# What?? The mission accomplished sign on the carrier didn't mean Iraq?? **URL:** \ **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:** 2
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/21 "2003-09-27T03:50:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBill \* > \*\*Once the decision was made to fly to the boat, his choice of dress becomes limited, … 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. \*\* Yep. And he knew that too, which is why he made sure that every camera on the planet was there to take his picture with helmet in hand, standing under a big “Mission Accomplished” sign. It was hype. Pure and simple. And while I think that is basicly a weak way to run things, I have no general problem with it. If he wanted to avoid all this shit, he would have given the same speech from the White House. Or at the very least he would have flown to the boat on Marine One (the presidential helicopter) – was that not available? There is no friggin’ way you can tell me that President Bush wasn’t banking on the images he presented to hype his speech and his message. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/22 "2003-09-27T03:53:15Z")
Your probably right, **Jack** , I guess the sheer numbing volume of repitition has rendedered me insensitive to nuance. Its kind of like that _Fantasia_ scene where MM is under siege by by multiplying brooms carrying buckets that they slosh on him. Except, of course, in the movie the buckets are full of water, not horseshit. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/23 "2003-09-27T04:38:28Z")
I think the only campaign commercials next year to be showing the video of Bush strutting on the carrier in his hip-hugging flight suit under the banner of “Mission Accomplished” will be those run by Wesley Clark. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/24 "2003-09-27T04:50:09Z")
**Manhattan** , you don’t mean to say you actually _buy_ this fucking horseshit explanation do you? I would think a former mod would be smarter than that. Are you actually going to claim with a straight face that the clear intention of posing Bush in front of that banner was not to annoint him as a victor in Iraq? This is the most obsessively controlling admin in US history when it comes to media images. They are minutely aware of every detail and nuance when it comes to Shrub’s television appaearances. They even went to all the trouble of turning that aircraft carrier around before the stunt so that the (very close and easily helicopter accessible) San Diego shoreline would not be visible to the cameras. There is absolutely no chance in hell that the choice to include that banner in the photo-op (regardless of whta its original purpose may have been…and frankly, I’m rather skeptical of this new explanation) was not made for the sole reason of claiming a victory in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Wrong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@Mr.Wrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Wrong)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/25 "2003-09-27T05:37:19Z")
> [@](#): > > I think the only campaign commercials next year to be showing the video of Bush strutting on the carrier in his hip-hugging flight suit under the banner of “Mission Accomplished” will be those run by Wesley Clark. **Frostillicus** : I think you have no future whatsoever as a political straegist if you think that’ll fly as an anti-Bush ad. I mean that as a compliment. Sure, the whole thing struck me as a cheap stunt, TV/Political Theatre Division, but the Bush-Hater over-reaction to it is so off the charts, it may turn out to be a good idea after all. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/26 "2003-09-27T07:00:17Z")
Let’s see: [ul][li]The Bush Administration [corrals](http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-05-26-our-view_x.htm) protestors, exposing itself to blatant freedom of speech violations rather than having an [angry](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=213560) crowd on the ABC. _Arrested_ for protesting outside of the zone?[/li] [li]In a Tub-Thumping “The Economy Rolls Its Stone” speech, the President’s handlers built a backdrop of boxes, but had to scramble down to Office Depot for Avery 5165 labels and replace “Made in China” with “[Made in the **USA**](http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/105400_boxes23.shtml).”[/li] [li]President Bush wearing a flight suit (and disappointingly not a Slim Pickens’ cowboy hat) rides a fighter jet onto a carrier landing and beneath the banner "Mission Accomplished” hands down a reasonable address about the end to combat operations. [/ul][/li]Republicans hated President Clinton because really they were jealous: he was – among other things – caught lying about _Cohiba delicto_ sullying the Oval Office. And he was brazen. The big problem was deep down, Republicans knew the average Joe was regarding the President as some kind of beer-goggling Messiah. Likewise, Democrats are fuming now because Joe has a hard-on for _Top Gun_. It’s funny to hear academicians carry a debate; they will compromise so much of themselves just to gain ground. Some Americans are not as enlightened as we here on the Straight Dope – they apparently need a reminder of the station they’re watching conspicuously watermarked (and increasingly seizure-suit friendly) in a corner of their screen, ads within the broadcast saying “you’re watching Blue’s Clues” and three or four tickers per every news channel. Oh, wait, there’s also word of a new “[storyline within a commercial set](http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1399909)” coming up. Fascinating. This is a commercial culture. We applaud at Jay Leno tapings. The average American reads a banner above the President and believes it. Don’t blame it on “aide oversight” or “production problems.” Please see above. Comparing posters in this thread, namely **Jack** and **Reeder** to my next door neighbor, my courier and the print shop deliveryman is simply fallacious. We are here to _fight ignorance_, not just pretend it exists when it’s convenient. Oh, sorry. Here’s a link to the “[mission accomplished speech](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/16/nyt.bumiller/).” ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/27 "2003-09-27T07:10:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reeder \* > 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. Nah, the spin squad would’ve just had one of their “overzealous volunteers” [cover the offending words with packing tape](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A57958-2003Jan28¬Found=true). ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/28 "2003-09-27T07:47:19Z")
**Squink** , you done been scooped. [sup]_ **look behind you** _[/sup] ---
**Author:** ![NutWrench](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nutwrench/32/20193_2.png) [@NutWrench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NutWrench)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/29 "2003-09-27T10:10:50Z")
So has the USS Lincoln returned from the persian gulf yet? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/30 "2003-09-27T10:48:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by NutWrench \* > \*\*So has the USS Lincoln returned from the persian gulf yet? \*\* Helpful link: [Delay In Vinson Overhaul Could Reduce Workload In Bremerton](http://www.kirotv.com/money/2510196/detail.html) > [@](#): > > The Lincoln is in the third month of its 11-month maintenance stay at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Silly link: [Bush to make historic tailhook landing on Gen. Wesley Clark](http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2003/MERC-Sep-25-Thu-2003/22192850.html) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON–Aiming to duplicate the fanfare of his arrival aboard the USS Lincoln in a Navy S-3B Viking, President Bush is planning a similar tailhook landing on Democratic presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark, according to internal memos. > > The memos divulge that next month’s landing will evoke the same “military grandeur” and “unflagging confidence” as May’s famous stunt. Bush will be flown in the same Navy S-3B Viking and will make the same dramatic landing maneuver atop Clark at the University of Iowa, where the former NATO commander is scheduled to give a speech. > > “After the Viking makes a full stop to the strains of ‘America the Beautiful,’ the president will exit the plane in triumph, waving to supporters as he announces his bid for re-election,” the memo says. “Upon seeing the fallen body of Gen. Clark, the president will then declare an end to major election conflicts.” > > The president is scheduled later that day to drive a tractor over Sen. John Edwards in Montana. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![RTA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b4bc9f/32.png) [@RTA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTA)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/31 "2003-09-27T13:32:08Z")
This issue is worth letting slide. “Mission Accomplished” refers to the crew of the _Lincoln_’s “mission” and not the war? That’s fine. For me, the Riefenstahl-esque offensiveness of the overall production dwarfs the bangles and doodads associated with it. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/32 "2003-09-27T14:01:19Z")
The terms of referance seem to change every day as things are obviously not what they were portrayed to be. There are no chemical weapons, no materials for nuclear devices, no programs for construction of such, there are no means of delivery, there never was a plot to obtain fissile materials from Niger, nor was there any reality in the nototrious 45 minute threat as portrayed by Blair. The country was supposed to be completely grateful, UN memebers would be glad to send in their troops as peacekeepers, Iraqi oil would pay for everything, and all would be sweeteness and light. As every single one of thse postions has emerged as being false to varying degrees, we see again how we , the public, were obviously so stupid as to read signs and messages and take them to means what they seemed at first inspection. How ignorant of the entire world ! Meanwhile, your tax dollars are paying for this fiasco, and sadly US and British, and Iraqi familes will have to live with the consequencies. UK intelligence chiefs during the Hutton enquiry have engaged in a level of sophistry that beggars belief, they put out carefully crafted statements and reports, and then state that these reports have to be carefully edited for public consumption, and some of those should not have been put out because thye appear to mean that the intelligence was actually wrong, yet the evidence on the ground in Iraq proves that those ‘wrongly interpreted’ statements look suspiciously like complete lies. Every media consultant will confirm that in video images, the majority of the message that comes across is visual, nd what is actually stated by the speaker is of less importance, something like 70/30. The media managers for Bush, and Bush himself who has to work with the media, cannot be unaware what message was being sent, and given their controlling influence, I find it very hard to imagine that there was any other intention than to send that message. Deniability is a wonderful thing, just don’t expect all the public to be fooled all the time, not all of us are mugs. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/33 "2003-09-27T14:27:49Z")
Add me to the list of those who are amazed that some people I actually respect are buying the spin the Bush administration is putting on the farce. Argue all you want about it being a piddly little thing, or that the whole episode reeked of misuse of military operations for campaigning, but please don’t try to get us to buy that the sign didn’t mean what it obviously meant, and why it was so prominately displayed. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/34 "2003-09-27T15:44:44Z")
NEWSFLASH!!! Dateline, after you wake up and smell the coffee. This just in! It has JUST been determined that politicians sometimes say things that are not 100% True and Forthcoming in order to further their own political purposes! In a recent study, it has been conclusively shown that 99%\* of politicians above the city level of government would sell their own mother if it meant a bump in the polls of as little as three percentage points. Stay tuned for our next story: Used Car Salesmen don’t have YOUR best interests in mind! \*(Margin of error: +1%) ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/35 "2003-09-27T17:00:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Wrong \* > \*\ ***Frostillicus** : I think you have no future whatsoever as a political straegist if you think that’ll fly as an anti-Bush ad. I mean that as a compliment. > > Sure, the whole thing struck me as a cheap stunt, TV/Political Theatre Division, but the Bush-Hater over-reaction to it is so off the charts, it may turn out to be a good idea after all. \*\* I guess we’ll just have to see. I think the Bush carrier landing video is going to end up in the same “What were we thinking?” category as Dukakis in the tank. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/36 "2003-09-27T17:02:00Z")
The Bush spin? For the love of **Cecil** , look at the horseshit some of you are proffering: 1. The Bush administration is a master of the media, multiplying multiple times the lessons of the Clinton administration which in turn mutiplied multiple times the lessons of the Reagan administration. 2. That very same administration knew that violence would continue in Iraq and said so on every single available occasion. _3) Nonetheless, the Bush Administration chose a sign which was factually inaccurate to try to create an impression that was not true despite knowing that the continued violence would be reported in excrutiating detail upon every single occurence, thus making Bush look like an idiot._ 1. That “end to major combat operations” was somehow a meaningless or misleading phrase in the context of the continuing violence, despite the fact that the number of U.S. forces engaged in combat operations on a typical day declined from about 150,000 in April to about 150 in subsequent months. On the other hand, here’s what is required to believe the Bush Administration’s version of the story: 2. The Lincoln’s crew, Bush’s hosts, had accomplished their mission in Iraq. 3. Bush, a politician, wished to associate himself with the outstanding job done by the military to date and to announce the end of major military operations whilst warning that the violence would contine. He emphasized the first two of those things. Oh, yeah. I’m the one who’s supposed to feel like a fool here. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/37 "2003-09-27T17:19:09Z")
The banner – the fighter jet – the carrier – the flight suit – the speech – “America and its allies have prevailed” – “the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free” – etc. It was all geared to say in big bold letters to the American public … WE FUCKING WON! GO US! Christ, the only thing missing was Queen’s _We Are the Champions_ blasting in the back ground. For the administration to come out now and say, oh the banner just happened to be there, is insulting. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/38 "2003-09-27T17:21:36Z")
And so I’m clear, I don’t mean to say it wasn’t a good show. It was. Well done. Hear hear. Just don’t tell me it wasn’t what it was. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/39 "2003-09-27T17:27:44Z")
We did win. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084/40 "2003-09-27T17:37:01Z")
No shit. I never thought we wouldn’t. That isn’t the issue though. What is the issue is in the face of criticism about the hype of that appearance, the Bush people are demurring and saying, “Oh that banner was for the carrier, it had nothing to do with the speech.” Which is just dumb of them. I’m not jumping up and down demanding Bush’s impeachment over this, but I just find it an incredibly idiotic argument for them to make. If I were Bush’s guy, I would have just said … “Hey, it was just a show. Calm down people.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-mission-accomplished-sign-on-the-carrier-didnt-mean-iraq/204084.md?page=3)