The Lies of Al Franken - #5 in a series
Sol
In a chapter on President Bush and the Iraq war, on page 50,
Franken writes,
"[O]n the day when Bush landed on that aircraft carrier dressed in a
flight suit ... he declared the war over."
Franken's line has become a common deceit from the left. After
the completion of major combat operations, President Bush addressed the
nation from the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003.
What did the President really say that day? Here's your answer:
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of
that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders
of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes ...
"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it
is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done.
Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq."1
So did the President declare "the war over"? Quite simply: No.
____________________
Notes:
1 The entire speech is on the White House web site at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html
Brian Bernardini
"Sol" <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
> Shooting Fish in a Barrel
>
> In a chapter on President Bush and the Iraq war, on page 50,
> Franken writes,
>
> "[O]n the day when Bush landed on that aircraft carrier dressed in a
> flight suit ... he declared the war over."
What was removed from this quote?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
DemzRock
"Brian Bernardini" <bbernarW...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bbernarWOOOAHdini-6...@news-east.newsfeeds.com...
That's like me saying that Sol said...
"I am....completely...INSANE!"
LOL!
Lets see the whole quote, SOL! And why the heck do you have to to the
"[O]n" thing? That means the whole quote was manipulated, no?
So who's lying now?
It doesn't matter. W may not have said, literally, "the war is over," but
he did say that major combat operations have ended and he allowed a banner
to fly behind him that said, "Mission Accomplished!" That's pretty much
the same thing.
Sol
> Franken writes,
> "[O]n the day when Bush landed on that aircraft carrier dressed in a
> flight suit ... he declared the war over."
What was removed from this quote?>>>
Nothing that made Franken look good. "[O]n the day when Bush landed on
that aircraft carrier dressed in a flight suit and a codpiece, we
expected him to lie about how well things went and to talk about future
operations. Instead, he declared the war over."
What were cut out was two additional lies - Bush never wore a
codpiece with the flight suit (BTW, I'm holding Al Franken to his own
"Impossibly High Standards").
Brian Bernardini
"Sol" <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
Somebody please explain the word "joke" to this guy, please?
Sol
Nope, I have zero interest in cutting Al Franken an inch. He claims
that he holds himself to "impossibly high standards", and so will I.
Bill
mission? To win the war.
"Sol" <bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134545810.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
DemzRock
>>>>Somebody please explain the word "joke" to this guy, please? >>>
>
> Nope, I have zero interest in cutting Al Franken an inch. He claims
> that he holds himself to "impossibly high standards", and so will I.
>
OK, then. Prove he didn't wear a codpiece. hehe. He certainly looked
like he was wearing one. If you want "impossibly high standards" then you
need to PROVE Franken wrong with a whole CSI team. Good luck. LOL!
milt....@gmail.com
Sol wrote:
> Shooting Fish in a Barrel
>
> In a chapter on President Bush and the Iraq war, on page 50,
> Franken writes,
>
> "[O]n the day when Bush landed on that aircraft carrier dressed in a
> flight suit ... he declared the war over."
>
> Franken's line has become a common deceit from the left. After
> the completion of major combat operations, President Bush addressed the
> nation from the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003.
>
> What did the President really say that day? Here's your answer:
>
> "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of
> that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders
> of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes ...
>
> "The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it
> is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done.
> Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq."1
>
> So did the President declare "the war over"? Quite simply: No.
Okay, first off, you missed the "Mission Accomplished" banner behind
his head apparently. Sorry, but when you go to war, and you declare the
"Mission Accomplished," there is nothing to think but that the war is
over. If the war wasn't over, I guess we can assume the "mission"
wasn't actually "accomplished."
Here's what Bush said:
"Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and
sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat
operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States
and our allies have prevailed."
Prevailed? How can we prevail, unless a war is actually over?
Here's more...
"Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out..."
"This nation thanks all the members of our coalition who joined in a
noble cause...."
