« Copping a plea | Main | Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ »

Must Read on the Mission Accomplished speech

Don Surber has a must read column about what President Bush did and didn't say aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Link via Lucianne. I have some comments of my own about that "mission accomplished" speech here.


Comments (50)

I'm not claiming the U.S. a... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

I'm not claiming the U.S. acts out of pure motives, but what nation has a better record of bringing freedom to others in the world? Many nations faced with an enemy that wants to kill them just to get rid of them would adopt the same attitude. Instead, we once again send our sons to die in a far off land to bring freedom to a downtrodden people. Sadly we are finding out that the religious hatred within Iraq is greater than its people's desire for peace, freedom and prosperity.

The defeat of the U.S. in Iraq may come, but it won't be because we lack the military might to obliterate the enemy, it's because we refuse to match the horrendous deeds that flow from the base nature of those who war in the name of Islam. The enlightened see our restraint as noble, our enemy sees it as weakness, and posterity will only care about the outcome. The question of our time is do the American people have the will to win a noble peace against an enemy that would rather die than allow such a peace?

Great comment Mac but Shril... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Great comment Mac but Shrillary has to satisfy the Hollywood crowd and provide them with another 'Black Hawk Down' segment. She can't let Slick be the only (well actually the third democrat since WWII) cowardly president to sacrafice people's lives for personal gain.

Don Surber misses many vita... (Below threshold)

Don Surber misses many vital points in his brief analysis. A big difference is that in both Germany and Japan, most persons actually repected and trusted their American occupation forces and expected fair treatment from them because they actually held a positive view of the U.S. values.

In Berlin, while the Russian forces were advancing, a force of teenage boys and old men with antitank weapons held off Russian tanks as long as they could so that as many Germans as possible could surrender to the American forces because they trusted the Americans far more than the Russians.

America even began the Berlin Airlift to bring food supplies to Germans in Berlin when angry Russians attempted to starve the population out of anger over the war nnd to gain complete political contol over them.

What was wrong with the infamous Mission Accomplished speech should be obvious. It was a premature declaration of military victory over a very weak Saddam Hussein regime that suffered from 12 years of UN sanctions, had few good working heavy weapons left from the 1991 war, and would hardly be the major challenge that the U.S. would face in Iraq. It was an absolute certainty that the toughest job in Iraq would only be ahead.

Iraq had a very troubled history with the disasterous 1922-1958 British occupation after the defeat of the WWI Ottoman Empire of Turkey, and any wise observer could only expect old historic sectarian troubles to build at some point in an occupation of this complex troubled state. The first President Bush rejected an occupation of Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War because of all the complexity of security this nation and the troubled history as one of the worst MidEast defeats for Britain during the 1958 Iraqi Rebellion.

Problems in the MidEast tend to be very difficult and can last centuries rather than days, months or years. Look at the problems that Israel faces which date back to the Old Testament for example.

Flexing our military might ... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Flexing our military might and crushing Saddam like the bug he was was a piece of cake and real fun to watch on the TV. Americans oohed and aahed at our high tech weaponry as the shock and awe blitzkreig rolled into Baghdad. We all wondered when Saddam would use his WMDs that posed such an imminent threat. Would there be mushroom clouds in the desert? Now we know why there weren't. Hmmm...if we really were so sure that the Iraqis had all those chem/bio/nuke weapons ready to strike it would seem kind of reckless to send our troops marching into harm's way. Perhaps they knew the truth.

Bush could just as well have sat at a desk and solemnly, in a manner more befitting the leader of a nation that has taken the huge step of asking its citizens to die for its causes, announced the end of combat operations in Iraq. But no, he and his handlers chose to concoct a sham, a shameless PR moment. Dressed in a flight suit he did his best to avoid wearing during his cushy stint defending Texas, he pops out of his jet and swaggers across the deck of a carrier like he just returned from personally strafing Saddam's palace, carefully staged so that San Diego wouldn't be visible in the background. What his "bring 'em on" bluster cleverly hid was that from this point on he and his crew of nation-building warhawks had no idea what they were in for. He had fired or marginalized all who had attempted to warn him of the cost and consequences of his invasion and occupation of a foreign land had had never taken the time to learn about. They had no idea the shithole they charged into was so large and deep.

This episode is emblematic of Bush's failure as president. Spin it, sell it, talk tough, never mind the details and the reality. For this he deserves every bit of ridicule and scorn he gets. Four years later it looks more cynical than it did then.

