Rove Regrets Banner on USS Lincoln

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
If the ship accomplished their mission then they did. The ships mission wasn't to defeat all the terrorists in the maintaining control phase of the Iraqi War. Maybe the sign meant defeating Iraq well that part was done. Iraq is defeated.
The people who are fighting now are not military but terrorists and civilian hostiles. You can't even tell who is who until they start taking shots at you. That is why it cannot be won. We either have to kill every single Iraqi or get the heck out.
Any one of them sonsabitches can pull out a gun and start taking potshots at any time now, just like happened in Vietnam.

Damn them sonsabitches for fighting against an occupying army. You seem to forget, we invaded them for pretty much no legitimate reason. I'm sorry, you invade my country, I will not think twice about putting a bullit in your head.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: chess9
Etech:

Are you saying this wasn't a publicity stunt by Bush? Didn't Rove's staff order the sign? Hmm.... I've been on a few military ships that have docked and I don't recall the President providing us with a sign.

-Robert

Had you just finished major war ops?


Bowfinger, your arguments in this thread are too stupid to address.

 

[Gaard]

Etech:

Are you saying this wasn't a publicity stunt by Bush?

You missed one.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Etech:

Are you saying this wasn't a publicity stunt by Bush?

You missed one.

Gaard, tell me what public appearance by a sitting President is not a publicity stunt.

Now if you are saying that Pres. Bush only went to the carrier to futher his reelection bid, I'll disagree with you. I believe that he went to honor and show his respect for the men and women of the services. Did it also have some publicity elements, of course, everything every President does.


That is so obvious that I really didn't feel it was necessary to explain it. I see that I was wrong and admit it.

 

[Gaard]

We're probably just looking at it from different angles. You see it (and tell me if I'm wrong) as something the cameras and media captured him doing (he would've done it without them present). I see it as something he did because he knew they'd record it (posing - so to speak).

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
play dress up? wow, now that is some lack of respect for people who fight and die for our liberty.

I'm referring to one man who was playing dress up on that day. There is quite a difference between throwing on a uniform for a photo op(although it probably did provide a little bit of a moral boost, which is good) and wearing the uniform to do your job. I was not referring to those in the latter part, only the former. However, if you want to put words into my mouth, go right ahead.

I can't remember where I saw it, but someone suggested the Dems should have a campaign ad featuring a picture of Bush in the flight suit next to a picture of Kerry in uniform. The captions under each photo:

(Bush) - Playing dress up
(Kerry) - The real thing

I think it was a former Canadian PM on Bill Maher.

Thanks. I think you're right.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard
We're probably just looking at it from different angles. You see it (and tell me if I'm wrong) as something the cameras and media captured him doing (he would've done it without them present). I see it as something he did because he knew they'd record it (posing - so to speak).

What public appearance does the President make where cameras and the media don't attend?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech
Bowfinger, your arguments in this thread are too stupid to address.

I'm sure you wish that were true. It's funny how you so regularly find excuses to avoid addressing others, except perhaps for one or two nits you can pick out as a basis to attack the poster or divert the thread.

You fool no one save yourself.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard
We're probably just looking at it from different angles. You see it (and tell me if I'm wrong) as something the cameras and media captured him doing (he would've done it without them present). I see it as something he did because he knew they'd record it (posing - so to speak).

What public appearance does the President make where cameras and the media don't attend?

None.

Point?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech
Gaard, tell me what public appearance by a sitting President is not a publicity stunt.

Now if you are saying that Pres. Bush only went to the carrier to futher his reelection bid, I'll disagree with you. I believe that he went to honor and show his respect for the men and women of the services. Did it also have some publicity elements, of course, everything every President does.

That is so obvious that I really didn't feel it was necessary to explain it. I see that I was wrong and admit it.

Had Bush met the Lincoln once it was in port, or even had he flown out by copter like a normal President might, you would be right. In that case, we wouldn't be having this discussion and Bush would have a much weaker campaign poster. He chose to go out in a military jet, turning a normal, respectful visit into a personally aggrandizing campaign event. That's the issue. It's not just what he did, it's how he did it.

Couple that with the "Mission Accomplished" banner, conveniently serving as a backdrop for his announcement that "major combat operations" were done, and it is hard to view the Lincoln and its crew as anything more than a prop in Bush's war against truth.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard
We're probably just looking at it from different angles. You see it (and tell me if I'm wrong) as something the cameras and media captured him doing (he would've done it without them present). I see it as something he did because he knew they'd record it (posing - so to speak).

