1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Partisan names

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Strong, Apr 30, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    The banner was installed by the crew of the ship he landed on since THEIR mission was accomplished and THEY were returning home.
     
  2. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Then he was either lying or gravely mistaken. Have you been watching the news this last month? More Americans died last month from "hostilities" in Iraq then during the entire invasion prior to the "mission accomplished" photo-op. And the pace seems to be continuing, not tailing off.
     
  3. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Of course it was "installed by the crew". Did you expect Condi Rice and Carl Rove would have done it? The "banner" was supplied the White House. What was the "crew" supposed to do? Refuse the Commander in Chief to display it?
     
  4. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    Actually, my understanding is that the banner was PROVIDED by AND installed by the crew in celebration of THEIR return and THEIR mission being accomplished. If you can show me a link where Carl and Condi provided the banner feel free.
     
  5. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    And my point is that the motivation is irrelevant. Those like you only complain because you feel threatened by the impact of such a tribute. People watching the show and seeing the pictures and hearing the names will not be thinking of the motivation of why it is being shown, but of the power such a tribute holds. But people like you and the Bushies are afraid of that very power.
     
  6. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    It was revealed afterwards that the White House had "assisted" with the creation and display of the banner. But only after they denied it several times and had to finally own up to their lie once proof was found. Like they have so many times.
     
  7. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Just a few of the findings on Googling "mission accomplished banner white house". Google returned 9,850 hits.

    From CNN:

    "The president told reporters the sign was put up by the Navy, not the White House.

    "I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way," the president said Tuesday.

    Now his statements are being parsed even further.

    Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.

    From Reuters:

    The White House at first said it had nothing to do with the banner but later conceded it had helped with it.

    The White House had also initially said Bush needed to fly to the carrier on a jet because the vessel would be hundreds of miles offshore. But the administration later acknowledged that Bush decided on flying by jet, even though the carrier was within easy helicopter range, because he wanted to share in the pilots' experience.​

    From Salon.com:

    April 16, 2004 | WASHINGTON --

    President Bush's top political adviser said this week he regretted the use of a "Mission Accomplished" banner as a backdrop for the president's landing on an aircraft carrier last May to mark the end of major combat operations in Iraq.

    "I wish the banner was not up there," said White House political strategist Karl Rove. "I'll acknowledge the fact that it has become one of those convenient symbols." ​
     
  8. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    For the rest of this unfolding story:
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4901087/
     
  9. JM Anthony

    JM Anthony Child of the 60's DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,127
    1
    Nov 16, 2003
    And I've got a really good deal for you on some swamp land close to home.
     
  10. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,023
    1
    Apr 17, 2002
    Actually, Mr. Bush was shocked when he saw the banner and asked Navy personnel to immediately take it down since there were still hardworking troops on the ground in Iraq and the President felt it was insensitive to say that these people's work was being done after the mission was accomplished. Karl Rove tried to calm W down, but only became angry himself when he thought of what the young children of servicemembers would think of their parents stuck in Iraq after the mission was accomplished.

    Everyone was getting collected and all the Republicans were calmed down and ready to sing Kumbaya, but dastradly liberals in the press corps siezed on the opportunity to tape the President when he happened to be in front of the banner, and he felt he had no other course of action than to go ahead with the speech.

    Later on Fox News, Mr. Rove talked about how if they could only cut out some of the malcontents in the press corps, everything would be so much better, but he became nauseous when the bobbing up and down head of the Fox News reporter made him feel he was back on the carrier....

    ;) :grin: :sure: :lol: ;) :p
     
  11. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004

    Man, I needed that laugh!!!! Thanks! :icon_bb:
     
  12. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    Happy, read the posts. I did not "complain." And please, again, stop attributing beliefs and emotions to me. I did not say I felt threatened. The topic of this thread was "partisan links." The discussion was whether the show was partisan. To determine if it was intended to be partisan, one needs to look at the motivation of the actors. Motivation is thus HARDLY irrelevant, it's the MAJOR relevancy. I tend to agree with Capmeister's post (#2). I think that honoring the dead is quite appropriate, but I question the motives of those doing it. Just as you would appropriately question the motives of a program that purports to list the various female "victims" of Bill Clinton. Such a show would be factual, and victims of sex crimes should be honored (as they often are, at least in Minnesota). But the motives of the producers would be questioned, especially if it was backed by known conservatives. Here, there is a show backed by known liberals, who have generally been critical of the war from the get-go. So I'm unreasonable in questioning their motives? Well, excuuuuuse me!
    Feel free to take one more shot at me, without inappropriate attributions please. I've gotta go. I'm late for my John Birch Society meeting. :eek2:
     
