Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: untrained skeptic
The mission accomplished banner was in relation to the end of the mission for the men and women on that Carrier. """

That's not true. Bush said, on that occasion: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." You need memory pills, mr. "skeptic"

25 posted on 02/07/2005 2:50:14 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: churchillbuff

"The mission accomplished banner was in relation to the end of the mission for the men and women on that Carrier. """

That's not true. Bush said, on that occasion: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." You need memory pills, mr. "skeptic""

Yes, he said major combat opperations were over. Right after that he said the fighting wasn't over yet and we still had a long ways to go in Iraq.

Guess what? It was the end of major combat opperations against the Iraqi army. There have been a couple combat opperations since then that could definately be considered major, but they were mainly against groups with a very high concentration of foreign insurgents.

Bush never said the war was over in 3 weeks. He did misjudge the size of the insurgency to follow the defeat of the Iraqi army and the overthrow of Sadam. That's because we ended up fighting a new enemy. Sadam's government was toppled. We aren't fighting his government anymore. THere isn't even much evidence that there is a large number of members of his former army in the insurgency.

The insurgency has mainly beel led by foreigners.

The mission accomplished was in reference to the mission. A mission is not a war. The soldiers that were returning home had successfully accomplished their mission. Is that in dispute?

Bush himself said that we were seeing the end of major combat opperations. Considering that the Iraqi government was shattered, Sadam was in hiding and would be captured hiding in a hole in the not so distant future, is it unreasonable for his to say that major combat opperations were over?

Considering that the standing army was defeated, and the insurgency doesn't appear to be led by members of the former Iraqi government is it even reasonable to say he was right? That's debatable. It depends on how you define the conflict. Our soldiers are still there, and we've fought some sizable engagements with the insurgents since then.

However, it's hard to honestly make a case that Bush's comments when taken as a whole, including the comment that fighting wasn't over, were even close to unreasonable.

It's also pretty hard to honestly say that Bush was claiming the war was over and all our goals were reached there when he specifically said that wasn't true in the speech.

My memory's fine. You're seems to be selective.


33 posted on 02/08/2005 7:38:06 AM PST by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson