[besson3c]

Today is the anniversary of the whole aircraft carrier thing.

Discuss.

[DakarÊ’]

We still have a lot of hard work ahead of us?

[besson3c]

We sure do! Good point...

[peeb]

Think Progress » ‘Mission Accomplished’ By The Numbers

[goMac]

I heard today there were some people outside the White House with a giant "Mission Accomplished?" banner.

[Rumor]

If the mission was to get a lot of people killed, then yes, it is accomplished.

[Rumor]

Cue Kevin to enter and lecture us on the true meaning of the phrase "Mission Accomplished".

[BRussell]

Clinton said "Mission Accomplished" too!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Clinton said "Mission Accomplished" too!

Are you playing devil's advocate, or is that really a point you wish to argue?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Bush is not a good speaker. This is not disputed. What's the point of beating a dead horse? Even if he consciously outright lied about the "mission" being "accomplished" (and the evidence could go either way, honestly) there's nothing to be done about it. That's not the type of thing that could get him impeached if true, and he doesn't face another election again.

By obsessing over this, Bush's opponents just make themselves look petty and useless. I dislike Bush as much as the next guy, but drop it already.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Bush is not a good speaker.

It has nothing to do with his speaking. Actually he didn't even say "Mission Accomplished," it was a sign. It's the ultimate symbol of what virtually everyone now recognizes as one of the most misguided policies in modern US history, that the president is still wholeheartedly pursuing. Comparing where we stand now to where he said we were supposed to be is called holding someone responsible. If we don't do it now, we'll still be there in another 4 years, dying and killing and just generally screwing things up there even further.

But yeah, his critics are being mean to poor bumbling Georgie, that's what's really important.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Sorry, communicator, not speaker.

He did get rid of Saddam. "Is the world better off without Saddam in charge of Iraq than it was with him?" There's certainly no clear-cut objectively correct answer, but there's also certainly no doubt what answer Bush and his supporters would give. In that light, "mission accomplished" is a perfectly reasonable thing to say (or...write).

"Holding someone responsible?" What does that mean? How does it translate into action? I'm not talking about hurting his feelings, I'm talking about looking as if you're all talk.

Obsessing over something from 3 years ago, something that is easily interpretable in two opposite ways, something which you know doesn't say the same thing to your opponents that it does to you, seems counterproductive.

[hyteckit]

That "mission accomplished" banner image will forever be in our history books.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Sorry, communicator, not speaker.

He did get rid of Saddam. "Is the world better off without Saddam in charge of Iraq than it was with him?" There's certainly no clear-cut objectively correct answer, but there's also certainly no doubt what answer Bush and his supporters would give. In that light, "mission accomplished" is a perfectly reasonable thing to say (or...write).

"Holding someone responsible?" What does that mean? How does it translate into action? I'm not talking about hurting his feelings, I'm talking about looking as if you're all talk.

Obsessing over something from 3 years ago, something that is easily interpretable in two opposite ways, something which you know doesn't say the same thing to your opponents that it does to you, seems counterproductive.

Holding someone responsible means that when they make policy, you examine their previous policies for evidence of accuracy and, uh, accomplishment. But this is not just looking back at the past. We are still in the middle of this. They are still pursuing the same policy that was so blind then and remains blind. To say, like you, "oh don't be so mean to poor George, that war is just water under the bridge now" is laughable. We're not talking about the past, we're talking about the present.

Uncle Skeleton, this is not just politics. We're in the middle of a war, dying and killing real people, that was so out of touch with reality that they claimed it was over, we were successful, and we were ready to leave. Instead, it had actually just begun, and it was anything but successful.

And no one interprets that day in easily opposite ways except the most blind Bush partisans. The message was crystal clear, and absolutely false. Here's an interesting retrospective about what was being said by the administration and the press on that day four years ago. A few excerpts:

May 1, 2003

This is the formalization that tells everybody we're not engaged in combat anymore, we're prepared for getting out,'' a senior administration official said.
...
The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today.

"He won the war," boomed MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Three things which aren't related:

1. I'm not saying "don't be mean to him," I'm saying harping on this particular issue doesn't hurt him. Pick something better

2. While I admit I wasn't watching very closely, I never got the feeling that Bush thought he had won the war. I can see how people opposed to the war, as I am, could get that impression, because we so very much wanted the war to be over, and people have a tendency to see what they want to see. But what Chris Matthews says is a far cry from what Bush says, especially when it comes to accountability.

3. What is the opposition plan anyway? Is it to pull out, same as what they think Bush said he wanted to do 4 years ago? If so, it's a little hypocritical to criticize Bush for saying it, whether he actually did or not.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

3. What is the opposition plan anyway? Is it to pull out, same as what they think Bush said he wanted to do 3 years ago? If so, it's a little hypocritical to criticize Bush for saying it, whether he actually did or not.

This has truly short-circuited my brain. Because the Bush administration wrongly claimed we'd be leaving Iraq four years ago, it's hypocritical for people to say we should get out now?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Bush is not a good speaker. This is not disputed. What's the point of beating a dead horse? Even if he consciously outright lied about the "mission" being "accomplished" (and the evidence could go either way, honestly) there's nothing to be done about it. That's not the type of thing that could get him impeached if true, and he doesn't face another election again.

As long as people are still dying because of Bush's lies, they won't be a dead horse. But "Mission Accomplished" wasn't about lying -- that was earlier with the WMDs. The Mission Accomplished scandal was about Bush overriding the Pentagon and not planning at all for Iraq after the initial invasion.

I don't this is a dead horse today, either, because Bush is staying the same course of incompetence as he was back then. The same people are in charge (except Rumsfeld finally, finally left). We still don't have a strategy. Bush has vetoed the Democrats' bill without suggesting any strategy of his own. Staying the course (and sending Cheney out to call everyone who disagrees a terrorist) is pretty stale.

You're right that Bush won't be up for election, and so in that sense won't be held accountable for his lies and incompetence. But history will certainly judge him accountable. It's easy to imagine the shot of Bush in front of his banner in history books for a long time. It's a strong symbol of Bush's presidency -- his complete incompetence and utter disconnect from reality. In Bush retrospectives and documentaries, I think that image will show up all the time.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

it's hypocritical for people to say we should get out now?

No, I quite clearly said it's hypocritical to criticize Bush for saying the same thing 4 years ago that you're saying now.

I'd still like you to confirm: is withdrawal the alternative strategy to Bush's?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, I quite clearly said it's hypocritical to criticize Bush for saying the same thing 4 years ago that you're saying now.

Hmm, I don't really see how that differs from how I characterized what you said. No Democrats criticized Bush for "calling for withdrawal" in 2003. They criticize him for claiming that "major combat operations were over" when they weren't.

I'd still like you to confirm: is withdrawal the alternative strategy to Bush's?

There are many different alternatives, including partitioning Iraq into three autonomous regions. But the most obvious plan on the table is the bill that Bush vetoed today: Set a timeline of benchmarks that Iraq has to meet, and set a flexible withdrawal timeline over the next year or two based on whether the benchmarks are met.

Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is. I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.

* I didn't say those last two sentences, someone else did. Guess who.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Hmm, I don't really see how that differs from how I characterized what you said. No Democrats criticized Bush for "calling for withdrawal" in 2003.

But it seems like you're criticizing him now for what he was saying 4 years ago.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

2. While I admit I wasn't watching very closely, I never got the feeling that Bush thought he had won the war. I can see how people opposed to the war, as I am, could get that impression, because we so very much wanted the war to be over, and people have a tendency to see what they want to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GJUGUYsm68

Perception management.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But it seems like you're criticizing him now for what he was saying 4 years ago.

Time heals all wounds you mean?

Sure the total death toll of at least 70,000; to as many as 655,000+ total excess deaths due to the war (second Lancet survey of mortality), 3,312 U.S. soldiers dead. 24,645 wounded in action, of which 11,030 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours. An additional 6,991 non-hostile injuries and 19,197 diseases (both requiring medical air transport) is forgivable. And on top of that the total financial costs of more than $400 billion total.

All since "mission accomplished".


Yes. Yes. Time heals all wounds.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Have you been reading? I'm commenting on the fact that the criticism is of a position that's the same as that of the critics, namely that it's time to start bringing the troops home. Time has nothing to do with it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

YouTube - Mission Accomplished

Perception management.

I want my 3 minutes back. What brain malfunction made you think that clip has any relevance? It's from before the speech even happened, besides the obvious fact that holding Bush responsible for things Peter Jennings said, while speculating about what Bush was going to say later that day, is quite frankly retarded.

[- - e r i k - -]

Well, you can hardly blame us for criticising his inane speech of "end of major combat" four years ago then. It was stupid back then, but is just a tragedy in today's context.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I want my 3 minutes back. What brain malfunction made you think that clip has any relevance? It's from before the speech even happened, besides the obvious fact that holding Bush responsible for things Peter Jennings said, while speculating about what Bush was going to say later that day, is quite frankly retarded.

And that speculation had nothing to about what President Bush had planned to say?

When he received an advance copy of the speech, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took care to remove any use of the phrase "Mission Accomplished" in the speech itself. Later, when journalist Bob Woodward asked him about his changes to the speech, Rumsfeld responded:"I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it's too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back… they fixed the speech, but not the sign."[6]

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Have you been reading? I'm commenting on the fact that the criticism is of a position that's the same as that of the critics, namely that it's time to start bringing the troops home. Time has nothing to do with it.

What in the world are you talking about? The Bush administration isn't being criticized for saying 4 years ago that the troops should come home, they're being criticized for claiming and believing that the mission was accomplished, when it wasn't. They're being criticized for saying the troops were coming home when in fact they didn't come home.

How you can come up with this nonsense but claim not to be a blind Bush bottom-20-percenter, I don't know...

[besson3c]

I posted this to see whether you guys would still get into obsessing over these details or not.

To me, it doesn't matter at all what Bush said or meant to say in his aircraft carrier speech. The hanging banner is merely a footnote.

There is plenty of damning evidence which suggests that the Bush administration grossly underestimated what would be required to succeed in Iraq. "We will be treated as liberators" and "The insurgence is in their last throws" are two examples.

This is what is really important. Would anybody like to debate the virtual fact that the administration had no realistic idea what it would take to succeed, and thought that the war would be over by now? To me, this is at the heart of the matter...

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I posted this to see whether you guys would still get into obsessing over these details or not.

To me, it doesn't matter at all what Bush said or meant to say in his aircraft carrier speech. The hanging banner is merely a footnote.

There is plenty of damning evidence which suggests that the Bush administration grossly underestimated what would be required to succeed in Iraq. "We will be treated as liberators" and "The insurgence is in their last throws" are two examples.

This is what is really important. Would anybody like to debate the virtual fact that the administration had no realistic idea what it would take to succeed, and thought that the war would be over by now? To me, this is at the heart of the matter...

"Mission Accomplished" is just the most glaring example of exactly what you're saying.

[ironknee]

what a horrible mess.