Hmmm... quite a bit of past tense there.
You know, for someone who claims to be a Christian, you certainly bear
a lot of false witness. You call Franken a liar, and yet you provide no
evidence of lies. Perceiving something differently than you does not
constitute a lie. A "lie" is saying something you know to be untrue,
and which is demonstrably false. With a banner saying "Mission
Accomplished" flying overhead, and declaring that "major combat
operations" had ended, it's pretty difficult to make the case that
Franken lied when he claims that Bush declared the war "over." That was
certainly the perception Bush wanted to give...
Calling Al Franken a liar without proof makes you the liar, not him.
Sol
> that he holds himself to "impossibly high standards", and so will I.
OK, then. Prove he didn't wear a codpiece.>>>
Oh, now I understand - when Al Franken talked about having impossibly
high standards, he was talking about other people, not himself.
Liberals insist that things are true, simply because they say so.
Brian Bernardini
"Sol" <bval...@aol.com> wrote:
You mean like those pesky WMDs, the yellowcake, the ability to hit us in
an hour, the connection between Saddam and 9/11?
Kettle? Pot on line one.
Sol
his head apparently. Sorry, but when you go to war, and you declare the
"Mission Accomplished," there is nothing to think but that the war is
over. If the war wasn't over, I guess we can assume the "mission"
wasn't actually "accomplished." >>>
Well, THAT'S idiotic. There are many missions to a war - it's not
only possible for a mission to be acomplished, but a war to continue,
that's always the case.
Here's what Bush said:
>>>>>"Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and
sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat
operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States
and our allies have prevailed."
Prevailed? How can we prevail, unless a war is actually over?>>>>
How can I put this in a way that's intellectually accessible to you?
In Shakespeare's "Henry V" - no, that's clearly beyond you. In
Conrad's "Hearts of Darkness" - no, that's too smart, too. H. L.
Mencken said, ah, who am I kidding? At the end of "Star Wars," the
rebels prevailed against the Empire by destroying the Death Star, even
though the war was still to be won.
See? A mission can be acomplished, the good guys can prevail even if
the war isn't yet finished.
Is that too complicated for you? Do I need to resort to a "Spongebob
Squarepants" metaphor?
>>>>"Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out..."
"This nation thanks all the members of our coalition who joined in a
noble cause...."
Hmmm... quite a bit of past tense there.>>>
So, any reference to a military operation in the past tense can only
mean victory in war?
>>>Hmmm... quite a bit of past tense there.
You know, for someone who claims to be a Christian,>>>>
When, exactly, did I claim to be a Christian?
>>>> you certainly bear a lot of false witness.>>>
I'm sorry, President Bush never claimed we had won the war.
Sol
his head apparently. Sorry, but when you go to war, and you declare the
"Mission Accomplished," there is nothing to think but that the war is
over. If the war wasn't over, I guess we can assume the "mission"
wasn't actually "accomplished." >>>
Well, THAT'S idiotic. There are many missions to a war - it's not
only possible for a mission to be acomplished, but a war to continue,
that's always the case.
Here's what Bush said:
>>>>>"Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and
sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat
operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States
and our allies have prevailed."
Prevailed? How can we prevail, unless a war is actually over?>>>>
How can I put this in a way that's intellectually accessible to you?
In Shakespeare's "Henry V" - no, that's clearly beyond you. In
Conrad's "Hearts of Darkness" - no, that's too smart, too. H. L.
Mencken said, ah, who am I kidding? At the end of "Star Wars," the
rebels prevailed against the Empire by destroying the Death Star, even
though the war was still to be won.
See? A mission can be acomplished, the good guys can prevail even if
the war isn't yet finished.
Is that too complicated for you? Do I need to resort to a "Spongebob
Squarepants" metaphor?
>>>>"Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out..."
"This nation thanks all the members of our coalition who joined in a
noble cause...."
Hmmm... quite a bit of past tense there.>>>
So, any reference to a military operation in the past tense can only
mean victory in war?
>>>Hmmm... quite a bit of past tense there.
You know, for someone who claims to be a Christian,>>>>
When, exactly, did I claim to be a Christian?
>>>> you certainly bear a lot of false witness.>>>
I'm sorry, President Bush never claimed we had won the war.
DemzRock
"Brian Bernardini" <bbernarW...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bbernarWOOOAHdini-6...@news-east.newsfeeds.com...
LOL! Good one.
Sol
We didn't find as many as we thought, but we did find them.
>>>> the yellowcake,>>>>>
Funny thing about that. Joe Wilson's report SUPPORTED the idea that
Saddam was shopping for yellowcake.
>>> the ability to hit us in
an hour,>>>>
I have no idea where that one came from.
>>>> the connection between Saddam and 9/11? >>>>
When did Bush claim that? Be exact.
Tecumsech Sequoia
>>>>You mean like those pesky WMDs,>>>>
>
> We didn't find as many as we thought, but we did find them.
>
No we did not. Exactly what do you believe was found?
>>>>> the yellowcake,>>>>>
>
> Funny thing about that. Joe Wilson's report SUPPORTED the idea that
> Saddam was shopping for yellowcake.
>
He says it did not.
Bill
milt....@gmail.com
Sol wrote:
> Okay, first off, you missed the "Mission Accomplished" banner behind
> his head apparently. Sorry, but when you go to war, and you declare the
>
> "Mission Accomplished," there is nothing to think but that the war is
> over. If the war wasn't over, I guess we can assume the "mission"
> wasn't actually "accomplished." >>>
>
> Well, THAT'S idiotic. There are many missions to a war - it's not
> only possible for a mission to be acomplished, but a war to continue,
> that's always the case.
Really?
Please name another war in which the president claimed a mission was
accomplished as the war continued. I'd really like to see one. It's
hard to imagine a president declaring a battle won, as the war
continues. Doesn't seem very politically smart to me...
>
> Here's what Bush said:
>
> >>>>>"Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and
> sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat
> operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States
>
> and our allies have prevailed."
>
> Prevailed? How can we prevail, unless a war is actually over?>>>>
>
> How can I put this in a way that's intellectually accessible to you?
Obviously, you can't..
> In Shakespeare's "Henry V" - no, that's clearly beyond you.
Fictional...
> In
> Conrad's "Hearts of Darkness" - no, that's too smart, too.
Fictional...
> H. L.
> Mencken said, ah, who am I kidding?
Not kidding me. I KNOW what Mencken would have said about the current
idiot in the White House. And it would most certainly not be
flattering. Here[s a sample:
"It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know
that you would lie if you were in his place." -- HL Mencken
> At the end of "Star Wars," the
> rebels prevailed against the Empire by destroying the Death Star, even
> though the war was still to be won.
Fictional...
>
> See? A mission can be acomplished, the good guys can prevail even if
> the war isn't yet finished.
I see. So someone writes a work of fiction, and you take THAT as
"proof" of what, exactly?
> Is that too complicated for you? Do I need to resort to a "Spongebob
> Squarepants" metaphor?
No. I think comparing the current Administration to the rebels in Star
Wars sufficiently demonstrates your level of credibility.
>
> >>>>"Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out..."
> "This nation thanks all the members of our coalition who joined in a
> noble cause...."
>
> Hmmm... quite a bit of past tense there.>>>
>
> So, any reference to a military operation in the past tense can only
> mean victory in war?
Well, it would follow that, if you're referring to your allies in the
past tense, they are n longer your allies... either they're pissed at
us, or the war is over...
>
> >>>Hmmm... quite a bit of past tense there.
>
> You know, for someone who claims to be a Christian,>>>>
>
> When, exactly, did I claim to be a Christian?
Well, you claimed that God talks to you...
