are typical dem/lib claptrap. Keep up the good work, though. Your insane raving will ensure President Bush will have 4 more years to lead this country. Posted by: Tim at October 29, 2003 09:17 AM | PERMALINKWhy? Because he's a rich brat from a family of money and power. Because he's been handled with kid gloves by all the people around him his whole life. Because he's never had to really work for anything, all of his "accomplishments" have been manufactured and handed to him. Because his sense of entitlement is greater than all his other senses combined. Why? Because he is not a man fit to lead a nation. Integrity, honesty, courage... those are just words to him, he's never had to be any one of them to get anything he has in life... Why would he start now? Posted by: Tim at October 29, 2003 09:18 AM | PERMALINKBush lies because it works, simple as that. It's a habit by now. The fact that he lies about the little things only confirms that he lies about the big things too. Posted by: David W. at October 29, 2003 09:18 AM | PERMALINKThis man is incapabable of accepting responsibility for anything, not matter how trivial. Remember the infamous "poem" he wrote to his wife a few weeks ago? In it, he blamed Laura for dropping the presidential pooch, Barney, even though the incident was videotaped. I don't think he even knew he was lying, he probably "remembered" seeing his wife drop the dog. That's why the call it "pathological". Posted by: Sovok at October 29, 2003 09:19 AM | PERMALINKIndeed, if it was "just a poster" "just a banner" etc. then why lie about it? And where is the poster suggesting "democracy will fail" or calling for impeachment? If you can't find it, do you think it was implied somewhere? Please help me understand your views. Posted by: taktile at October 29, 2003 09:21 AM | PERMALINK"the substance of Bush's words were false" I'd say this is basically true. But McClellan said that the Navy asked for the sign. So I don't know. Maybe he meant the PR people weren't ingenious enough to think of it. But come on. Does it really make any difference who is responsible
for the poster? And why would Bush himself have any involvement in
planning which posters will be in the backdrop for his speeches. Joey, we're saying, if I can presume to speak for us, that democracy is in trouble because Bush refuses to recognize even the slightest obligation to the truth. The poster, and Bush's lame and cowardly attempt to disassociate himself from it, and all that it implies, is simply one example. And if you don't think that such rampant dishonesty in a President a real problem, then you're the one who needs to get out more. Posted by: Gregory at October 29, 2003 09:22 AM | PERMALINKBush's relationship with the truth is at best accidental. He doesn't believe in any sort of objectively verifiable reality. What he thinks, is. So if he now chooses to say his people had nothing to do with it, it is because that is what he believes today. Why check with anybody, if he can make it so by saying it's so? Posted by: Mimikatz at October 29, 2003 09:23 AM | PERMALINKI don't know about how to justify Bush's lies, but I do know that on my browser it looks like Bush is lecturing Kevin Drum. And Drum kinda looks like he's laughing at him. Posted by: Kriston Capps at October 29, 2003 09:23 AM | PERMALINKDon't you just love how Joey manages to completely ignore the point, preferring instead to post irrelevant non sequiturs? Posted by: PaulB at October 29, 2003 09:23 AM | PERMALINKI'm with Joey (and Alex) on this one. He probably lied, but it's a pretty small potatoes lie in the grand scheme of things, and if we who would like to see someone else hold the office of President pin our hopes on this banner, we're screwed. Posted by: denise at October 29, 2003 09:24 AM | PERMALINK... Come on, be serious. Scandals involve bimbos in the oval office or selling guns to rebels. Not who was responsible for hanging up a poster commemorating our soldiers that now looks like a bad PR move. After all, isn't that all this is, is a PR move that backfired? Reg, denial really _isn't_ just a river in Egypt. If Bush denies the White House's role on the banner, what *won't* he lie about? Why, next thing you know, Bush will be sandbagging us about a war that backfired. Oh, wait, he already is. Posted by: David W. at October 29, 2003 09:27 AM | PERMALINKEmptywheel said: "And, when you think about it, the scandal has become whether or not he put the banner up, thereby shifting the debate away from the complete failure of his Iraq policy to work out the way he predicted." That's what they (i.e. Joey above) want you to focus on. It makes you look silly and easy to ridicule, which seems to have supplanted argument of late. Bush said that the poster was "saying that their [the USS Abraham Lincoln's] mission was accomplished." Thus, the president, nor his staff, never actually claimed that America's mission in Iraq had been accomplished. The poster just happened to be behind him---no one on his staff is so "ingenious" to have set it up*. That's the meaning of his statement, and to the extent that the Navy did not "put up" the sign is the extent to which Bush has lied.
