‘Mission Accomplished’ revisited

April 30, 2008

Five years ago tomorrow, the president stood in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner, and boasted about the end of “major combat operations” in Iraq. It continues to be a touchy subject for the White House.

For those who can’t watch videos online, the clip shows White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, responding to a question from Helen Thomas, saying, “President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific, and said, Mission Accomplished For These Sailors Who Are On This Ship On Their Mission. And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year.”

I guess it’s better than in 2007, when Tony Snow argued from the White House podium that the meaning of the banner was the “opposite” of mission accomplished.

Nevertheless, as Ali at TP noted, Perino’s spin is not exactly persuasive: “[R]egardless of Perino’s attempts to amend the banner, it’s clear what Bush meant. Just a month after his speech on the U.S.S. Lincoln, he also spoke to troops in Qatar: ‘America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished.'”

On a related note, MoveOn.org is also taking this opportunity to mark the anniversary of “Mission Accomplished” with a new campaign ad that’s likely to drive the Republican National Committee completely batty.

Here’s the script for those who can’t watch clips online:

Announcer: Five years ago, George Bush stood under a “Mission Accomplished” banner and announced: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

John McCain said the end of the Iraq war was very much in sight. Now we need to know how long we’d be in Iraq if John McCain were president.

Mr. McCain (voiceover): “And then I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there for 100 years or 1,000 years or 10,000 years.”

Announcer: 100 years in Iraq? And you thought no one could be worse than George Bush.

Ouch.

Why would we want to be in Iraq?

Oil.

There is no other answer.

  • McCan’t is in Allentown.

    The same place in Billy Joel’s song of the same name.

    And he expects to win these people over?

    We really need to consider how to crush this guys balls in a vice.

  • I think it was in “State of Denial” There is a scene where Rumsfeld is reviewing the draft of the Aircraft Carrier Speech in advance.

    He’s described as going appopleptic when he reads the Bush is actually going to say “Mission Accomplished” in the speech. The author then states that Rumsfeld deletes reference to all “Mission Accomplished” in the speech. Bush then gives the redacted speech as instructed.

    The sign makers didn’t get the memo however and the banner went up.

    The rest will be remembered tomorrow.

  • I’m glad I’ll never have to play a fair game of anything against the folks in the WH. All I’ve witnessed from them is dishonesty. All I’ve seen is movers of goal posts. Perino is merely one more in the line of idiots who think they are doing the people’s business. -Kevo

  • The irony of Republicans whining about not providing full context is just too delicious. They were against nuance before they were for it!

  • Sommerby claims Gore never said he invented the Internet, but a search of Lexis Nexis reveals thousands of articles referencing the quote.

  • No matter what the spin is about the banner, I think the most important thing to remember about the “mission accomplished” speech is the blatant lie that Bush repeated on national television about how the “liberation of Iraq” had “removed an ally of al Qaeda”:

    The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html

    To this day, millions of Americans (and more importantly huge numbers of military people) believe that Iraq was payback for 9/11. The ramifications of that deception (and others) will be remembered forever (or until we pay off the trillions of dollars in war costs). And now, of course, the liars are lying again, knowing full well that the corporate whore media will never really call them to task for their lies, even when they get tens of thousands of Americans killed and wounded.

  • Off-Topic —

    Mark Pencil — if you put a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, doesn’t that prevent them from raising prices to offset the tax holiday? It is then in their interest to sell more gas, not less and the way to do that is not by raising prices (since pricing gas higher should reduce demand or the argument about using pricing to change consumer habits falls apart).

    Obama’s experience did not include the windfall profits tax, just the tax holiday for consumers, so it is not equivalent to Clinton’s proposal.

  • Mary: Obama is not calling for the gas tax holiday at all. McCain calls for only the tax holiday. Clinton calls for the holiday and the windfall tax, and Obama calls for neither. And no, a windfall profit tax does not prevent oil or gas companies from raising prices. In fact if consumers will pay a higher price, they most certainly would raise prices.

  • The only candidate who refuses to cut and run never said he’d stay in Iraq if the insurgency continues. – “factcheck”

    This statement is the kind of fool’s logic that is the root of the problem. How exactly does one refuse to cut and run, say mabye a hundred, say Americans are not concerned if we’re there for 100 years or 1,000 years or 10,000 years, yet somehow imply that if the insurgency continues then we dare i say, cut and run.

    “If the insurgency continues” means nothing without a timeline. The insurgency has continued for five years with not sign of letting up.

    “maybe a hundred.” John McCain “maybe a hundred.” John McCain “maybe a hundred.” John McCain “maybe a hundred.” John McCain “maybe a hundred.” John McCain and so forth!

  • From McClellan’s BS, two years ago, three years after the mission was “accomplished”

    Q I’m asking you, based on a reporter’s curiosity, could he stand under a sign again that says, “Mission Accomplished”?

    MR. McCLELLAN: Now, Peter, Democrats have tried to raise this issue, and, like I said, misrepresenting and distorting the past —

    Q This is not —

    MR. McCLELLAN: — which is what they’re doing, does nothing to advance the goal of victory in Iraq.

    Q I mean, it’s a historical fact that we’re all taking notice of —

    MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think the focus ought to be on achieving victory in Iraq and the progress that’s being made, and that’s where it is. And you know exactly the Democrats are trying to distort the past.

    Q Let me ask it another way: Has the mission been accomplished?

    MR. McCLELLAN: Next question.

    Q Has the mission been accomplished?

    MR. McCLELLAN: We’re on the way to accomplishing the mission and achieving victory.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060501-4.html

    I guess we’re still “on the way to accomplishing the mission and achieving victory”. And if McCain is elected we could be for 100 years. Or a million.

  • DNC ad quotes McCain without interpreting quote with narration for context. – factcheck

    “President Bush has said we may be in Iraq for fifty years–”

    “Maybe a hundred. That’s fine with me.” – John McCain

    What more context does anybody need for that? Narration? Interpreting? My interpretation is this guy plans to stay the course on a mission that was lost before it was launched, then mismanaged into a fiasco. He actually believes this 12 billion a month hemorrhage can continue forever with a a constant transfusion from the Bank of China.

  • You all have it WRONG!

    “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” did not mean we had “won” or “succeeded” in Iraq – it meant the military-industrial complex was now going to loot the federal treasury, dick cheney was going to make a fortune, and that the staged “terrorist” attacks worked and an AWOL alcoholic/cocaine addict had succeeded in proclaiming himself a war president.

  • #1 Lance:

    OIL is a major part of the military-industrial complex – they knew they could shut down production, claim it was “supply and demand”, and make unheard of profits while simultaneously stealing BILLIONS OF BILLIONS of dollars!

  • By god, I believe little bear has provided “interpreting quote with narration for context.” Hopefully, “fact”check is satisfied.

  • DanP, the windfall tax doesn’t prevent oil companies from raising prices but it provides a disincentive for them to do so. I realize Obama isn’t proposing the tax holiday — Mark Pencil suggested that Obama’s experience in Illinois was part of the reason why not. However, Obama’s experience did not include the windfall profits tax, so I am wondering whether the results would be different if such a tax were included — as in Clinton’s proposal. I think it would.

    One cannot argue that disincentives work when it comes to driving but don’t work on oil companies. Sort of like arguing that gravity is different in MA than in CA. I think it is important to remember that not all driving is discretionary. Many people are having trouble getting to work, not going on summer trips. When truckers are losing their trucks and people are having trouble affording food because of the transportation costs driving up the prices, I think we are talking about subsistence. People can adjust longer term but a bit of help in the short term can be the difference between staying afloat and going under. I care about the environment, but that is surely a long term concern that cannot be affected much by a few-month long holiday. No one is arguing for this permanently, to my knowledge.

  • That is still the lowest day of my life, watching that swaggering little shithead act like he did – the goddamned worthless sonofabitch wasn’t (and isn’t) worth the nail cuttings of the small toe of the least seaman aboard the Lincoln.

    Building models of “Navy 1” (the S-3 he flew aboard in) is a Big Deal among the idiots and morons who would happily vote for President Asswipe a 3rd time and think they were doing a good thing, whose existence brings all the eye-rolling when I admit to being involved with that hobby. I had the good fun at the last model show to “accidentally” drop a heavy object on the “Navy 1” model that was in attendance.

  • Mary said: Mark Pencil — if you put a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, doesn’t that prevent them from raising prices to offset the tax holiday? It is then in their interest to sell more gas, not less and the way to do that is not by raising prices (since pricing gas higher should reduce demand or the argument about using pricing to change consumer habits falls apart).

    Obama’s experience did not include the windfall profits tax, just the tax holiday for consumers, so it is not equivalent to Clinton’s proposal.

    Nice to see you proving once again that those who can, do, and those who can’t (understand economics in this case), teach.

    Mary: It’s 18 cents a gallon. Over the course of a summer, if you drive enough to fill your tank twice a week (and have a small car with a 10-gallon tank), that would result in “saving” $3.60/week, or $14.40 a month, or $43.20 for the three months of the “holiday.”

    I’m sure even in Podunk, where you live, that $43 might buy you and a friend a nice dinner (assuming a troll like you has friends, “a fact not in evidence”) at some place that isn’t your usual dining-out at Mickey-Ds. What a huuuuuuuuge savings, yes???

    And if you’re some halfwit dumb enough to drive an SUV and you have to fill its 20-gallon tank up 3 times a week to travel from your McMansion to your McJob, that still only comes out to $250, which is about enough to fill the tank on your Yuppie Assault Vehicle twice.

    This of course assumes that the laws of economics and history will be suspended, since increased demand during summer results in higher prices, which means it’s entirely likely that even with the “holiday” you’ll be buying gasoline that is 18 cents more expensive than today, and that would not qualify for Mrs. Billy-J’s “windfall profits tax”.

    You self-entitled boomer bimbos are sooooooooooo pathetic. Having to put up with your incompetent ilk the past 40 years has been such a drag.

  • Obama’s experience did not include the windfall profits tax, so I am wondering whether the results would be different if such a tax were included — as in Clinton’s proposal. I think it would.

    You’re not understanding the connection between the two. The windfall profits tax is there to make up for the money that would be missing from the highway fund. It’s an improvement on McCain’s proposal, for sure, but that’s it. It has no bearing whatsoever on the price of gas.

    McCain and Clinton once again share the same approach here, and once again, it’s a bad idea. Virtually every economist who’s commented on this — even Krugman, who normally has the knives out for Obama — agrees that the McCain-Clinton proposal is a horrible idea. First, even if it were enacted in time and exactly as proposed, the savings would amount to about 30 cents a day for most drivers. Second, as states like Illinois and Indiana discovered when they tried this in the late ’90s, the oil companies know that the market will already bear the current cost, so if the government removes that 18 cents per gallon, they’ll slide most of that cost back in to make a wider profit. And third, as demand picks up for even slightly cheaper gas, the price will rise even more.

    This is a horrible idea, and economists from the conservative end of the spectrum (Mankiw) to the liberal one (Krugman) are all in agreement.

  • 11.
    On April 30th, 2008 at 5:21 pm, Danp said:

    Mary: Obama is not calling for the gas tax holiday at all.

    True. Only McLame and McDame are trying to put that one over on the people.

  • Mr Cleaver, thanks so much for illustrating the actual savings involved in a “gas holiday”. This will give me some ammunition when climbing on my soapbox with friends and co-workers. Yes, they will still think I’m nuts, but maybe, just maybe I’ll make a dent somewhere and get someone thinking…and Dale, love the mclame/mcdame duo!

  • Can anyone please explain to me why we’re discussing “gas tax holiday” here, on a “Mission Accomplished” thread, when that subject (gas-tax holiday) has a thread all of its own (the first posting of the day)? Just because Mary has a monothematical bee in her bonnet doesn’t mean we all have to submit to its sting…

  • You self-entitled boomer bimbos are sooooooooooo pathetic. Having to put up with your incompetent ilk the past 40 years has been such a drag.

    Uhm, Tom…you didn’t really mean that, did you? This tail end boomer chickie ain’t diggin’ that line, dude. While I usually agree with much of what you say…I am missing the point here. Not all of us are as dumb as, well, others.

    If you missed this from yesterday, we in IL actually have some experience in suspension of the gas tax (yeah, that damned kid Obama included). It doesn’t work. It’s stupid economics. It’s a bad plan. Period.

    The gas tax moratorium proved politically popular in Illinois, but economically questionable. The Illinois Economic and Fiscal Commission estimated that the state lost $175 million in revenues during the six-month period. A subsequent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research showed that gas prices fell by 3 percent, meaning that only three fifths of the savings from reduced taxes was passed on to consumers.

    “It turned out to have a pretty small effect,” said Joseph Doyle, an assistant economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Consumers were slightly better off, but the benefits were spread very thinly, and the government was a lot worse off.”

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/a_holiday_from_gas_prices.html

    During summer of 2000, the average motorist in Indiana ended up with a total tax break of about $10 – the cost of a half –tank of gasoline. Illinois motorists fared just a bit better; they received about $20, or a full tank of gasoline. On October 25, Indiana Governor Frank O’Bannon ended the folly and reinstated the state motor fuel tax. Illinois Governor George Ran let the charade go on until the end of the year, when an attempt to make the tax cut permanent failed in the state legislature.

    There’s a cautionary tale in the actions of Indiana and Illinois, based on elementary economics, that legislators at all levels of government should heed. At the same time, motorists from across the country should thank the people of Indiana and Illinois for serving in a case study of what governments should not do in response to rising motor fuel prices.

    http://www.artba.org/economics_research/current_issues/indiana-illinois_gas_tax_2001_.pdf

    And for a fee:
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=905523

    Abstract:


    There are surprisingly few estimates of the effect of sales taxes on retail prices, especially at the firm level. Further, along both sides of a state border, a change in one state’s sales tax can shed light on the nature of competition, as a subset of firms effectively experiences a change in its marginal cost. This paper considers the suspension, and subsequent reinstatement, of the 5% gasoline sales tax in Illinois and Indiana following a temporary price spike in the spring of 2000. Earlier laws set the timing of the reinstatements, providing plausibly exogenous changes in the tax rates. Using a unique dataset of daily, gas station-level data, retail gas prices are found to drop by 3% following the suspension, and increase by 4% following the reinstatements. After linking the stations to driving distance data, some evidence suggests that the tax increases are associated with higher prices up to an hour’s drive into neighboring states.

  • libra said: “Can anyone please explain to me why we’re discussing “gas tax holiday” here, on a “Mission Accomplished” thread, when that subject (gas-tax holiday) has a thread all of its own (the first posting of the day)? Just because Mary has a monothematical bee in her bonnet doesn’t mean we all have to submit to its sting…”

    Because everything is about Clinton/Obama and Boy George II has lost all revelence.

    • Comments are closed.