>
> >>>> you certainly bear a lot of false witness.>>>
>
> I'm sorry, President Bush never claimed we had won the war.
So what "Mission" was "Accomplished" then?? Doesn't sound like anything
to brag about to me...
Sol
> only possible for a mission to be acomplished, but a war to continue,
> that's always the case.
>>>Really?
Please name another war in which the president claimed a mission was
accomplished as the war continued.>>>>
FDR. He talked regularly to the American people about how the war was
going. Lyndon Johnson wasn't afraid to talk about the victories in
Viet Nam.
>>>> H. L. Mencken said, ah, who am I kidding?>>>
Not kidding me. I KNOW what Mencken would have said about the current
idiot in the White House.>>>>
Speaking of idiots, I wonder what volume horselaugh Henry would have
thrown your way after you claimed that literary metaphors couldn't
relate to real life sitatutions, simply because they were fictional.
>>> And it would most certainly not be
flattering. Here[s a sample:
"It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know
that you would lie if you were in his place." -- HL Mencken >>>
If you're saying that Mencken would have said the above about President
Bush, the implication is that H.L. would have told the same "lies".
One wonders what Mencken would have thought of the current crop of
defeatorcrats? He almost certainly would have had friends in the World
Trade Center - probably several. I don't remember Mencken claiming
that FDR was involved with Pearl Harbot.
> >>>Hmmm... quite a bit of past tense there. >>>
Well, it would follow that, if you're referring to your allies in the
past tense, they are n longer your allies... either they're pissed at
us, or the war is over... >>>
Could you answer the fair question I posed without resorting to a
clumsy dodge?
> You know, for someone who claims to be a Christian,>>>>
> When, exactly, did I claim to be a Christian?
Well, you claimed that God talks to you... >>>
When, exactly, did I claim that God talks to me? Be exact, and for a
major change of pace, truthful.
milt....@gmail.com
Sol wrote:
> > Well, THAT'S idiotic. There are many missions to a war - it's not
> > only possible for a mission to be acomplished, but a war to continue,
> > that's always the case.
>
>
> >>>Really?
> Please name another war in which the president claimed a mission was
> accomplished as the war continued.>>>>
>
> FDR.
Cite a speech in which he suggested a "mission" had been
"accomplished"..
> He talked regularly to the American people about how the war was
> going.
No, Bush didn't do that. He declared that "major combat operations" had
ended. Apparently, the enemy didn't agree.
> Lyndon Johnson wasn't afraid to talk about the victories in
> Viet Nam.
WHAT victories in Vietnam? And again, I would ask for a cite. You lie
so much, I can't possibly take your word for it.
>
> >>>> H. L. Mencken said, ah, who am I kidding?>>>
>
> Not kidding me. I KNOW what Mencken would have said about the current
> idiot in the White House.>>>>
>
> Speaking of idiots, I wonder what volume horselaugh Henry would have
> thrown your way after you claimed that literary metaphors couldn't
> relate to real life sitatutions, simply because they were fictional.
They can't. Period. And "Henry" would agree with me on that. He was a
cynic, a skeptic, and most of all, a jounalist.
> >>> And it would most certainly not be
> flattering. Here[s a sample:
>
> "It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know
> that you would lie if you were in his place." -- HL Mencken >>>
>
> If you're saying that Mencken would have said the above about President
> Bush, the implication is that H.L. would have told the same "lies".
>
> One wonders what Mencken would have thought of the current crop of
> defeatorcrats? He almost certainly would have had friends in the World
> Trade Center - probably several. I don't remember Mencken claiming
> that FDR was involved with Pearl Harbot.
See what I mean by dishonest? This guy is implying that the Iraq war
has something to do with 9/11. It doesn't. Until Bush invaded and
failed to secure the country, Iraq had successfully thwarted
terrorists. There were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion; now
there are. Logically speaking... well... you figure it out...
