It's OKAY, Mr. Bush........we understand.

[Manscape]

Mr. President........we know our duty.......live and die for government lies, feed our children to the military, honor corporate gluttony and the dual standards that make you, Mr. Bush, our purpose for existing.......we eagerly stand in line for the privilege........and please know we want you for a THIRD term.......perhaps we can make a few changes to the rules and you will remain our emperor.........please?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_on_..._accomplished_4

White House admits fault on 'Mission Accomplished' banner

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

1 hour, 53 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The White House said Wednesday that President Bush has paid a price for the "Mission Accomplished" banner that was flown in triumph five years ago but later became a symbol of U.S. misjudgments and mistakes in the long and costly war in Iraq.

Thursday is the fifth anniversary of Bush's dramatic landing in a Navy jet on an aircraft carrier homebound from the war. The USS Abraham Lincoln had launched thousands of airstrikes on Iraq.

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended," Bush said at the time. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on." The "Mission Accomplished" banner was prominently displayed above him — a move the White House came to regret as the display was mocked and became a source of controversy.

After shifting explanations, the White House eventually said the "Mission Accomplished" phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq. Bush, in October 2003, disavowed any connection with the "Mission Accomplished" message. He said the White House had nothing to do with the banner; a spokesman later said the ship's crew asked for the sign and the White House staff had it made by a private vendor.

"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said `mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. "And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year."

She said what is important now is "how the president would describe the fight today. It's been a very tough month in Iraq, but we are taking the fight to the enemy."

At least 49 U.S. troops died in Iraq in April, making it the deadliest month since September when 65 U.S. troops died.

Now in its sixth year, the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of at least 4,061 members of the U.S. military. Only the Vietnam War (August 1964 to January 1973), the war in Afghanistan (October 2001 to present) and the Revolutionary War (July 1776 to April 1783) have engaged America longer.

Bush, in a speech earlier this month, said that "while this war is difficult, it is not endless."

ZIG HEIL MEIN CHIMPFUHRER!!!!!

[Manscape]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1003797005

'Mission Accomplished': How the Media Covered the Bush Pronouncement 5 Years Ago -- and its Aftermath

By Greg Mitchell

Published: April 30, 2008 9:25 PM ET

NEW YORK On May 1, 2003, Richard Perle advised, in a USA Today Op-Ed, “Relax, Celebrate Victory.” The same day, exactly five years ago, President Bush, dressed in a flight suit, landed on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and declared an end to major military operations in Iraq — with the now-infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner arrayed behind him in the war’s greatest photo op.

Chris Matthews on MSNBC called Bush a “hero” and boomed, “He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.” He added: "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."

PBS' Gwen Ifill said Bush was "part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan." On NBC, Brian Williams gushed, "The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing."

When Bush’s jet landed on an aircraft carrier, American casualties stood at 139 killed and 542 wounded.

The following (drawn from my new book on Iraq and the media) looks at how one newspaper -- it happens to be The New York Times -- covered the Bush declaration and its immediate aftermath. One snippet: “The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today.”

*

By Elisabeth Bumiller

WASHINGTON, May 1—President Bush’s made-for-television address tonight on the carrier Abraham Lincoln was a powerful, Reaganesque finale to a six-week war. But beneath the golden images of a president steaming home with his troops toward the California coast lay the cold political and military realities that drove Mr. Bush’s advisors to create the moment.

The president declared an end to major combat operations, White House, Pentagon and State Department officials said, for three crucial reasons: to signify the shift of American soldiers from the role of conquerors to police, to open the way for aid from countries that refused to help militarily, and—above all—to signal to voters that Mr. Bush is shifting his focus from Baghdad to concerns at home.

‘‘This is the formalization that tells everybody we’re not engaged in combat anymore, we’re prepared for getting out,’’ a senior administration official said.

By Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt

BAGHDAD, May 2—The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today.

The United States currently has more than five divisions in Iraq, troops that fought their way into the country and units that were added in an attempt to stabilize it. But the Bush administration is trying to establish a new military structure in which American troops would continue to secure Baghdad while the majority of the forces in Iraq would be from other nations.

Under current planning, there would be three sectors in postwar Iraq. The Americans would keep a division in and around Baghdad; Britain would command a multinational division in the south near Basra; and Poland would command a third division of troops from a variety of nations.

By Dexter Filkins and Ian Fisher

BAGHDAD, May 2—The war in Iraq has officially ended, but the momentous task of recreating a new Iraqi nation seems hardly to have begun. Three weeks after Saddam Hussein fell from power, American troops are straining to manage the forces this war has unleashed: the anger, frustration, and competing ambitions of a nation suppressed for three decades.

In a virtual power vacuum, with the relationship between American military and civilian authority seeming ill defined, new political parties, Kurds, and Shiite religious groups are asserting virtual governmental authority in cities and villages across the country, sometimes right under the noses of American soldiers.