"Hmmm...if we really were ... (Below threshold)
Ben:

"Hmmm...if we really were so sure that the Iraqis had all those chem/bio/nuke weapons ready to strike it would seem kind of reckless to send our troops marching into harm's way."

Reckless, Groucho? Don't you know that a mobile, protected force moving quickly through desert is the hardest, most difficult target for chemical weapons? Chemical agents degrade so rapidly between the heat and humidity, and lethal concentrations so difficult to achieve given the winds and the wide dispersal of the targets, that they are actually LESS effective in these conditions than old fashioned conventional munitions! The force on the move would also be much harder to target with chemical weapons compared to the same force in static positions in Kuwait! The SAFEST thing, if WMD use was expected, was to start moving, fast, through windy hot desert, in protected armored vehicles. Since you don't know these things, you are not qualified to discuss. This is the problem with war today- it has become technically and scientifically complex to the point where only a handful actually understand the issues, but everyone else thinks they know better. Start educating yourself, for example, start researching the concentrations you need of various chemical weapons to cause significant casualties to troops under a range of conditions.

Ben

What was wrong wit... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
What was wrong with the infamous Mission Accomplished speech should be obvious.

The first thing that should be obvious is that there was no such speech. The second mistake is only obvious in hindsight. That is the President's staff should have prepared a cartoon to show the MSM before the speech that explained that the banner behind the President was put their (and now confirmed) by the ship's crew and for the ship's crew as it returned to home port after the longest deployment of an aircraft carrier in the last 30 years. We have also heard from sailors who have seen the same exact banner on other ships returning from 'missions" prior to the Iraq invasion. The connection with the banner and the President's speech is based on ignorance and nothing more, yet so many libs proudly parrot it.

I don't recall any libs claiming it was obvious Saddam's military wouldn't be able to put up much of a fight BEFORE the invasion. Overall I think libs have difficulty with a concept some know as the flow of time.

Well Ben, thanks for the ch... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Well Ben, thanks for the chemical weapon update, but it doesn't really change my opinion that the administration wasn't really worried about WMDs because they knew there weren't any.

So they had the troops stay... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

So they had the troops stay in CWD gear, ready to mask at a moment's notice, just for grins? I've had to be in that stuff for four hours at a stretch for training purposes - and it was hot and uncomfortable in a 70 degree classroom. I don't like to think what it must have been like in the desert.

In my opinion, your opinion is based on ignorance and an unwillingness to learn the facts that you're opining on.

Mac Lorry, many liberals op... (Below threshold)

Mac Lorry, many liberals opponents before the 2003 couldn't have been more forceful in warning that Saddam Hussein was politically and militarily contained, and that his military was so weakened that he was no threat beyond his own borders.

It was only his cruelty to his own people that may have moved some liberals to believe that he should be removed from power. But many others knew that UN sanctions had so weakened the Saddam Hussein government and military that he was hardly the regional threat that he once was with the huge buildup of his arms by the Reagan Administration to counter Iran during the 1980's Iran-Iraq War.

In my opinion, you... (Below threshold)
Eric Forhan:
In my opinion, your opinion is based on ignorance and an unwillingness to learn the facts that you're opining on.

Perhaps, though I tend to think the liberals want to believe in an omnipotent/omniscient US government who would know Hussein had no weapons, that a few men from the Middle East couldn't fly aircraft into big buildings without the gov't knowing, and so forth. There's a certain fear and vulnerability associated with their not knowing.

At least, that's my theory. Your mileage may vary.

Paul Hooson:It... (Below threshold)
marc:

Paul Hooson:

It was a premature declaration of military victory over a very weak Saddam Hussein regime that suffered from 12 years of UN sanctions, had few good working heavy weapons left from the 1991 war, and would hardly be the major challenge that the U.S. would face in Iraq.

You need to remind a few Generals and alleged pundits with expertise in war fighting of that.

Many of them predicted thousands of U.S. casualties during the march to Baghdad.

"..the banner behind the Pr... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"..the banner behind the President was put their (and now confirmed) by the ship's crew.." Mac L

O-Really! That is not what the White House said:
"We took care of the production of it," McClellan said. "We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."

"We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein.

Marc, American generals wer... (Below threshold)

Marc, American generals were wary of possible Iraqi use of mustard gas or other desperation weapons to defend his regime, and were prepared for the worst with the assault on Baghdad. George Bush did personally tell Rev. Pat Robertson, a former Republican candidate for president, that he didn't expect any American causualties though. So both views did emerge from the war planners.

