The left is commemorating the fourth anniversary of President Bush's speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln during which he stood behind a banner hoisted by the ship's crew which stated "Mission Accomplished." One can understand why the left wants to focus on this event; doing so is much easier than engaging in a responsible discussion of the consequences of abandoning Iraq. But an intellectually honest left would be more attentive to what actually happened aboard the ship that day.
First, as Ed Morissey points out, it was appropriate for the crew to assert that its mission was accomplished. Members of the crew had indeed completed their mission, which was to support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Having completed that mission, the crew was heading home.
Second, it is deceitful for administration critics to attribute to President Bush the view that the larger mission of the U.S. had been accomplished. In fact, the statement Bush made that day is inconsistent with such a view. For example, Bush made it clear that "we have difficult work to do in Iraq" and that "parts of that country. . .remain dangerous." He added, "The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort."
Bush did say that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" and that the U.S. had "prevailed" in "the battle of Iraq." General Tommy Franks (who recommended the use of the phrase) has pointed out that, in military parlance, "Major combat has to do with tanks and jets and ships and that sort of thing." In that sense, Bush's statement is not far off the mark; indeed Franks says it's still accurate. However, as Franks acknowledges, it was a mistake to use the phrase since the mililtary meaning, as he describes it, is not entirely consistent with ordinary usage. It was also a mistake to say that the U.S. had prevailed in the battle of Iraq, although the speech as a whole left it clear that Bush did not mean the battle for a peaceful, stable Iraq was over.
There's no doubt that President Bush underestimated the difficulties that lay ahead in Iraq, and some of his subsequent decisions have probably made our task more difficult still. However, today is not the fourth anniversary of President Bush declaring, suggesting, or implying that our full mission in Iraq had been accomplished. Bush never declared, suggested, or implied any such thing.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. Paul, with regards to the point that Mr. Morrisey made concerning "Mission Accomplished", it is highly inappropriate for a crew aboard a ship at war to publicly assert the status of their mission. To publicly state the intended movement of a ship at war would constitute a breach of classified information. Unless of course the war was considered over. (Even during peace time maneuvers it is considered a breach of classified information to convey the intended movements of a warship.)
To your second point Paul, my take on the statement made by the President was at face value. As it was intended. Just as General Douglas MacArthur stated some sixty odd years earlier on the deck of a battleship in Tokyo Bay, I believe that the President intended to convey that exact same message. 'The war is over. We have difficult work ahead nonetheless.'
Derek Pointer at 7:05PM on May 1st 2007
2.
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended in the battle of Iraq. The United States and our allies have prevailed".
Isn't President Bush the man who "says what he means" and "means what he says" ? Not far off the mark ? Not even remotely close is more like it.
Funny to hear talk about intellectual honesty coming from Mr. Mirengoff. The same guy who breaks a big (but bogus) story about Michael Ware "heckling" John McCain on his blog than doesn't have the honesty or integrity to retract it. Mirengoff honest and responsible?
Like they say in the commercial - not exactly.
max at 7:24PM on May 1st 2007
3. "We have difficult work to do in Iraq."
An act of war?
"We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."
An act of war?
"We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes."
An act of war?
"We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated."
An act of war?
"We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools."
An act of war?
"And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people."
An act of war?
Derek Pointer at 8:02PM on May 1st 2007
4. So if it's true that when he said "misson accomplished" he meant it in the very, very, very specific sense of those specific soldiers, on that specific boat, carrying out that specific mission, they why weren't the rest of his comments as narrow?
Why didn't all the other troops get the personalized "mission accomplished" send off?
Then there's this:
"General Tommy Franks (who recommended the use of the phrase) has pointed out that, in military parlance, "Major combat has to do with tanks and jets and ships and that sort of thing."
First, wanna talk about a term of art? You know your dealing with a real technical term when it ends with "and that sort of thing". Second, are you actually saying that the U.S. is not using tanks and jets and ships, and of course, that sort of thing?
Here's an article from less than a month ago: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/07/iraq.main/index.html
First sentance: U.S. warplanes struck suspected insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades in the southern Iraqi city of Diwaniya on Saturday, the U.S. military said.
But no tanks you say? Here: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/05/the-usmcs-expeditionary-fighting-vehicle-sdd-phase-updated/index.php
It says: The US Marine Corps' AAVP7 Amtracs have been their primary ship to shore ambhibious armored personnel carrier for a long time; the AAV7A1 was initially fielded in 1972, and underwent a major service life extension program and product improvement program from 1983-1993. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is the USMC's plan to replace the aging Amtracs, which continue to see extensive service in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I think you get the point by now.
Two seconds of research on the internets. That's what it took for me to make you look like a complete fool. Ok...maybe three seconds.
jspicoli at 12:34AM on May 2nd 2007
5. Major combat operations in Iraq have ended in the battle of Iraq. The United States and our allies have prevailed.
Webster Hubble Telescope at 12:49AM on May 2nd 2007
6. THIS is "deceitful":
The White House claimed that the banner was requested by the crew of the ship. Afterwards, the administration and naval sources stated that the banner was the Navy's idea, White House staff members made the banner, and it was hung by the U.S. Navy personnel. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN "We took care of the production of it. We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."[3] According to John Dickerson of TIME magazine, the White House later conceded that they actually hung the banner but still insists it had been done at the request of the crewmembers.[4]
^ [3]http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
^ [4]http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816,536170,00.html
Steve J. at 1:37AM on May 2nd 2007
7.
WOW Mirengoff. We are still using tanks and jets and ships, we've been using them since the day major combat operations were declared ended.
You are the one who is being intellectually dishonest here.
Peter at 10:28AM on May 2nd 2007
8. Once again, the pathological liars of Powerline demonstrate that you can defend Bush or you can speak the truth, but you can't do both. Paulie, you would have been wiser to just let the anniversary of your Beloved Leader's most famous falsehood pass without remark than to engage in this rewriting of history that demonstrates all the contempt for truth one associates with Goebbels but none of his skill. If you can't stop lying on moral grounds, then you should stop simnply because you are so bad at it.
First of all, whether or not it was "appropriate for the crew to assert that its mission was accomplished" is of course irrelevant -- that banner was the product of the White House. The lie that the crew was behind it was floated briefly floated by the Busheviks and then hastily withdrawn -- I guess Powerline didn't get the memo.
As for Bush's remarks (which you characterize as "mistakes" but which are more commonly known as "lies"), they in fact make it quite clear that Bush was telling the American people the war was over. Surely you don't seriously expect us to believe that the ongoing bloodshed in Iraq was what was your Beloved Leader was anticipating with such surgically cheer-picked phrases as "difficult work."
It isn't "the Left" that it is sick of this war and the lies that sustained it -- it is the substantial majority of the American people, most of whom do not suffer from the massive amnesia necessary to be a loyal Bushevik.
richter at 10:58AM on May 2nd 2007
9. "One can understand why the left wants to focus on this event; doing so is much easier than engaging in a responsible discussion of the consequences of abandoning Iraq."
If only there was a responsible discussion of the consequences of invading Iraq. If only.
Consequences of abandoning Iraq. It's not a pretty picture. Iraq will, for all intensive purposes, become a place of mass destruction. Bombs. Blood. Absolute turmoil to say the least. (One has to wonder maybe Saddam was better at what he was doing than we first thought.) But whatever occurs when we leave is inevitable. Whether we leave now, or if we leave then. Matter and anti-matter will eventually come together.
Consequences of abandoning Iraq. There is actually a positive that will be realized. We will stop sacrificing American lives for a less than honorable cause. That is the best consequence of all.
Derek Pointer at 12:17PM on May 2nd 2007
10. Paul,
Although the President has to ultimately accept responsibility for any mistakes made during the prosecution of this war, he cannot be held accountable for the extremely outrageous and egregious remarks of the left. Some of their comments border on the edge of psychotic, founded in aspirations for political power rather than any desire for the truth that could help advance an American agenda instead of a partisan agenda.
If Bill Clinton had made a simular speech of the deck of the Abraham Lincoln and things did not turn out well, I can say with confidence that we would not be hearing the same slanderous criticism from the left, just like they were so understanding about a sitting American president lying under oath.
The left has a clear history of duplicity, no clear standards and agenda driven mentality of sacrificing the best interest and security of the nation as a means to an end, politically. Their petulance is an orchastrated effort to weary the people with their persistence. A nagging wife may have an unhappy marriage, but it doesn't matter if she doesn't believe in the marriage, but she believes in getting her way! She can't afford to be reasonable if she wants to get her way.
I am very cynical and don't believe that in the war room of the liberal agenda council that they care one way or another about the President's intent or what the outcome would be. They will mischaracterize and exploit any sign of weakness until the nation is weary and they have their way.
The nagging wife will start arguments that should not exist, and when accused of being a nag looking for a fight, she will deny it and ask for proof, but it doesn't matter what answer you give, she will not accept it as proof. If she accepted anything that you have to say as proof, she would have to become reasonable and behave rationally, but in her mind that would be a poor political move because she would not get her way. It is a juvenile projection that demonstrates her belief that what is good for her is good for the world, when the fact is that she doesn't know what is good for herself or the world. They refuse to hear the words that they have spoken although it be on video and tape.
When the words coming out of their mouths are like taking a dump in public, they will accuse and blame some right wing conspiracy, and while the people understand how rediculous that concept is, it is proof of how unreasonable they are. One of the basic rules of business is that you don't deal with a crazy man, and the left has learned to use 'crazy' as a useful bullying tool.
If the President said "Tomorrow is Wednesday", the left will find a way to mischaracterize it and use the media to get the word out that there is an underlying sinister meaning to those words, and what is really sinister is their lack of regard and respect for the truth and the American way of life.
dalosophy at 12:47PM on May 2nd 2007
11. Have I missed something here or is the left
still pushing the war button to get back in
office, no matter what the outcome or back-
lash from leaving. The left is pushing as
hard as they can to get Mr Bush to retreat
a definate Democratic thing to do. I use
ex President Bill Clinton leaving Somalia
as an example as he tucked our tail between
his (Vietnam runner) legs and ran from Bin
Laden which emboldened him to attack us here
again and again. World trade center bombing,
attack on the USS Cole, and eventually the
world trade center 9/11 attack.
The left care nothing about those being
killed, case in point, when we left Vietnam
at the urging of the Democratic Party which
started the conflict, pushed the war button
over and over in an attempt to get back into
the White House. The result was the killing
fields in Cambodia. More than a million
killed leaving every Americans with a bad
taste in their mouth. They eventually got
back in the White House, no worries about
all the innocent people butchered by
leaving and blaming everything on Nixon.
Well here we are again a Republican in
the White House and the Dems knowing just
what to do (their history) pushing the
war button over and over and over again
and no regard for all the innocents who
will be killed when we leave as they plan
already to point at President George W.
Bush and say, he did it, its the
Republicans fault.
Its not going to work the way they
want because Mr Bush knows leaving will
end up killing too many if we leave the
way the Democrats want.
I remember our leaving Vietnam as I
spent two years there in the US Army
which helped me become an alcoholic but
also opened my eyes when we left hastily
people hanging on the skids of our
hellicopters. The enemy coming in like
a flood parading bodies from their
victory and leaving the US in shock. Do
these great Political minds in the lefts
war room think of the carnage when we
leave? Does the liberal left media think
of all the blood on their hands for them
pushing us to leave too soon? Someone
needs to speak up for all the innocent
people who will be killed if we leave
at the bidding of the left.
William Ehlert at 1:57PM on May 2nd 2007
12. Do you dare to look at the facts?
Facts of history
1 We still have troops in Germany where we
stayed to stabilize the area after our
President took honors for mission
accomplished.
2 We still have troops in Korea to stabilize
the area after the dust settled.
3 We still have a military presence in Japan
where we stayed to stabilize the area after
we won there.
OK here are some more facts
They say those who ignor history are doomed
to repete problems.
When we left Vietnam millions were killed
becasuse we left without stabilizing the
area. We did have an extreme guilt complex
as a Nation when we had to see all the
innocent men, women and children killed
because we did not want to see our boys
killed any longer.
Facts about the conflicts.
Vietnam, 900,000 casualtise, 50,000 dead
over a ten year period of time. In Iraq
we have lost including our victory in
entering the city in 21 days, how many
after 6 years?
We have some cities here in the USA
where the death rate from murder is more
in a year than we have had in the war
against terror in all the years combined.
If we leave Iraq, Iran wins, the
terrorists win, we end up with a taste
of blood in our mouths from the millions
killed because some of us do not have the
patience to stabilize the area before we
leave. We end up having to leave from
Afghanistan also becasue we will have
lost face and credability in the mid
East.
Iran will use Iraq as a stepping stone
to destabilize the rest of the area over
there and use it to attack Israel as
they used Lebanon to attack Israel by
their forces who hid behind the men,
women and children as all good terrorist
cowards do.
In Vietnam we faced a great warrior who
would face us against bad odds. Great is
all I can say is the respect the warriors
who fought them.
Why are we leaving when we have not
hardly suffered at all as a Nation, I feel
heart felt for the loss of a loved ones
like Cindy Shehan must feel but those are
individuals who hurt because their loved
one is not here. The one killed would have
not wanted to loose the war because of
their deaths because they went there to
win not loose. We hear the voices of the
ones left behind not the hero.
The liberal left and liberal news media
want a liberal in the White House no
matter who or how many are killed to get
them back in control. Are we to believe
the lies as when President Bush senior
went against their man Bill Clinton the
liberal news media reported after their
win that the economy had actually turned
prior to the election but they did not
want to report it until after because, it
might have influenced the election.
Not telling the truth, is telling a lie
but that seems OK for the left as again
they ignor our economy is strong. Just
keep pushing the war button no matter who
gets killed but God will require their
blood at your hands, liberals.
William Ehlert at 2:35PM on May 2nd 2007
13. A few observations about dalosophy's hilariously psychotic ravings above(that weird rant about nagging wives is a textbook example of the
persecution complex... unless it is merely autobiographical): the alert reader will notice that nowhere in his rant does dalosophy actually defend Mirengoff's odd suggestion that a) it is "deceitful of Adminisatration critics" to assert that the words coming out of Bush's mouth bear some relationship to the thoughts in his head and b) when the Beloved Leader said "mission accomplished," he obviously meant "We're going to be in Iraq for many many years, lose thousands of American lives, spend a half trillion dollars and watch helplessly as a civil war spins out of control until I leave office and it becomes the next president's problem." This makes Dalosophy a lot smarter than the increasingly pathetic Powerliners -- at least he recognizes a bad hand when it's dealt to him.
Instead, Dalosophy contents himself with the usual, generalized diatribes against "liberals" that passes for discourse among our friends on the Loon Right. Notice, however, Dalosophy's and Powerline's use of the latest wingnut rhetorical technique -- to attribute to "the left" attitudes that in fact are held by most Americans. For example, in the latest Harris poll a Watergate-slim 28% of the respondents gave Bush a positive job rating -- while a whopping 70% gave him a negative job rating. This means one of two things: either 70% of the American electorate are leftists or disenchantment with Mirengoff's Beloved Leader spans all but the outermost wingnut fringes of American politics.
Oh, and nothing would make me happier than Bush saying "Today is Wednesday." After all, there would be a one in seven chance that he is right, an unusual high probability of accuracy for the Beloved Leader. But alas, a chronic buck passer like George would never say anything as direct as that. Instead, he would say, "Well, I've talked to General Patraeus -- that's my job as president, you know, I talk to generals and stuff -- and General Patraeus assures me that today is Wednesday, I mean there's a great, uh, a good chance it's Wednesday, and I'm not going to second guess or micromanage the commanders on the ground, so if General Patraeus says today is Wednesday, I'm going to back him up one hundred per cent."
richter at 5:23PM on May 2nd 2007
14. The killing fields of Cambodia was the
aftermath of our leaving Vietnam.
What will we see as the killing fields
if we do not secure Iraq as we did Korea,
Japan and Germany? We still to this day
have a presence in them.
Remember the images of terified people
holding on to the skids of choppers as we
left and the enemy rushing in, in victory.
I do not want to see another hasty
retreat leaving millions be killed for
the sake of a few of our boys.
I took my chances Sept 7 1968 - Oct 29
1970 and went back in to go back over to
keep us from loosing, God not allowing
it as Nixon in a radio address the day
before my orders to go back over,
cancelled all troops going over which is
the only thing preventing my spending
more time there.
I feel for those like Cindy Shehan but
I bet her son was proud of his time
there and would look down on what his
mother is doing out of her grief. He did
not go over to loose the war and leave
as I am sure being a volunteer like me
He seen a duty and went to fulfill it. I
am proud of his sacrifice for a people
he did not know.
William Ehlert at 6:13PM on May 2nd 2007
15.
On the subject of "Misrepresented Anniversaries" -
This month marks the 20th anniversary of an event that the American public will hear little about. The reason we will hear little about it is that it marks one of the most embarrassing episodes in our nations history. On May 17, 1987 the U.S.S. Stark was attacked in the Persian Gulf by an Iraqi F1 Mirage fighter. 37 United States Sailors died as a result of this attack. What was our response to this despicable act by Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein ? We accepted his not-so-humble apology. Look it up if you don't believe this. This outrageous assault on the U.S. military took place in 1987 - FIVE years after we took Hussein OFF the enemies list and agreed to help him in his assault on his neighbors and his own people. Ironically Hussein was hung for crimes that were committed against his own people in 1982. Those that like to fixate on the 90s as the time when terrorism was embolden might want to open their eyes to what took place in the 80s. From the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon that killed 241 U.S. servicemen in 1983 to the Achille Lauro hijacking in 1985 to the tragic murders of 189 innocent Americans in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 - what exactly was our strong response to those and the numerous other acts of terrorism that took place in the 80s ? Apparently some naively believe terrorism began in 1993 - history tells us otherwise.
max at 9:31PM on May 2nd 2007