There is a growing sense among educated Iraqis eager for the American-led transformation of Iraq to work that the Americans may be losing the initiative, that the single-mindedness that won the war is slackening under the delicate task of transforming a military victory into political success.

By David E. Sanger

WASHINGTON, May 2—In his speech, Mr. Bush argued that the invasion and liberation of Iraq were part of the American response to the attacks of Sept. 11. He called the tumultuous period since those attacks ‘‘19 months that changed the world,’’ and said Mr. Hussein’s defeat was a defeat for al-Qaeda and other terrorists as well.

‘‘The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror,’’ he said. ‘‘We have removed an ally of al-Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because that regime is no more.’’

Politically more complex for the administration is the continuing search for chemical and biological weapons, a search that so far has turned up next to nothing. One member of Mr. Bush’s war cabinet said that he suspected that Mr. Hussein had not mounted his chemical stockpiles on weapons, but suggested that sooner or later they would be found. Mr. Bush himself said tonight that the United States knew of ‘‘hundreds of sites that will be investigated.’’

Editorial, May 2

As presidential spectacles go, it would be hard to surpass George Bush’s triumphant ‘‘Top Gun’’ visit to the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln yesterday off the California coast. President Bush flew out to the giant aircraft carrier dressed in full fighter-pilot regalia as the ‘‘co-pilot’’ of a Navy warplane. After a dramatic landing on the compact deck—a new standard for high-risk presidential travel—Mr. Bush mingled with the ship’s crew, then later welcomed home thousands of cheering sailors and aviators on the flight deck in a nationally televised address.

The scene will undoubtedly make for a potent campaign commercial next year. For now, though, the point was to declare an end to the combat phase of the war in Iraq and to commit the nation to the reconstruction of that shattered country.

From the moment that Mr. Bush made his intention of invading Iraq clear, the question was never whether American troops would succeed, or whether the regime they toppled would be exposed to the world as a despicable one. The question was, and still is, whether the administration has the patience to rebuild Iraq and set it on a course toward stable, enlightened governance. The chaotic situation in Afghanistan is no billboard for American talent at nation-building. The American administration of postwar Iraq has so far failed to match the efficiency and effectiveness of the military invasion. But as the United States came to the end of one phase of the Iraqi engagement last night, there was still time to do better.

Letter to the Editor, May 3

Some unanswered questions remain: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? What evidence makes Iraq ‘‘an ally of al-Qaeda’’? Where is Saddam Hussein? Where is Osama bin Laden? Who is next?

Martin Deppe

Chicago

By David E. Sanger

WASHINGTON, May 4—With his administration under growing international pressure to find evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons, President Bush told reporters today that ‘‘we’ll find them,’’ but cautioned that it would take some time because, he said, Mr. Hussein spent so many years hiding his stockpiles.

Mr. Bush’s comments came after his senior aides, in interviews in recent days, had begun to back away from their pre-war claims that Mr. Hussein had an arsenal that was loaded and ready to fire.

They now contend that he developed what they call a ‘‘just in time’’ production strategy for his weapons, hiding chemical precursors that could be quickly loaded into empty artillery shells or short-range missiles.

Maureen Dowd, column, May 4

The tail hook caught the last cable, jerking the fighter jet from 150 m.p.h. to zero in two seconds. Out bounded the cocky, rule-breaking, daredevil flyboy, a man navigating the Highway to the Danger Zone, out along the edges where he was born to be, the further on the edge, the hotter the intensity.

He flashed that famous all-American grin as he swaggered around the deck of the aircraft carrier in his olive flight suit, ejection harness between his legs, helmet tucked under his arm, awestruck crew crowding around. Maverick was back, cooler and hotter than ever, throttling to the max with joystick politics. Compared to Karl Rove’s ‘‘revvin’ up your engine’’ myth-making cinematic style, Jerry Bruckheimer’s movies look like Lizzie McGuire.

This time Maverick didn’t just nail a few bogeys and do a 4G inverted dive with a MiG-28 at a range of two meters. This time the Top Gun wasted a couple of nasty regimes, and promised this was just the beginning.

Thomas Friedman, column, May 4

President Bush may have declared the war in Iraq effectively over. But, judging from my own e-mail box—where conservative readers are bombing me for not applauding enough the liberation of Iraq, and liberals for selling out to George Bush—the war over the war still burns on here.

Conservatives now want to use the victory in Iraq to defeat all liberal ideas at home, and to make this war a model for America’s relations with the world, while liberals—fearing all that—are still quietly rooting for Mr. Bush to fail.

New American Deaths in Iraq, May 6

The Department of Defense has confirmed the deaths of the following Americans in the Iraq war:

GIVENS, Jesse A., 34, Pfc., Army; Springfield, Mo.; Third Armored Cavalry.

REYNOLDS, Sean C., 25, Sgt., Army; East Lansing, Mich.; 173rd Airborne Brigade.