At least Surber didn't try ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

At least Surber didn't try to push the line that it was a navy banner. We've made progress there, anyway.

Paul Hooson, well as long a... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Paul Hooson, well as long as we're pretending we knew than what we know now then the libs should have known the UN sanctions were about to collapse given Saddam's success in bribing officials in the UN, France and Russia. They should have also known that with no sanctions and billions of oil dollars Saddam would soon be in a position to visit death and destruction on those who so humiliated him in the first Gulf war (that would be us). It seems many libs like to play the hindsight game to criticize Bush, but then keep their heads in the sand when considering the danger we would now be in had that madman been left in power.

I'm sure all the liberals h... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

I'm sure all the liberals here were one-time sailors and can speak from experience regarding navy banners and such. No? I'm shocked.

I was on a sub in 98 when we bombed Iraq and Kosovo under Clinton. It was the 1st time a sub had been in combat twice in a single deployment since WWII, and we went all out to celebrate our return to port. We had brooms to indicate 2 "clean sweeps," patches and banners for the occasion, etc. before we pulled in. Once we pulled in we had press and photos, ceremonies... the works. And that was for around 120 guys after two bombings that weren't even part of a war. Carriers have over 6k sailors onboard and tend to do things MUCH bigger than everyone else anyway. Returning from deployment is ALWAYS a big deal, never mind a deployment from combat involving the president.

"What was wrong with the in... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"What was wrong with the infamous Mission Accomplished speech should be obvious. It was a premature declaration of military victory over a very weak Saddam Hussein regime that suffered from 12 years of UN sanctions, had few good working heavy weapons left from the 1991 war, and would hardly be the major challenge that the U.S. would face in Iraq. It was an absolute certainty that the toughest job in Iraq would only be ahead."

It should be if you had some brains and listened to what he actually said while aboard.

"Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.."

"Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed."

"The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory. (Applause.)"


"Hmmm...if we really were so sure that the Iraqis had all those chem/bio/nuke weapons ready to strike it would seem kind of reckless to send our troops marching into harm's way. Perhaps they knew the truth."

Ya right you moron. You think they would have been wearing those Bio/Chem suits in 100+ degree weather?

"But no, he and his handlers chose to concoct a sham, a shameless PR moment. Dressed in a flight suit he did his best to avoid wearing during his cushy stint defending Texas, he pops out of his jet and swaggers across the deck of a carrier like he just returned from personally strafing Saddam's palace"

Brian , you truly are the most despicable low down hating imbecile. First of all , Handlers? that's a democrat party must AKA the liberal media , especially for the screeching ashtray throwing Rodham Billary. The rest of your whiny jealous rant is just that , jealousy. You just can't stand thye fact that you defend your party of criminal dirtbags and treasonous liars. What's the matter? Didn't you know the Democrats were a bunch of criminal lying jackoffs? Your hatred for Bush and your lame assertions are nothing more than your disgust for your party leaders and the embarrassment of having to defend them. A choice you make every single waking day. Just for today, I will defend these dirtbag commiecrats anmd then tomorrow comes ,day after day after day. It's you that is stuck in a quagmire.LOL

O-Really! That is ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
O-Really! That is not what the White House said:

When did you start believing what the White House says? Like I said and you have now confirmed it was the crew who put up the banner and it was for their benefit as they returned from their mission. We have had navy vets here on Wizbang post their first hand accounts of banners with the exact phrase being draped across other ships returning to port after their mission from before the Iraq invasion. Yes, the U.S. government has people who make such banners and send them to ships returning to home port. What, you thought Kinkos was in charge of that?

Funny, but right after Reid... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Funny, but right after Reid says we lost the war, Webb said we won it long ago:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013927.php

brainy435,Your sub... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

brainy435,

Your sub might have had a disco ball, but the Lincoln had no banner before a White House ordered one made, delivered it, and even put it up themselves. (Yes, even put it up. I imagine the squids did the hanging-out of the hatch part, though.)

Navy ships put up banners a... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Navy ships put up banners and the like all the time. If the ship wanted a better banner for TV after learning that the President was going to be broadcasting live from the ship, I can't see why it'd be such a conspiracy for the administration to help them out.

And we never did get the disco ball... even though we asked for one when our XO developed the horrifying tendancy to wake us up for field days with Bee Gees "songs."

I still have nightmares about that.... would that be considered PTSD?

