I've heard the cover story for a long time now - that the banner that flew behind president Bush on March 1, 2003 when he declared a victory in the war on terror (decide for yourself the veracity of that statement) referred to the sailors on the ship, who had, indeed accomplished their mission and done so capably and admirably, and that the president had nothing to do with it.
However, I am also more than certain that the implied message was what president Bush intended to convey, and as Commander in Chief of the military, he could easily have not had that banner flying behind him.
What I want to know, though, is when did the "official" reason for the banner come out? The earliest reference I can see (with my very limited research - school is keeping me very busy today) is from October of 2003, where the White House insisted that, while they made the banner, the Navy requested it and was responsible for it. When did the story get released, and what was the true intent of the President standing in front of the banner to make that speech? Give me dates and links, not speculation.
4 comments:
Here is one, also in October. I think it's safe to say that this is another attempt to abuse language in order to convince us that what we see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears is not to be trusted - we're supposed to let "them" interpret for us. Some people seem more than willing to do this. Unfortunately, I don't see this as one of those issues about which "reasonable people can disagree." It is what it is and what it is is not what the White House would like us to think it is ... like so many other things.
I appreciate your reference, JW, re- the reasonable persons disagreeing, and trust you understand the context in which I used that term.
I tend to follow your line of thought, but have difficulty, sometimes, in reminding myself that not everyone sees things as I see them - Plato's shadows on the rocks, maybe? An intense desire to believe one side because that's where we put our money down? Desperation?
Yes, I think I understand the context. I think we do tend to have similar views, so I understand the need (and the fervent wish) to try and see the other side. But I do think it's okay to recognize when something isn't Plato's shadows. I don't know what motivates willful blindness in some people. Desperation is one possibility. I also think it's always better to be polite, and I applaud your efforts in both trying to understand all sides of an issue and maintaining a courteous tone. From reading you, I have to conclude that you are both smart and polite. Your family will be relieved to know that I think this completely disqualifies you as a political candidate! Haha. Sorry for the length of this comment.
Yes, it's true, I'm courteous. The desire to remain courteous is one of the reasons I recognize litigation is not going to be one of my strong points - but better to recognize that now, rather than later...
Post a Comment