5th Anniversary of Mission Accomplished

[Frankie's Market]

Today marks a sad, but very significant milestone. It's now five years to the day that Dubya stepped to the podium on the USS Abraham Lincoln and, in his own words, declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Up to 5/1/2003, there were 134 American casualties in Iraq.

But since that day? 3,924.

End of major combat operations, indeed.

True, Dubya never verbally said "mission accomplished." But using that banner as a backdrop for his speech in front of an international TV audience, those two words would continually come back to haunt him with each day that the war drags on (1,827 days to be exact, for those who have lost count or those who would rather not be reminded).

And on this fifth anniversary day, what does the administration have to say? Here is text from a press briefing with White House press secretary Dana Perino:

Q How does the President intend to commemorate "Mission Accomplished" after five years of death and destruction?

MS. PERINO: What you're referring to is the banner that ran -- that was aboard the ship five years ago. President Bush --

Q I'm talking about the anniversary tomorrow.

MS. PERINO: Yes, I get -- no, I understand. That's the anniversary of when that banner flew on that ship. 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.

Incredible! Instead of talking about the ultimate sacrifice made by 4,058 soldiers in Iraq, instead of talking about the mishandling and the miscalculations made in conducting this war,.... the President's people seem to be more concerned that the banner on that ship wasn't more specific.

So what, Ms. Perino? Do you think the administration's strategic blunders and the grim casualty numbers would be more palatable to the American public had the banner behind President Bush have read "Mission Accomplished...At least on this deployment...Only for you sailors on this ship."

The President and his people just don't seem to get it. Little wonder that Dubya's disapproval rating is now at an all-time record high of 71% in the Gallup poll. (This, by the way, is even higher than Nixon's 66% during the climax of the Watergate scandal in August of 1974.)

Note: This post is respectfully submitted, at the risk of offending 28% of you.

[Leo Lakio]

Let's review: what have we gained in those five years?

> Thousands of American soldiers dead, maimed, wounded, traumatized.
> Iraq in total disarray (who knows how many dead there now, including civilian casualties).
> Not even the slightest hint of when we'll be extricated from the quagmire we created.
> More recruits for potential terrorist activities.
> No marked improvement in homeland security.
> Still no sign of Osama Bin Laden.
> A resurgent Taliban.
> Al-Qaida in Iraq (didn't even exist before our invasion).
> Afghanistan mostly patrolled by NATO-allied troops - who are pulling out of that mission, one by one.
> Ongoing degradation of civil liberties in America.

Oh, yeah, on the plus side - the removal of a sadistic, murderous dictator - who had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, but was instead the target of a Bush family vendetta (since we don't seem to be interested in deposing any of the other sadistic, murderous dictators around the globe at present).

Thank you, Mr. President. This has been on my mind all day long - and I'm grateful that Frankie's Market opened my tap.

[craigwatanabe]

I think you forget that many Iraqi schools were rebuilt, Christian churches allowed to worship, and oh yeah the most important one...the end of a tyrannical dictatorship and the installation of a democratic government.

Iraq may not have had any WMD's (especially since NATO gave them two or three years to get rid of them while sanctions never worked...remember the Kurds, yeah Saddam had em), but Iraq was a general provider of weapons to Al Queda so getting rid of Saddam also meant stopping or slowing the flow of weapons to a terrorist organization bent on destroying the US.

There's a lot of good going on in Iraq now, stuff the media doesn't like to report on because it's boring. But those thousands of US military deaths accounted for the rise of a democratic nation out of the ruins of a dictatorship. It does mean something. We stuck it out in Iraq to rebuild a nation despite internal conflict. We could have retreated like we did in Afghanistan back in the early 80's and Vietnam in the mid 70's leaving a nation of people out of luck and facing death by the ruling government after we left. Both were mistakes to enter as was Iraq however we went in anyway. The difference was that it was a Republican president that put us in the third mistake, and it will be a Democratic president that will take us out. Will that be the answer to Iraq's problems? In the eyes of the DNC, it's not our problem.

We're there and we need to fix what we broke, it's being responsible. Or we can run, again and face the wrath of another country down the road for bagging on them in the past.

Those deaths cannot be in vain, there is a lot of good brought on in Iraq and those service men and women gave their lives for the preservation of another county's persuit of freedom.

[Leo Lakio]

Iraq was a general provider of weapons to Al QuedaThe administration made that up, blaming it on (in the most appropriate statements ever) "faulty intelligence."We're there and we need to fix what we broke, it's being responsible."Responsible" would have been to never invade in the first place; there was no legitimate reason to do so, and no exit strategy - reality has borne that out. And the "surge" ain't working, either - the past week has been one of the deadliest in years.

[craigwatanabe]

The administration made that up, blaming it on (in the most appropriate statements ever) "faulty intelligence.""Responsible" would have been to never invade in the first place; there was no legitimate reason to do so, and no exit strategy - reality has borne that out. And the "surge" ain't working, either - the past week has been one of the deadliest in years.

That faulty information was none the less what we went on and that included our Democratic Congress. If Bill had done his job correctly, maybe his intel would have given some level of suspicion on whether there were WMD to be found.

And we can always blame the past, would have should have, but we did and because of what we ended up doing we need to finish it. It's easy to place blame after the fact. But we weren't there to make those executive decisions and not every Congressman and woman was privvied to intelligence reports. We can armchair quarterback all day long but the fact is we weren't there to judge.

So if Al Queda doesn't have anything to do with Iraq then why are there insurgents in Iraq tring to undermine Iraq's pursuit of democracy? What vested interest do they have there if they had nothing to do with Iraq.

There's definately a connection between Iraq and Al Queda and their presence in Iraq is a telling story. We're not the Commander in Chief, we don't have the information that is available to our president, and there is definately information that cannot be brought out due to national security.

We simply don't know and not all of Congress has a need to know either. But they're voting on it. We don't know what Bill Clinton knew either, all we do know is that months after leaving office, 9-11 happened and caught the Bush Administration totally by surprise. What did Bill know or failed to know? We had to do something, and all information led to some belief that Iraq had something to do with it because on the outside it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who to attack, unless the prime targets are the most inconspicuous ones.

As stupid as Bush looks to the general public, you don't become president of the United States of America by being an idiot. And you don't win a second term after the fact by continuing being an idiot.

Bush is still there by the powers that be. And remember, Congress holds that power.

[cynsaligia]

That faulty information was none the less what we went on and that included our Democratic Congress. If Bill had done his job correctly, maybe his intel would have given some level of suspicion on whether there were WMD to be found.


clinton did do his job. in 2000, he handed over to bush a strategy re al qaeda (http://rawstory.com/news/2006/2001_memo_to_Rice_contradicts_statements_0926.html ) via the very capable work done by richard clarke. richard clarke properly focused anti-terrorism efforts on al quaeda--not iraq & the question of WMD--in early 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke#Pre-9.2F11_memo_about_Al_Qaeda_threat), but 43 practically ignored him. 9/11 should not have caught him by surprise, esp since clarke's memo is titled, "note that clarke was the terrorism expert not only under clinton, but reagan & 41 as well. bush pretty much shut him out and then let him go.

after the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml).




So if Al Queda doesn't have anything to do with Iraq then why are there insurgents in Iraq tring to undermine Iraq's pursuit of democracy? What vested interest do they have there if they had nothing to do with Iraq.

saddam hussein was such an egomaniac and had such a strong control over iraq that al quaeda had no presence in iraq prior to the US invasion. there is no way SH would have "shared the stage" with bin ladin.

the reason why AQ is in iraq now is basically bcs we broke hussein's control and thereby allowed not only ourselves, but AQ, in. that they are there now is far from being proof that they were there during SH's time.



There's definately a connection between Iraq and Al Queda and their presence in Iraq is a telling story.

yes, and the story it tells is that the US invasion of iraq became a lightning rod issue for muslim extremists like the members of al quaeda, and inspired them to fight ever harder against the US and its allies.

the story is that, for whatever personal motives - whether the ambition to outdo his own father, whether to enrich himself & his friends - 43 dragged the nation into a war it did not have to wage, resulting in 4000+ death of americans, the chaos of an entire region, the loss of international goodwill towards america, and lastly, the devastation in loss of life, infrastructure, etc. in iraq.

if you want to buy 43's story just because "we don't know what the president knows," that's your right as an american citizen, and god bless you for it. however, the more discerning of us will continue to practice our patriotic right and duty to question government when there is evidence it has led us terribly astray.

[cynsaligia]

That faulty information was none the less what we went on and that included our Democratic Congress. If Bill had done his job correctly, maybe his intel would have given some level of suspicion on whether there were WMD to be found.


clinton did do his job. in 2000, he handed over to bush a strategy re al qaeda (http://rawstory.com/news/2006/2001_memo_to_Rice_contradicts_statements_0926.html ) via the very capable work done by richard clarke. richard clarke properly focused anti-terrorism efforts on al quaeda--not iraq & the question of WMD--in early 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke#Pre-9.2F11_memo_about_Al_Qaeda_threat), but 43 practically ignored him. 9/11 should not have caught him by surprise, esp since clarke's memo is titled, "note that clarke was the terrorism expert not only under clinton, but reagan & 41 as well. bush pretty much shut him out and then let him go.

after the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml).




So if Al Queda doesn't have anything to do with Iraq then why are there insurgents in Iraq tring to undermine Iraq's pursuit of democracy? What vested interest do they have there if they had nothing to do with Iraq.

saddam hussein was such an egomaniac and had such a strong control over iraq that al quaeda had no presence in iraq prior to the US invasion. there is no way SH would have "shared the stage" with bin ladin.

the reason why AQ is in iraq now is basically bcs we broke hussein's control and thereby allowed not only ourselves, but AQ, in. that they are there now is far from being proof that they were there during SH's time.



There's definately a connection between Iraq and Al Queda and their presence in Iraq is a telling story.

yes, and the story it tells is that the US invasion of iraq became a lightning rod issue for muslim extremists like the members of al quaeda, and inspired them to fight ever harder against the US and its allies.

the story is that, for whatever personal motives - whether the ambition to outdo his own father, whether to enrich himself & his friends - 43 dragged the nation into a war it did not have to wage, resulting in 4000+ death of americans, the chaos of an entire region, the loss of international goodwill towards america, and lastly, the devastation in loss of iraqis' lives and livelihood in iraq.

if you want to buy 43's story just because "we don't know what the president knows," that's your right as an american citizen, and god bless you for it. however, the more discerning of us will continue to practice our patriotic right and duty to question government when there is evidence it has led us terribly astray.

[TuNnL]

As stupid as Bush looks to the general public, you don't become president of the United States of America by being an idiot.No, you do it by cheating in Florida (although Bush is still an idiot).

And you don't win a second term after the fact by continuing being an idiot.No, you do it by enlisting Karl Rove and his attack dogs to blanket the media with mudslinging ads that the gullible American public will believe. (Swift Boat Veterans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7vCGm33HAU) for Truth, anyone?)

[Mike_Lowery]

I saw the video of George on the USS Abe Lincoln this morning, and I went to work pissed off.

[Leo Lakio]

There's definately a connection between Iraq and Al Queda and their presence in Iraq is a telling story.Yes, there is a connection now; the USA invaded Iraq, and Al Qaida is one of the many groups that wants us out of the region. There was no connection prior to the US invasion - even the administration admits that. Al Qaida was no friend of Saddam Hussein.not all of Congress has a need to know eitherWhether you like it or not, the laws of this nation specifically state that only Congress has the power to declare war - so, yes, Congress does have a "need to know" the truth, and not be misled by a manipulative executive.because of what we ended up doing we need to finish itOn that, we agree - so where's the administration's timetable and structure for doing so? There was none at the start, there is none now. The only sure thing is that many more American soldiers will die for Dubya's vendetta, long after he's an ex-president, resting at his ranch.

[cynsaligia]

ah, crap. apologies for the garbled nature of my post above, compounded by the accidental double-posting. i should have known better than to attempt a multi-cited post when i knew my computer needed a restart. :(

the point was made anyway. any criticism of bill clinton "not doing his job" in terms of awareness re terrorism priorities and passing on such knowledge to 43 is plain ludicrous. additionally, starting the afternoon that the planes hit the world trade centers, rummy & 43 were trying to find an excuse to hit iraq, even tho they kept being told that we needed to go into afghanistan.

[Ron Whitfield]

There is already so much mis-info BS in this thread so far, that it's no wonder this country is patheticly helpless in getting ANYTHING done to do even the most basic things to right this quickly sinking ship of a country.
Kiss it goodbye.
Enjoy the last of the good times, my friends. That silly old man with 'the end is near' sign was eventually right, and way sooner than I thot.
Thanx Bush/Cheney voters.

[craigwatanabe]

ah, crap. apologies for the garbled nature of my post above, compounded by the accidental double-posting. i should have known better than to attempt a multi-cited post when i knew my computer needed a restart. :(

the point was made anyway. any criticism of bill clinton "not doing his job" in terms of awareness re terrorism priorities and passing on such knowledge to 43 is plain ludicrous. additionally, starting the afternoon that the planes hit the world trade centers, rummy & 43 were trying to find an excuse to hit iraq, even tho they kept being told that we needed to go into afghanistan.

Ya know getting slapped once was bad enough but then again having to endure the reruns plus the accompanying wrath from Leo Lakio has me licking my wounds. :D

You know what's worse than being a Republican on this forum? Being a middle-class gap-group wage earner Republican that has arthritis and rode the bus while getting stink eye from the elderly and the handicapped if I every sat down on my morning commute. Yeah I should just become a vegetarian tree hugging Prius driving, Macintosh wielding Democrat already:D

[Ron Whitfield]

Nah, just don't give W a big thumbs up for 8 years of killing this country by voting for McCain/McCave.

[Leo Lakio]

plus the accompanying wrath from Leo Lakio has me licking my wounds.My apologies, Craig. You know I respect you, and I'm sorry - my passionate comments regarding the topic did come across as attacks on you personally, and I should not have phrased them in such a fashion.

There is no shame in being a Republican in America, nor in having conservative values. There are many wonderful people who post on HT who share these with you. But those factors should not lead anyone to blind acceptance of the statements or actions of the administration in power, just because they may be of the same political party. That applies equally to Democrats.