MacL, boy are you in denial... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

MacL, boy are you in denial. You can't even see the lie in front of your eyes. First the WH said they had nothing to do with the sign. Then it was the Navy's idea but we made it. Finally they admitted the whole idea was theirs.

The President said major combat operations ended. Was that true? How come we now have more troops in Iraq than when we invaded? Is the surge a "major combat operation"?

MacL, if you do not believe... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

MacL, if you do not believe me, will you believe the President?

Here is what Bush said one year later:
"A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we had accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein," Bush said. GWB 4/30/04

There you go that pesky "mission accomplished" phrase keeps popping up.

Rob LA Ca,That wou... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Rob LA Ca,

That would be me as the "most despicable low down hating imbecile", not Brian. Just for the record. I know you worked hard crafting that thoughtful, well-reasoned piece and I figured you'd want to give credit where credit was due. Plus, I'm sure it took some time to clean all the spittle from your keyboard.

Sincerely,

your pal groucho

MacL, boy are you ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
MacL, boy are you in denial. You can't even see the lie in front of your eyes.

Yes I can see the lie in front of my eyes, but it's not coming from the White House. It's the libs who want to take the banner out of context and apply it to the entire Iraq conflict, and that's the lie.

Being the President is the Commander in Chief of the military I don't doubt him and his staff get involved in giving orders to the military and also in acknowledging the accomplishments of groups returning home. The fact is the ship was returning from the longest mission for an aircraft carrier in the last 30 years. Like other ships the Commander in Chief acknowledged this ship's return by sending them a banner to drape across the superstructure as the ship returned to home port. Other ships have been sent similar banners and even banners with the same exact phrase from before the Iraq war started, so this was not something cooked up just for this ship.

You quote Fleischer as saying "mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein." Do you dispute that the mission to topple Saddam had been accomplished? Do you dispute that Bush never said "mission accomplished" in his speech from the flight deck? Do you dispute that Bush said "We have difficult work to do in Iraq." in his speech from the flight deck? Do you dispute that Bush said "Our mission continues. Al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people." his speech from the flight deck?

The President said major combat operations ended. Was that true? How come we now have more troops in Iraq than when we invaded? Is the surge a "major combat operation"?

Like other libs you also seem to have problems understanding the flow of time. Do you really think Bush can see the future as you now see the past? Major combat operation had ended, but Bush didn't say there would be no need for more major combat operation in the future. In fact, no one can say that.

I expect you post here for entertainment, and so you don't care what credibility your words carry. When you twist the obvious facts and invoke hindsight to make a case against Bush you destroy any credibility you might otherwise have. Lord knows there have been plenty of mistakes made in connection with Iraq, but libs waist their credibility on phony topics like the Mission Accomplished banner. Maybe such tactics work on the sound byte crowd, but they don't work with people who engage in on-line debate.

Through all the BS I still ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Through all the BS I still don't see where GW said the war is over. Anyone who served in the military knows the difference between a mission and a war victory. Some are either playing dumb or are dumb. ww

So, barney, you're mad beca... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

So, barney, you're mad because the president "lied" by saying we "accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein?"

Refresh my memory, where was Saddam at that time?

Mac and Brainy:Thi... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Mac and Brainy:

This is just another example where the administration tells a lie for no reason.

Don't say the Navy put up the sign to acknowledge the completion of their mission (USS Abe Lincoln), say it was for removing Saddam.

Don't say that Bownie is doing a heck-of-a-job, say the performance is not acceptable.

Don't say the U.S.A. were fired for performance reasons, say they were replaced because we wanted new people in place.

I could go on and on. It is not just the lying (which is bad enough) but they lie all the time and for no reason. It is if they are not able to tell the truth.

Brainy,I'm sure a... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Brainy,
I'm sure all the liberals here were one-time sailors and can speak from experience regarding navy banners and such. No?
Just because someone likes seamen on the poop deck doesn't make them a sailor.

Barney, I agree wit... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney,
I agree with you that liberals have been lying all the time for no reason. The military had no problem with it since it is a standard procedure for them. Only the liberals in the press and elsewhere kept trying to put the words that are not in there and when caught red-handed, turn around and lie some more.
We have several examples of Dems/liberals not being able to tell the truth then and now.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/stacks/democrat.guest.html

BTW, sorry to bring up the ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW, sorry to bring up the liberal version of "supporting the troops". They are totally upset the when the commander-in-chief gave an encouragement to the troops for a mission well done. However, liberals have no problem when Harry Reid send an encouragement signal to the terrorists to continue their carnage against women/children and our troops.

