[CLUE-Talk] Another Bush lie

[Kevin Cullis]

On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 05:31, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 22:03, Kevin Cullis wrote:
> > Zonker,
> > 
> > Can't resist to water down your "lie" flame either:
> > 
> > http://armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2346349.php
> 


> The Bush administration choreographed that event from beginning to end,
> including turning the carrier around for better lighting. Even in their
> whitewashed version of events, they approved the banner. You're actually
> asking us to believe that the "Mission Accomplished" banner approved by
> the White House and placed strategically for the photo-op and televised
> speech was really meant as anything other than "mission accomplished" in
> Iraq?

And you don't think Clinton and every other president does photo ops? 
Give me a break, Joe!!  To take a photo op as a lie is ridiculous.  Even
if it is not quite an accurate statement/picture and you call it a lie? 
If peoples lives were at stake or it was a cover up, then I'd start
believing your comments, but taking an exteme view of every little word
as a lie is to carry things a bit too far.

> For the love of God -- why is it so hard for the administration to admit
> they screwed up when they said that hostilities were over? Putting aside

Joe, Joe, Joe, you mean to tell me that you've got such a narrow view of
the world that the meaning of the "end of hostilities" means that NO
MORE killing will be assured?  And what will it mean if they did admit
that hostilities were NOT over?  That they made a mistake going in there
in the first place?  That they need to pull out and let Saddam achieve
power again, because he's not in American hands?

> the debate over whether we should have been there in the first place, or
> whether the administration lied over WMD, it is a simple matter of being
> able to recognize reality here -- hostilities aren't over. The
> administration screwed up, end of story. Admit it already. 

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "they screwed up."  I think it
was right to go in there at some point, but I'm not in agreement what
they used as "evidence" to prove their point, at least not for now, or
that there are problems with "where do we go now" in the aftermath of
what we started.  Do I like that Chenney's friends are reaping what they
sew?  No.  But every administration has done the same thing, some worse,
some better, at ethics.  Or as I understood Bruce Perens talk to say
about Corporations, everyone is doing "the nasty" with each other. No
different in politics.

> 
> > Oh, as a reminder, how long did it take our US of A to "cool down" after
> > our 10 years or so of the Revolutionary War?
> 
> What the hell does that have to do with anything??? 

After hosilities of the Revolutionary War ended, how long did it take
for our country to "settle down" and get to running the country? 
However, the terrorists of today are a different breed than people were
over 200 years ago.