What public appearance does the President make where cameras and the media don't attend?

None.

Point?

Point, every public appearance that the President makes can be construed by his detractors as a publicity stunt if you base it on the fact that the cameras and the media will be there.

That's what I see you as doing, you are just picking on this one because you think it makes some sort of point.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard
We're probably just looking at it from different angles. You see it (and tell me if I'm wrong) as something the cameras and media captured him doing (he would've done it without them present). I see it as something he did because he knew they'd record it (posing - so to speak).

What public appearance does the President make where cameras and the media don't attend?

None.

Point?

Point, every public appearance that the President makes can be construed by his detractors as a publicity stunt if you base it on the fact that the cameras and the media will be there.

That's what I see you as doing, you are just picking on this one because you think it makes some sort of point.

And if the jock strap fiasco is any indication, Kerry should be quite humorous if he is elected. What do you suppose that was supposed to be anyways? Maybe to shirk off rumors he has no penis? ( can I say penis? If not Ill edit it)

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard
We're probably just looking at it from different angles. You see it (and tell me if I'm wrong) as something the cameras and media captured him doing (he would've done it without them present). I see it as something he did because he knew they'd record it (posing - so to speak).

What public appearance does the President make where cameras and the media don't attend?

None.

Point?

Point, every public appearance that the President makes can be construed by his detractors as a publicity stunt if you base it on the fact that the cameras and the media will be there.

That's what I see you as doing, you are just picking on this one because you think it makes some sort of point.

But, you see, IMO, this public appearance was made because the cameras and media would be there.

See the difference?


You and I can disagree on whether this was mainly a photo-op for Bush...or what the banner really referred to, but please acknowledge that you understand what I'm saying as far as the difference.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard
We're probably just looking at it from different angles. You see it (and tell me if I'm wrong) as something the cameras and media captured him doing (he would've done it without them present). I see it as something he did because he knew they'd record it (posing - so to speak).

What public appearance does the President make where cameras and the media don't attend?

None.

Point?

Point, every public appearance that the President makes can be construed by his detractors as a publicity stunt if you base it on the fact that the cameras and the media will be there.

That's what I see you as doing, you are just picking on this one because you think it makes some sort of point.

But, you see, IMO, this public appearance was made because the cameras and media would be there.

See the difference?


You and I can disagree on whether this was mainly a photo-op for Bush...or what the banner really referred to, but please acknowledge that you understand what I'm saying as far as the difference.

I see the difference you are so desperately trying to make. I don't agree with it.

President's honoring troops that have done a job is something that should be done, even if the other political party will try to make it something it wasn't.

edit/

Are you saying that the President of the United States should not honor returning troops because some people will try to make it out as a poltical ploy?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard
We're probably just looking at it from different angles. You see it (and tell me if I'm wrong) as something the cameras and media captured him doing (he would've done it without them present). I see it as something he did because he knew they'd record it (posing - so to speak).

What public appearance does the President make where cameras and the media don't attend?

None.

Point?

Point, every public appearance that the President makes can be construed by his detractors as a publicity stunt if you base it on the fact that the cameras and the media will be there.

That's what I see you as doing, you are just picking on this one because you think it makes some sort of point.

But, you see, IMO, this public appearance was made because the cameras and media would be there.

See the difference?


You and I can disagree on whether this was mainly a photo-op for Bush...or what the banner really referred to, but please acknowledge that you understand what I'm saying as far as the difference.

I see the difference you are so desperately trying to make. I don't agree with it.

President's honoring troops that have done a job is something that should be done, even if the other political party will try to make it something it wasn't.

edit/

Are you saying that the President of the United States should not honor returning troops because some people will try to make it out as a poltical ploy?

Absolutely not. I commend it. I also really don't see the harm in turning the ship for better lighting. Nor, if the servicemen didn't mind, do I have a problem in delaying their return to port in order for this event to happen.

What I do have a problem with is...

"Carriers frequently make turns. We had nothing to do with that."
"We had nothing to do with the carrier's delay in coming to port."
"He had to take the jet, it was too far for a helicopter."

Assume for a moment, etech, that the banner really was in reference to the war in general. Would you be surprised if they (Bush/Rove/whoever) denied it?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard
We're probably just looking at it from different angles. You see it (and tell me if I'm wrong) as something the cameras and media captured him doing (he would've done it without them present). I see it as something he did because he knew they'd record it (posing - so to speak).

What public appearance does the President make where cameras and the media don't attend?

None.

Point?

Point, every public appearance that the President makes can be construed by his detractors as a publicity stunt if you base it on the fact that the cameras and the media will be there.

That's what I see you as doing, you are just picking on this one because you think it makes some sort of point.

But, you see, IMO, this public appearance was made because the cameras and media would be there.

See the difference?


You and I can disagree on whether this was mainly a photo-op for Bush...or what the banner really referred to, but please acknowledge that you understand what I'm saying as far as the difference.

I see the difference you are so desperately trying to make. I don't agree with it.

President's honoring troops that have done a job is something that should be done, even if the other political party will try to make it something it wasn't.

edit/

Are you saying that the President of the United States should not honor returning troops because some people will try to make it out as a poltical ploy?

Absolutely not. I commend it. I also really don't see the harm in turning the ship for better lighting. Nor, if the servicemen didn't mind, do I have a problem in delaying their return to port in order for this event to happen.

What I do have a problem with is...

"Carriers frequently make turns. We had nothing to do with that."
"We had nothing to do with the carrier's delay in coming to port."
"He had to take the jet, it was too far for a helicopter."

Assume for a moment, etech, that the banner really was in reference to the war in general. Would you be surprised if they (Bush/Rove/whoever) denied it?

Nevermind, no matter what is said you are going to try and turn a President honoring troops into something that it wasn't.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard

But, you see, IMO, this public appearance was made because the cameras and media would be there.

See the difference?


You and I can disagree on whether this was mainly a photo-op for Bush...or what the banner really referred to, but please acknowledge that you understand what I'm saying as far as the difference.

I see the difference you are so desperately trying to make. I don't agree with it.

President's honoring troops that have done a job is something that should be done, even if the other political party will try to make it something it wasn't.

edit/

Are you saying that the President of the United States should not honor returning troops because some people will try to make it out as a poltical ploy?

So if this was all about the troops, explain the following:
-Why was the carrier delayed a day??
-Why did the carrier have to turn around so the light would just right?
-Why did Bush have to fly in on a plane instead of a helicopter (you would think they would take the safest option, the helicopter)
-Why did Bush have to fly to the carrier in the first place?? Why not wait till they get to port?

Are you going to explain these as "publicity elements," which every President does??
The President's visit to the troops on Thanksgiving and his visit to Qatar, those had typical publicity elements that every Pres uses. But this stunt was so over the top that one has to conclude that political reasons was the primary motivation the Bush admin.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard
We're probably just looking at it from different angles. You see it (and tell me if I'm wrong) as something the cameras and media captured him doing (he would've done it without them present). I see it as something he did because he knew they'd record it (posing - so to speak).

What public appearance does the President make where cameras and the media don't attend?

None.

Point?

Point, every public appearance that the President makes can be construed by his detractors as a publicity stunt if you base it on the fact that the cameras and the media will be there.

That's what I see you as doing, you are just picking on this one because you think it makes some sort of point.

But, you see, IMO, this public appearance was made because the cameras and media would be there.

See the difference?


You and I can disagree on whether this was mainly a photo-op for Bush...or what the banner really referred to, but please acknowledge that you understand what I'm saying as far as the difference.

I see the difference you are so desperately trying to make. I don't agree with it.

President's honoring troops that have done a job is something that should be done, even if the other political party will try to make it something it wasn't.

edit/

Are you saying that the President of the United States should not honor returning troops because some people will try to make it out as a poltical ploy?

Absolutely not. I commend it. I also really don't see the harm in turning the ship for better lighting. Nor, if the servicemen didn't mind, do I have a problem in delaying their return to port in order for this event to happen.

What I do have a problem with is...

"Carriers frequently make turns. We had nothing to do with that."
"We had nothing to do with the carrier's delay in coming to port."
"He had to take the jet, it was too far for a helicopter."

Assume for a moment, etech, that the banner really was in reference to the war in general. Would you be surprised if they (Bush/Rove/whoever) denied it?

Nevermind, no matter what is said you are going to try and turn a President honoring troops into something that it wasn't.

I think he's trying to compare it to Kerry or Clinton going to church. The main difference being when Clinton or Kerry sit in a pew everyone moves away in case lightning strikes.

 

[Tripleshot]

The only thing Rove regrets is getting caught. Rove is a tard from Utah that needs to be locked up for the lies and mistruths he uses to take focus of of Bush and blame onto Dems.