"WE have several examples..... (Below threshold)
groucho:

"WE have several examples..." You and Rush? That's a hoot. Personally I prefer listening to people who can look back and admit they were wrong rather than those who insist they were right then and are still right, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (Hint: GWB)

Groucho,It was right... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Groucho,
It was right to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Bush admitted a failure of intelligence and ordered an investigation in order to improve it to fight against the terrorists. That 's how we got some of AlQ big fishes in Iraq. That 's real adjustment to the imprecise nature of intelligence.

What have the dems/liberals have done? Have they tried to improve intelligence to fight the terrorists? Or are they trying to encourage the terrorists to fight on for their political power?

Simple question for you again: if the terrorists failed in Iraq, good things or bad things will happen to

(a) the terrorists and their sponsors (in Iran for example)
(b) the Dem party

I couldn't agree less. It w... (Below threshold)
groucho:

I couldn't agree less. It was irresponsible and short-sighted to get rid of Saddam. We didn't just get rid of him, we destabilized even further a volatile area of the world and poured fuel on the fire of terrorism by invading and occupying a sovereign nation. The real failure here is the leadership of this country and the overwhelming majority of Americans know this. The jig is up.

Groucho,Then pick ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Groucho,

Then pick it up with these guys here. They gave us all the warnings before 9/11 and you expect Bush to treat them as hot-air? These guys simply don't want to take responsibility do they? Do you want to entrust the national security to these guys?


Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002


"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."


Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- *it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives.*"


Groucho,poured fuel ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Groucho,
poured fuel on the fire of terrorism by invading and occupying a sovereign nation.
-------------------------------------------------
We didn't invade Iraq before 9/11, why did it happen? Looks like before 9/11 it got progressively worse (from 1st WTC bombing, Khobar Tower, the coles ... to 9/11). Bin Laden gives us hint: he is expecting to cut and run at the first sight of difficulty and that 's why they got bold. Unfortunately, the dems are busy trying to prove Bin Laden 's point.

To those who are on the rig... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

To those who are on the right side of this discussion. Why argue with these idiots. Maybe if we do not respond to their abject stupidity they will go away. They will not learn, they accept no truth and the fabricate responses. Divert honest discussion and troll troll troll. Nothing seems to change them. It is always the same ones and I think we should just talk around them like they do not exist.

"We still have 69,000 tr... (Below threshold)

"We still have 69,000 troops in Germany, 62 years after V-E Day. We still have 47,000 troops in Japan and another 12,000 in Italy.

The U.S. military has more than 165,000 troops stationed in those four nations decades after their wars ended (technically, the Korean War is in a 53-year cease-fire)."

Strange that the MSM never bring these facts up.
I suppose they are just inconvenient truths that do not support their agenda, so...

That is the President's ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

That is the President's staff should have prepared a cartoon to show the MSM before the speech that explained that the banner behind the President was put their (and now confirmed) by the ship's crew

"We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said.

Like I said and you have now confirmed it was the crew who put up the banner

Huh?

Maybe this will help:

Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner -- contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months.
The U.S. military has mo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The U.S. military has more than 165,000 troops stationed in those four nations decades after their wars ended (technically, the Korean War is in a 53-year cease-fire)."

Strange that the MSM never bring these facts up.

Those troops are not in active combat, getting blown up or shot, having their tours repeatedly extended, having their rotations home cut short, being sent to Walter Reed, or developing mental health problems at alarming rates. Strange that you didn't bring these facts up.

There is obviously a discon... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

There is obviously a disconnect between the information and the brain of some of those here. Particularly those who' name begin with B. The sign is more important and who made it than what the President said in front of that sign. What a bunch of idiots. I would like to point out that we are not fighting Saddam's army in Iraq. I know one of the B's will chime in, oh yes, some of them served in the Army. No longer idiot. Our purpose in the middle east is not to force christianity on them, but their purpose is to force islam on the world. It is just amazing the people on the left refuse to take the enemy at their word. Bin Laudin states America does not have the stomach for a long fight, and guess what, the left and the B's back him up. What ever happened to the time when we shot traitors? You are either with us or against us. That is your choice but don't call yourself a patriot if you want America to end this conflict without a victory. The title of this piece was "must read on the Mission Accomplished Speech". Not about signs. Why is it difficult for those who wish to distract to follow logical thought when discussing matters here?

