# What?? The mission accomplished sign on the carrier didn't mean Iraq??
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [September 27, 2003, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084 "2003-09-27T00:49:36Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/1 "2003-09-27T00:49:36Z")
> [@](#):
>
> After weeks of Democratic assaults that President Bush was a nitwit for declaring “mission accomplished” in Iraq during his May 1 landing and victory speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, the White House is bidding to set the story straight. The issue should be a simple one: Bush never uttered those words. “The president,” argues communications boss Dan Bartlett, “said exactly the opposite: The mission continues.” But Bush stood under a banner declaring “mission accomplished.” Why? Bartlett says that the Lincoln’s captain had the banner made up to thank his crew for the longest-ever carrier tour, not to declare the war over. “It is something the troops are really proud of,” says Bartlett. “Of course they can hang the banner.” But the picture was all the Demos needed. “On TV,” he says, “they never play the [sound] bite of the president, they just show the image with the banner.” Democratic polls show that the public buys their spin, which doesn’t really surprise Bartlett. “Look, perception becomes reality,” he says. “But the facts don’t back it up.”
[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030929/whispers/29whisplead.htm](http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030929/whispers/29whisplead.htm)
Give me a break. If Bush’s handlers didn’t want that sign to mean exactly what it was taken to mean, it would have come down.
Talk about backwards spin.
---
### Author:  [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/2 "2003-09-27T00:52:30Z")
The Lincoln’s mission _was_ accomplished, unless you believe that resumed air attacks are an appropriate response to the guerrilla attacks and bombs.
Do you?
---
### Author:  [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/3 "2003-09-27T00:54:15Z")
Y’know, “end of major combat operations” does not mean “everyone gets along, no more fighting.”
---
### Author:  [@Linear\_Crack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linear_Crack)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/4 "2003-09-27T01:01:28Z")
What part of “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended” do you not understand?
Let it go **Reeder** , let it go.
[Bush Speech](http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/bush/bush050103sp.html)
> [@](#):
>
> THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
---
### Author:  [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/5 "2003-09-27T01:03:31Z")
Oh please Manny. You sleeping with Bush or something?
If that were the case they would have mentioned it earlier.
---
### Author:  [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/6 "2003-09-27T01:09:34Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Reeder \*
> **Oh please Manny. You sleeping with Bush or something?**
Wow, that blows **manhattan’s** argument right out of the water. Yessiree. :rolleyes:
\*\*
> [@](#):
>
> If that were the case they would have mentioned it earlier. \*\*
Who are _they?_
---
### Author:  [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/7 "2003-09-27T01:14:40Z")
It’s good to know that so much of the ‘loyal’ opposition is composed of half-wits like **Reeder**.
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/8 "2003-09-27T01:14:57Z")
I gotta go with Reeder on this one.
The dude flew onto the carrier in a war plane, popped out wearing a combat flight suit, and stood at the podium and beat his chest about how we kicked the shit out of Iraq … all while standing under a banner reading “Mission Accomplished.”
We _weren’t_ supposed to infer the banner was referring to Iraq?
Whether the mission was actually accomplished isn’t the issue. It was hype. Fine. I expect hype. But don’t tell me, “Oh that’s not what we meant when we hung the banner.” That’s bull shit.
---
### Author:  [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/9 "2003-09-27T01:16:01Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Reeder \*
> \*\* If that were the case they would have mentioned it earlier. \*\*
Earlier, like on [May 1?](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html)
> [@](#):
>
> We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.
Your **december** esque, blog and blub-fueled idiocy does far more to put Bush in a good light than anything I (or, I daresay, he) could ever do.
---
### Author:  [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/10 "2003-09-27T01:19:20Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jack Batty \*
> \*\* Whether the mission was actually accomplished isn’t the issue. It was hype. Fine. I expect hype. But don’t tell me, “Oh that’s not what we meant when we hung the banner.” That’s bull shit. \*\*
Please accept my sincere condolences that you get your foreign policy information from big signs on ships.
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/11 "2003-09-27T01:22:07Z")
Hey, dude. An ad is an ad no matter where it’s hung.
---
### Author:  [@Linear\_Crack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linear_Crack)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/12 "2003-09-27T01:34:34Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jack Batty \*
> We _weren’t_ supposed to infer the banner was referring to Iraq?
That’s a fact, **Jack**.
Were they suppose to take it down because you and **Reeder** might get the impression that Iraq was now considered all lollipops and chocolate covered WMD’s?
:wally’s
-LC
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/13 "2003-09-27T02:01:47Z")
That dog won’t hunt.
Bush and company knew exactly what that banner was selling to the American public, and so do you.
I never even considered that it was refering to anything else until I read this thread.
And hey, I’m not all up in arms about it – like I said, I don’t mind the hype. But don’t try to tell me “Mission Accomplished **In Iraq** ” wasn’t the message that was sold during that speech.
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/14 "2003-09-27T02:10:58Z")
I’m pretty amazed people are arguing about this. Like it or not, “Mission Accomplished” was the message Bush was trying to put forward. Yes, I know what he said about the mission continuing, but HE is the one who declared major combat operations over and the war over and gave his big speech in combat gear on the aircraft carrier. The fact that there’s a convenient alternate explanation doesn’t change the impression that was given.
---
### Author:  [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/15 "2003-09-27T02:22:31Z")
In my normative ethics class, we were taught that “moral reservations” aren’t legitimate. You can’t avoid lying to someone by saying “no” while secretly meaning “yes” with that word.
That’s really what’s going on here: the Bush administration is arguing that the visual didn’t really mean what the obvious interpretation means, because there’s a secret, reserved fact of the matter. I’m with Jack Batty on this.
---
### Author:  [@cheddarsnax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cheddarsnax)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/16 "2003-09-27T02:38:00Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Michael Ellis \*
> **Wow, that blows manhattan’s argument right out of the water. Yessiree. :rolleyes:**
Argument? I don’t see any argument from **manhattan**. I see an obtuse fool ignoring the obvious implication of the backdrop to Bush’s speech. But no argument.
---
### Author:  [@cheddarsnax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cheddarsnax)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/17 "2003-09-27T03:02:50Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Michael Ellis \*
> **Wow, that blows manhattan’s argument right out of the water. Yessiree. :rolleyes:**
Argument? I don’t see any argument from **manhattan**. I see an obtuse fool ignoring the obvious implication of the backdrop to Bush’s speech. But no argument.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/18 "2003-09-27T03:19:17Z")
You know, at this point, busting GeeDubya for this puny little mendacity would be like citing Jack the Ripper for practicing medicine without a license.
---
### Author:  [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/19 "2003-09-27T03:37:29Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jack Batty \*
> \*\*The dude flew onto the carrier in a war plane, popped out wearing a combat flight suit,… \*\*
The “war plane” is the only kind of plane that traps on a carrier, those “peace planes” don’t have that hook thingy underneath. Formal attire is not generally recommended for wear during flight in a “war plane” as the ties get all wrapped up in the com lines. Once the decision was made to fly to the boat, his choice of dress becomes limited, and the differnce between a “combat” flight suit and a “training” flight suit includes such things as a loaded pistol, which I do doubt he was wearing (the SS man, on the other hand…). You may feel free to criticize the choice to fly out on such an aircraft, but after that, it all flows quite naturally to the style of dress.
But you knew that.
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2003, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/20 "2003-09-27T03:42:31Z")
I disagree, elucidator. While this isn’t on the level of some huge scandal, it’s a pretty petty argument for _them_ to be making, not their detractors.
Bush stood beneath that banner and said, “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
And now he’s saying, “the banner wasn’t referring to what I was saying when I was standing right beneath it giving a speech to the country.” It’s just a dumb thing to do.
If they were smart, they would have kept on ignoring it and the worst Bush’s critics could have accused him of is overblown hype. And, shit man, this is America. Land of the overblown hype.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084.md?page=2)