  13. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Again, anyone (other than Bush/Cheney zombies) is not going to be watching the show and thinking about the motivation behind it. They're going to be moved by the tribute to the soldiers, just like they were moved by the pictures of those lost on 9/11. Other than politicos, most people couldn't care less about the motivation, they simply see the tribute as something needed to honor our fallen soldiers.
    It never ceases to amaze me how "you people" always manage to bring up Clinton, no matter the subject. You complain that I am generalizing you, yet you do the same to me. Here's a clue: I'm not a Clinton fan, but unlike the GOP, I'm not obsessed about him. Such a show as you describe would not be the same because last time I checked the dead soldiers are not alleged to be dead, they are really and truly dead. Any "victims" of Bill Clinton are merely alleged. Surely you do understand the meaning of the word "alleged"?

    The fact that you could not watch such a tribute without seething over your perceived motivation behind it speaks more about you than it does Koppel or ABCNews. And it isn't a flattering picture.
     
  14. olgeezer

    olgeezer Guest

    1,833
    0
    Dec 5, 2003
    The argument about the "liberal" media and "liberal" decision makers in media doesn't hold water. If there is any bent to media it is toward the establishment, normally the current administration, whomever that may be. If the story does too much to prove the establishment wrong or move in a unusual direction then it is normally squelched. Remember the media companies are owned by conglomerates and at some point, if a story is too far afield of the parent companies wishes, the story is killed. The establishment bias is exhibited over and over again. My favorite is from the New York Times, because it is so often referred to as the "Liberal Press". During the atrocities in Cambodia, in Pol Pots time, the Times reported 70,000 column inches too cover that news. During the same time in, East Timur, genocide much greater than in Cambodia occurred, but by a government friendly to the U.S. The Times devoted 70 column inches to that same news story.
     
  15. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Exactly. The claims by some right-wing zealots that the mainstream media is "liberal" is a complete fabrication. It is simply more of their ever-present tactic of "if they repeat it enough times everyone will believe it".
     
  16. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    Well, I'm glad to hear that when you watched the show all you thought about was the fallen soldiers, and Bush and company never even entered your mind. Or did they?


    Yes, and Lee Harvey Oswald is "alleged" to have shot President Kennedy. He was never convicted of it, obviously. You can use the word "alleged" if you wish. I'm not living in fairyland.

    As for the mention of Clinton, he's the best analogy I could think of. He was, after all, the preceding President. And he was of the opposite persuasion. So he's most fitting to make a point. It doesn't mean I'm obsessing on him. Arguing is my job. Despite your complaints about my technique, I've been quite successful at it. So, I will continue to use the methods I choose.

    Well, there you again. Assuming. I didn't seethe over anything. I thought we were having what amounts to an intellectual discussion about current events. I hadn't really given the issue much thought until the topic was raised. Then I thought about it. "Seething" never entered into it. In fact, I find the whole thing to be rather amusing. Not the deaths, obviously. But the political games that are played by both sides, and by media people who pretend to be objective. And your assumption that I watched it is also wrong. I didn't watch the show. Quite frankly, watching someone go over a list of dead people holds little appeal to me. I didn't watch similar shows regarding the 9/11 victims. I guess I don't need those "shows" to remind me that people died. I'm not heartless. And I'm not ghoulish.

    So, what's your problem? Why do you seem so hate-filled?
     
  17. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    No, they didn't. Except on this forum, I rarely think about the dimwit and his gang of goons.
    People like you are what is wrong with our legal system. You have nothing but contempt for the balance of justice. In your zealousness to win at any cost you couldn't care less whether one is innocent, only that you got another notch on your conviction sheet. Where's the evidence to convict Clinton of the supposed crimes? Aren't we still innocent until proven guilty or have you already started operating under Ashcroft Law where one is guilty simply by being accused?
    Funny how Clinton seems to be right on the tip of so many GOP'ers tongues all the time. I would call that obsessed.
    I'm sure you've been successful. Doesn't mean you're competent. Your disdain for the concept of innocent until proven guilty (as evidenced by your mocking the word "alleged") tells much about your character. And as I said before, the picture is not flattering.

    You didn't need to watch the program because you had already made up your mind about it beforehand. You had already determined the show's "guilt" in your own mind.

    I found it very moving, and it was anything but "ghoulish".
    I don't hate anyone. There are those I dislike, but hate is far too strong a word and I do not use it lightly. Believe it or not, I try to find something good in everyone, even Dubya. That becomes quite a challenge at times, and there are those that so far have alluded my quest but I still try. Even you.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page