Hey, it was one of your<... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Hey, it was one of your side who brought up the banner, ZR. Take your complaints and your lack of comprehension to him.

Brian,Fleischer co... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Brian,

Fleischer correctly indicated what the banner meant, but he was mistaken about who's idea it was in the first place and who actually put up the banner. Maybe this will help:

White House press secretary Scott McClellan later acknowledged that the sign was produced by the White House. He said the warship's crew, at sea for 10 months, had requested it. "The original idea for the banner was suggested by those on the ship," McClellan said. "They asked if we would take care of the production of the banner. The banner was a way to commemorate the sailors and crew onboard the ship and the fact that they had accomplished their mission after a lengthy deployment." -- Oct. 29, 2003 Washington Post:
I think the public ought to just listen to what the President has to say. You know that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was put up by members of the USS Abraham Lincoln. And the President, on that very speech, said just the opposite, didn't he? He said it was the end of major combat operations, but he did not say it was the end of operations....That single episode has been more widely mischaracterized than just about any aspect of the war" - Tony Snow Jan 9, 2007
"Engineered by the most ima... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"Engineered by the most image-conscious White House in history.."

Heh. Any asshole that can write THAT after the Clinton administration is either a boldfaced liar or working for the Onion.

You could just look here for the truth:
"Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it."


"Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, defended the president's assertion.

"The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea," Chun said.

"The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment," he said, noting the Abraham Lincoln was deployed 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history. "

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/


It's funny how the official, sourced story is distorted 4 days later when a columnist who is unconcerned with facts gets his shot at it.

B* is a perfect example of ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

B* is a perfect example of what 's wrong with liberalism these days. They live in a virtual world. They simply spout spins. When caught, just move on to the next one without even a hint of shame.

It's funny how the offic... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It's funny how the official, sourced story is distorted 4 days later when a columnist...

...quotes Ari Fleischer, White House official.

Yeah, quoting White House officials is "spouting spin". Ooooookay!

Mac, why you think Fleischer was mistaken and Snow was right, rather than the other way around, is unclear. At best, conflicting statements make the truth harder to know.

The link brainy435 posted a... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

The link brainy435 posted also has the Navy supporting what Scott McClellan said. If you read the story brainy435 linked you'll see the following statement:

At the time of the event, Democrats worried President Bush would use his speech and the dramatic landing for political gain.

On Tuesday, Democratic presidential candidates, hoping to make it a political liability for Bush, accused him of trying to shift blame for the stagecraft to the Navy.

The Democrats allies in the MSM pressed the attack and Fleischer either spoke without knowing the facts or just wanted to get the press off his back.

According to Bob Woodward an earlier draft of Bush's speech did have the phrase "Mission Accomplished" in it, but when Rumsfeld saw it he said "I almost died because mission accomplished was in the speech. And he said, I got it out of the speech but I didn't get the sign down."

at the Jan 9, 2007 press conference Tony Snow said "You're right, after people had been on a 17-month deployment, and had said "Mission Accomplished" when they're finally able to get back to their loved ones, the President didn't say, take down the sign, it will be bad. Instead what he did is he talked about the mission. And I would direct you back to the speech he gave then"

Rumsfeld knew the phrase would be trouble, but Bush didn't want to tell the crew of the Lincoln that they couldn't have THEIR banner on their ship.

"B* is a perfect example of... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"B* is a perfect example of what 's wrong with liberalism these days. They live in a virtual world. They simply spout spins. When caught, just move on to the next one without even a hint of shame."

That is the fact of the matter. Democrats are a party of criminal liars and perpetual frauds. There is absolutely no denying this, yet they will of course. Keep it alive lowlifes keep it alive . The Perpetual fraud cannot die because the Rats will die with it. It just a matter of time , tick tock tick tock.

Brainy435. I want you to k... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Brainy435. I want you to know you are not among the B's I refer to above. Yours is always a "right on" post. You opinion is valued, your facts are facts not spin like the other Bs. I still don't know why we engage these fools. It serves no purpose. If this place followed the lead of Kos, they would have been banned a long time ago. I wonder if they are Soros paid trolls.

ZR3, no problemo.A... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

ZR3, no problemo.

As far as engaging those like Barney and his ilk, it's kind of like Wack-A-Mole: You KNOW the damn things gonna pop back up again no matter how hard you hit it.

But it's still fun to wack it on the head.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy