Smasharoo wrote:
No. It doesn't. Unless you mean by "written" some definition that doesn't exist in the English language, because the only way your argument is valid is if the ships crew either 1) Created the phrase "mission accomplished" which they didn't, or 2) Wrote the phrase on a banner, which they didn't.
Which really doesn't matter anyway. The administration staff knew the banner was there, they knowingly had Bush fly in in a jet fighter, give a speech in his flight suit trying to look all like the warrior king and had the press stand in an area where their photos/film would have the banner as the backdrop to Bush giving his "We won!" speech. Are we supposed to believe that any of this wasn't orchestrated? Of course it was. And it wasn't until people began mocking Bush for "Mission Accomplished!" that the administration started backpedalling.
"Huh? Mission accomplished? We never claimed th--- a banner? What banner? Oh,
that banner? Yeah, that banner behind Bush wasn't ours. Nope. Had no idea. Really, it could have said 'Eat At Joes' for all we knew, we don't think about things like that when planning big victorious photo-ops. Look, that banner was obviously for the ship's crew and any American who saw those photos of Bush in front of a strategically placed banner should have known that it had nothing to do with Bush. Quite honestly, anyone calling themself an American who
isn't intimately familiar with the comings and goings of our Navy's carriers and who would think that banner was for Bush -- well, I just don't know if they should be calling themselves an American. Shame on
them for thinking that banner had something to do with Bush. Shame. On. Them."
All totally innocent, I'm sure. Bush's staff were just like young fawns in the headlights to learn that anyone could misinterpret why Bush would be giving his "Major combat operations are over!" speech in front of a giant banner reading "Mission Accomplished". I'm certain that, had they not been mocked for it, they still would have made sure everyone knew that the two were in no way related and should probably be digitally removed from the photos before using them in any campaign materials or textbooks.
Edited, May 12th 2007 5:50pm by Jophiel