Are we really still talking about this?

I thought I would take a little time out of my lunch break to address something that has been causing proverbial blood to shoot out of my eyes over the last couple of days.

As you may or may not know, yesterday marked the four-year anniversary of President Bush declaring the end of so-called major combat operations in Iraq while standing in front of a now much-parodied banner that said "Mission Accomplished." Detractors of the war -- and the President in general -- often point to this moment in an attempt to discredit and generally ridicule the President and his supporters.

"We haven't accomplished anything," they say. They also point out that troops are still dying four years after the declaration of the end of major combat.

How selective our hearing, memory, and reasoning become when trying to exploit a political point. A little context would be ever so useful in this debate.

First off, it is certainly worth noting that the President's declaration took place on the U.S.S. Abrah@m Linco|n. This is noteworthy because said ship was returning to port after the longest mission of an aircraft carrier since Vietnam. A mission that they had accomplished.

Which brings us to the subject of the now-infamous banner. That banner was requested by personnel on the U.S.S. Linco|n. Granted, the White House went along with it, but what reason was there at the time to tell those sailors that they could not hang a banner stating that their mission had been accomplished?

It's also worth mentioning that the President's speech said nothing about any mission being accomplished. In fact, in his speech he only says the word 'mission' twice, and in both cases he says nothing about them being accomplished. Much to the contrary, he actually says the mission continues.

Most importantly, I would suppose, is the fact that the subject of the whole declaration was in reference to the war against the Iraqi army -- which by all account we demolished in record fashion. Even with that fact, the President said nothing about the job being done, easy, or quick. Here are some examples, however, of things he actually did say (emphasis mine):

"In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."

"We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people."

"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."

I could go on about the asininity of arbitrary withdrawal dates, the general laziness of many in my generation or the selective moral outrage so prevalent in today's politics, (i.e., We can't police a civil war in Iraq, but SUDAN?!?! THERE'S a civil war we can get behind!) but that will just have to wait for another lunch break.

As for now, anyone making political hay out of the anniversary needs to grow up, read a little recent history, and practice some intellectual honesty. Otherwise you're just embarrassing yourself.