At that time you declared major combat operations were over, but since that time there have been over 1,000 wounded, many of them amputees who are recovering at Walter Reed, 217 killed in action since that date. Will you acknowledge now that you were premature in making those remarks? This was the question that spawed those remarks. Why would he make
such remarks? Simple, to change the subject and deflect attention away
from the Iraq casualties. Very typical/cynical tactic. Er, who the hell is pinning the hopes for the Dems in 2004 on this banner? Who is calling for Bush's impeachment over this banner? Who has combined Bush+Hitler into Bushilter on this thread? Who thinks democracy is in shambles over this poster? Not a single person. Well, except for hysterical "Joey," that is. Thanks for all the strawmen. Why would you waste your time mischaracterizing the tone of the posts on this thread? Posted by: Jim E. at October 29, 2003 09:31 AM | PERMALINKI suppose that one could say that major combat operations had ended as of May 2. Unfortunately, they began again on May 3. Posted by: raj at October 29, 2003 09:33 AM | PERMALINK"Bush knows perfectly well that his staff managed every last detail of the carrier speech, and he knows perfectly well that every reporter at the press conference yesterday also knows it. So why engage in such a trivial and obvious lie? " The first part of you assertion may be true....the second part surely is true.....the real question then is why did they sit there and let him get away with it? It is not like they proceeded to ask even more pertinent questions and receive straight answers. The White House press corp should be totally recalled!! They get so few opportunities to question the man and then they sit there and let him get away with saying some really challengeable assertions. The fear of being labelled bias has paralyzed the fourth estate! Posted by: Jon at October 29, 2003 09:33 AM | PERMALINKIf nothing else, at least we won't be seeing that stupid carrier speech over and over and over during Dubya's campaign (unless...as someone else posted...it's used by the Democrats). Posted by: chris at October 29, 2003 09:35 AM | PERMALINKPlease help me understand your views. You'll need a ball-peen hammer. Apply the ball end of said hammer forcefully to your cranium. Repeat until desired results are achieved. Folks, it ain't that he lied per se. It's that he blamed sailors - men who were returning from combat operations - for his (and his people's) own incompetence. Is that OK with you wingnuts? If you fuck up blame your shit on the people who fought and died for your original lies? Is this the vaunted "character" that you so love to uphold? Is this the support you offer our troops? This is lowly cowardice of the most asinine sort. What a pathetic excuse for a president, American and/or human being. Posted by: Harry Tuttle at October 29, 2003 09:38 AM | PERMALINKBush's voluntary eplanation appears to reflect high-level concern that the whole aircraft carrier stunt has the potential to do significant political harm. Look what an audacious attempt that was at potent political symbolism (and boy are they big on that stuff over substance...because it works, see, e.g., GWB and the Arnis). It attempts to package in one visual event why Bush should be reelected, with subtext like the plane landing and the flight suit written in to compensate for shrub's known weaknesses. Yet like the lead up to the war itself, the symbolism was all fantasy and lies, just a showy political fairy tale. The probelm they face is that when an audacious attempt like that backfires, it has the potential to inflict damage proportionate to the benefit sought. Instead of a visual symbol of why Bush should be reelected, it becomes a symbol that captures perfectly why bush should be turned out of office and denied a second term. Recall a man named Dukakis riding around in a tank. That effort at potent symbolic imagery backfired and became a potent symbol of why the man was not worthy of the office. Bush faces a similar danger here. The 'Mission Accomplished' image has the potential of conveying the opposite of what they intended and hoped it to. It could lead to his defeat. It symbolically captures the lies, the incompetence and the failures of this administration and this man quite effectively as actual events continue to overwhelm the fairy tale they tried to sell. Posted by: obe at October 29, 2003 09:39 AM | PERMALINKMy God! Democracy is in shambles because of A FRICKIN' POSTER!!! You people should get out more.... Remember when it was in shambles because of a frickin' blow job? Yes!! Impeach Bushitler over a BANNER hanging from a ship steaming back home after its "mission" was "accomplished"!!! You Dems enjoy the ride over the electoral cliff next fall. Sure. Lying about the war being over, and then lying about whether you ever claimed it, is OK. Especially when you told a pack of lies to get the war started in the first place. People don't seem to care when Bush lies about huge things, like his tax cut and the deficit, or wars, or corporate reform. Figuring most of his lies out requires too much math. This is a simple lie that anyone can understand, like a blow job. Is there no lie this president can tell that you won't believe? If you're trying to claim that the banner is referring to the ship's mission and not the war, you're seriously whacked out, man. Nobody is going to be dumb enough to buy that one. [from the real Tim] Let's compare and contrast this with Al Gore, shall we? Gore got an undeserved repuation for being unable to tell the truth about the simplest things. He never said he invented the internet, that "love story" thing was b.s. (he referred to an article in which the author said he and tipper were the inspiration- turns out the author was misquoted), he was raked over the coals about getting the date wrong when he was surveying fire damage, on and on and on. He was referred to, by people in the mainstream media, as unable to tell the truth about even the most miniscule things. It wasn't true, but it stuck, and it continues to stick, and it's regarded as a sign of his poor character. Now we have Bush who has lied, misrepresented, and obfuscated repeatedly about things big and small, and the only reaction any conservative seems to have is either: That wasn't (through some impressive intellectual contortions) techinically a "lie", or, So what?! It's not the end of the world!! It's not a big lie, but it is a lie. And what makes it so disturbing is, #1- it's blatant, #2- he's shirking off responsibility of this pretty inconsequential thing to a group of sailors completely innocent and completely unable to defend themselves. Do you think if the officers of that ship took umbrage they would get as much airplay and as sympathetic a hand as the POTUS? It's his character. Listen, republicans changed the whole debate in this country to one about character. It didn't matter that Clinton was a pretty good president for both repubs and dems, it was all about his character. Ideas, politics, policies... those all became irrelevent when the republicans did nothing but force the debate to that of the character of the potus. Now that we have a president who has clearly, so very clearly to anyone with a shred of objectiveness, demonstrated he has only a flirting association with honesty all the conservatives whine and complain about how mean it is for all the "Bush haters" to bring up every little things. You guys changed to term of the debate. You made your own bed, you should lie in it. Excellent point, Moebetta. We're getting into another aspect of Bush's mendacity here: He's trying to deny that he declared "mission accomplished." Unfortunately, if memory serves me right, the entire purpose of that event -- not just the banner -- was do do just that. But his non-answer did accomplish the mission of responding to the reporter's actual question. Of course, it seemed to me that he deliberately avoided answering just about any question that wasn't a syncophantic softball setup. Posted by: Gregory at October 29, 2003 09:41 AM | PERMALINKJoey, Do you really think anyone believes that democracy is in shambles because of a poster? The question to you is do you believe the President told the truth? If it doesn't matter to you if the President didn't tell the truth