Obama to Comment on Alleged End of War After Vacation
President Barack Obama plans a major speech on Iraq after his return to Washington as the last U.S. combat troops prepare to leave Iraq.
That’s according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity Sunday because details are being finalized.
The speech will come shortly after Obama returns to the White House on Aug. 29 from his Martha’s Vineyard vacation.
Such compassion. Such leadership. SUCH LOVE OF THE TROOPS!
Not.
I can hardly wait to hear how he brought this about single handedly. All hail obama!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2010 at 2230 hrs
He is waiting for the aircraft carrier with the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner to reach Cape Cod. Duh.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0028 hrs
1.) Another vacation? Huh… Bush was bad, but at least he went to his own house for vacation.
2.) Is this what the anti-war crowd bargained for? Gitmo: Still open. Iraq: gonna have troops there for decades to come. Afghanistan: has escalated into the meat grinder we all knew it would if that idiot pushed us deeper into that mess.
Yet there are so many blind ideologues around here adhering to the BS progressive groupthink. I remember when George W. Bush turned his back on me…. I know what that felt like. At least I didn’t continue to blindly support his drunken spending when it was apparent that it was detrimental to the future of the country. Some of the morons around here are still saying that the stimulus saved us…....
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0127 hrs
details are being finalized
There’s a lot to do; take the text of the speech and focus-group it, load up the teleprompter, find a diverse mix of soldiers for the background, choreograph the look left, look right, look straight ahead moves.
In the meantime, this is the welcome back that some of our heroes got:
President George W Bush Greeting Troops at DFWPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0645 hrs
That’s according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity Sunday because details are being finalized.
Actually, it is stupid shit like this that drives people crazy. “A Senior Administration Official” speaking on the condition of anonymity. Speaking about WHAT?!?!? I know August is a slow month in Washington, but damn! “Psst, you didn’t hear it from me, but the President is going to be making a speech a week from today. It’s going to be PRET-TY GOOOOD. You don’t want to miss THIS one.”
Obama’s staff does him no favors. The brevity of the article also speaks volumes: SLOW NEWS DAY.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0741 hrs
SUCH LOVE OF THE TROOPS!
OBJECTION, your honor!!! Speaks to the witness’s state of mind.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0745 hrs
Predictable thread.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0807 hrs
AH George, just like his “fuhrer”, no substance.
Tell us, who writes your stuff?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0903 hrs
Maybe he should have given up golf. Or maybe declared “Mission Accomplished”. You conservatives are all about symbolism after all, regardless if it means anything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0904 hrs
Maybe he should have given up golf. Or maybe declared “Mission Accomplished”
No, if he would just try doing the job per the “job description” would be good enough.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 0927 hrs
I see that zombie lie about Bush declaring mission accomplished is still around.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 1005 hrs
“ZOMBIE LIE????”
Where were you on 5/1/2003? Incarcerated? It sure as shit happened. Get you head out of your ass!
“For my next magical trick, I will make President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech DISAPPEAR!”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 1020 hrs
Actually, if you read the “Mission Accomplished Speech”, you would find that he never said “Mission Accomplished” (and I don’t think he hung the banner).
He used the word “mission” two times:
Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace.
Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people.
Mission Accomplished Speech by President Bush on USS Abraham Lincoln
I think the “mission accomplished” was military parlance for:
Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
See, this is all pretty similar to the Shirley Sherrod thing where part of a speech she made was shown and made her appear to be practicing reverse discrimination, whereas it took viewing the entire speech to get the proper perspective.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 1044 hrs
By the way, TerrnyN, thanks for motivating me to take a closer look at that - until now, I had bought into that media sucker play. Note that the headline even called it the “Mission Accomplished” speech.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 1050 hrs
Laker—Obviously, the President can’t be responsible for 30 foot high declarative banners behind him during appearances for which he is flown in on the taxpayer’s dime. The buck can’t stop with the President on that one you commie (or is it Nazi, Scott I-C? I’m always confused whether us teabaggers decided on Obama as a Nazi or as a communist; either way, he’s bad).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 1100 hrs
Well Palin-Jesus 2012, if you consider yourself a “teabagger” (homoporn sexual reference) that’s a label you’ve hung on yourself. “Fuhrer” (German-leader) is not specific to Nazism, but if that’s how you wish to take it, so be it. In any case he is not “my” leader, and if he were removed by whatever means it would make no difference to me as long as he’s removed. In this case I’d say a medal was in order to whomever accomplishes the mission.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 1133 hrs
“For my next magical trick, I will make President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech DISAPPEAR!”
