Talk:Mission Accomplished

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

{{update}} Mission Accomplished not Accomplished. --Jingofetts 16:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I have removed the misplaced update tag - this page is a historical event and probably doesn't need to change... (ESkog)(Talk) 17:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

)))))))))))))))))

This part was removed:

"They also disputed the claim of theatrics, for instance claiming that Bush had to travel by jet since the carrier was too far for helicopter. According to CBS Broadcasting, this was untrue and the ship was close enough for a helicopter to get to ([1])."

Reason: Thats a distortion of what the White House said and when.

Here's what really happened:

ANOTHER LITTLE LIE? In mid May, Post columnist E. J. Dionne picked up Milbank's theme: "Bush and his White House say whatever is necessary, even if they have to admit later that what they said the first time wasn't exactly true." Exhibit A in Dionne's account was the president's May 1 flight to the USS Abraham Lincoln for a speech announcing the official end of hostilities in Iraq. The White House, Dionne noted, had originally said Bush would fly to the carrier in an S3B Viking jet because the ship was hundreds of miles off shore, too far to travel by helicopter. But when the president actually left, the carrier was about 30 miles from shore, close enough for a routine chopper flight. Nevertheless, the president took the jet for a dramatic landing on the Lincoln. "Now that's very interesting," Dionne concluded. "You can be absolutely sure that if an Al Gore White House had comparably misled citizens about the reason for a presidential made-for-television visit to an aircraft carrier, Gore would have been pilloried for engaging in yet another 'little lie.'"

It was an argument heard over and over around Washington, especially from Democratic lawmakers. But a close look at events suggests there was, in fact, no lie — big or little — in the Lincoln affair.

When the White House first announced the speech, Fleischer told reporters the president would be going to the Abraham Lincoln in a jet because the carrier would be far off the California coast. But as the day approached, it appeared that no one in the press office had any precise idea of exactly where the carrier would be. On the day of the event, reporters traveling to San Diego aboard Air Force One asked Fleischer how far off shore the Abraham Lincoln was. "I don't have accurate information on it," Fleischer answered. "I've been asking for it. I don't have it yet."

While most of the press corps reported on events from San Diego, a small pool of reporters flew to the Abraham Lincoln. As those reporters were getting ready to leave, they asked the pilots how far they would be going, and were told the ship was about 30 miles offshore. Once on board, the pool reporters sent back word that the Abraham Lincoln was well within range of the presidential helicopter. Navy officials explained that because of good weather, the ship had made faster-than-expected progress and was thus closer to shore than originally planned. The news appeared in some press accounts the next day, with the Associated Press quoting Fleischer as saying that the president "could have helicoptered, but the plan was already in place. Plus, he wanted to see a landing the way aviators see a landing."

The issue did not stir much controversy until the next week, when Democrats claimed that the White House had lied about the distance to the carrier so the president could star in a photo-op for his 2004 reelection campaign. At the regular White House briefing on May 6, a reporter brought up Fleischer's original statement that the ship would be hundreds of miles offshore. "Were you misled?" the reporter asked.

"No," said Fleischer. "The original planning was exactly as I said." Fleischer explained that the president still wanted to take the jet, even after it became clear that the ship was close enough for a helicopter ride. "The president wanted to land on it, on an aircraft that would allow him to see an aircraft landing the same way that the pilots saw an aircraft landing. And that's why, once the initial decision was made to fly out on the Viking, even when a helicopter option became doable, the president decided instead he wanted to still take the Viking."

Was the story a lie? It appears not. In the days leading up to the flight, Fleischer seemed unsure of how far the carrier would be from shore. On the day of the landing, when reporters learned the actual distance, he quickly conceded that the president could have taken a helicopter but had wanted to fly in the jet — a statement that jibed with statements Fleischer had made earlier that the president had been looking forward to the flight for quite some time.

Moreover, the incident raises the question of why Fleischer would tell a lie that reporters would be able to discover almost immediately — well before the president's speech. "It would have been foolish from a political standpoint to utter an easily checkable falsehood," says one White House reporter. Adds another journalist on the beat: "If you put the pieces together, I think basically what you had was they designed the trip to allow the president to take the jet, and I think what happened was that the ship had good weather and came in too quickly." Which is what the White House said.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york060303.asp

I altered the account of the Jet vs Helicopter issue, (though I still don't think it reflects well on the administration)Ace-o-aces 14:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the "very long war" line at the bottom of the article. While I suppose some people thought we'd be done by now, there's really no basis for calling the Iraq war "very long," especially compared to other wars, and especially considering how many nations US troops are still deployed in.

Contents

[edit] Move?

there have been other uses of the phrase "Mission Accomplished". Should this be moved to Mission Accomplished (Iraq war) -- Astrokey44|talk 05:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you think of any specific ones with historical significance? Ace-o-aces 13:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but the phrase was certainly widely used before May 1, 2003. This site [2] refers to it for the US WW2 campaign against Germany. Searching google for "mission accomplished" leaving out the terms -iraq -bush -george -abraham -lincoln -2003 still gets 500,000 hits [3] -- Astrokey44|talk 14:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I would think you would need a little more about the significance, history and origin of the phrase before it could be its own page. Right now, the Bush speach is what most people think of when they hear "mission accomplished". Ace-o-aces 19:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No move. Disambiguate the others if you want. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of banner

I thought that at one point the White House claimed that the banner was the idea of the troops on the aircraft carrier, etc. Is there any information on who's idea it was, how it was made, etc. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My guess is the administration got it custom made at Bullshit 'R' Us. Yes, for sixty years, Bullshit 'R' Us have provided custom signs, banners and things for PR stunts. Remember, when you need to shovel the shit on your people, its Bullshit 'R' Us.

(sorry, couldn't resist :P)--KrossTalk 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Article - Necessary?

Why does this page exist? Couldn't this all be under the Iraq War article or under George W. Bush's article? This is not substantive enough to be a stand-alone article. Dubc0724 18:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a significant historical event in its own right. I've seen wiki articles on far more obscure subjects Ace-o-aces 05:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there is some level of significance. It appears that its significance to some on WP comes from the potential embarrassment it caused the Administration. No argument it was a stunt done without foresight and was another embarrassment to the White House, but do we need an entire article for it? Do we have an article about Gerald Ford falling down all the time, or Jimmy Carter getting attacked by a rabbit and killing it with a boat paddle? Do we have an article solely devoted to Clinton poking the help? I agree that there are plenty of articles on here that have little or no relevance. I was only proposing that this article be merged into either the GWB article or the Iraq War article or even the Impeach GWB article. Thank you. Dubc0724 13:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe if Jimmy Carter being attacked by a rabbit or Ford falling down had something to do with falsely caliming major combat in a war was completed, those incidents would have their own article. "Mission Accomplished" was not like the 'pretzel choking' incident, it wasn't merely embarrassing to a public figure, it was a president saying the mission was accomplished in Iraq years 3 YEARS AGO.
Well there sure as shit is an article about Clinton "poking the help". In any case, this article, while not huge, contains too much detail on this one incdient to fit quite right into another article. A similar thing happened with the article on Babe Ruth's Called Shot. It grew to big for the main article on Ruth and got spun off on its own. Ace-o-aces 00:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
That one was just about Lewinsky, but you're right. Thank you for the discussion. I take back my original argument. Dubc0724 15:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

hey this was an historical event, on a lesser scale, but still should be mentioned nasrmg 12:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rummy's statement

Is Rumsfield's statement about the end of major combat relevent to this article? I'm sure all WH staff where reading off the same talking points that day. Ace-o-aces 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant because it was a similar announcement with a similar outcome (the violence in Afghanistan is even worse now than it was during the invasion). PBP 21:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is it now?

Anybody have any information about the where-abouts of the infamous banner now? Did the White House have it destroyed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.254.11.208 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] POV

Perhaps this information does deserve it's own page, but maybe under a title like "Controversy Surrounding End of Major Combat Operations in Iraq" As it is now, the article is definitely POV. I would expect this article to mainly be about the phrase, in the english language (somewhat like the OK article), and it's history and evolution; with just a mention of its relevance to the aircraft carrier speech.

This article appears to just be highly political one, and it shouldnt be. it should be an article about the phrase it's self, not just an politicized discussion about one thing that happened to use that established phrase on a banner.

in summary: this should not be a politically focused article, and it is. therefore neutrality tag should definitely stay, because I am heavily disputing the neutrality.

thank you.

-- Joetheguy 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've often thought the article could be changed to Mission Accomplished Speech, since it does focus mostly on the Bush speech and not the phrase. I Would have no problem with that. Other than that, I think the article maitains NPOV. You can't hide the fact that the speech was an embarasment for the Bush admin, but that doesn't make it POV Ace-o-aces 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I agree that an article on the "Mission Accomplished" the phrase, history, etc. is relevant and should be captured on wikipedia. In light of that, and Ace's comment above, maybe we should change the title of the article.

I also agree that it is a politically focused article, but that is because the speech was a political event. I contest your point that the article is POV. If you are "heavily" disputing the neutrality, please provide some sentences, phrases or other examples of where you feel the article is POV.146.23.212.21 11:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Forgot to sign in. The above paragraph and removal of POV tag was by...Thedukeofno 11:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, how do we go about changing the name? If we do I think it should either be Mission Accomplished Speech or Declaration of Mission Accomplished Ace-o-aces 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ace, actually I think we have to create a new article named "Mission Accomplished Speech" or some such, and then move this info there. Then revise this article to reflect "Mission Accomplished" the phrase. I honestly don't have enough "passion" around either to do it myself. However, I don't feel the existing article is POV.Thedukeofno 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/s/Talk%7EMission_Accomplished_ed18.html"