that is fine. In fact I will go one further for you though. This democracy will survive Mr Bush just as it has survive the 42 guys before him. I do long for the day when I have a leader of this country who can look me in the eye and lay out the truth whatever it may be and give me the confidence that they are shoot straight with me and not playing word games. This "lie" if you will infuriates me because it shows so much more than anything about a poster. I speaks to the state of discourse in this country that permeates from the Top......say whatever you want and you can get away with it. Posted by: Jon at October 29, 2003 09:44 AM | PERMALINKi want to second something that jon said. Time and again, we watch the white house press corps behave like scared children, afraid to question their parents. If the White House press corps can't be bothered to learn the detailed facts regarding almost anything, and if they can't be bothered to follow-up with intelligent questions, and if they can't think on their feet: fire 'em all. There's really no excuse for the lame quality of questioning that bush gets at his few-and-far-between press conferences. Not that this is any excuse for his answers, which range from the pathetic to the dishonest, but that's already been hashed over sufficiently by now in this thread. Posted by: howard at October 29, 2003 09:54 AM | PERMALINKI'd be interested in knowing how long that sign stayed up after Bush left the ship. Was it kept up for the families when they docked, after Bush had left? Also, my cynical interpretation of the "the Navy asked for the
banner" is that the White House asked the ship to put up a banner, it
was found that the ship's capabilities were not up to the task of
creating a sufficiently grandiose banner, so the Navy asked the White
House to make it. I agree with those above that said this lie was planned - because it was another "possibly technically true" lie. I'm sure it really was the sailors who physically hung the sign, and we'll never track down whose idea it was. It sure was sickening to hear the President blaming the sailors for his advance crew's bad judgment, though. Posted by: Emma Anne at October 29, 2003 09:58 AM | PERMALINK"He's trying to deny that he declared "mission accomplished."" Bush is denying that "mission accomplished" referred to everything we wanted to do with Iraq. It referred to ousting Hussein and winning the war. I think this is obvious and that most Americans get it and will see silly "scandal" mongering over such a stupid issue as Democrat partisan sniping. Posted by: Reg at October 29, 2003 10:01 AM | PERMALINKSlightly OT, but over on Daily Kos I just read that Gen. Clark says "next we'll hear that sailors asked him to put on that flight suit and prance around the deck of that aircraft carrier." LOL Posted by: fear is the mind killer at October 29, 2003 10:10 AM | PERMALINKI'm confused, perhaps because I'm coming in late to this. Could someone please remind why we know it's "demonstrably false" that Bush's people (and not the crew of the Lincoln) were responsible for putting up that sign? Posted by: TomP at October 29, 2003 10:14 AM | PERMALINK
If it's so obvious to most Americans, why wasn't it obvious to Bush yesterday? Why didn't he just say what you said? Nobody is calling this a scandal. Everybody sees the absurdity in arguing about who's responsible for a sign. So why did Bush lie about it? Posted by: Hari at October 29, 2003 10:21 AM | PERMALINKBush is denying that "mission accomplished" referred to everything we wanted to do with Iraq. It referred to ousting Hussein and winning the war. Riiiiiggggghhhht. I think this is obvious If so, then you, like the [Technical] President, are a moron. Posted by: Not Ed Meese at October 29, 2003 10:24 AM | PERMALINKTomP, we know that: a.) evrything about the entire speech was art directed by the White House; b.) nothing happens by chance in a modern presidential appearance (this isn't only true of Bush, of course); and c.) 'cause the White House has acknowledged that they produced the sign, in response (they claim) to a request from the Navy. No one made them do so - they did because they chose to do so. Reg, here's what I suggest. Go read the actual speech that Bush delivered: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html The whole thing made me physically ill at the time, but let's quote the money shot 'grafs: "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. (Applause.) The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. (Applause.) The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed. (Applause.)" Possibly you can discern in these words an indication that we will be spending another $87B+, that we will need 130K+ troops for the forseeable future, that guerilla resistance is likely, and that it's going to be a "long, hard slog," but i sure can't. Posted by: howard at October 29, 2003 10:24 AM | PERMALINK
The landing on the Lincoln was a carefully staged photo op. I hope there's no argument on that point. Having a huge banner saying "Mission Accomplished" in the background means the White House approved of it. It doesn't matter who put it up. If they didn't approve of it; if the White House said, "Hey, mission's not accomplished, we're just saluting our troops for a job well done", that sign would have been gone. Posted by: Hari at October 29, 2003 10:24 AM | PERMALINKExcept for Clark, has anyone else made a stink about this? Yes, Dean issued a statement yesterday. A piece: "Today, we heard him try to walk away from the USS Abraham 'End of Major Combat Operations' announcement, absurdly claiming that the White House was not responsible for the 'Mission Accomplished' banner that decorated the flight deck. He tried to argue that our actions are supported by the Iraqi people, when poll after poll suggests that more and more Iraqis are becoming fed up with the American occupation. And he was adamant that the US will remain in Iraq, but failed to offer any insight as to what he would do to address the increasingly dire situation. "This President appears to lack the leadership skills required to do what is necessary to successfully stabilize and reconstruct Iraq before the window of opportunity closes. Instead, President Bush seems content to pursue the current flawed plan, unwilling to do what is necessary to encourage our friends and allies to assist, incapable of taking the steps necessary to expedite the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis, and content to direct billions of dollars to special interests like Halliburton. And US troops and taxpayers are suffering as a result." Posted by: J from VJ at October 29, 2003 10:28 AM | PERMALINK"The way I see it, there's two options: one is that he really has absolutely no idea about any of the goings on in the White House. The second is that he is such a compulsive, habitual liar that making shit up just comes to mind first, no matter what facts are already on the ground." I think John Yuda has it exactly right. Remember, this is the same guy who said that the reason we started the Iraq war was that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in. Posted by: Frederick at October 29, 2003 10:29 AM | PERMALINKUmm.. One more time. Their mission was accompliashed. That is why they are no longer in the Persian Gulf flying 1,000 sorties a day. Really now, this meme is going nowhere. However, at election time, could you make sure you run the pictures of him in the flight suit with the cheering sailors again while you attack him. Thanks! Posted by: John Cole at October 29, 2003 10:33 AM | PERMALINKThe real point is that when he's telling the "truth" he's lying. And that's the use to be made of these incidents- when someone tells you Bush is telling the "truth", you say "Yeah, just like when he said the sailors 'put up' the sign and didn't tell you the White House made the sign and told them to put it up." We've all known this kind of weasel since we were 5 years old. Normally you wouldn't even waste spit on them, but in this case the stakes are somewhat higher. Posted by: serial catowner at October 29, 2003 10:35 AM | PERMALINKTheir mission was accompliashed. That is why they are no longer in the Persian Gulf flying 1,000 sorties a day. Ahhhh. Their specific mission. That banner wasn't about anything else other than those particular sailors celebrating their and ony their mission being accomplished. That's almost as good as some of the Plame excuses. Posted by: Tim at October 29, 2003 10:37 AM | PERMALINKHave you seen him in Baghdad claiming everything is done and the mission was accomplished? No, because there is work to be done. However, phase one of the overall operation, the complete rout of Saddam's military, is over. The sailors and pilots completed their mission. It is over, complete, and done. This isn't an excuse- look at the op orders for the overall plan in Iraq- there were numerous things the administration and the military set out to do. That doesn't mean that there is not a serious situation in Iraq, and that it is not still dangerous, because there is a shitload of work to do. However, there can be no conceivable way for you to think that on May 1st Bush was claiming "Mission Accomplished!- Nothing Left to Do In Iraq." Unless of course, you are an idiot or a Democrat. Posted by: John Cole at October 29, 2003 10:44 AM | PERMALINKBush is denying that "mission accomplished" referred to everything we wanted to do with Iraq. It referred to ousting Hussein and winning the war. I think this is obvious and that most Americans get it and will see silly "scandal" mongering over such a stupid issue as Democrat partisan sniping. So, Reg, if you think this is such a silly scandal, why do you think Bush needed to deny that the White House was responsible for the Mission Accomplished banner? Could someone please remind why we know it's "demonstrably false" that Bush's people (and not the crew of the Lincoln) were responsible for putting up that sign? TomP, I read on another blog a comment from someone with experience of Navy carriers: he said there was no way a banner of that size and quality could have been produced aboard ship with their facilities. There's also the point that apparently every detail of that photo-op was stage-managed to an obsessive degree. Yet we're expected to believe that this 5' by 20' banner with 4-color printing over a full-color overlay of the American flag, that appears in the background of Bush's photo-op in his flight-suit, was just whomped up on the spur of the moment by the Captain, and Bush's team had nothing to do with it? Posted by: Jesurgislac at October 29, 2003 10:50 AM | PERMALINKBush is denying that "mission accomplished" referred to everything we wanted to do with Iraq. It referred to ousting Hussein and winning the war. I think this is obvious and that most Americans get it and will see silly "scandal" mongering over such a stupid issue as Democrat partisan sniping. Seems like a silly thing for Bush to lie about then. So obviously, it does matter. This White House is obsessed with PR and spin, which is why this flap is something they'd deny a role in. Posted by: David W. at October 29, 2003 10:51 AM | PERMALINK"Umm.. One more time. Their mission was accompliashed. That is why they are no longer in the Persian Gulf flying 1,000 sorties a day." Well, given the fact that they are on the ground in Iraq, they don't have to fly 1000 sorties a day. Of course flying 1000 sorties a day was probably safer for the flyers than the ground missions are for those carrying out the ground missions. Posted by: raj at October 29, 2003 10:53 AM | PERMALINKJohn Cole, if you'll look further up this thread, you'll see that i quoted president backbone's exact words on the Lincoln. Compare and contrast to your comments, especially the part where Bush talks about the "victory." More to the point, why didn't Bush say what you said yesterday? Why did his White House allow the "mission accomplished" banner in their photo-op stunt in the first place? And more broadly, at what moment did Bush actually say anything about $87B and 130K troops indefinitely? (You haven't forgotten, John, that DOD congressional testimony said 30K troops by last month.) Joe Schmoe, i see you've moved from "of course we'll succeed" in iraq to "1 year should be long enough to give 'em a chance." There may be hope for you yet. Posted by: howard at October 29, 2003 10:55 AM | PERMALINKBush is denying that "mission accomplished" referred to everything we wanted to do with Iraq. It referred to ousting Hussein and winning the war. I think this is obvious and that most Americans get it and will see silly "scandal" mongering over such a stupid issue as Democrat partisan sniping. Reg, I think you're onto somthing. Personally, I believe that all along Iraq was, for Bush, solely about getting rid of Saddam. Ari Fleischer admitted that the US would attack even if Saddam disarmed but remained in power. As such, as far as Bush was concerned, it *was* "Mission Accomplished." John Cole, your comment makes no sense. The crew of the ship didn't make the banner, the White House did. As has been pointed out before, nothing happens by chance at a Presidential appearance and Bush, with his obvious poor ability to perform extempraneously, is more stage-managed than most. This was all about getting images of Bush under that banner on national TV and subsequent campaign ads. (Speaking of which, I'm sure the Democrats will, in fact, use images from Bush's clueless so-called "victory moment," thank you very much. I doubt the Republicans will.) Have you seen him in Baghdad claiming everything is done and the mission was accomplished? No, because there is work to be done. However, phase one of the overall operation, the complete rout of Saddam's military, is over. No, we haven't seen Bush in Baghdad, because he diesn't dare go there. The closest our Brave Leader got was circling in a plane, remember? Of course, considering how close the resistance came to taking out Wolfowitz, that was probably an astute decision. I know war hawks like you get warm feelings thinking of the victory of the American military over Saddam's feeble army. It's really rather sad that you take such obvious pleasure in such a lopsided victory. But what makes your statement even more ridiculous is that it's now obvious that the army disbanded itself to fight a guerilla war. By doing so, they gained the initiative and the advantage, as you may have noticed. The so-called "mission accomplished," in other words, wasn't the end of the conflict -- it was just the beginning. That's what makes Bush's statement such an appalling display of ignorant faux machismo, and why he was so evidently eager to disassociate himself with it. But the question remains, even if he wanted to -- even if everything you say is true -- he could have done so honestly, and chose not to. Why are y'all so eager to give him a pass on that? Posted by: Gregory at October 29, 2003 11:00 AM | PERMALINKAP to John Cole: Which John Cole may interpret as proof that the AP is "liberal media". But Cole may have a good idea. Why not get a GB action figure, attach it to a board, add one of those "Baby on Board" bumperstickers, and carry it in the rear window? I can't claim this as original, I got it from a trucker years ago who had used a doll of a baby to make the display..... Posted by: serial catowner at October 29, 2003 11:01 AM | PERMALINKok other "tim" i'll be....hmmmm.... jim! jim Posted by: tim/jim at October 29, 2003 11:01 AM | PERMALINKAlex, the NY Times does mention it in the 12th paragraph, but also in a separate article on the side. This article suggest very explicitely that Bush's claim is false. So NYT readers and their dogs will know. Fox viewers, on the other hand... Cedichou Posted by: cedichou at October 29, 2003 11:07 AM | PERMALINKSo when Bush gives a speech with a backdrop saying "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" or "Protecting Social Security" or "Reformer with Results" those really aren't the messages he's trying to give the public? Posted by: DaveInSeattle at October 29, 2003 11:10 AM | PERMALINKBTW, just as a side note to Gregory's posting, Phil Carter had a great post up yesterday here: http://philcarter.blogspot.com/2003_10_26_philcarter_archive.html#106737118245132843 in which he discussed the findings of the Army War College: "Prof. Stephen Biddle of the Army War College recently presented a
study to the House Armed Services Committee on lessons learned from Iraq
that concluded that Iraqi ineptitude was key factor in America's
victory. Speed, technology and 'jointness' could not explain, by
themselves, the rapid American victory over Iraqi forces. As Prof.
Biddle found in his 1996 study of Gulf War I, the key determinant of
victory was the synergistic interaction of American skill with the lack
of skill on the Iraqis' part -- magnified by the presence of a severe
technology differential." Actually- the explanation I gave to you is precisely the one I gavce two days after the event. Check my archives. At any rate, the reason Bush probably didn't discuss this at length is because it is a non-issue. No one cares except frothing at the mouth Bush haters- everyone else is pretty clear what the message of the speech was. IN fact, since Howards likes to cite the actual speech, let's review it one more time: We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. (Applause.) So- Where did you discern that Bush said the over-all mission was accomplished in Iraq? Like I said, only Democrats or idiots would think that banner meant everything in Iraq was peachy and finished- and that is a distinction (Democrats v. idiots) that is getting more difficult to make every day. At any rate, don't throw out your Bush = Hitler posters, keep calling him 'Dear Leader,' and by all means keep ratcheting up the rhetoric. Should be fun to watch you guys attain permanent minority status. Posted by: John Cole at October 29, 2003 11:20 AM | PERMALINKI've come to believe that Bush actually believes most of the bullshit that comes out of his mouth. So, when he said that it was the Navy who put it up, he probably truly believes that they were the only ones who had anything to do with it. Why? Because Bush is a god in his own mind and can therefore never do anything wrong. If a mistake is made it MUST be someone elses fault. It doesn't matter that it is bullshit. It matters that the guy BELIEVES it to be true. Posted by: Chris Andersen at October 29, 2003 11:36 AM | PERMALINKHi John Cole, Actually, I called him "Brave Leader, and if you take that to mean I think he's a coward, you're exactly right. For example, he still hasn't toured Iraq. Or attended the funeral of a service member killed in his invasion. Or visited one of the many service members wounded or maimed. Your "Bush=Hitler" straw man should disqualify you from being taken seriously -- news flash, John, only you right wingers are saying stuff like that 'round here -- but here goes anyway: I could point out that the dangerous areas of Iraq appear to be
increasing and becoming even more so. Indeed, need I remind you that
it's exactly that perception that caused Bush to try to distance himself
from the banner in the first place? It's somewhat less fun, I must say, to watch you Bush apologists agree that black is white and night is day, if that's what Bush maintains that week. Posted by: Gregory at October 29, 2003 11:37 AM | PERMALINKWow! They have a pretty sophisticated printing press for an aircraft carrier.... Posted by: Miles at October 29, 2003 11:38 AM | PERMALINKThis should be pretty easy to check. There are over 5000 crew on board a Nimitz-class carrier; someone has to have a friend of a friend on board that ship. Plus, are we to assume that a carrier has a print shop on board capable of producing that size of a professionally-done color sign???? Hm. Posted by: Susan Paxton at October 29, 2003 11:41 AM | PERMALINKYes, john, i did review those words: they were the very words i quoted (although I also quoted the word "victory," in the next graf, which rather influences how we are supposed to have understood the text at the time). In short, Bush characterized a "victory," and everything in the paragraph is in terms of a mop-up action, especially given that at the time, the official position of his administration was that we would be down to 30K troops in September. So your point is? You also know that no one made the backbone adminstration agree to produce a "mission accomplished" sign? That it was there because they wanted it there? Because it was part of what was going to be the centerpiece of the re-election campaign? So, John, yes, i don't see how Bush's entire little stunt was anything other than a declaration that the war was over, that we'd won, and that we were in the mop-up phase. This is consistent, of course, with the reactions of the backbone administration to the immediate looting - just a sign of freedom, they said, as i'm sure you recall - and to the absolute lack of a plan as to what to do next (see, according to condi rice, we couldn't possibly have known what condition the country was in, because we saw all those photos of saddam's palaces). No, no one cares per se about the pathetic little way that bush is trying to pretend that he and his administration had nothing to do with this whole stunt (as josh marshall says, next they're going to tell us that they didn't really want to even do this event, but the Navy insisted), but yes, as part and parcel of the hubristic ignorance with which this sad aministration approached iraq, i'd say this is fairly revealing. As is the desperate attempt by bush enablers to pretend that it isn't. Posted by: howard at October 29, 2003 11:49 AM | PERMALINKJohn Cole -- Bush was talking tash and bragging before the game was really won. "Bring 'em on!" and "Mission Accomplished!" are the big examples. Some people who were not natural opponents of Bush (i.e., not the people here, but more conservative people) didn't especially like that, which is why the meme isn't as dead as you hope. If the question about who really made the poster is unimportant, why did Bush bring it up in his news conference? Don't things become important when the President gets involved? Posted by: Zizka at October 29, 2003 12:02 PM | PERMALINKUpthread I cited this thread at Blah3 in which someone who says he's a Navy man asserts that such a banner could not be produced onboard a ship. But the White House has admitted that it oversaw the actual production of the banner; they claim the Navy requested it. The question is, did the idea originate with the Navy, or were they told by the White House to produce such a banner, and defer due to lack of capability? And again, if it's no big deal, why is the President disavowing it now in such a conspicuous -- and dishonest -- fashion? Posted by: Gregory at October 29, 2003 12:06 PM | PERMALINK
They also claimed he ~had~ to arrive by jet, because his helicopter couldn't reach the destination. Not true. The real reason Bush made the outlandish claim that his PR people had nothing to do with the banner-- is that he's so dumb/ he doesn't even know the difference between a good alibi and a krappy one. Posted by: icd at October 29, 2003 12:10 PM | PERMALINKHe wasn't talking about the ship's mission being accomplished. When Bush was challenged in the past about the carrier landing and the declaration that combat operations were over - he claimed that no, he had declared MAJOR combat operations over. You'll remember that the White House web site had to fiddle with the language on the page that referenced the carrier landing, changing the wording to insert the word "major" in the text. The "Mission Accomplished" banner plainly referred to the end of (major) combat operations when it was hung. To now claim that it referred only to the ship's mission is just silly. To those of you who think this is much ado about nothing - you may be right, but why are you then wasting so much energy trying to defend Bush, rather than just admitting he screwed up? Posted by: Jersey Tomato at October 29, 2003 12:15 PM | PERMALINKThe facts show that Bush thought everything was finished except setting up a puppet ruler to help Halliburton drain the U.S. Treasury. There obviously was no realistic effort to plan for problems. The banner reflected Bush's feeling that he'd just pulled a fast one on us. This is not saying that Bush expected to leave Iraq. The bases Halliburton builds are little instant-cities intended for long term use. The plan is for the U.S. to be tangled in the region for decades. So the Bush-faithful gravely instruct us that they do not intend to shirk their duties and just leave Iraq in the lurch. In fact, they're so foresighted that in Uzbekistan they are building a new Evil One, preparing for the day when the mention of Saddam won't make Rush jerk and growl in his sleep. And our Man in Uzbekistan really is a bad guy. With our support he's powerful enough to make worshiping in private illegal. We're giving him lots of neat Weapons of Mass Destruction too, so a few years from now he really will be able to threaten us. The Bush people are not going to be caught a second time with no WMD to display. Oops!