>
> > >>>Hmmm... quite a bit of past tense there. >>>
>
> Well, it would follow that, if you're referring to your allies in the
> past tense, they are n longer your allies... either they're pissed at
> us, or the war is over... >>>
>
> Could you answer the fair question I posed without resorting to a
> clumsy dodge?
You don't pose fair questions. You assume "facts" not in evidence and
base the questions on them. That's dishonest. Like the title of this
thread, for instance. You say Franken's lying, and yet you cite ZERO
factual errors. You pose that, because you disagree with him, he must
be lying. That is intellectually dishonest.
>
> > You know, for someone who claims to be a Christian,>>>>
>
> > When, exactly, did I claim to be a Christian?
>
>
> Well, you claimed that God talks to you... >>>
>
> When, exactly, did I claim that God talks to me? Be exact, and for a
> major change of pace, truthful.
You quoted the Bible.
Sol
> > that's always the case.
> >>>Really?
> Please name another war in which the president claimed a mission was
> accomplished as the war continued.>>>>
> FDR.
>>>Cite a speech in which he suggested a "mission" had been "accomplished".. >>>
Nah. I'm not wasting days of research, digging through FDR's "Fireside
Chat" speeches, simply to produce a quote for you to ignore.
> He talked regularly to the American people about how the war was
> going.
>>>No, Bush didn't do that. He declared that "major combat operations" had
ended. Apparently, the enemy didn't agree. >>>
Oh, really? There's been a "major combat operation" in Iraq since we
won the war? Really? When did 10,000 troops, loyal to Saddam, invade
Baghdad? Seems to me that the Islamo-fascists have contented
themselves blowing up four soldiers here, five there. Lately, they've
been focusing on ever softer targets, like Iraqi wedding parties.
Meanwhile, Saddam makes a clown of himself during his trial. (My
personal favorite "Saddamism" is when he interrupted a woman about her
repeated beatings by Saddam's thug by proclaiming that he was wearing
the same clothes as he did yesterday. Saddam literally claimed that
not having a fresh change of clothing everyday constituted torture.)
The elections in Iraq took place without a hitch.
> Lyndon Johnson wasn't afraid to talk about the victories in
> Viet Nam.
>>>WHAT victories in Vietnam? >>>
Gee, you really don't know anything, do you? The new strategy was
vindicated during the 1972 Easter Offensive. This was the biggest
offensive push of the war, greater in magnitude than either the 1968
Tet offensive or the final assault of 1975. While the U.S. provided
massive air and naval support and while there were inevitable failures
on the part of some South Vietnamese units, all in all, the South
Vietnamese fought well. Then, having blunted the communist thrust, they
recaptured territory that had been lost to Hanoi. So effective was the
combination of the South Vietnamese army's performance during the
Easter Offensive, an enhanced counterinsurgency effort, and LINEBACKER
II - the so-called Christmas bombing of 1972 later that year - that
the British counterinsurgency expert, Sir Robert Thompson concluded
US-ARVN forces "had won the war. It was over."
""We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American
troops, but that wasn't our aim. Our intention was to break the will of
the American government to continue the war."
North
Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140265473/ref=nosim/002-9087822-2988065?n=283155
> >>>> H. L. Mencken said, ah, who am I kidding?>>>
> Not kidding me. I KNOW what Mencken would have said about the current
> idiot in the White House.>>>>
> Speaking of idiots, I wonder what volume horselaugh Henry would have
> thrown your way after you claimed that literary metaphors couldn't
> relate to real life situations, simply because they were fictional.
>>>>They can't. Period. >>>
Then why did Menken constantly talk about "Babbits"?
>>>And "Henry" would agree with me on that.>>>>>>
"Henry" had a special contempt for people who misrepresented his work
while presuming to call him "Henry." He didn't tolerate when the
President of the United States did it, I can't imagine he would have
any more patience when done by a semiliterate like yourself.
>>>He was a cynic, a skeptic, and most of all, a jounalist.>>>
No, most of all, he was an honest man.