Read the speech. Stop reading the Daily Kos.
Iraq fell in 3 weeks. The mission of toppling the Hussein regime was complete… We have been nation building ever since. An activity that the military is not particularly well adapted for.
Surely even your partisan ideologue mind can see that much?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 1134 hrs
Just so we’re all clear here, Scott. You are advocating the removal of the lawfully elected President of the United States by “whatever” means necessary. Am I correct to assume that “whatever” is not limited to your impeachment fantasies, but includes, literally, “whatever,” up to and including violent means?
You are a true American patriot, Scott. But, here’s a question, if that person deserves a “medal,” then why don’t you stand up for your country and back up your talk instead of hiding behind your computer with bravado?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 1210 hrs
if he were removed by whatever means it would make no difference to me as long as he’s removed. In this case I’d say a medal was in order to whomever accomplishes the mission.
These are the ramblings of insanity.
Barack Hussein Obama is the legally elected President of the United States. He will serve his term and be replaced by what I hope is a far more conservative candidate in 2012.
To recommend that he be removed by whatever means necessary is wackoville. You are a moonbat, and deserve to be called one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 1232 hrs
I want it to be very clear that I have absolutely no tolerance for this kind of drivel. You are truly an extremist and your ideas deserve no acknowledgement or credence, except to be struck down and condemned by the sane conservatives among us.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 1234 hrs
If he (obama) were in fact the “lawfully elected President” meaning he had a “right” to hold the office, but who blocks all attempts to find out if this is truly the case, I would have to say you might have reason to be concerned by my comment. But, seeing as how he spends millions to keep this information hidden, and the complicit media derides all who are skeptical of his “birth right”,(I personally do not believe he has a right to the office) and is in fact using his position to weaken America, which makes him an enemy of the country, yes I believe he needs to be removed. Whatever you consider by “whatever means” is (the Clinton maneuver) is up to your interpretation, I will keep mine to myself because there are too many of my countrymen (not Americans) who are traitorous Stalinists who believe the 1st Amendment has outlived it’s purpose and would gladly “recommend me for political reeducation” for speaking against the state. I speak from behind my keyboard because I still can. When the time comes to joining forces to rescue the country, I will commit all I own to that fight. At this point there are not enough “patriots” willing to commit life and property to the cause. This country is moving dangerously close to Stalinist Russia, and I have no confidence in my fellow countrymen because too many have proven they are willing to sacrifice their freedom to embrace tyranny.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 1249 hrs
djmamayek:
I want it to be very clear that I have absolutely no tolerance for this kind of drivel.
You are all given the “right” to believe as you will, and I will respect that right. Believe I’m a moonbat, it makes no difference to me. I believe too many are willing to be spoon fed what you believe, does it change anything? No! All I do know is more goes on that we DON’T know about, and that fact will keep me skeptical of everything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 1257 hrs
Maybe a faulty assumption, but I’ll assume the rest of the frequent conservative commentators on this blog share djmamayek’s views and do not wish the President’s assassination, as Scott obviously does.
As for Scott’s comments, they warrant no response. I agree with djmamayek. They are the ramblings of the insane.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 1341 hrs
I find it humorous that on one hand, people here are willing to forgive the “mission accomplished” speech AND banner as out of Bush’s control, but are more than willing to link everything to Obama.
To think that little event that happened was not carefully executed without everything being discussed is absolutely ridiculous. Oh, here are some facts to look at,
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/Wasn’t there a post here the other day about the buck stopping somewhere? Oh thats right, its only an issue when Obama passes the buck. Insert eyes rolling.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 1412 hrs
Thanks for linking that lstw…
During the speech in May, Bush said, “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on.”
Hmmmm, seems pretty self evident to me. How can you take it in a different context?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 1642 hrs
Bish was referring to the air craft carrier which was returning from the longest time at sea on record. Their mission was accomplished.
The left turned it into something else.
Obama would of course set the record straight but he is the bunker on the 12th hole.
Posted by Fred on August 23, 2010 at 1704 hrs
P-J :2012
Maybe a faulty assumption,
(Maybe? An understatement!!)
but I’ll assume the rest of the frequent conservative commentators on this blog share djmamayek’s views and do not wish the President’s assassination, as Scott obviously does.
It’s a good thing you’re here to put words into my mouth for me P-J, otherwise no one would know what the hell it is that I think. Frikkin Liberals are always trying to tell people what they should think, and “assume” they know what it is others are thinking.
I’m sure the resident conservatives here are grateful that you have found a point in which to agree.As for Scott’s comments, they warrant no response. I agree with djmamayek. They are the ramblings of the insane.
Feel free to bite me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 23, 2010 at 2108 hrs
Bish was referring to the air craft carrier which was returning from the longest time at sea on record. Their mission was accomplished.
Except he didn’t say anything about the carrier and said “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror…”. As Jason said, how can you take that in a different context besides that?
I mean, obviously besides Bush good, Obama bad that you are known for fred?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2010 at 0906 hrs
Nice chop job there lstw…. you dishonest prick.
Here’s the part you cut from the speach…
“and still goes on.”
Enjoy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2010 at 1112 hrs
“and still goes on.”
Right, so Iraq was one victory and the war in afghanistan continues along with the war on terror. So we have a “mission accomplished” banner and bush saying iraq was one victory. I think you should take a little of your name calling and apply it to yourself “you dishonest prick”.
How can you possibly take that out of context? “For my next magical trick, I will make President Bush’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech DISAPPEAR!” Keep working on it, the harder you try to funnier you look.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2010 at 1130 hrs
You were expecting honesty from a Liberal???
Ha! Now that’s funny…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2010 at 1137 hrs
How can you possibly take that out of context?
Well, let me see, lstw… because I have a rudimentary understanding of the English language. This enables me to understand that “Mission Accomplished” does not mean the same as “War Accomplished”.
When someone says “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on.” while standing under a sign that says “Mission Accomplished”, and I can understand that the two are related.
What about you? Got some more bullshit to throw at your monitor?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2010 at 1156 hrs
On one hand you say
This enables me to understand that “Mission Accomplished” does not mean the same as “War Accomplished”.
But on the other you say
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on.” while standing under a sign that says “Mission Accomplished”, and I can understand that the two are related.
It sounds to me like you have two conflicting points here. Maybe with your rudimentary understanding of the English language you can explain a little further.
My point was Bush declared victory in Iraq by having a mission accomplished banner and stating “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror…”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2010 at 1227 hrs
It’s amazing how many discussions end up being about word parsing and downright lying by liberals…
Posted by Smeety on August 24, 2010 at 1250 hrs
It’s amazing how many discussions end up being about word parsing and downright lying by liberals…
No doubt Smeety, no doubt….Luckily for us, the rest of America really seems to be waking up to that fact.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2010 at 1343 hrs
It seems like as of late people are really starting to see the mobile goal posts in the “progressive” end-zone.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2010 at 1344 hrs
It sounds to me like you have two conflicting points here.
Absolutely not.. and I can’t believe this is even still an issue.
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on.” while standing under a sign that says “Mission Accomplished”, and I can understand that the two are related.
A battle is not a war… and a mission is not a war… So, by simple inference, one understands that “Mission accomplished” does not mean that the war is over. If it had said “War accomplished”, then you would be right, and I would be the idiot who doesn’t have a basic understanding of logic. However, the roles are switched, and you’re just digging yourself a deeper hole. Enjoy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2010 at 1400 hrs
you dishonest prick…I have a rudimentary understanding of the English language…then you would be right, and I would be the idiot who doesn’t have a basic understanding of logic.
Wow, feel the incessant need to make yourself feel better? I bet you and tuerqas would get along great, unless one of you thought you were better than the other. And here if I would believe the conservative blowhards on this site I would think it is the liberals who throw around insults without provocation.
I never said war accomplished. I don’t know how you are getting that. But maybe with your “skills” you are able to make things up out of thin air. I did say
Bush declared victory in Iraq
Which does not imply and one cannot infer that I meant bush declared victory in the war on terror.
chirp chirpPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2010 at 1530 hrs
Which does not imply and one cannot infer that I meant bush declared victory in the war on terror
Ok good, you can admit you were wrong. Good on you sir!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2010 at 2121 hrs
Ok good, you can admit you were wrong. Good on you sir!
What?
I never said bush declared victory in the war on terror. I said he declared victory in iraq. And yes, you can declare victory after after a mission. But according to you I admitted I was wrong by saying I never said something. Right.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 1356 hrs
I like your post! It is so unique and creative!
Posted by christian louboutin on September 19, 2010 at 2225 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 113
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 06:24 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).