Re: 4 years after Bush declares Victory, still no victory

On May 4, 8:26 am, Number 9 <idontlikespam2...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 3, 8:00 am, Horatio Fudruckerton <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On 2 May 2007 20:17:06 -0700, Number 9 <idontlikespam2...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 2, 7:03 pm, Horatio Fudruckerton <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2 May 2007 14:41:36 -0700, Number 9 <idontlikespam2...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 2, 8:58 am, Horatio Fudruckerton <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1 May 2007 17:06:41 -0700, Number 9 <idontlikespam2...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Yes, 4 years after Bush declared we have "prevailed" and declared
"victory", we are still stuck.

And for those of you who will argue that he never declared victory,
you really should go back and re-read his speech. He most certainly
did declare victory.

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror" - G.W. Bush,
May 1st, 2003

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html

FR EXCLUSIVE: "Mission Accomplished" banner was ordered by the Navy,
not by
the White House
NAVY WEBSITE ^ | 5-1-07 | DFU

So did the Navy also order our President to declare victory in the
battle of Iraq, or do you want to blame someone else for that?

Clear your hate filled mind long enough to read the below.

I read it the first 2 times you posted it to this thread. If you
could "clear your hate filled mind" long enough to read my original
post you would see that it wasn't even part of my listing of the
facts, didn't even mention the banner. The declaration of Victory is
quite enough for me, thank you.

What I want to know, and you have been ignoring, is who ordered Bush
to declare Victory in the Battle of Iraq? Or will you finally place
the blame of at least one of Bush's actions on Bush?

If you would watch something besides MSM reports

What is MSM reports?



After searching for "MSM reports" I now understand that this is the
term Republican websites have instructed you to use when referring to
any news sources that contradict them, so you can ignore that question
just like you have been ignoring my other question as I now get the
full picture of who does your thinking for you.

you would know that
we are winning the war in Iraq.

We "won" in Iraq 4 years ago. We then decided we needed to occupy the
country for the next four years, and the actions we have taken during
that occupation have led up to the civil war we now find ourselves in
the middle of.

But, of course, the liberal surrender
monkeys would have you believe otherwise. Victory in Iraq is just not
in the surrender monkeys agenda.

But Bush already declared vicory, 4 years ago. Why did he declare
victory if it wasn't already acheived, in your opinion?





================================================- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What would be Victory?
    ... A stable Iraq with democratically elected officials that don't have a religious and extremist agenda. ... Since that won't happen, we could simply declare victory, come home, and watch the civil war and purgings that would go on in Iraq on Fox and giggle along with the rest of the Fox newscasters. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Of course, Bush could take George Aikens advice
    ... >Declare a victory in Iraq and get out. ... >The late Sen. George Aiken, R-Vt., gave that counsel to both Presidents ... >Bush could legitimately declare that we won. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: 4 years after Bush declares Victory, still no victory
    ... "victory", we are still stuck. ... to declare Victory in the Battle of Iraq? ... in the surrender monkeys agenda. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: OT: Bush Threatens Veto
    ... WMA was a palatable excuse. ... declare victory and pull out. ... projects continue to get funded and babtism-by-fire combat training ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Neocon Silence...shrug.
    ... Yes, declare victory and pull out, despite the shamefulness- that didn't stop the U.S. Cavalry at wounded Knee and it damn sure didn't mean much as Saigon fell in 1975. ... because projects continue to get funded and babtism-by-fire combat training continues to keep the armed forces sharp and combat experienced. ... Why would I want to converse with *you*?! ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
Loading