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

2007-05-02 07:25:37 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

Here's a photo from 4 years ago of Bush standing in front of a Mission Accomplished banner.

http://blogs.chron.com/whitehouse/archives/APmission.jpg

2007-05-02 07:42:30 · update #1

13 answers

Because President Bush either exagerates or lies about his accomplishments.

2007-05-02 07:34:00 · answer #1 · answered by Jorge D 4 · 3 4

President Bush never said "Mission Accomplished" even though many clueless people believe he did. But before we address that reality, first one must define "Mission".

A Mission is a specific task, set of tasks, objective or goal. There are literally THOUSANDS of missions that occur within a war-time action. Combat Operations was one (major) mission, but there are three other phases that remain after "Combat Operations".

Wars are not "missions", they are strategic campaigns, comprised of missions.

Nowhere in his speech did he state "Mission Accomplished". As a matter of fact, the very word "mission" is only used TWICE throughout the entire speech!!

Below is the URL for the full transcript of his speech, on CNN.com, hardly an advocate for this President. Read it for yourself if you doubt my words.

As for what President Bush did say here is a small piece.
President Bush stated the following

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.”

We already KNEW we had a long reconstruction road ahead of us, we KNEW there would be opposition in the form of insurgents and most likely terrorists who choose to engage in Jihad where the Americans are, in Iraq itself! Anyone who has an understanding of war and history should realize that, considering the complex nature of modern day diplomacy and "universal standards" as represented by the UN, that unless we simply choose to wipe out an entire country and rebuild with no interference, maneuvering around the general populace while defending them and ourselves at the same time we are trying to rebuild the place is as great a challenge as has ever been placed on a nation's military.

Hopefully you have learned something, but since it is likely you have made up mind in that thing you call a "brain", I fear these words fall on equally useless and deaf ears.

If, on the other hand, I am truly wrong about you, I would gladly apologize as I never mean to slander those who choose to truly learn the truth and live by it.

We shall see, I suppose.

2007-05-02 08:11:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Well -gotta agree with jeepers. We are there because a fledgling democracy in a country previously ruled by dictators and tyrants takes a while to get on their feet - we all take our democracy for granted. Ever hear of this little altercation we had waaaay long ago called the Revolutionary War? How do you think we got our own freedom? Kissing butt and placating them? I guess Rome was built in a day after all, damn those aliens! They must have re-written the history books...

2007-05-09 15:58:26 · answer #3 · answered by foxxzymama 2 · 0 0

that mission was, other missions weren't.

We strolled all the way to baghdad with only token resistance, often time the resistance was just scarecrows, propped up next to a gun to slow them.

So they roll into baghdad and think it's done, they didn't count on having to break the people. You went in thinking you were better than them and you thought they would agree with you. Sorry, they need a few more years of your shame culture before they admit that Bushie is better than them.

The most recent tank battle in Iraq was in Falluja a few months ago. source-youtube, militaries own propaganda.

2007-05-02 07:47:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

To add to what Jeepers said:

Bush was remarking on the USS Lincoln's mission, not the Iraq war. He also said that MAJOR combat operations were over -- which they were. If you don't believe me, then give me the most recent tank battle in Iraq (give me a source besides "youtube").

Secondly, he warned that while we won the war, we always had the danger of losing the peace -- which implies that while combat was over, pacification wasn't.

2007-05-02 07:48:27 · answer #5 · answered by BDZot 6 · 1 1

The mission of toppling the Baathist regime was accomplished. The next job, replacement with something viable, has been more difficult. Don't be childish, even though it seems to be popular among the Democratic leadership.

2007-05-02 07:52:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

i might positioned John Cena win over Brock Lesnar interior the precise 25 WWE's amazing upsets. i like this journey so plenty greater effectual than the journey against Ryback on Sunday 05/19/13 at severe regulations.

2017-01-09 08:03:58 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

mission accomplished was to the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln who was on station in the gulf 293 days THEIR mission was accomplished , and bush stated major offensive operations where over and they where .

i don't see the issue here then a bunch of bush haters trying to put their spin on this

2007-05-02 08:37:23 · answer #8 · answered by Dr.Bucksnort 7 · 0 1

Because the mission WAS accomplished- the total and absolute defeat of Saddam's army.

The US is still there because it undertook a second, much more difficult task- that of building a society.

Of course that would be a political disaster for the enemies of the US in general, and the enemies of Bush in particular- which is why a rather unholy alliance of liberal/ left wing westerners and extreme conservative islamic radicals works all it can to sabotage this effort.

A person is known by the company he keeps. I'd rather stand by Bush

2007-05-02 07:49:03 · answer #9 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 2 3

Beats the hell out of me. We ousted Saddam, we helped them set up a new, democratic government. What else could there possibly be to do there? Shouldn't the independent nation of Iraq be responisble for providing their own security, at least within their own borders, just like every other independent nation in the world?
We've won this war already. I don't understand why its our job to help them run their country by pulling security for them. If we do it for Iraq, why don't we do it for Darfur, or Colombia, or any of the other dozens of countries where they are having trouble handling their own security? Maybe we should be handling our own instead. At least, thats what I thought I joined the National Guard to do, to guard my nation, not somebody elses.

2007-05-02 08:11:04 · answer #10 · answered by kittiesandsparklelythings 4 · 1 1

He has made quite a few little mistakes in his time. Remember the WMDs? Remember the criticisms at the time that he had no exit plan? This is the result of those errors and cover-ups.

Actually, I agree with you that I believe he said something like...we have accomplished what we set out to do..which might make one think that the action would end soon.

2007-05-02 07:34:13 · answer #11 · answered by grapeshenry 4 · 1 4

fedest.com, questions and answers