- I guess talking about what's actually happening makes me a "Bush hater". Too bad. Posted by: serial catowner at October 29, 2003 12:28 PM | PERMALINKHey, John Cole! If you think about it it's pretty funny...when they took that picture, the Bush people thought they had 2004 in the bag. Just make sure that one photo is printed and displayed about three trillion times in 2004 and Bush is in. So for once they're actually paying the price for their bad habits. They'll probably have to dig up another $100 million for more advertising now that the photo-op is spoiled by reality. Of course, you can pretty much guess who'll actually end up paying for the new publicity stunts that are needed. And where Air Force 1 goes there's a lot of local expense closing the airspace and blocking roads for the cavalcade. Still, it's funny to think about how much they were planning to use that photo..... Posted by: serial catowner at October 29, 2003 12:38 PM | PERMALINKKev, He's a DIY recovering alchoholic. Dry drunk is the term of art. Professionals I've spoken to about it fret that absence of the substance alone doesn't change the mental framework which, for years leading up to abstention, has usually consisted of rearranging "facts" and circumstances to suit a destructive habit and its repurcussions. In other words, alchoholics become facile con-men out of necessity. Characteristics include replacing one fixation with another--transference. For some, exercise is the new, healthier diversion. For others, faith and good works. But as they say, all things in moderation. Absent any self-management plan and support feedback loop to reality check yourself, the spiral begins again and healthy diversion can become compusive obsession. Viewing the above, I'd say we've "hit the trifecta". Posted by: fouro at October 29, 2003 12:48 PM | PERMALINKJohn Cole defending a GWB and Karl Rove big time screw up. Now that is a funny. John, do you know that they positioned that huge ship so the light would hit Bush's face in just the right way. The banner is one of those lies the Kevin points out. You may be able to frame it in a way that is technically true and lets them off the hook for the major lie it appears to be, but they have to make use of the escape hatches to do that and it simply is not true. The visual message was loud and clear ... the message they wanted to convey on TV to viewers and later in campaign commercials. They usually have those stupid banners or back-drops behind him with the message they want to convey written out, just as they did this time. It's their MO. Posted by: obe at October 29, 2003 12:58 PM | PERMALINK
Oh. I'm sure that somebody from the Navy made sure that Bush's cod-piece was photo-ready, too. Sure. Yeah. Whatever. Posted by: NonPundit at October 29, 2003 01:07 PM | PERMALINKTo my conservative fellows (and "fellow-ettes"): Imagine Bill Clinton or Al Gore in a flight suit. Imagine Bill Clinton or Al Gore trying to parse words in seperating themselves from "Mission Accomplished." I'm sure you can, but won't. You had so much hope for a George Bush that would lead you to a tax-free, God-fearing America that bowed to no one. He may just win in '04. Rove is a sharp cookie. If anything, 4 more years of this crap will sour all but the kookiest right wingers on the GOP. Posted by: Sebastian at October 29, 2003 01:18 PM | PERMALINKQuick questions. Did every air force carrier request "Mission Accomplished" banners? Was the purpose of this event to congratulate one specific carrier crew? Did Bush personally fly to every air craft carrier and declare that combat operations were over? NO. Did Bush specifically say that the Navy's mission was accomplished? Did Bush specifically say that the Army had notaccomplished its mission, and would still require tens of billions of dollars in addition to the lives of hundreds or thousands of American men and women? NO. Posted by: NonPundit at October 29, 2003 01:19 PM | PERMALINKCan I just ask WHY "the crew" thought they could ask the White House to design, contract, pay for, ship and chopper out a big, beautiful $$multiple-thousands banner just for them, to celebrate just the end or their mission, just to hang on their superstructure for that one special day before they were supposed to dock in SD? Come on. That's a stinkarooni. Phew. Why is the press acting like they believe it? Posted by: Julia Grey at October 29, 2003 01:27 PM | PERMALINKJohn Cole and reg are right, there is far too much attention paid to this particular segment of the speech when what is being ignored is far more important. Bush's mission in the press conference was to get the attention away from the mounting casualties in Iraq. Intentional gaffs such as this one, ensure that he will accomplish this particular mission. It's actually quite masterful. A lot of people seem so intent on catching Bush in a fabrication (which this technically was not BTW) that they can't see the forest for the trees. Pointing out this obvious diversionary tactic seems pointless to me. It is a fact that Bush lies or misinforms as a matter of practice nearly every day. Lies of omission and lies of oversimplication. This administration has proven over and over again that it will do anything to remain in power. ANYTHING!!! Bush is a airhead idiot under the control of some very clever, duplicitous, deceitful megalomaniacs intent upon ruling the world. It would be comical if it weren't so obvious that their strategy was working. Luckily he has Condi around to unstick the sticky stuff. Posted by: Moebetta at October 29, 2003 01:37 PM | PERMALINKMr Cole, I think that bothers me most about what the President said yesterday was that he said it at all. Even if true, his words did not sound like the words of a stand-up guy who accepts responsibility. I spent 23 years in the Army, but I know a little bit about the Navy and their leadership. There is no way the Captain of that ship would have blamed anything on his sailors the way the President did at the press conference. Instead of saying the Mission was accomplished...and then stating what he saw as the mission being accomplished he chose to blame it on the "sailors" and the disparage the intelligence of his advance team. Not the marks of a stand up leader!!!! Posted by: Jon at October 29, 2003 01:42 PM | PERMALINKPart of the reason it's serious is the character flaw revealed. Denying publicly what is obviously true is like a scene from Full House, where the three-year old has a box of cookies in her shirt and swears she doesn't know where they are. This is way beyond not being Harry Truman. Posted by: serial catowner at October 29, 2003 01:47 PM | PERMALINKSo- Where did you discern that Bush said the over-all mission was accomplished in Iraq? Like I said, only Democrats or idiots would think that banner meant everything in Iraq was peachy and finished- and that is a distinction (Democrats v. idiots) that is getting more difficult to make every day. You're pulling the perfect republican/conservative/jerk tactic of reframing the issue in order to win the argument. The primary issue isn't what message was trying to be put across with the banner (and the carrier, and the landing, etc.), the primary issue is why would he feel the need to lie about who was responsible for it being there? You haven't addressed that because you keep trying to change the argument to something that's less defensible "the banner indicated everything was OK". That idea comes up when you think about why he would feel the need to lay blame for the banner at the feet of underlings. Does he think that he was trying to give the impression that things were generally OK in Iraq with the banner?, and rather than take responsibility for that he decided to blame someone else? That banner was up there for a reason, and it was there because the white house wanted it there. Bush claims the white house had nothing to do with it, which is false. The question is why? Why don't you try addressing that instead of changing the subject? Are you a coward like our potus?
Those of you saying that this lie reveals Bush as a pathological liar do realize how similar it sounds to cries about Clinton being a pathological liar in '98 and '99, don't you? Posted by: JT at October 29, 2003 01:58 PM | PERMALINKI don't know if the President is a pathological liar or not....and I think such name labelling obscures the debate. The President should not have said what he said yesterday for a lot of reasons....none so small as he is the President and ultimately responsible for what goes on. Blaming his staff or Captains of aircraft carriers just is unbecoming! Posted by: Jon at October 29, 2003 02:03 PM | PERMALINKJT- Except, unlike Clinton and Gore, most of his "lies" aren't made up. Clinton lied about a blowjob. Whitewater was nothing. Flowers and the rest of them had shaky stories at best, etc., etc. Gore never said he invented the internet, he never claimed he was the inspiration behind love story, etc., etc. Yes, it's a little out there to say he's a pathalogical liar- but it's not inaccurate to say he lies a lot. Not at all. JT- Oh yeah- and as soon as the mainstream press, all of talk radio, most the TV pundits, and many of the print opinion writers start calling him a pathological liar- let me know. Right now it's a few people in blogs- and that's nothing like what it was with Clinton. Nothing. John Cole writes "Have you seen him in Baghdad claiming everything is done and the mission was accomplished?" John, that hurts--I think you've got us there. But, on the other hand, has Chimpy been to Baghdad? No. No visits to Baghdad. Hmm. Wait---he HAS been to Qatar, and to quote Chimpy's address to the troops: "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished." So, there, you see Chimpy believes the mission has been accomplished. Why are we hanging around then? Posted by: fear is the mind killer at October 29, 2003 02:10 PM | PERMALINKJon, I don't think Bush is a liar, but he or his handlers seem to try to spin everything, and I expected more than that. Posted by: Tripp at October 29, 2003 02:12 PM | PERMALINKReg (and others of a conservative bent): What we have here with the "Mission Accomplished" bit is a copy of the "Saddam = 9/11" bit. Technically a case can be made that he never said this, that, or the other thing. However, the staging and the conflation of the ideas, the juxtaposition of his (empty) head and the banner--it was crafted to convey the idea that the war was over with only minor cleanup left. Thus, critics find themselves facing a wall of intense parsing and dramatic logic torture. Meanwhile, the public gets the message that was intended: Mission Accomplished, the war is over. The most generous possible interpretation of this is that it's disingenuous. To my view, the most accurate interpretation is that most of these things are a direct result of Bush and his advisors being completely cut off from any but their own reality. They create these things, listen to their own echo chamber, then wheel it out into the real world--where it instantly collides with reality and things begin to fall apart. Posted by: Derelict at October 29, 2003 02:15 PM | PERMALINKThis is what I hate the most, and what I can never resist commenting on, no matter how many times I do it. Here is a great example: You forgot to call him a pathalogical liar. Now, I agree that he was wrong about the sign, though I doubt he was
very involved in chosing his backdrop. But to take from this that he
was implying that we were all done in Iraq and had nothing left to do,
even though he said we have lots of work left to do, is ridiculous,
misleading, and political hackery. Reg- See my deconstruction of Jon's argument. You're doing the same thing- reframing the debate. Posted by: Tim at October 29, 2003 02:49 PM | PERMALINKReg, You like Bush, and that's fine. You do a good job of standing up for him. But where will your apologies end? Me? I gave up on Clinton after he finally admitted the affair.
Granted the affair didn't cost 151 lives and over 6000 related
casualties, but it did sour me on Clinton. Reg, i repeat: read his actual speech. Notice he declared victory. Go back through the archives and look what he and his administration were saying at the time: that the looting was fine, just a demonstration of freedom; that it was only a handful of dead-enders who were resisting, and they were militarily negligble; that our primary tasks were finding the wmds, beginning the reconstruction, and transitioning the government (to chalabai, we thought); that we were going to be at 30K troops by september; that reconstruction would be funded by oil revenues. That photo op didn't occur in a vacuum; when you read the speech and place it in the contemporaneous context (including the Qatar speech a couple days later where bush actually used the phrase "mission accomplished" about "liberating" the iraqi people), it's impossible to read the event as signalling anythign but what all of us read it as: a victory celebration marking the transition from war to postwar. As Sebastian just said, you will almost certainly come to the realization, sooner or later, that hubristic ignorance was the dominant mode of backbone administration thought concerning iraq, before and after the war. P.S. Why in the universe you don't think that it was a concious desire on the part of the backbone administration to combine 9/11 and saddam (you can even see bush doing it in the Lincoln speech) is beyond me, but that's a discussion for another time and place. Posted by: howard at October 29, 2003 02:59 PM | PERMALINKWell, I think Gore was getting unfair shots at him, with his "earth tones" and the love story thing. And the internet thing was just dumb. With Clinton, i thought he should have been impeached, but I thought he was pretty good on policy for the country, and I said so. Now of course I don't go out of the way to defend Democrats, but I try not to tar them with stupid arguments of the same sort that are used against Bush. Posted by: Reg at October 29, 2003 03:01 PM | PERMALINKA fiendishly clever move. Tell a blatant lie about something trivial. The focus will be on the rather silly issue of who put up the banner and people will forget that the Bush folks were lying about matters far more consequential. Posted by: rachelrachel at October 29, 2003 03:24 PM | PERMALINKCome on this guy lies constantly and never gets into trouble for it, why stop now? Posted by: Ron at October 29, 2003 03:56 PM | PERMALINKTo tell you the truth, him saying this is nothing compared to the photo op he had with Kofi Annan many weeks ago, when he leaned over and sort-of winked at Annan, and said, to the press something like "you know, we gave Saddam a chance to disarm, and he refused to cooperate" or something like that, and that's why we had to invade. I remember the shocked look in Annan's eyes (though not the rest of him -- he's a pretty cool cucumber) and I wouldn't have believed it had I not seen it on video from the white house's own web site. I think George Bush lives in a little bubble relatively oblivious to normal reality. He probably does think that the sign was hung there on the initiative of the sailors. Posted by: pmacfar at October 29, 2003 04:37 PM | PERMALINKReg writes: Pick something that is obviously not true, (like saddam = 9/11, or mission is accomplished in iraq). How much did it hurt your brain to actually think that paragraph up before you typed it? C'mon--even Bush himself, out of his very own mouth, had to come forward and say "Nope, no connection between Saddam and 9/11." Why? Because somehow, through some miraculous osmotic process, more than 2/3 of the public had come to believe that. Frankly, I don't see how you can possibly type with the straight face that Bush (and company) repeating "Saddam" and "September 11" in the same sentence hundreds of times prior to Bush's (forced) admission had nothing to do with the public getting the idea that the two were linked. The banner is an example of exactly the same thing. It all conflates to a package. And, interestingly enough, here we are with Bush (and his apologists) once again having to back-pedal, shuck and jive about "Well, even though those were the words coming out of his mouth, that's not the message he was conveying." Posted by: Derelict at October 29, 2003 07:38 PM | PERMALINKWhat does it cost him? On national, front page news he makes a claim that is retracted a day later in a minor story inside the paper. Rove and company have played this game before. You get to have it both ways -- you get to have most people hear and believe a lie while simultaneously correcting it for the few who are paying attention. There's no downside. It is no different, in principle, from what they did to John McCain in the South Carolina primary. The idea is to have both stories in play. You then get the benefits of both. Posted by: Paul J. Camp at October 29, 2003 10:41 PM | PERMALINKThe WH press corps must have been asked already about the banner sometime prior to the press conference, because Bush's response to the question is too pat and thought-out (for him) to have been extemporaneous. He even tried to make a witty turn of phrase. The spin was scripted. Posted by: Jeff at October 29, 2003 11:05 PM | PERMALINKNo offense, but give me a break! I'd like someone to show me a president that hasn't done some serious and major lying during his presidency in the past 50+ years. For that matter, I'd like someone to show me proof of any high-level politician that hasn't lied by the pie-load. Isn't all of this really just an excuse for people to spew forth their personal thoughts and beliefs? We each make our minds up about something or another and as a general rule we "stick to our guns" even when additional adverse information about that decision comes in. We subscribe to a particular political party and whenever they do wrong we say they had their reasons, or we defend them and when our opposition does the same thing we crucify them for it. If you think that anything will ever be fixed under the tyranny of the two-party system you haven't learned anything about politics. The whole idea that these two groups have to spend every ounce of their precious time trying to outmanuever and outplay their opponent is what keeps this country from fixing a lot of it's obvious problems. This whole "you're on one side or another" is ludicrous. The average person's ideas and belief system is so complex that no one can be pigeon-holed into something as inane as a particular political party. However, when it comes down to it we usually (often without any forethought) come to the defense of our "team", because that's human nature. We will often back our team up, even without any serious research. Heck, we'll spend more time finding a spin on a situation to raise up our team and denegrate our opposition, then actually fairly researching all angles to a situation and then making up our own mind about it. I've visited a number of political primal-scream sites such as this and I have yet to truly see anyone who is unbiased and presents all the facts and then explains fairly how they came to their conclusion. We finally boil down to our 3rd grade selves, with foolish name-calling and decisions made based on whatever we feel, with our fingers stuck in our ears yelling "nyaa, nyaa" while someone else is calling us names back. What on earth do you think will EVER be accomplised by this?! The sad thing is that it isn't just the average joe that acts like this, it pretty much describes the majority of people in power all over this little, blue marble hurling through space. This world has problems, and the fact that we (me included) spend more time trying to make our opinions known than actually doing something to make it a better place, pretty much explains why the world is in the state that it is. That my friends, is simply the saddest thing. Posted by: CEWright at November 1, 2003 11:13 PM | PERMALINKThe lesser of two evils is still evil. Posted by: Katcher Elana at December 20, 2003 01:52 PM | PERMALINKThe public is wonderfully tolerant. It forgives everything except genius. Posted by: Goldberg Myla at January 9, 2004 12:21 AM | PERMALINKGenerosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need. Posted by: Meyers Ben at March 16, 2004 07:37 PM | PERMALINKAn oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger Posted by: Boehland Andie at April 28, 2004 04:53 AM | PERMALINKEthics is not necessarily the handmaiden of theology. Posted by: Fabian Marie at April 28, 2004 04:53 AM | PERMALINKIt's never right to say always, and always wrong to say never. We are never truly sure of our beliefs. It is never a mistake to say good-bye. Posted by: Niblock Jasper at June 30, 2004 03:53 AM | PERMALINKLittle April - TEEN PORN LINKS - HARDCORE SEX - Exposed Party Girls - SEX STORIES - pornstar union - project hardcore - amateur university - PUSSY Posted by: please bang my wife at June 30, 2004 08:57 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - Excellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz http://www.888-online-poker.biz
http://www.888-online-gambling.biz http://www.888-on-net.biz |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
WHY?....By now everyone and his dog has heard about President Bush's claim that 