English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-05-01 05:03:08 · 8 answers · asked by dr schmitty 7 in Politics & Government Politics

8 answers

Just this...

“We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back.”
(Newsweek’s Howard Fineman—MSNBC, 5/7/03)

“We’re all neo-cons now.”
(MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, 4/9/03

“Now that the combat phase of the war in Iraq is officially over, what begins is a debate throughout the entire U.S. government over America’s unrivaled power and how best to use it.”
(CBS reporter Joie Chen, 5/4/03)

“Congress returns to Washington this week to a world very different from the one members left two weeks ago. The war in Iraq is essentially over and domestic issues are regaining attention.”
(NPR’s Bob Edwards, 4/28/03)

“Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom that boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively bloodless victory. The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptics’ complaints.”
(Fox News Channel’s Tony Snow, 4/13/03)

“The only people who think this wasn’t a victory are Upper Westside liberals, and a few people here in Washington.”
(Charles Krauthammer, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03)

“The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war.”
(Fox News Channel’s Fred Barnes, 4/10/03)

“Oh, it was breathtaking. I mean I was almost starting to think that we had become inured to everything that we’d seen of this war over the past three weeks; all this sort of saturation. And finally, when we saw that it was such a just true, genuine expression. It was reminiscent, I think, of the fall of the Berlin Wall. And just sort of that pure emotional expression, not choreographed, not stage-managed, the way so many things these days seem to be. Really breathtaking.”
(Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly, appearing on Fox News Channel on 4/9/03, discussing the pulling down of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad, an event later revealed to have been a U.S. military PSYOPS operation—Los Angeles Times, 7/3/04)

Mission Accomplished?

“The war winds down, politics heats up…. Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific.”
(PBS’s Gwen Ifill, 5/2/03, on George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech)

“We’re proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who’s physical, who’s not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who’s president. Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It’s simple. We’re not like the Brits.”
(MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, 5/1/03)

“He looked like an alternatively commander in chief, rock star, movie star, and one of the guys.”
(CNN’s Lou Dobbs, on Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech, 5/1/03)

Neutralizing the Opposition

“What’s he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it’s over? I mean, don’t these things sort of lose their—Isn’t there a fresh date on some of these debate points?”
(MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean—4/9/03)

“If image is everything, how can the Democratic presidential hopefuls compete with a president fresh from a war victory?”
(CNN’s Judy Woodruff, 5/5/03)

“It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context….. And the silence, I think, is that it’s clear that nobody can do anything about it. There isn’t anybody who can stop him. The Democrats can’t oppose—cannot oppose him politically.”
(Washington Post reporter Jeff Birnbaum—Fox News Channel, 5/2/03)

Nagging the “Naysayers”

“Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, should the people in Hollywood who opposed the president admit they were wrong?”
(Fox News Channel’s Alan Colmes, 4/25/03)

“I doubt that the journalists at the New York Times and NPR or at ABC or at CNN are going to ever admit just how wrong their negative pronouncements were over the past four weeks.”
(MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, 4/9/03)

“I’m waiting to hear the words ‘I was wrong’ from some of the world’s most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types…. I just wonder, who’s going to be the first elitist to show the character to say: ‘Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong’? Maybe the White House will get an apology, first, from the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Now, Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war….

“Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein? Well, Mr. Ritter actually told a French radio network that—quote, ‘The United States is going to leave Baghdad with its tail between its legs, defeated.’ Sorry, Scott. I think you’ve been chasing the wrong tail, again.

“Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don’t call them ‘elitists’ for nothing.”
(MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, 4/10/03)

“Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years.”
(Fox News Channel’s Dick Morris, 4/9/03)

“This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend. Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right.”
(New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03)

“Well, the hot story of the week is victory…. The Tommy Franks-Don Rumsfeld battle plan, war plan, worked brilliantly, a three-week war with mercifully few American deaths or Iraqi civilian deaths…. There is a lot of work yet to do, but all the naysayers have been humiliated so far…. The final word on this is, hooray.”
(Fox News Channel’s Morton Kondracke, 4/12/03)

“Some journalists, in my judgment, just can’t stand success, especially a few liberal columnists and newspapers and a few Arab reporters.”
(CNN’s Lou Dobbs, 4/14/03)

“Sean Penn is at it again. The Hollywood star takes out a full-page ad out in the New York Times bashing George Bush. Apparently he still hasn’t figured out we won the war.”
(MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, 5/30/03)

Cakewalk?

“This will be no war—there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention…. The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling…. It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on.”
(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate—cited in the Observer, 3/30/03)

“I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?”
(Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly, 1/29/03)

“It won’t take weeks. You know that, professor. Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there’s no question that it will.”
(Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly, 2/10/03)

“There’s no way. There’s absolutely no way. They may bomb for a matter of weeks, try to soften them up as they did in Afghanistan. But once the United States and Britain unleash, it’s maybe hours. They’re going to fold like that.”
(Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly, 2/10/03)

“He [Saddam Hussein] actually thought that he could stop us and win the debate worldwide. But he didn’t-he didn’t bargain on a two or three week war. I actually thought it would be less than two weeks.”
(NBC reporter Fred Francis, Chris Matthews Show, 4/13/03)

Weapons of Mass Destruction

NPR’s Mara Liasson: Where there was a debate about whether or not Iraq had these weapons of mass destruction and whether we can find it…

Brit Hume: No, there wasn’t. Nobody seriously argued that he didn’t have them beforehand. Nobody.
(Fox News Channel, April 6, 2003)

“Speaking to the U.N. Security Council last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell made so strong a case that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is in material breach of U.N. resolutions that only the duped, the dumb and the desperate could ignore it.”
(Cal Thomas, syndicated column, 2/12/03)

“Saddam could decide to take Baghdad with him. One Arab intelligence officer interviewed by Newsweek spoke of ‘the green mushroom’ over Baghdad—the modern-day caliph bidding a grotesque bio-chem farewell to the land of the living alongside thousands of his subjects as well as his enemies. Saddam wants to be remembered. He has the means and the demonic imagination. It is up to U.S. armed forces to stop him before he can achieve notoriety for all time.”
(Newsweek, 3/17/03)

“Chris, more than anything else, real vindication for the administration. One, credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Two, you know what? There were a lot of terrorists here, really bad guys. I saw them.”
(MSNBC reporter Bob Arnot, 4/9/03)

“Even in the flush of triumph, doubts will be raised. Where are the supplies of germs and poison gas and plans for nukes to justify pre-emption? (Freed scientists will lead us to caches no inspectors could find.) What about remaining danger from Baathist torturers and war criminals forming pockets of resistance and plotting vengeance? (Their death wish is our command.)”
(New York Times’ William Safire, 4/10/03)
— vince powers Mar 18, 07:03 AM CST #
Paul Wolfowitz:

There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.

[Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]

Richard Cohen, columnist (still has his job, by the way) Washington Post, Feb. 6, 2003:


“The evidence he [Sec. of State Colin Powell] presented to the United Nations – some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail – had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them…Only a fool – or possibly a Frenchman – could conclude otherwise.”

Jim Hoagland, columnist, Washington Post Feb. 2003:

“Colin Powell did more than present the world with a convincing and detailed X-ray of Iraq’s secret weapons and terrorism programs yesterday. He also exposed the enduring bad faith of several key members of the UN Security Council when it comes to Iraq and its ‘web of lies,’ in Powell’s phrase…To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case, you must now believe that Colin Powell lied in the most serious statement he will ever make, or was taken in by manufactured evidence. I don’t believe that. Today, neither should you.”

Christopher Hitchens, TV and print gasbag, Feb 13, 2003:

“Those who are calling for more time in this process should be aware that they are calling for more time for Saddam’s people to complete their humiliation and subversion of the inspectors.”

Chris Matthews, Hardgas, MSNBC April 2003:

“We’re all neo-cons now… “We’re proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who’s physical, who’s not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who’s president. Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It’s simple.”

Alan Colmes, Hannity & Colmes, FAUX News, April 25, 2003:

“Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, should the people in Hollywood who opposed the president admit they were wrong?”

2007-05-01 05:13:23 · answer #1 · answered by ck4829 7 · 1 4

The mission of the USS Ronald Reagan was the 'mission accomplished'. But lying liberals have mischaracterized that banner for years now.
Ya kinda have to feel sorry for people who have nothing but lies to accomplish THEIR mission with. Just like Global Warming. It's all just a big lie to force people to be green. Why not use the truth, and economics, to accomplish the same goal? I guess they just can't conceive of the truth as anything they can use.

2007-05-01 05:25:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

It had to do with the special plane that Bush flew in on.

He had planed that photo opportunity for a year. The Jet was a trainer that was specially refitted to allow Bush to set in a more photographically favorable position.

So Mission accomplished.

I liked it when Bush spent 11 million dollars hiring Hollywood set carpenters to build a Japanese style bridge in Jordan for him to walk over and shake hands with King Abdul.

Another Mission accoumplished

2007-05-01 05:40:38 · answer #3 · answered by ? 2 · 2 1

The mission failed after we failed to go after Bin Laden. So, technically the mission is not accomplished yet.

2007-05-01 05:22:16 · answer #4 · answered by j 4 · 1 1

He did and suggested not something until eventually it gave the effect of the protesters were about to win. He then suggested Qaddafi ought to bypass. even as the tides replaced in Qaddafis favor, he had to maintain face and positioned our defense force less than overseas administration...All undesirable strikes !

2016-12-05 04:15:53 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Yeah wasnt that like almost 4 yrs ago now?? How many more innocent people have gotten killed since then?

I think Bush is full of it.........

2007-05-01 05:45:29 · answer #6 · answered by C Gonzalez 3 · 1 0

Colin Powell said to bush and idiots : "you break it, you buy it"

well we broke it, but it sure the hell wasn't worth more than 500 billion dollars

2007-05-01 05:15:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

The aircraft carrier had completed it's mission

The fuss made over this by know-nothing civilians is amusing

2007-05-01 05:10:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers