‘Mission Accomplished’ By The Numbers
By on May 1st, 2006 at 10:30 am
‘Mission Accomplished’ By The Numbers
On May 1, 2003, President Bush stood underneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner and announced that “Major combat operations have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
Here’s a look at the situation then compared to the situation now, by the numbers:
| May 1, 2003 | Today | |
| U.S. Troops Wounded | 542 | 17,469 |
| U.S. Troops Killed |
139 | 2,400 |
| Size of U.S. Forces | 150,000 | 132,000 |
| Size of Iraqi Security Forces |
7,000-9000 | 250,500 |
| Number of Insurgents | 5,000 | 15,000-20,000 |
| Insurgent Attacks Per Day | 8 | 75 |
| Cost to U.S. Taxpayers | $79 billion | $320 billion |
| Approval of Bush’s Handling of Iraq | 75% | 37% |
| Percentage of Americans who Believe The Iraq War Was “Worth Fighting” | 70% | 41% |
| Bush’s Overall Job Approval | 71% | 38% |
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
wow – good work. this is shocking, even for someone who has been following things since the beginning
May 1st, 2006 at 10:33 am[...] Iraq violence and casualty stats, since victory was declared in 2003. [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 10:33 amYou better setup that Iran table now too………
May 1st, 2006 at 10:35 amCommander Codpiece – 3 years ago already! How time flies when you’re phones are tapped.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:36 amHeckofajob,George.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:38 amWORST. president. EVER.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:38 amOuch. Damn Bloggers!!
May 1st, 2006 at 10:40 am[Spittlle flyin] LOOK!!
[Arms waving] SEE? IT’S HARD!!
[Spew anger rant redness]
Yew Damm Bloggers!
[blame bias hate]
See LOOK! [BP rising, stroke level]
I am THE DECIDER!!
ME DECIDER KING
YOU! YOU!!!
SHEEPLE!!
[Blast off]
Strange bubble around bubble boys head.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:44 amWonder if its really George?
I can’t believe that 41% of the American public believes that the Iraq hostile takeover by the PNAC was a good thing?
Phaux news people…..
May 1st, 2006 at 10:44 amDubya Dunce Decider has accomplished nothing but baloney! He is the worst president in US history and a total flake too! He is a pathological liar and a war criminal who must be impeached!
May 1st, 2006 at 10:50 amThe worst president ever, the largest debt, violation of all civil rights, mass killing and a possible civil war looming all over the world, crated by nut cases and enabelers. Time to boot all of them out of our government……………Happy Beltane all……Gonna go hug the trees……Blessings, we need them.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:51 amThe Decider is one that never learns. In a Rose Garden speech this morning he stated that the war in Iraq was a war against terrorism.
Man what a dunce and dickhead this man is. Me thinks that he doth drink and snort too much.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:52 amFinancial cost to George W. Bush: $0.
Financial cost to Dick Cheney: $0, actually a profit.
Personal cost to George W. Bush: proven to be an awful leader with absolutely no ability to deliver on his promises and no grip on the lives of real Americans.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:54 amPersonal cost to Dick Cheney: none, he was already known to be a warmonger.
Will you keep this documented updated in the “Today” column and make it available easily on your site. The presentation and information is EXCELLENT. Thank you. We should forward this screenshot to major media outlets daily and often.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:56 amANVIL lol either you are using very dark sarcasm on here, or you are more fascistic than Bush and Cheney?! How old are you anyways? If you are older than 19 or 20 > do you have children? If you are married and your kids are of draft age, then they must be the first into Iran to die in this new war you promote?! If you have no kids, then you must go to fight in Iran first!
May 1st, 2006 at 10:57 amAnvilbrain,
I usually leave the “boy that was stupid” comments to Ryan or Spudge, but with your #11 comment I was pushed over the edge.
That tripe has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read on this site. I hope you keep a copy of your asinine comment so that in 20 years you can look back and be truly ashamed of yourself and ask for forgiveness.
Good luck to you because you really need it.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:57 am#13: That’s funny. You’re right, George accomplished nothing before the age of 40. Looks like he killed far too many brain cells during those 40 years drinking and using coke.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:57 amCan you fix this page, without the comments, so it can be emailed to others?
May 1st, 2006 at 10:59 amI can’t believe people still think that this “mission accomplished” event was in reference to what the current situation is in Iraq today.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:05 am#11 – “SOMEDAY BUSH WILL BE PRAISED AND REVERED FOR TAKING THE FIGHT TO THE EVIL MUSLIM HORDES. AND SOMEDAY YOU’LL CONSIDER YOUR TAX DOLLARS WELL SPENT.”
And someday you’ll stop typing all in CAPS, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. “CAPS” are considered “yelling”, and you seem to enjoy yelling you head off.
By the way, they stopped being “our tax dollars” ever since the debt ballooned completely out of proportion. Pres. Reagan, Pres. Bush (Sr.) and Pres. Clinton ran up the national debt. (Of course, it was a lower increase under Pres. Clinton.) Pres. Clinton was the only President that had budget surpluses, and they should have gone to paying back the “national credit card†debt that was run up for the 20 years previously.
They’ll only become “our tax dollars†after we pay off the debt, unless you just don’t care if our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren pay off the debt we’re running up today. Personally, I would like for American’s to act fiscally responsible and stop the deficit spending. When the Republicans lose seats this coming November, maybe our financial standing will be strengthened.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:07 am#20 – Pray tell, to what do you think “Mission Accomplished” was meant to reference?
To the average American, it was taken to mean “We’ve accomplished out stated goals in Iraq, and we would start to bring our soldiers home.”
If you listen to what was said by Pres. Bush this was the implied meaning of “Mission Accomplished”.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:11 amObviously A**head has no children (which if you think about it makes sense, who would want to procreate with that?), and although has a mental age of 14 is more likely than not 30.
Why are 30ish republicans so angry at people voicing their disent? I was at an anti-war rally on Sat. and some 30ish guys were flipping us off and had the angrierist looks on their faces. Most people beeped and waved and either gave us the peace sign or thumbs up.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:14 amMay 1st, 2006 at 11:17 am
It’s a boondoggle
May 1st, 2006 at 11:18 amI wonder how the 29% of the people who used to, but no longer think the war was worth fighting make such decisions. What made them think it was worth it and now makes them think it isn’t?
May 1st, 2006 at 11:18 am#23 – To them, “the right to free speech” only means your support for the current administration.
Of course, 6 years ago, “the right to free speech” only means your disdain for the current administration.
It’s interesting how their definition of “free speech” is as elastic as their ethics, values, and morals.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:19 amHonestly, for the, the most disturbing fact from that table is that 38% haven’t seen the light yet. That’s a quite high number considering the shit we are in right now. Iraq, economy, corruption, military is streched out thin, National Security, scandals, ….. they all are in worst possible shape. Today, I read that as many as seven key areas are under Taliban control in Afghanistan. I wonder what is that, it keeps these 38% going. What makes them so complacent and so content. I am sorry, but 38% means something is seriously broken in this country.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:19 am#20 – I can’t believe people still think that this “mission accomplished†event was in reference to what the current situation is in Iraq today.
Comment by Tracy
Oh, for f*ck’s sake, enlighten us, Tracy. I can’t wait.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:20 amPost 23 Jules > angry white males in their 30s, 40s, and 50s are Dubya’s base supporters, but the ones in their 30s are the most reactionary, thus the most mean! I am not sure if ANVIL is being sarcastic on here, but if he believes what he spews then he is crazy insane for war?!
May 1st, 2006 at 11:22 amHonestly, for me, the most disturbing fact from that table is that 38% haven’t seen the light yet. That’s a quite high number considering the shit we are in right now. Iraq, economy, corruption, military is streched out thin, National Security, scandals, ….. they all are in worst possible shape. Today, I read that as many as seven key areas are under Taliban control in Afghanistan. I wonder what is that, it keeps these 38% going. What makes them so complacent and so content. I am sorry, but 38% means something is seriously broken in this country
May 1st, 2006 at 11:22 amWORST. president. EVER.
Comment by Zookeeper — May 1, 2006 @ 10:38 am
I thought I heard that he is now being called that by certain historians…
Well, he earned it.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:28 am#22
The ousting of Saddam and his regime from power.
“If you listen to what was said by Pres. Bush this was the implied meaning of “Mission Accomplishedâ€.”
That is what you and so many others out there thought. It was rather clear to me.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:29 amSo Tracy, was the “mission accomplished” fiasco held to celebrate the capture of bin Laden, the guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 disaster (that Bushie was warned about but chose to ignore)?
May 1st, 2006 at 11:29 amOff with Anvilhead’s head.
Didn’t 500,000 Iranian youth bite the dust during the Iran/Iraq war in the late eighties?
You will never have an effective army, draftees, volunteers, it doesn’t matter, if you don’t have a military objective. You will lose morale, troops, and a war, period.
I have an idea. Sit down with the Iranians and talk things over. See eye to eye and reach an agreement. It’s called diplomacy. It can be done.
Then you will have a mission accomplished. Until then, you’ll have nothing but acrimonious cacophony. Which is what the neocons want, and the complete destruction of the American economy, so there is no real need to worry.
The neocons have it all under control
May 1st, 2006 at 11:30 amALTHOUGHI WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE BUSH RAISE TAXES ON CORPORATIONS TO ACTUALLY “PAY†FOR THIS WAR.
Comment by ANVILHEAD — May 1, 2006 @ 10:51 am
You’re confirming my suspicions that you’re a parody troll when you say liberal things like this…
May 1st, 2006 at 11:31 amI still wonder that if the neocons hated Saddam so badly, why did they help arm him back in the 1980s and actually encouraged him to do his dirty deeds in that decade?
May 1st, 2006 at 11:31 amWorst Pres -
It’s true. Historians are already saying that.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:31 amThe article is in Rolling Stone.
I would also like to see the percentage that believed Iraq had something to do with 911 then, and the percentage aware that it’s was lie now. Soldiers should be seperatly questioned.
That 38% consists of :
1. Religious fanatics who are looking for Bush to bring on the RAPTURE.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:40 am2. People who are directly profiting from the war.
3. The douchebag sitting next to me that never will admit when he’s wrong, EVER!
4. People that watch FAUX news and haven’t caught on that it’s INFOTAINMENT.
5. People wealthy enough to remain unaffected/ “It’s business as usual.”
6. Racists and homophobes
7. Osama and friends. Bush’s BFF are mutually supportive.
[...] “Mission Accomplished” by the numbers. [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 11:41 am[...] “Mission Accomplished” by the numbers. [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 11:41 am[...] Note: Inspired by this Metafilter post and comments, as well as this page on ThinkProgress. [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 11:43 aman anagram for ANVILHEAD is:
A Evil Hand
May 1st, 2006 at 11:45 amhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html
May 1st, 2006 at 11:45 amMy son spent a full year and a half in ths burning sands of Iraq for this???
He was only supposed to be there for three months. But the Bush Cabal kept extending his tour of duty.
Emperor Bush strikes! Someone, please, send him into exile. Send the rest of the Bush Cabal into exile with him too!!!
May 1st, 2006 at 11:48 amMy fellow Aluminiums, ‘Mission Accomplished’.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:49 amSpeaking of numbers, anyone have Judith’s number in the Hamptons? Need to talk to her about something….
–
May 1st, 2006 at 11:51 amC’mon people – anvilhead has got to be joking here. Read this again:
ALSO, WE NEED A DRAFT. 19 AND 20 YEAR OLD KIDS. THEY FIGHT THE BEST. ITS EITHER THE ARMY OR A LOW PAYING JOB, OR COLLEGE, AND THEY DONT LEARN MUCH IN THE FIRST 2 YEARS. PULLING TRIGGER IN IRAN WILL TOUGHEN THEM UP. EVEN THE GAY SOLDIERS WILL APPRECIATE THE COMBAT EXPERIENCE.
Relax.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:55 amMission Accomplished DOES NOT mean – the job is half done and only thousands of US troops will still be killed, mimed, wounded, etc. Mission Accomplished means the job is done and we have nothing left to do in the area of fighting.
Tracy – have you listened to his speech from that day? That is basically what he said. The job is done with little military or civilian casualties.
He is an evil person without an ounce of empathy for any of the families who have been harmed by this war. The people who still excuse his behavior are his accomplices.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:58 am[...] Three years ago today, George W. Bush declared the war over and the Mission Accomplished. More damning stats… Related Posts: [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 12:00 pm[...] UPDATE: more here: ‘Mission Accomplished’ By The Numbers [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 12:00 pm#34
Do you really expect me to answer that question?
May 1st, 2006 at 12:06 pmWhat a biased survey. Why don’t you have a before and after for freshly painted schools? Or cell phone towers? Or purple stained thumbs? You know, true measures of progress in war time.
May 1st, 2006 at 12:06 pm[...] But let’s not forget something else that happened this day a mere three years ago. What’s that, you ask? Why, this is “Mission Accomplished” day, the day that W. declared victory in Iraq. Here’s a sad “by the number” statement on the whole affair; and here’s a few pithy words from G. Gordon Liddy about Bush way back when. [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 12:09 pm#49
“Tracy – have you listened to his speech from that day?”
I posted that link to the speech. You need to read it.
May 1st, 2006 at 12:09 pmIt was all about the George Bush action figure. See it here.
May 1st, 2006 at 12:11 pmOMG – I am going to vomit. Nothing he said we have accomplished was accomplished with the exception of a regime change.
Bush makes me physically ill. His crimes will catch up with him one way or another. Karma is a wonderful, awesome thing to witness and I cannot wait to see Bush pay for his crimes!
May 1st, 2006 at 12:15 pmMission Acclompished is more like it. Fellow can’t do anything right, it seems, except make the world safer for oligarchs (oiligarchs?).
And now George Bush wants to attack Iran? Him and what army? He’s shredded ours, along with our reputation, not to mention our checkbook.
You know, we know the country is going to the dogs when we make a son-of-a-bitch our leader.
Ed
May 1st, 2006 at 12:16 pmIn the meantime, Iran has attacked the Kurds in northern Iraq. Do you think they would have had the balls to do that if Saddam were still in power?
May 1st, 2006 at 12:20 pmI almost didn’t recognize junior in the picture. I mean, without his flight suit on and flight helmet under his arm.
May 1st, 2006 at 12:21 pmOff topic:
There is one thing that really drives a billion discussions and talking head debates.
That would be the basic assumption that junior and his cronies are trying to do the job that they are being paid by the American People to do.
I believe that the existence of that assumption is partially driven by the idea that they have been fairly elected by the people of this country.
The MSM milks that assumption constantly.
With the media and Congress in their pockets, they are teflon dons.
Here’s the deal, they are doing EXACTLY as they have planned to do.
As far as they are concerned, things are going very well. Mistakes? What Mistakes?
They do as they please, are above the law, and not held accountable.
When you realize that they have not, and will not, work for their Country and their people just as planned. Then there’s not alot of reason to debate their decisions. You know then, exactly why those decisions are made.
That changes the topic(s) of discussion, and the resultant actions.
May 1st, 2006 at 12:28 pmOne would wonder if the White House and RNC arranged that the pictures taken of Bush would show the Halo around him. THese guys can stage the photo-ops better anyone before.
Did they put Xs to mark the spots to take the pictures and set the angles? They did in New Orleans Jackson square. Did they stage Bush’s photo-op ontop of the dead at ground zero?
Government by photo-ops and no real effort to govern.
May 1st, 2006 at 12:33 pmHow many killed that were doing our military task that have been out-sourced to civilians?
May 1st, 2006 at 12:35 pm[...] Think Progress said it best: Click here to be taken to their excellent, brief article. Read it. And weep. [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 12:42 pm#8 – thought the same thing…strange, it looks like a halo…the wingnuts must see this as a sign of divinity for this idiot…what a maroon!!!!
May 1st, 2006 at 12:43 pmWasn’t there a photo at one of the white house breifings, were he also had a halo around his head, or something that looked like it?
May 1st, 2006 at 12:45 pmWow. Someone really must hate America to list a bunch of facts like that.
May 1st, 2006 at 12:48 pmI found a link to a few staged Photo’s of Bush. if case anyone is interested.
http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?newsID=571&pageID=177&subSiteID=44
May 1st, 2006 at 12:48 pm[...] Thanks to Think Progress for this chart, it helps put things in perspective. [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 12:55 pm#33. He never mentions “Saddam” once in the entire text of the speech. How did you deduce that he implied “The ousting of Saddam and his regime from power?”
“That is what you and so many others out there thought.” How do you know what anyone else thoght?
May 1st, 2006 at 12:57 pm1. Permanent bases in Iraq. (The unsinkable Aircraft carriers PNAC always wanted)
2. Permanent War. (what those bases are to be used for in the new American Empire.)
3. A bankrupt US economy. (to get rid of all those nasty social safety nets)
4. A weakend Military (Gradualy replaced by private mercs)
5. A dying middle class (Whose children are to be expended in these and future wars)
6. BUSH AS KING (the Unitary Executive)
As far as this US fascism goes it pretty much is MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
May 1st, 2006 at 1:07 pmHappy MAY DAY comrades!!
Whew!! Good thing the American public wasn’t as turncoat and cowardly during our wars during our nations first 180 years of existence. Oh, there were the Tories in the Revolutionary War – and many of them quickly hit the trail for Canada – no surprise there! During the Civil War, the Quakers were adamantly against hostilities to preserve the Union, but they made sure they benefitted economically from a system they neither sweated or died for. During the World Wars, we were treated to the intellectual dishonesty of Communism, anarchism, and socialism. Viet Nam brought out the hippie, yippie, malcontents and their colourful drug induced reasoning.
But I knew the freaks were wearing suburban masks when we were at a sports event last Saturday. A very sweet (and pathetically naive) mom was in anguish. “Why do they have to keep score – can’t they all just win.” I just smiled – knowing she was one of yours.
“til later…..
May 1st, 2006 at 1:16 pm#70
“How did you deduce that he implied “The ousting of Saddam and his regime from power?â€
It was the result of the operation. Saddam and his regime was one in the same. He also references Iraq and the work the still needs to be done multiple times in the speech.
May 1st, 2006 at 1:18 pmNot a halo over Bush’s head > just a radar dome behind him > lol. The person who took the pic just got the dome centered behind his head for some reason > I would have held horns over his head since he acts like the son of the Devil!
May 1st, 2006 at 1:20 pm#73. The result of the “operation” was also $350 billion dollars spent and 2300 Americans killed. Am I free to deduce that those were also “implied?”
May 1st, 2006 at 1:22 pmTracy,
I am sure Tracy you are technically correct, and all the admin types would agree with you. But what was the impression that Bush wanted to give to the average person?
May 1st, 2006 at 1:26 pmFor President Bush’s changing views of why we went to war, the Al Qaeda-Saddam link and our accomplished mission in Iraq, see:
May 1st, 2006 at 1:27 pm“Submission Accomplished.”
Thank god we have Mighty Aphrodite to put things into perspective, things just make sense and I think clearer when I read her posts. Going from revolutionary and civil war times to World war times was good for me. No mention of the Korean War, what happened, no dissenters of that war? And how about that Vietnam. Wasn’t it the World Wars when the US discovered the profitability of the industrial military complex and since then has had special interests in going to war? Who specifically was formed from a large percentage of the US population and was against the World wars Mighty? Not concepts, but people.
May 1st, 2006 at 1:36 pmMighty Moron wants May Day changed to Bush Fascism Day > lol.
May 1st, 2006 at 1:39 pmMighty,
Any of the past dissenting groups you describe make up 50 to 60 percent of the population, as today’s group of dissenters are?
May 1st, 2006 at 1:41 pm[...] Check out ThinkProgress for a Mission Accomplished by the numbers. [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 1:44 pmMighty, IRI, Tracy – Bush’s backwash.
May 1st, 2006 at 1:46 pm2401 gone up already
May 1st, 2006 at 1:47 pmSo Mighty,
You described dissentors in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, well doesn’t it seem appropriate for the time, I mean, the US was still in its infancy, of course there are other groups who wanted power, their was still somewhat of a vacuum, duh. Then you jump to the World Wars, and described concepts the vast majority of Americans were fighting against, maybe very small groups of dissent. The real dissent for war came after the world wars, when the US figuered out how profitable and special interest serving war can be.
May 1st, 2006 at 1:49 pmAny more enlightening insights Mighty?
May 1st, 2006 at 1:53 pm[...] McJoan has posted a “then and now” commemoration of the great day at Daily Kos. See also Think Progress. [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 1:54 pmFROM THE AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMPANY. SO FAR, UPI IS THE ONLY CORPORATE MEDIA OUTLET IN THE U.S. WITH THE GUTS TO PICK IT UP:
Bush turned down chances to kill Zarqawi: ex-CIA spy
A former top CIA spy says the United States deliberately turned down several opportunities to kill terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the lead-up to the Iraq war.
Mike Scheuer headed the CIA’s bin Laden unit for six years before resigning in 2004.
He has told the ABC’s Four Corners program the Bush administration had Zarqawi in its sights almost every day for a year.
He says a plan to destroy Zarqawi’s training camp in Kurdistan was abandoned for diplomatic reasons.
“The reasons the intelligence service got for not shooting Zarqawi was simply that the President and the National Security Council decided it was more important not to give the Europeans the impression we were gunslingers,” he said.
“Mr Bush had Mr Zarqawi in his sights for almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn’t shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq.”
The full story will air on Four Corners tonight on ABC television.
May 1st, 2006 at 1:59 pmIf Bush really meant, “The mission was to get Saddam, and that means mission accomplished”, don’t you think he would have been clear not to give the wrong impression about Iraq, and say that. These guys are not that dumb, they know what they want the public to think.
So Tracy, keep carrying that water, their ship has lots of leaks.
May 1st, 2006 at 2:00 pmAT THE RUBICON: US SECRETLY ASKS TURKEY TO HOST IRAN ATTACK
May 1st, 2006 at 2:01 pmLincoln spoke against the Mexican-American war, but in his bio, that information is hardly ever mentioned. Much like Reagan the right only wants to talk up the good and ignore the bad.
May 1st, 2006 at 2:04 pmseems iris and that ilk have stooped to a new low…check this out:
May 1st, 2006 at 2:14 pm“It seems that a young woman by the name of Ava Lowery, a 15-year-old from Alabama has been getting death threats for a powerful video she produced called “WWJD” (What Would Jesus Do)…”
(dailykos via crooksandliars)
Mighty Aphrodite,…..ah, if that is indeed you, I see you have left your little troll’s niche on the Mighty Righty website……….Fine piece of Wingnut Bloggings there. Check it out……MIGHTYRIGHTY.COM. You want to talk about Freaks? All types can be found there.
Save your spew for the folks who care not to listen to reason and still think the da’ Schrub has a direct conduit to God.
May 1st, 2006 at 2:31 pmPost 91 > I watched that video > got the link from Truthout.org! Cindy Sheehan is a friend of the young girl > she puts pictures of wounded Iraqi children together with the song “Jesus loves me.”
May 1st, 2006 at 2:34 pm[...] Three years ago today, President Bush stood under a banner that proclaimed “Mission Accomplished” and announced that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 2:35 pmOne phrase to sum Bush’s presidency:
“I’m a war pretzel!”
May 1st, 2006 at 3:00 pm[...] Three years since “Mission Accomplished” and counting By Deeks Three years ago today, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier off the coast of Virginia and announced “Mission Accomplishedâ€. ThinkProgress has a breakdown of our accomplishments in Iraq since that day. [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 3:00 pmWrong URL — AT THE RUBICON: US QUIETLY ASKS TURKEY TO HOST IRAN ATTACK
Try here:
http://aliberaldose.blogspot.com/2006/05/at-rubicon-us-asks-turkey-to-host-iran.html
Now corroborated by a second source.
May 1st, 2006 at 3:23 pm#75
I you want to.
May 1st, 2006 at 3:23 pm#75
If you want to.
May 1st, 2006 at 3:24 pm[...] By way of Think Progress: [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 3:28 pm#76
“But what was the impression that Bush wanted to give to the average person?”
That even though Saddam’s regime is gone that there is still MUCH work and fighting to be done, but political reform in Iraq and removing a potential WMD threat, is a first step in combating global terrorism. Just to pre-empt anyone here, no I don’t think that Sadamm had anything to do with 9/11. It’s blatent and obvious from the speech. It was also used as a rally for support for the war….so what? That is what ANY president that is conducting a war would do, especially when it means rallying the troops in the military. Any thoughts on why Bush would constantly refer to the fact the “war” is not over and that it will continue on for some time?
May 1st, 2006 at 3:37 pmremoving a potential WMD threat (much hyped but basically not true…..)no WMD’s were found nor were facilities to produce them found nor were nuke facilities found…takes time to build those so thew rush to war was unjustified .
no I don’t think that Sadamm had anything to do with 9/11. It’s blatent and obvious from the speech. It was also used as a rally for support for the war….so what? That is what ANY president that is conducting a war would do, especially when it means rallying the troops in the military. (Yes Hitler did it…stalin did it…….good company)
May 1st, 2006 at 3:57 pmComment by Tracy — May 1, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
#99. That is a stinging rebuke. I think I need some ointment.
#101. You’re making it up. He’s making it up. He never said anything about “Saddam.” You heard what you wanted to hear. There was no WMD, there is no WMD; there was no WMD “threat.”
May 1st, 2006 at 4:03 pmI actually think we need a draft, rather than lowering the requirements for being in the military. Let the reserves and national guard go home and try to salvage their jobs and families.
All Americans ought to have skin in this game with no exemptions given for jobs, college, families, etc. so that no one can buy their way out. The rich, and the poor, men and women fighting together to support freedom for the Iraqis. Then we would have a clear choice about whether to support a pro war or anti war candidate in 2008 and how we want to design our foreign policy in the future.
It’s pretty easy for the upper classes who make the policy when other people’s kids are doing the dying and getting maimed!
May 1st, 2006 at 4:06 pmPost 104 the members of Congress { both House and Senate } consider themselves as part of the U.S. elite, so themselves and their children are exempt from dying in the wars they so easily foment and vote FOR! Average and poor Americans are considered cannon fodder to them! Too bad when they run for election, like this November, they fail to tell voters to their face that they consider them expendable in wars for OIL!
May 1st, 2006 at 4:23 pm[...] Boy, has it been three years already? Seems like just yesterday our Mighty Leader sat beneath that banner and told us that combat was over, that we’d just won the war. A site I don’t check up on enough, Think Progress, takes a look at then vs now. [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 4:25 pm#102
“removing a potential WMD threat (much hyped but basically not true…..)”
Totally true.
“(Yes Hitler did it…stalin did it…….good company)”
FDR did it also as did Churchill, so did Washington, oh so did Lincoln….very good company I would say.
May 1st, 2006 at 4:39 pmMission Accomplished … talk about a MISNOMER!!!!
More like SUBMISSION ACCOMPLISHED:
*
May 1st, 2006 at 4:42 pmMission Accomplished … talk about a MISNOMER!!!!
More like SUBMISSION ACCOMPLISHED:
*
May 1st, 2006 at 4:43 pm#103
“He never said anything about “Saddam.—
Saddam was Iraq…or do you not agree?
“You heard what you wanted to hear.”
I heard him say Iraq many times in the speech.
“there was no WMD “threat.†”
If you wish to believe that, then I can’t stop you.
May 1st, 2006 at 4:48 pm#75. In your view, which is most important reason for invading Iraq?
a. George W. Bush wanted to kill 2400 of America’s fighting men and women.
May 1st, 2006 at 4:52 pmb. George W. Bush wanted to transfer $320 billion tax dollars to his friend in the arms industries.
#110. Iraq is a nation. Saddam Hussein is a man. I detect subtle differences.
May 1st, 2006 at 5:16 pmThat’s it Tracy don’t let reality intrude on your dearly held beliefs, keep you head in the sand and don’t admit that maybe just maybe Bush may have once made a mistake.
May 1st, 2006 at 5:18 pm[...] Think Progress [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 5:30 pmI voted for Bush just to make all of you assholes mad.
May 1st, 2006 at 5:45 pmWhere are the count for Iraqis who died due to the invasion!
May 1st, 2006 at 5:50 pmOr those are not humans and are not accounted for!
Double standards and Amircans wonder why the rest of the world hates them!
I voted for Bush just to make all of you assholes mad.
Comment by Holloway — May 1, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
Why don’t you go over to Iraq to fight in the war to make us all even madder? Thatll show us if you do!
Idiot.
May 1st, 2006 at 5:51 pm[...] “Mission Accomplished” Day permalink posted: 05.01.2006 You’re reading mikeschramm.com, a collection of writings and errata by MikeSchramm. [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 5:52 pmvoted for Bush just to make all of you assholes mad.
Comment by Holloway
May 1st, 2006 at 5:58 pm————————————————————————————————-
You voted for Bush, because his name was the first one on the ballot. That, and its porno cogitation.
[...] In the 1,095 days since “major combat operations” finished in Iraq, 2,207 American service members have lost their lives. That’s 94% of all fatalities suffered by the U.S. military in Iraq. Here are some more numbers, courtesy Think Progress: [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 6:27 pmhere is a question:
how did Bush go from flight suit to business suit? I thought they were “so far out to sea” that he had to take a plane because the helicopter didn’t have the legs. I guess he could have carried one in stowage ont he plan, but his suit sure looks neat and pressed in the picture.
May 1st, 2006 at 6:30 pm#111
Why are you asking yourself a question? If you are asking me and just made a mistake…my answer is neither.
May 1st, 2006 at 6:31 pm#112
That’s the situation now! It wasn’t in 2002. Again, Saddam was Iraq in 2002. Please, tell me you aren’t taking the proceeding literally. You do know what I mean…don’t you?
May 1st, 2006 at 6:37 pm#113
Oh, he has…but this isn’t one on them.
May 1st, 2006 at 6:40 pmGee tracy you sure put me in my place, have any facts for your claims? I can produce facts that show that saddam had no WMD’s, that saddam didn’t have the facilities to make WMD’s, and that Saddam had no ties to Al Qaida or 9/11. Facts from reputable government agencies, and news sources. Do you know what is considered a fact? I could find the dictionary link if you would like. More to the point facts are hard things to argue against. Opinion we can argue all day, but facts are facts.
May 1st, 2006 at 6:55 pm#121
Aircraft carriers are basically floating cities, so I don’t think pressing a suit would be a problem.
May 1st, 2006 at 6:58 pm#122. Ouch. Stung again. I have the ointment now. Aahh.
In spite of the president making no statement about him at all (in his mission accomplished speech, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html), you deduced (#73) that he planned to depose Saddam Hussein because that was the “result of the operation.” If you have any intellectual honesty in you at all, you must also deduce that other “results of the operation” are also parts of the president’s plan.
By your own spurious logic, the results are the plan.
Since the dead Americans and the spent money are results, George W. Bush planned to kill Americans and transfer wealth to his friends in the arms industries. Those are his results, therefore they are also his plan. One of those must be the greater of his reasons for invading Iraq.
May 1st, 2006 at 7:00 pmThe funny part, is if you go up a couple of posts, ther is one where McClellan is doing the spin dance around the mission accomplished question, which in a large part debunks Ms. Tracy’s arguments. I don’t think she has read that thread yet.
May 1st, 2006 at 7:02 pm[...] The President of the United States of America. Do you think the placement of this dais is a coincidence? Observe the round dome in the background and the subliminal halo it creates above Dubya’s head. They think of everything. [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 7:05 pm#123. Literally? Why would I read your words and understand that they mean anything but what you wrote? Seems a little chancy. I remember seeing pictures of Saddam Hussein in 2002 and before. He wore hats. Iraq doesn’t wear hats, that’s something I noticed.
You wrote “proceeding.” Did you mean “preceding.” Is that one of those times I’m supposed to know what you meant, even though you didn’t say it? Is that what happens when you listen to the president, you just know what he means, even when he doesn’t say it?
May 1st, 2006 at 7:08 pm#126 tracy given that the SS had to follow bush where ever he goes even on a air craft carrier, trhey brought the suit all pressed…how do i know this because when the assistand 18th Air bourne corps commander was to breif the vice president on the war plans before desert storm in the fall of 1990 the two star general had to go thru screening by the secret service just like everyone else and since I held a top secret clearance and the agent didn’t I had to look in the generals breif case for weapons…and held the generals 9mm pistol with the weapon cleared by the SS before Dan Quayle showed up….a whole lot of people traveled to the aircraft carrier the jet was a publicity stund that has backfired on bush GIVE it up MORON…
May 1st, 2006 at 7:16 pm#125
The potential WMD threat? Oh, by all means produce some evidence dated PRIOR to the invasion of 2003 that unequivocally states this, i.e. facts.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bian_jan_2003.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rivkin_casey200407130904.asp
May 1st, 2006 at 7:34 pm#127
“Ouch. Stung again. I have the ointment now. Aahh.”
You and Mary are sharing?
“you deduced (#73) that he planned to depose Saddam Hussein because that was the “result of the operation.—
I said that as a result of the operation, Sadamm was removed from power. Don’t put the cart before the horse.
May 1st, 2006 at 7:48 pmSo easy to start a war, so difficult to end one. Will America really start a war with Iran? Much like Hitler opening multiple fronts that were unsustainable.
May 1st, 2006 at 7:50 pm[...] Think Progress » ‘Mission Accomplished’ By The Numbers [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 7:55 pmTracy read the report labeled;
Unclassified Report to Congress
on the Acquisition of Technology
Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction
and Advanced Conventional Munitions,
1 July Through 31 December 2001
NO proof of WMD’s there just speculation and notes about LEGAL weapons….nothing concrete about WMD’s
Oh, by all means produce some evidence dated PRIOR to the invasion of 2003 that unequivocally states this, i.e. facts.
July 13, 2004, 9:04 a.m.
The Reality of Saddam’s Threat
The U.S. could not have delayed dealing with Saddam Hussein.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. & Lee A. Casey
Notice the date…
and NOTHING in the article from national review( a right wing neo-con rag) has concrete evidence either…just more speculation
No weapons were found, because no weapons were there, give it up moron
May 1st, 2006 at 8:22 pmOh you forgot to mentins those DRAFT DODGERS.
May 1st, 2006 at 8:55 pmYeap Vietnam brought out those who went and fought for there country and those that did not.
#137 like ;
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Five deferments. “I had other priorities in the ’60s other than military service,†Cheney told a reporter in 1989.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. “Bad knee.†The man who attacked Max Cleland’s patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year Air National Guard tour of duty; asked for and received an assignment to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.
* “B-1†Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. “Knee problem,†although continued playing in the NFL for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
oh and the Dems yes Bill Clinton got a deferment so it really is all his fault there too…….
May 1st, 2006 at 9:08 pmAs for other Democrats:
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71
May 1st, 2006 at 9:09 pm* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam. Lost both legs and one arm attempting to pick up a grenade dropped by another soldier.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve,1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier’s Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy. Graduate of Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII
[...] 38% We have prevailed! http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/01/mission-accomplished-by-the-numbers/ [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 10:37 pm#130
“Why would I read your words and understand that they mean anything but what you wrote?”
Do you not understand the connotation in the phrase “Saddam was Iraq”?
May 1st, 2006 at 10:59 pm[...] Happy Mission Accomplished Day! I hope all you Bush-loving conservatives enjoyed it as much as I did! [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 11:04 pm#131
“tracy given that the SS had to follow bush where ever he goes even on a air craft carrier, trhey brought the suit all pressed”
Since you were there they I guess you know how it all went down. LOL! You weren’t there and don’t know all the SS protocol so don’t pretend that you do. You have been out of the service way too long to know. My brother is a Major in the USAF (AWACS 552 ACW) right now and said it’s total plausable that they brought Bush’s suit, checked it, pressed it on board and let him change.
“GIVE it up MORON…”
Stay out of a conversation when you don’t know all you claim to know.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:10 pm#136
I didn’t post those links as proof of the existance of WMDs in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. Get a clue. I posted them as a reference to the threat assessment of Iraq prior to the invasion. I you are going to chime in please do us a favor and follow up by offering some evidence asked for instead of wasting server space.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:18 pmSorry Tracy the procedures have not changed the SS goes EVERYWHERE Bush goes, along with white house communications people …EVERYWHERE….AWACS is the airbourne radar division based at Tinker AFB, and Okinnowa in the pacific and were in Rihyad Saudi Arabia but are probably not based out of Quatar, and they HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH presidential proceedure…..sorry for the facts but give it up moron….
May 1st, 2006 at 11:37 pmYour first post about this
The potential WMD threat? Oh, by all means produce some evidence dated PRIOR to the invasion of 2003 that unequivocally states this, i.e. facts.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bian_jan_2003.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/ comment/ rivkin_casey200407130904.asp
Comment by Tracy — May 1, 2006 @ 7:34 pm
Your second post
#136
I didn’t post those links as proof of the existance of WMDs in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. Get a clue. I posted them as a reference to the threat assessment of Iraq prior to the invasion. I you are going to chime in please do us a favor and follow up by offering some evidence asked for instead of wasting server space.
Comment by Tracy — May 1, 2006 @ 11:18 pm
See a minor inconsistancy, NO really how about this,
The potential WMD threat? Oh, by all means produce some evidence dated PRIOR to the invasion of 2003 that unequivocally states this, i.e. facts.
I didn’t post those links as proof of the existance of WMDs in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion.
Now can you SEE it, or are you REALLY as sytupid as you appear here…….Ya thunk?
May 1st, 2006 at 11:55 pm[...] While looking at for the Stephen Colbert video, I happened upon this depressing update on “Mission Accomplished.” Did you know what V-I day (Victory in Iraq Day) was three years ago? [...]
May 1st, 2006 at 11:56 pmMilitary Service of the 108th Congress:
http://veterans.house.gov/vetlink/vetncong.pdf
I think this is an accurate count:
Democrats: 49
Republicans: 72
May 1st, 2006 at 11:59 pm#145
Again, you weren’t there and don’t know all the SS protocol so don’t pretend that you do. You were never in the SS….so again you don’t know.
May 2nd, 2006 at 12:08 am#136
AGAIN, by all means produce some evidence dated PRIOR to the invasion of 2003 that unequivocally states this, i.e. facts. We are all getting tired of waiting.
May 2nd, 2006 at 12:10 amI know that the SS goes everywhere Bush goes and with more than a few agents, on the carrier probably more than 20 add the white house communications people and you have probably more than 35 people at least in support, the podium that Bush is speaking from is handled by the SS ONLY so the exact construction and what it contains does not getr out…it had to be brought to the carrier along with a suit……try again I was on over 20 SS missions during my service.
May 2nd, 2006 at 12:15 amI do not have to produce evidence for the war Bush lied about ewhat he had…get tired get lazy get stupid really I for one do not care if you get gone too.
May 2nd, 2006 at 12:17 amBushes “I had to fly on that plane” was not true….other things had to be flown in and Bush could have been flown in on something other than a plane piloted by a naval officer who had to have controll to land on the carrier as Bush was never carrier certified…..and all the others got there some way including the press who majically appeared to give it the coverage Rove wanted….
May 2nd, 2006 at 12:21 amThe press and all of Bush’s photo-op prop people got on the carrier in San Diego and it steamed out about 50 miles offshore for Bush to fly onboard > lol. He could have gotten on the ship like everybody else, but the event was done for show! Everything Bush does is staged!!!
May 2nd, 2006 at 12:53 amThank you Jay having been on more than one SS mission I knew that there was a lot to be put in place before Bush could show up……unlike what tracy might think, I have some actual expierence and the SS does not let their guard down ever….they do take protecting the president no matter who he is very personnal.
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:13 am# 154
AssClown and Cliff: Please clean the love goo off each others face.
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:34 am#156 i for one do not know what your problem is except that you seem not to get enough attention from other sources so you must hang out here insulting people you do not even know …….pathetic comes to mind, but also glad I’m not you.
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:48 amPost 156 > go to bed and sleep off the booze > it shows lol. You need therapy badly, so please seek help at a mental institution of your choice! Nobody on here cares about the crap you spew > PERIOD.
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:49 amOff to bed Clif > looks like E-coli troll is the only person posting on this thread now!
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:00 amAssClown says;”Off to bed Clif>”
Remember:I can be spread through anal contact.
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:36 amWho say’s I don’t care?
#151
OK so how did they get it all there?
May 2nd, 2006 at 9:45 am#152
That’s because you can’t.
May 2nd, 2006 at 9:49 am[...] Here’s a look at the situation then compared to the situation now. [...]
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:28 am#153, #154
Bush never stated that he took control of that S-3 Viking during approach or when he was in the notch.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/
“other things had to be flown in and Bush could have been flown in on something other than a plane piloted by a naval officer…”
What about another ship? BTW I agree it was a big photo op, but why everyone made a bid deal out of it, I will never understand. It was definitely something however that Kerry never would have had the guts to do. Landing on a carrier is one of the most dangerous things to do in the military.
#154
“The press and all of Bush’s photo-op prop people got on the carrier in San Diego and it steamed out about 50 miles offshore for Bush to fly onboard”
You are going to have to come up with a better lie than that….considering the USS Abramham Lincoln was returning from the Persian Gulf region after participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:29 am#157
And you don’t insult people here you don’t even know? LOL!
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:34 am[...] As much as Bush probably wanted the media, not to mention the public in general, to forget about what happened on Saturday night, he may have been better served to promote it and take his lumps. Yesterday marked the three-year anniversary of his biggest bonehead moment, the big land-on-an-aircraft-carrier-and-declare-mission-accomplished photo-op. I can think of no better way to convey the sheer failure of this staged event than to point you to ThinkProgress’ simple chart which details how things have imploded over the past three years. Interestingly enough, the phrase “Mission Accomplished”, as it applies to Bush, has probably been granted a sextuple entendre at this point. It very well could be the corner piece of how the Democrats will take over both houses of congress and eventually the White House for years to come. [...]
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:37 am#133. No.
You said silly things like: #20. “I can’t believe people still think that this “mission accomplished†event was in reference to what the current situation is in Iraq today. Comment by Tracy — May 1, 2006 @ 11:05 am
When challenged for what you think the photo-op really meant, you answered with the silly #33. “The ousting of Saddam and his regime from power. If you listen to what was said by Pres. Bush this was the implied meaning of “Mission Accomplishedâ€.Comment by Tracy — May 1, 2006 @ 11:29 am
I asked: “How did you deduce that he implied ‘The ousting of Saddam and his regime from power?’” You answered with the silly #73: “It was the result of the operation.” Comment by Tracy — May 1, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
You are a silly person with flawed logic.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:28 am#167
You don’t have any logic and seem to be the only person here that didn’t understand what I said and/or ment.
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:11 pmI thought the “plan” was: “We will not stand down until the Iraqi’s stand up.”
If on May 1, 2003, the Iraqis had 7000-9000 to our 150,000…
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:58 pm.. by my math, we should have >NEGATIVE
#46 (Nick Caine)
Are you also an eager listener to Dead Ringers on BBC Radio 4 and BBC 7? Or perhaps you’re fortunate enough to watch it on television?
For those of you who are wondering where the 38% are coming from, you can find them in the pews of fundamentalist and evangelical christian churches every Sunday. They aren’t accustomed to thinking for themselves and are preached to believe that following the president is part and parcel to being “good christians”. Never mind the fact that our mighty leader (HA!) hasn’t made himself regularly present in a church pew ever. Makes a thinking person consider emmigration – maybe Canada?
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:29 pm[...] I do this, because it is the 3rd anniversary of the speech, a biased poll, and because I see that CrooksandLiars, Media Matters, and Think Progress, feel the need to belittle that speech, simply because they didn’t understand it. They conveniently forget, that the major combat operations were indeed over, in an unprecedented march to Baghdad, and a very quick toppling of Saddam’s regime, using a streamlined military force to defeat one of the largest and what was thought to be one of the most dangerous armies in the world. We predicted huge casualties as the cost for taking Baghdad and Iraq. That didn’t happen. So ended a phase of the war; and for the crew of the Abraham Lincoln, the mission was indeed accomplished. What is going on now, is a separate phase; a new part of the greater overall war on terror. I listened to the radio (The Michael Medved Show)today, as a crewman who was present on the carrier to hear President Bush’s speech, mention that the banner was made by the crew, for the crew of the carrier. For them, their mission was accomplished. [...]
May 2nd, 2006 at 4:25 pmDo the 100,000-300,000 Iraqis slaughtered by Bush matter?
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:27 pmYou’re right. I don’t understand what you said or meant. The president stood in front of a banner that said “Mission Accomplished.” Then, he said “major combat operations” have ended. Any rational person would connect those two facts and conclude that one referred to the other. Yet, you maintain that they do not.
The “mission” changed numerous times over the months leading up to the war and in the years since it began. I lost count, at 7, I think, quite some time ago. Since then, I have not tried to keep count. Most of them have not been accomplished. There were never WMD’s in Iraq, so there were none to find and none to prevent from falling into terrorists hands. There was no uranium, so there was nothing to prevent there. There is no Iraqi democracy, no mission accomplished there.
You say that toppling Saddam was the mission. That seems to have been the only stated mission that was accomplished. (yes, that’s less than seven) Yet, more than 2000 Americans have died since the accomplishment of that mission, and more than $320 billion have been paid to the President’s campaign contributors, and we seem no nearer than we did three years ago to having a conclusion of hostilities. In fact, in many ways, we seem less likely to leave anytime soon than we did then.
What you said in #20 isn’t true. But it’s not the part that you seem to think that it is. I’d be surprised to find many here who believe that the mission accomplished photo-op had any reference to the situation now in Iraq. What most cannot believe is that people, you included, evidently, don’t share our horror that this travesty goes on and on without end. The president himself recently said that some future president would decide when the troops would finally return home. (I did some math and that means almost three more years, almost 2400 more dead Americans, and almost $320 billion more wealth transferred, at the very least.) What most cannot believe is that photo-ops are cardboard stand-ins for policy. What most cannot believe is that the very same pretense that brought war in Iraq will soon bring war in Iran, with the same daily horror and the same endlesswar.
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:35 am[...] Hey kids, it’s the newest holiday sensation – Mission Accomplished Day! Let’s take a look at all we’ve accomplished. [...]
May 3rd, 2006 at 9:27 am#173
“Any rational person would connect those two facts and conclude that one referred to the other.”
Any educated person would know the difference between major combat operations, i.e. the advance to Baghdad coupled with the constant aerial bombardment of various communication, military, and logistical targets, versus the counter insurgency/police type activities that insued after U.S. troops rolled into Baghdad. Those who participated in the advance to Baghdad sure understood the connotation behind the “mission accomplished” statement.
“The “mission†changed numerous times over the months leading up to the war and in the years since it began.”
There was never only one SINGLE mission to be accomplished from the time the invasion started till today.
“Most of them have not been accomplished.”
True, but what are some of the missions stated to be accomplished that have not been, other than the WMD search which is now a mute point?
“There is no Iraqi democracy, no mission accomplished there.”
Man I am sure glad you aren’t in charge of institutional rebuilding. Read a history book or two about various evolutions of democracies that have developed over the last 500 years and you just might understand that what is going on in Iraq is going to take at least a decade to accomplish.
“and we seem no nearer than we did three years ago to having a conclusion of hostilities.”
It’s only been three years! To make such a statement one would have to speak from a position of experience in what we SHOULD expect at this point in time. Again, read your history books about what happened and how long it took post WW2 in Germany to get that country rebuilt and their democratic institutions in place.
“The president himself recently said that some future president would decide when the troops would finally return home.”
Which goes along with the REALITY that it’s going to take a while for Iraq to become stable.
“I’d be surprised to find many here who believe that the mission accomplished photo-op had any reference to the situation now in Iraq.”
I agree too! So what is your point? Democratic Soldier in post #22 sure thought that is what it ment. This is exactly why I don’t understand why TP even started this thread under the FALSE premise that the “mission accomplished” statement made by Bush has ANY connection to the current combat/police operations that are being conducted in Iraq today. Can you explain the premise of the thread? Now, if Bush would have made this statement “mission accomplished” some time in say 2004 than I too would be scratching my head and asking “What for and why are you making this statement?”.
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:46 amThe ” ‘Mission Accomplished’ By The Numbers” omits the approximately 139 U.S. civilian deaths in Iraq, which includes: 127 US civilian “contractors,” 4 US civilian journalists, 5 Defense Dept. civilians, and 3 other US civilians.
Most of these can be found at http://icasualties.org/oif/, but his list of civilian deaths is not complete.
Here are the names of the three “other civilians”
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:41 pm(3/10/06 Christian peace activist Tom Fox,
9/21/05 State Department Assistant Regional Security Officer Stephen Sullivan, 4/16/05 U.S. civilian activist / aid worker Marla Ruzicka)
Hey, #30 — What’s with the angry white males comment?
In my community, we thinking people are in the minority. Soccer moms, speeding around these little streets in their SUV tanks, are as pro-Bush as your favorite target, “angry white males.”
I am a white male, and I am offended by your thoughtless comment. You should be glad to know that many white males are thinking people, who know that the current administration is faltering and will soon topple. If we didn’t think so, you’d hear more from us; of that, I am certain.
Please keep your juvenile remarks about angry white males for use at your sorority events, where they might be appreciated by drunken white femailes.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:29 pmCut their wheels off!
We need a ban on campaign contributions by any corporation.
Teddy Roosevelt recognized the need for this 100 years ago. We should be able to recognize the need for it today.
Someone who owns a corporation can give two campaign contributions — one as a private citizen, and one as the corporate entity. And consider Rupert Murdoch, who owns dozens of corporations. He has much more political power with his ability to give dozens of campaign contributions — dozens of times as much power as you or me, and he isn’t even a citizen. Is that the way things should be? Should non-citizens have more political power than you or me?
Restore democracy now — ban campaign contributions by any corporation.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:35 pmCut their wheels off!
We need a ban on campaign contributions by any corporation.
Teddy Roosevelt recognized the need for this 100 years ago. We should be able to recognize the need for it today.
Someone who owns a corporation can give two campaign contributions — one as a private citizen, and one as the corporate entity. And consider Rupert Murdoch, who owns dozens of corporations. He has much more political power with his ability to give dozens of campaign contributions — dozens of times as much power as you or me, and he isn’t even a citizen. Is that the way things should be? Should non-citizens have more political power than you or me?
Restore democracy now — ban campaign contributions by any corporation.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:36 pm#179
Or any PACs.
May 3rd, 2006 at 5:26 pm#171 I don’t know where Medved came up with that ‘crewman’ but, the WH eventually admitted that personnel from the advance team got that banner up there.
Also, the Abe Lincoln was so close to shore that, had the ‘wrong’ camera angle been used, San Diego would have been visible in the background.
#164 something Kerry would never have the guts to do. Kerry went into Vietnam, under hostile fire to create what the SwiftBoat Vets called HIS photo ops. I suspect that qualifies as MUCH more dangerous than a fair-weather, daylight carrier landing performed by an expertly qualified and very experienced carrier pilot.
At least Kerry was executing a military mission in his actions, whereas the Commander-in-Chief was using a multibillion dollar carrier and it’s crew as a backdrop for a political stunt.
May 3rd, 2006 at 5:31 pm#181
“Kerry went into Vietnam, under hostile fire to create what the SwiftBoat Vets called HIS photo ops.”
He was under ORDERS, so he didn’t have a choice.
Do you have link that addresses your claim that the carrier was so close to shore that San Diego would have been visible in the background?
May 3rd, 2006 at 6:19 pm#181
Approximately 30 miles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished
http://www.boatsafe.com/tools/horizon.htm
May 3rd, 2006 at 6:42 pm#181
At 30 miles you might be able to see the top One America Plaza in San Diego which is 152.4 meters or about 500 feet tall.
http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=120
May 3rd, 2006 at 7:10 pm#175. The old “Iraq is like Germany” trick. I love this one. Tell me, how is Iraq like Germany? Do you mean BRD or DDR?
May 4th, 2006 at 9:01 am#185
I never said post WW2 Germany was like Iraq. That’s the point…it’s not. I offered you a history lesson to prove a point…namely that far more has been accomplished in Iraq to date even with a violent and well funded insurgency than was done in post WW2 Germany along the same time line wihich has almost no insurgency to speak of. Not to mention the the fact that there was FAR more world involvement in the reconstruction of Germany than with Iraq.
Germany – no insurgency to speak of….5 years after the end of WW2 before new legitimate government (Bundestag) was elected and up and running independent of influence and help from the allies know as the GDR German Democratic Republic or DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik).
http://faculty.washington.edu/~krumme/german/chronology.html#45
BRD was a propoganda acronym used by those (communists) who opposed East and West German unification in the late 1960s. DDR was the official name of the former East Germany. BTW how is this BRD vs. DDR comment relevant to this discussion?
May 4th, 2006 at 9:58 amYou know, for all the left’s supposed concern for human rights, I read curiously few comments about how hugely human rights have been improved now that Saddam’s gone.
And don’t vomit back up those Abu Gharib talking points–what a dishonest argument. Tell me how many Saddam-era prison guards have ever been held accountable for “mistreatment” of prisoners.
May 4th, 2006 at 10:50 amYou got it wrong. BRD is Bundes Republik Deutschland. We knew it as West Germany, or FRG, Federal Republic of Germany; it was the democratic, capitalist Germany. DDR is Deutsche Demokratische Republik. It was known to the west as East Germany, or German Democratic Republic, or GDR; this was the communist client-state of the Soviet Union. A few minutes of googling evidently couldn’t teach you that. It’s all in your link, you just didn’t understand it.
It took 45 years for East Germany to establish a democratic government and rebuild the infrastructure destroyed in WW2. It’s important to know which German recovery we’re not comparing to Iraq.
You evidently have time to do the research. Tell me. When did the last Nazis finally give up the post-”major combat operations” insurgency in Germany, and what change in Germany brought that about? How much money, in today’s dollars, did the west put into post-”major combat operations” Germany? I think you will find Germany much more unlike Iraq than you suspect. I encourage you to adopt a “a position of experience,” so that you can know “what we SHOULD expect at this point in time.”
May 4th, 2006 at 3:33 pm[...] Drôle de façon de fêter le fameux “Mission Accomplie” de George W. Bush. Rappelez-vous, c’était le 1er mai 2003. Certains chiffres sont très parlant…. [...]
May 4th, 2006 at 5:47 pm#188
“You got it wrong”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRD
“However, this changed in 1968 with the new constitution of the German Democratic Republic. The communists no longer strove for German reunification, and the name “BRD” was introduced as a propagandistic counter-term to the term “DDR”, trying to express the equality of the states. Because of this, the term “BRD” has since been considered communist jargon in the Federal Republic of Germany.”
“It’s important to know which German recovery we’re not comparing to Iraq.”
I gave an example of the new legitimate government (Bundestag) taking 5 years, after the surrender of Nazi Germany, which later formally established as the GDR. We can add the FRG established a few months earlier, but in the same year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany
“On May 23, 1949, the Federal Republic of Germany was established on the territory of the Western occupied zones, with Bonn as its provisional capital. On October 7, 1949 the Soviet Zone was established as the German Democratic Republic (GDR, Deutsche Demokratische Republik), with East Berlin as its capital.”
“It took 45 years for East Germany to establish a democratic government and rebuild the infrastructure destroyed in WW2.”
OK if you are going to bring up that route…so the three years that Iraq has been trying to establish a democratic government and rebuild the missing infrastructure during Saddam’s reign and destroyed in parts by the invasion of 2003 is somehow too LONG of a time frame for you? You think that they are moving too slow for your lifestyle?
If we take a look at West Germany…
“The Western occupying powers recognised West Germany as “fully sovereign” on May 5, 1955.”
…that looks like 5 years to establish a government and another 5 years to be recognized as fully soverign, STILL being occupied by “allied” forces BTW.
“When did the last Nazis finally give up the post-â€major combat operations†insurgency in Germany, and what change in Germany brought that about?”
I looked for some information on this and couldn’t find any real good information, so you can take the reigns on this one; however, since you and I both agree that the insurgency in post WW2 Germany and the current insurgency in Iraq aren’t even comparable in terms of effectiveness, then why is this question relevant to this discussion?
“How much money, in today’s dollars, did the west put into post-â€major combat operations†Germany?”
I am not sure about the exact dollar amount, but then again, as you and I know, the German insurgency wasn’t NEAR as well organized, funded or effective as the insurgents in Iraq. That is an irrelevant point to make.
“I think you will find Germany much more unlike Iraq than you suspect.”
For the SECOND time, I didn’t say that I think that the situation in post WW2 Germany to be anything like Iraq….only that Germany with almost NO insurgency to speak of, took 5 years to form a government and Iraq has done it in three years with a massive insurgency trying to de-legitimize it. I am specifically referring to the length of time in this comparison. Do you not recognize this comparision as a key point in this discussion?
“I encourage you to adopt a “a position of experience,—
I would ask the same of you and quit trying to belittle that accomplishments of the Iraqis since the 2003 invasion.
May 4th, 2006 at 6:30 pmMy aim is to belittle the supposed accomplishments of the Bush administration.
The insurgency in Germany ended around 1947. It was called Werewolf. They committed a few assasssinations and some sabotage, but the people didn’t support it. It eventually ended because the people refused to continue to shelter the Werewolves. They revealed the hiding places, the Allied soldiers tracked them down and killed them. It was only then that the German democracy and recovery began to take hold. My knowledge comes from a lifetime of reading books on this and related subjects. I do not have cites.
Until the Iraqi people add the betrayal of the insurgency to the Allies to your list of their accomplishments, there will be no peace. You and they can claim to have democratic institutions forever, but as long as individuals continue to rely on a local insurgent faction for security of their village, the police and the army will be unable to maintain order. It is reliance on institutions that defines democracy, not elections. Without order, elections are utterly meaningless.
My point is this: External powers cannot succeed against a locally supported insurgencies. It’s this way with all insurgencies. In 1947, the German people came over to our side. When they had enough of the Nazis, the people turned on them. It’s far easier when the domestic population helps you. In Iraq, we failed to win the people over. We may have lost the opportunity forever. They have become hardened to us and are helping the insurgents.
Unless we convince the Iraqi people that their best move is to roll over on the insurgents, the war will continue. No aircraft carrier photo-ops will change this. No “mission accomplished” posters, slogans or speeches will change this. The administration does not have, and does not appear to have tried to have, a strategy to win the people; that tells me that they like the war and they want it to continue. They want more Americans to die and they want to transfer more wealth to the president’s campaign contributors. That is completely repellant and unsupportable and I have had enough.
May 4th, 2006 at 7:58 pm#191
“Until the Iraqi people add the betrayal of the insurgency to the Allies to your list of their accomplishments, there will be no peace….Without order, elections are utterly meaningless.”
I agree with that entire paragraph which is why I said multiple times that this will take time and far longer than the Germans had to deal with. The main problem flegling Iraqi government has is terrorist and insurgent supporting nations on BOTH borders. I am fully convinced that if there was not support for the insurgency and the terrorists comming in from Iran and Syria that Iraq would probably be well on it’s way toward democracy, i.e. the insurgency would have been snuffed out by now.
“In Iraq, we failed to win the people over.”
I think we DO have that majority on our side. I don’t think that the majority of Iraqis support the insurgency. Again when you have antagonizers on both borders and the heart of the Baath party right next door in Syria it’s going to be far harder to get the people in Iraq to look at the allies as friends. The Iraqi people see the vast majority of attacks today are against other Iraqis. I think they recognize who the true enemy is.
“They have become hardened to us and are helping the insurgents.”
I think that there are some that are helping the insugents but the majority are helping the Iraqi police and army. If you look at which provinces have that vast majority of the attacks you will see it’s in the former Baath party strongholds.
“The administration does not have, and does not appear to have tried to have, a strategy to win the people; that tells me that they like the war and they want it to continue.”
Ok we were cruising along fine with a good discussion untill I read that last part of your last paragraph…which is TOTAL BS. If this is just your unsupportable and unfounded opinion then you either need to back it up with some evidence or once again you attention span is too short and still have not recognized that what is going on in Iraq will take much longer than you are willing to wait.
“My aim is to belittle the supposed accomplishments of the Bush administration.”
To attempt to belittle the “mission accomplished” statement that is in reference to the ousting of Saddam’s regime is lame gesture on your part…to say the least. I think you main objective is to belittle the Bush administration and the U.S. troops accomplishments for selfish political reasons. Whether or not you or I agree (in many instances I don’t BTW) with the way the war is being handled is no reason to spew BS propaganda by saying that the Bush wants to get more American’s killed and to prolong this war in order to get political contributions. I was agreeing with most of what you said untill you let that crap fly.
May 5th, 2006 at 10:05 amThree years, wow. Can’t believe that George somehow managed not to piss america off more then he has. You have to give him that. Hes really good at keeping numbers like these out of public view. Imagine if he released all these at a nationwide press conference. He’d be inpeached in no time flat.
Speaking of impeachment, why hasent it happend yet? I mean come on! Purgury, Manslaughter, Mass Murder, more purgury, corruption. This gets approval of 41% of America while one BJ gets a man impeached. Whats wrong with this picture?
All in all, we should tip our hats to george. He has to be the best at BSing, Lying, Stealing, more lying, corruption, and covering all this up. Hats off to the worst president of the new millenium.
Please excuese my misspellings.
May 7th, 2006 at 5:46 pmOne thing I would like to say is after W.W.II we lost quite a few
May 9th, 2006 at 9:07 ammen due to what the liberal media would call insurgents ( terrorist!!!)
and if the media did the same then, like what they are doing now WOW!!
I wonder what would have happened!!! And for those who said Iraq
didn’t attack us remember, Germany didn’t attack Pearl harbor !!!!
I also tried to look back in history at any war we had that couldn’t be
described as a mess, and I couldn’t find one. I didn’t find one thing
when the American people stick together we NEVER LOSE!!! Who
we should really be mad at is the liberal media who’s opposition to
this war has bordered on treason!!!
It certainly has been hard cleaning up after a President who for 8 years allowed terrorists to attack US military installations and citizens all over the world including the USA in 1993. Stock market over 11,500, it was a miracle when Clinton hit 10,000. More people enjoying housing than ever before, highest employment rate in 40 years. Best medical facilities in the world. Most college educated individuals in the world. BUT we all could do better.
May 9th, 2006 at 4:52 pm[...] The victory pushed "insurgent attacks" up from eight per day back in 2003 to 75 per day in 2006. [...]
May 14th, 2006 at 12:35 am[...] The month of May in 2003 was marked with the "Mission Accomplished" Presidential photo-op on an aircraft carrier deck. It was a time of great positive spin when the numbers in America's Iraq II-Persian Gulf sequel were trotted out by a compliant, embedded, camouflage-festooned, corporate 'news media' and their government-approved coverage was fed to the masses on behalf of a grateful, if incompetent petro-junta called the Bush Administration. [...]
May 15th, 2006 at 3:04 am#194. You are an idiot. Germany attacked us many times before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Several civilian merchant ships were attacked by U-boats in international waters and two US Navy warships were attacked, one was sunk, in US territorial waters prior to Dec 7, 1941.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:58 pmYou naive children. Wait…no one will stand up…he did…and you revile him. Wait until there is no one left to stand up for what’s right. Iraq was in violation of the rules of disengagement of Desert Storm. Saddam showed us as a joke…I agree it wasnt related to 9/11 but it WAS related to demonstrating that America was not an immoral and spineless superpower…we stood for what was right. If everyone stood together…we wouldnt be alone and in this mess by ourselves. Read your history…read about WWII…if we had all stood strong together earlier…alot would be different. Every great issue costs a price…nothing valuable is ever won without a cost. You naive children…
May 21st, 2006 at 8:48 pmYou dumb ass what about attacking our planes in the no fly zone
June 8th, 2006 at 9:37 amand what about the assassination attempt on a sitting president
You can’t be a liberal and support any thing this president does
You can’t be a liberal and want this country to win
You can’t be a liberal and think this is the greatest country in the world
You can’t be a liberal and want smaller government
You can’t be a liberal and support our troops and bringing them home
without completing the mission isn’t support. Isn’t it funny that in order
For the democrats to look good they have to hope for us to fail EVEN IF
IT HURTS THE COUNTRY!!!!!!
[...] But that doesn’t matter. If you can find some silly guy who is vaguely on the left of the political spectrum, you can use him as a bludgeon with which to beat Democrats over the head. And now we’re all talking about how Governor Doyle will respond to this “drama” and whether “mainstream Democrats” are sufficiently aggressive in “setting themselves apart from lunatics”. Mission accomplished. [...]
July 11th, 2006 at 11:04 amI don’t know if anyone noticed, but the picture at the top of this page is a fake. I don’t know where it came from, but Bush is definately super-imposed on the background. If you notice everyone in the background is looking at a point behind him, and Bush was wearing Air Force fatigues that day….
Just an observation…
July 25th, 2006 at 2:20 pm[...] Accomplished by the Numbers… Filed Under: War coverage, Iraq Trackback Permalink postCount(’8117′); | EMail ThisPost [...]
July 26th, 2006 at 1:29 amliberals and conservatives are british partys, the usa has only one capitalist party split into republicans and democrats, and by the way, refrain from stealing our bar tunes for your national anthem, and defileing our language.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:59 pm[...] Today is the third anniversary of the President’s premature victory declaration. ThinkProgress tells you everything you need to know about what’s happened since. – Tim Dickinson [...]
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:52 amYou would think that an administration made up of experts in business that invest in a project which is consistently losing would “cut their loses and run?â€
December 24th, 2006 at 2:06 pmInstead, they would rather “stay the course†to bankruptcy.
Could it be they are more familiar and comfortable with bankruptcy? Moreover, and had always profited from bankruptcy.
I don’t get it? When I went into the Army, I got 6 weeks basic training and was shipped out to fight.
December 24th, 2006 at 2:27 pmHas the world changed that much, that now it takes more than 3 years of basic training before you start fighting for your country?
What do you do when a mentally challenged person hits a hornet’s nest and is being repeatedly stung? You force him to “cut and run.â€
December 24th, 2006 at 2:31 pm[...] I would call it Over. Since Saddams military was defeated some time ago. But I’m sure you meant to say the Mission in Iraq. Haha, ha, you’re kidding right? More people died after "Mission Accomplished" than before – on both sides. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say there might still be a war there. Maybe. You could ask the numbers, but I am aware that you probably don’t want to, as facts have a well known liberal bias. Quote: [...]
January 7th, 2007 at 12:12 pmWhen are Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld going to be put on trial for crimes against humanity?
February 11th, 2007 at 9:07 amThe are overseeing the destruction of the United States of America.
Nice work chief ;-)
February 16th, 2007 at 12:18 pm[...] Think Progress » ‘Mission Accomplished’ By The Numbers: [...]
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:32 am[...] Think Progress » ‘Mission Accomplished’ By The Numbers: [...]
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:47 am[...] Think Progress » ‘Mission Accomplished’ By The Numbers: [...]
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 am[...] Think Progress » ‘Mission Accomplished’ By The Numbers: [...]
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pmYoung Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 6:23 amSandra
I would like to read more, can you provide a link to some of your greatest work?
March 25th, 2008 at 2:18 amAid College Department Financial Providence
It is a quite interesting post but quite difficult to understand for me -
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:30 pmYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 6:28 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 12:57 pmGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 8:05 pm[...] excitement over the progress in Iraq. In a moment reminiscent of President Bush’s overblown war rhetoric, Graham declared: If you put a list of people who wanted us to leave, the number one [...]
April 8th, 2008 at 2:56 pmAll about Digimon Adventure Online Game. Digimon Adventure Fans Blog….
…Digimon is a small virtual pet. You can download and play an online RPG in the Digimon universe. It looks and feels like 2D graphic RPG adventure. You can train and level up your Digimon, make hundreds of quests, and travel through a huge universe a…
March 13th, 2009 at 10:07 pmShag Hairstyles and Haircuts…
shag hairstyle basically gotits name from the word “shaggy” since …once the hair is cutand layered it gives off a shaggy look. The shag hairstyle has always been apopular hairstyle, and there are plenty ofshag hairstyles to choose from…
April 14th, 2009 at 12:37 pm