Okay, I'm distilling "Banner-gate" down to this:

It has now been PROVEN, despite their continued denial, that "Mission Accomplished" was the WHITE HOUSE-SANCTIONED and WHITE HOUSE-PRODUCED message of his aircraft carrier speech. BUSH OUTRIGHT LIED yesterday when he said otherwise. The administration HORRIBLY MISCALCULATED in deciding that the mission was "accomplished", and they STILL refuse to be straight about it.

Some here have argued that we should not run with this issue, saying it is minor. But when the administration backtracks repeatedly within a single day, you know they are in trouble.

Yesterday had the White House issuing a quick "clarification" of Bush's denying that the White house had anything to do with the banner (and by implication, the message in the banner). After the press conference, the White House said that "the Lincoln's crew asked the White House to have the sign made. The White House asked a private vendor to produce the sign, and the crew put it up". (Well, duh, we know Bush didn't put it up!)
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/28/national1931EST0800.DTL)
Of course, they had to admit as much, since evidence had been produced on the web and elsewhere showing that the same background and font was used in the sign as in other Bush backdrops.

Then there's today's NY Times article, which further "clarifies" the origin of the banner (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/politics/29BANN.html). The man responsible for the banner is none other than "Scott Sforza, a former ABC producer now with the White House communications office". That's very different from "a private vendor". Sure, other articles in the past had cited Sforza as stage-managing the event for the White House, but this specifically names him (and thus the White House) as responsible for the sign. In another shift from just yesterday's backtracking, Scott McLellan said "They asked us to do the production of the banner, and we did. They're the ones who put it up."

Clintonesque word-parsing aside, this is a backdrop just like any other Bush backdrop: a White House-sanctioned and White House-produced message intended for public consumption. Their continued denial of such clearly demonstrates how dishonest this administration is, as well as how incompetent they are on foreign policy.

I don't like Joe Lieberman much, but I've got to hand it to him for the following quote:
"Today was another banner day in George Bush's quest to bring honor and integrity to the White House. If he wanted to prove he has trouble leveling with the American people, mission accomplished."
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/iraq/main580661.shtml)

somewhere.... over there!!!

"Bush 2004: The Buck Stops Over There!"

bush* 2004: The Buck Stops "W"here? <-- Nice use for the dubya, huh!

That is a great quote from Lieberman. Now, if only he could admit that he was wrong about the war.

for the banner?

Great minds RS?

that is concocted by the White House.

I think that is the main message to run with.

that doesn't mean that they didn't agree with it.

for them to admit that they conceived and produced the banner, except then they would have to admit that they were all wrong about the mission being accomplished. They must have decided that the heat from the little white banner lie was easier to to take than their misunderstanding of the unaccomplished mission, which really makes them look like fools.

Kudos to Joe. Great quote.:crazy:

... the heat for it, AND it is still revealed that they are the fools you suggest (because they indeed approved the sign, and therefore, it's message).

When Bush lies, it is never a big issue. Just like outing Wilson's wife was no big deal. Just like the loss of Iraqi lives and infrastructure is no big deal...just a part of liberation. What is a big deal is that nothing is ever a big deal this Bush administration.

Can anyone picture Scott Sforza and Karl Rove climbing up and hanging it themselves?
Onboard the ship, the sailors do the work-
Just like when they have the convention in New York next year, they'll be able to say that "trade unionists hung all those signs in support of our ticket and our administration".

The right wing myth is that the Flying Chimp is a straight-shootin, straight-talkin cowpoke who sez what he means and means what he sez. This is cowardly chickening out and word-parsing about the obvious face-value intent of that banner's meaning is a direct contradiction of that myth. The more the reichpunditz have to talk about how well he really didn't mean and they really didn't come up with the idea and actually it meant something else, etc etc etc, the more he's exposed as the phony he truly is, by their own measures of phoniness. It's a tawdry, cowardly, logic-chopping weasel-out utterly at odds with the official hagiography.

And the more he backs off from the plain meaning of it, the more he himself drives home in a potently symbolic way the point that even HE knows Iraq is NOT a "mission accomplished" but a messy incompetent failure. Instead of the photo op that sums up the triumph of iraq, his mealy-mouthed attempt to distance himself from it turns it into a sardonic reminder of what a disaster he has wrought.

... and continually used it against us... then I see ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO LET GO OF THIS ONE EITHER.

This business of being polite and playing fair just for the sake of appearances and for the sake of being able to point out that they AREN'T playing fair gets us NOWHERE.

-- Allen

EXACTLY. They rode such trivialities as an offhand "Love Story" quote and "invented the internet" into the ground (even though they were wrong on both points).

Besides which, we're RIGHT on this one, AND it is something very relevant to policy, to war, to American lives and deaths!

Is Bush THAT immune? If we can't call him on this, we can't call him on anything!