Mission Accomplished? Not So Fast!

I like Joe Gandelman. But I'm disappointed to see him linking to the CNN mission not accomplished pole with this critique of Bush.

This poll cuts to the heart of the Bush administration's key problem — one we predict will be written about in great detail when it passes into history: it has faced and faces a huge credibility problem that isn't due to a biased news media or uncompromising opposition but due to its own verbal choices.

Actually, the reality demonstrates precisely what Joe suggests it doesn't. If one wants to re-visit the Mission Accomplished story, why not tell the complete story via, of all places, CBS. The allegedly objective media Joe would cite hasn't made any effort to do it.

After the news conference, a White House spokeswoman said 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, said the spokeswoman. She said she did not know who paid for the sign.

Later, a Pentagon spokesman called The Associated Press to reiterate that the banner was the crew's idea.

"It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew," Navy Cmdr. Conrad Chun said, adding the president's visit marked the end of the ship's 10-month international deployment.

In his Rose Garden press conference, Mr. Bush told the reporter who asked about the sign: "I think you ought to look at my speech. I said, Iraq is a dangerous place and we've still got hard work to do, there's still more to be done. And we had just come off a very successful military operation. I was there to thank the troops."

The president said his statement "was a clear statement, basically recognizing that this phase of the war for Iraq was over and there was a lot of dangerous work. And it's proved to be right, it is dangerous in Iraq."

In the May 1 speech, Mr. Bush did note that the job in Iraq was not complete, promising "difficult work" in Iraq "bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous," he said.

Later he added: "The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done."

If anyone is making a mistake by proclaiming Mission Accomplished, now ... I'd suggest it's those who seem to be expressing almost a certain glee at the repeated attempts to weaken the Commander In Chief while honorable young men continue to fight and die in a cause every bit as just as necessary as it was when many supported it at the start.

And counting out Bush and or the Republicans this far out from any election would be a big mistake, too.

Comments

[Justin Gardner]

Well, since we're talking about the banner...what about this story from TIME?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. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech.

Even people within the administration doubt their own PR people. Does this mean that the Navy didn't request it? No. But to have such a credibility problem within your own administration back in 2003 points to why this President is in the position he's in.

And do note that this TIME article was published a few days after the CBS one. Again, doesn't mean it's MORE right, but there's the info nonetheless.
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816,536170,00.html

[Justin Gardner]

The quote from the article was this:

"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. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech."

[Sgt. York]

The "Mission Accomplished" statement referred to the end of major combat operations. From a military perspective the war can clearly be divided between the initial invasion/assault (ie, major combat operations) and the current occupation (ie, police operations including security details, manning checkpoints, performing house to house searches, and taking suspects into custody).

Thus, Bush's statement was correct (but confusing to the layman).

[Rick]

Sgt York,
While commendable your attempt to explain "The art of war" to the Bush haters is a waste of time. This after action cleanup in Iraq looks like a picnic compared to Germany 1945-46.

[bobcat]

If you believe the Navy put up the Mission Accomplished banner, I have a friend with $10 million in a Nigerian bank account to introduce you to.

[Geek, Esq.]

Rick:

How many US combat deaths in Germany from 1947-48?

The President tells us that we're turning a corner. I figure that the 24th time must be the charm.

[richard]

Bush's media handlers are extremely hands-on about backdrops, props, clothing, lighting and every other ingredient used to make a good photo opportunity. Nothing is left to chance. There is simply no way that a huge banner hanging over the president's head at a critical moment, his greatest moment, was up there by happenstance. Another example of trying to distance themselves. The ship may have requested the banner, but the Bush handlers did the wording and the graphics and placed it where it would be most prominent. Just this morning I listened to what Bush said on the ship that day. He didn;t say get ready for a long, hard slog. He didn;t sat this was merely the end of major combat operations. It was a declaration of victory, the dawn of a new period for iraq that would focus on rebuilding and freedom, not fighting. It was a declaration that the mission had been accomplished and the fighting all but over. And at the time, that awful liberal media was blown away by it, and Bush's popularity soared to its zenith. Rumsfeld was treated like a rock star, if you can go back to that time. Sadly, just as so many had advised Rumsfeld, security was limited due to too few boots on the ground, and occupying would be far more treacherous than invading. For those of us who really support our troops, this was America's shame, a death sentence for the noble young men and women who sacrificed so much for what was perhaps a noble cause, spoiled by poor planning at the top. And then the carnage began, with thousands of our unsupported troops dead. Mission accomplished, indeed.

[rwilymz]

Richard, I commend your stalwart efforts to type on with tear-filled eyes and the fizzing and popping of the keyboard you were bawling into. You da man!!

But you not da man with any military knowledge or experience with what's goin down.

As York briefly explained, there's a significant difference between combat against known military targets and occupation. If you need to have your hand held through an explanation, I'll attempt to provide one.

Geek, dude, in occupation politics, there's also a significant difference between the defeat of Germany [or Japan, for that matter] and the defeat of Iraq. You want a smooth occupation with a docile civilian population? two methods of achieving that:
1] long, drawn-out war on that civilian homeland;
2] occupation methods on the Ghengis Khan model.

A five- or six-week war doesn't qualify as #1; The US will not do #2. End result: unpacified occupied nation and occupation force casualties.

[tester]

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/iraq-combat/

[rwilymz]

What's this? Someone changed a word? That's so orwellian, idnit?

But congrats on having others do your talking for you. Must make you feel proud to be the intellectual equivalent of a sewer pipe. ...you're simply the conduit...

[tester]

and you the cesspool.

My aren't you full of shit.

[rwilymz]

No, son, I'm what is called in the academic world as "correct". If you disagree, then you are advised to show, with some amount of rational argument, why you believe so and not merely throw rocks.

I work off fact, not belief, and will advise you, if your "arguments" consist of a litany of belifs, to do your "debate" in the voting booth, where the ill-informed opinions of rubes and rednecks have the same weight as the fact-based analysis of the professionals.

If, however, you're willing to also work off fact, then we can actually discuss. And I'll put my 25 years as a DoD analyst in war planning and logistics up against your two courses in political science any day of the week.

'zat okay with you?

[tester]

I know your MO. Re-examine your own work.

25 yrs? well you MUST be correct. What a bunch of hogwash.

[rwilymz]

"well you MUST be correct."

Thanks for noticing.