He was also an author of fiction. He wrote a novel, short stories and
poetry. In 1908 he began writing as a literary critic for the magazine
The Smart Set. Mencken founded and edited a literary magazine called
The American Mercury, published by Alfred A. Knopf, in January of 1924.
Mencken's influences were Rudyard Kipling, Joseph Conrad, and
especially Mark Twain.
As an editor, Mencken helped launch the careers of leading literary
figures of his time, including Theodore Dreiser, F. Scott Fitzgerald,
and Alfred Knopf. He also championed artists whose works he considered
worthy. In fact, it's been said that the only major writer of the
twenties who's career wasn't guided by Mencken was Hemingway.
One cannot understand Mencken without having read his favorite novel,
"Huckleberry Finn."
> >>> And it would most certainly not be
> flattering. Here[s a sample:
> "It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know
> that you would lie if you were in his place." -- HL Mencken >>>
> If you're saying that Mencken would have said the above about President
> Bush, the implication is that H.L. would have told the same "lies".
> One wonders what Mencken would have thought of the current crop of
> defeatorcrats? He almost certainly would have had friends in the World
> Trade Center - probably several. I don't remember Mencken claiming
> that FDR was involved with Pearl Harbot.
>>>See what I mean by dishonest? This guy is implying that the Iraq war
has something to do with 9/11.>>>>
I did no such thing.
>>>It doesn't. Until Bush invaded and failed to secure the country, Iraq had successfully thwarted
terrorists. There were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion; now
there are. >>>>
If you're talking about terrorists against Saddam, I guess you have a
point. If you are able to round up a third of a million people on a
whim, (women, children and old people included) and drop them into a
mass grave without a trial, I guess terrorism wouldn't be much of a
problem. If you can rape wives in front of their husband, torture
children in front of their parents, and maim athletes for not winning
in the Olympics, I guess cars wouldn't get blown up.
>>>Logically speaking... well... you figure it out... >>>
Logically speaking, Saddam's fascists resent having their privilaged
positions being taken away, and are willing to blow up Iraqi weddings
in the desperate hope of regaining power.
And you're on their side.
> > >>>Hmmm... quite a bit of past tense there. >>>
> Well, it would follow that, if you're referring to your allies in the
> past tense, they are n longer your allies... either they're pissed at
> us, or the war is over... >>>
> Could you answer the fair question I posed without resorting to a
> clumsy dodge?
>>>You don't pose fair questions. >>>
So, the short answer is, no, you don't answer questions.
>>>You assume "facts" not in evidence and
base the questions on them. That's dishonest. Like the title of this
thread, for instance. You say Franken's lying, and yet you cite ZERO
factual errors.>>>
Sure, I did. Franken claimed that Bush said we won the war. The
President said no such thing. Franken lied. You're left claiming the
word "mission" really means "war", and "acomplished" means "total
victory". Sure, such happy horseshit gins up the rubes in the
bleachers, but it galvanizes people on the right while making it
impossible for moderates to vote Democrat.
>>>You pose that, because you disagree with him, he must
be lying. That is intellectually dishonest.>>>
No, Franken stated that Bush claimed the war is over. The president
said no such thing. FRANKEN LIED.
Let's talk a look at how often, and how casually, you lie.
> > You know, for someone who claims to be a Christian,>>>>
This was a lie. I never made any such claim.
> > When, exactly, did I claim to be a Christian?
> Well, you claimed that God talks to you... >>>
Another lie. I never made any such claim.
> When, exactly, did I claim that God talks to me? Be exact, and for a
> major change of pace, truthful.
>>>You quoted the Bible. >>>
Summed up by an idiotic statement. The fact that I quote the Bible
means that I believe God talks to me? Wow, you ARE an idiot, aren't
you? Mencken quoted the Bible all the time. Hell, he WROTE a book
about the Bible - do you believe HE claimed God talked to him?