*

Greg Mitchell's new book is titled "So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq." It features a foreword by Joseph L. Galloway and a preface by Bruce Springsteen.

[Manscape]

Like Rish Limpie asserts on his daily radio attack, Republicans are the party that "TAKES RESPONSIBILITY" for their actions!!

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=150870

McCain: 'Mission accomplished' banner wasn't Bush fault, but president bungled early Iraq war

LIBBY QUAID

AP News

May 01, 2008 13:08 EST

Republican John McCain said President Bush should not be held responsible for the much-criticized "Mission Accomplished" banner five years ago, but he should be blamed for bungling the early months of the war.

On Thursday, the fifth anniversary of Bush's dramatic landing on an aircraft carrier where the banner hung, McCain said, "I thought it was wrong at the time."

"So all I can tell you was that I was the strongest advocate, or one of the strongest advocates, for changing to adopt the surge," McCain told reporters. "And I think that history will judge me by the fact that I thought it was wrong."

McCain said he can't blame Bush for the banner. After shifting explanations, the White House eventually said the "Mission Accomplished" phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq.

Instead, he said Bush should be blamed for comments like that of L. Paul Bremer, the former chief of the U.S. occupation government in Iraq, who pledged that the U.S. military would crush die-hard Saddamist "dead-enders," and of Vice President Dick Cheney, who declared the insurgency "in its last throes."

"Do I blame him for that specific banner? I can't," McCain said. "But I do say that statements are made, 'a few dead-enders,' 'last throes,' those are, as opposed to the banner, direct statements which were contradicted by the facts on the ground."

McCain advocated early on for a troop-increase strategy that eventually was adopted by Bush, and he is an important ally of Bush's war strategy today.

But Democrat Barack Obama said McCain misled the public along with Bush.

"Five years after George Bush declared 'mission accomplished' and John McCain told the American people that 'the end is very much in sight' in Iraq, we have lost thousands of lives, spent half a trillion dollars, and we're no safer," Obama said in a statement released by his presidential campaign.

Rival Hillary Rodham Clinton noted that the "Mission Accomplished" anniversary comes as it has become clear that the war's "planning and strategy was flawed."

"Our troops deserved and deserve better," Clinton said in a statement. "The path forward is to use American diplomacy and our allies to allow U.S. forces to come home, and turn responsibility back to Iraq and its people."

Source: AP News

[Guest 2smart4u]

Like Rish Limpie asserts on his daily radio attack, Republicans are the party that "TAKES RESPONSIBILITY" for their actions!!

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=150870

McCain: 'Mission accomplished' banner wasn't Bush fault, but president bungled early Iraq war

LIBBY QUAID

AP News

May 01, 2008 13:08 EST

Republican John McCain said President Bush should not be held responsible for the much-criticized "Mission Accomplished" banner five years ago, but he should be blamed for bungling the early months of the war.

On Thursday, the fifth anniversary of Bush's dramatic landing on an aircraft carrier where the banner hung, McCain said, "I thought it was wrong at the time."

"So all I can tell you was that I was the strongest advocate, or one of the strongest advocates, for changing to adopt the surge," McCain told reporters. "And I think that history will judge me by the fact that I thought it was wrong."

McCain said he can't blame Bush for the banner. After shifting explanations, the White House eventually said the "Mission Accomplished" phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq.

Instead, he said Bush should be blamed for comments like that of L. Paul Bremer, the former chief of the U.S. occupation government in Iraq, who pledged that the U.S. military would crush die-hard Saddamist "dead-enders," and of Vice President Dick Cheney, who declared the insurgency "in its last throes."

"Do I blame him for that specific banner? I can't," McCain said. "But I do say that statements are made, 'a few dead-enders,' 'last throes,' those are, as opposed to the banner, direct statements which were contradicted by the facts on the ground."

McCain advocated early on for a troop-increase strategy that eventually was adopted by Bush, and he is an important ally of Bush's war strategy today.

But Democrat Barack Obama said McCain misled the public along with Bush.

"Five years after George Bush declared 'mission accomplished' and John McCain told the American people that 'the end is very much in sight' in Iraq, we have lost thousands of lives, spent half a trillion dollars, and we're no safer," Obama said in a statement released by his presidential campaign.

Rival Hillary Rodham Clinton noted that the "Mission Accomplished" anniversary comes as it has become clear that the war's "planning and strategy was flawed."

"Our troops deserved and deserve better," Clinton said in a statement. "The path forward is to use American diplomacy and our allies to allow U.S. forces to come home, and turn responsibility back to Iraq and its people."

Source: AP News

Manscum's mom must have told him to clean up his room or no TV, he's spending a lot of time

on his computer lately.

[Guest Guest]

Manscum's mom must have told him to clean up his room or no TV, he's spending a lot of time

on his computer lately.

Wow, you're a d**k.