George's Aircraft Carrier Carnival

"Mission Accomplished" is to Bush as "sensitive war on terror" is to Kerry.

On May 1, 2003, President Bush, in full action mode, arrived on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln to officially declare an end to major combat operations. His speech was actually pretty good. However, his speech is not the lasting image from that event. The lasting image is the President at the podium while a banner pronouncing "Mission Accomplished" appears above him.

Before I explain why this banner was a bad idea, I'm going to do something to make Republicans happy. I am going to criticize John Kerry. By now most people are aware of at least part of this statement Kerry made in an August 5 speech:

I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.

Elsewhere on the internet, I wrote this about Kerry's speech:

First off, saying "sensitive war on terror" is just so, SO BAD. Secondly, to name off five adjectives and have the last one--the one people will remember more than any other--be "sensitive" is even worse. Third, to make that statement and not follow it up by what is meant by "sensitive" is even worse yet. Has the comment been taken out of context? Yes, but that is not the point. There are two points: 1) the statement could nonetheless be interpreted to mean "a sensitive war on terror" rather than an effort that reaches out to other nations; and 2) Kerry should have been "sensitive" enough to know that such wording was just asking for ridicule, which he is now getting.

Now that I have made Republicans happy, I am going to make them mad. The same basic reasoning I used to criticize Kerry applies completely to Bush and the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Saying "Mission Accomplished" is so, SO BAD.

Bush's speech showed that much remained to be accomplished.

As Bush his own self said in his speech,

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.

In other words, when that banner was hung--and placed prominently in the picture--there was still a boatload (pun intended) of work left.

Now I know what you Republicans are thinking..."But Bush never said the mission was accomplished." That is true, but my response--for several reasons--is "BFD." Let's break down that argument into two components.

Component 1: The words "mission accomplished" were not spoken.

Quick...what do you remember the most from this event? Do you remember what Bush said? More importantly, do you remember what he did not say? Or, are your strongest memories 1) the plane landing, 2) Bush in a flight suit, and 3) the "Mission Accomplished" banner? I'll bet most people remember the visuals much more than the spoken words. Anyone who doubts this assertion needs to consider that the only reason anyone--including you Bush supporters-- needs to look closely at what Bush said and did not say is that visual image of the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Moreover, as will be explained, the White House communications team places great emphasis on visual images.

Component 2: Bush was in no way responsible for the banner.

Bush himself certainly took this stand in a press conference on October 28, 2003, when he said "The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way." O.K....so does that mean the ship's crew did everything and the White House had nothing to do with the banner? Well, not exactly. As reported by the Associated Press, immediately after the press conference "a White House spokeswoman said the Lincoln's crew asked the White House to have the sign made. The White House asked a private vendor to produce the sign, and the crew put it up, said the spokeswoman." (emphasis added). In a press briefing the very next day, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan revealed that "We said all along, and we said previously that it was the idea -- that the idea of the banner -- for the banner was suggested by those on board on ship. And they asked -- they asked if we could help take care of the production of the banner. And we more than happy to do so[.]" So the White House did know about the banner in advance of the event and actually played an active role in creating it.

Please note that these statements by Bush and McClellan constituted the first explanation by the administration of the banner. Note further that this initial explanation came six months after the event.

So, we know that the White House was to some degree responsible for the banner, but to what degree? The Navy, through Cmdr. Conrad Chun, said, "The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea," and that "The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment." Does this mean that the White House is off the hook? Well, not exactly. As it turns out, the White House played a significant and direct role regarding the banner.

The White House's Media Magicians

On May 16, 2003, the New York Times published an article entitled "Keepers of Bush Image Lift Stagecraft to New Heights." Regarding the event on the Lincoln, the article said this:

The most elaborate — and criticized — White House event so far was Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of major combat in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people, including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. (Scott) Sforza (a former TV producer who works for the White House communications director) embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.

Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.

So, the White House had staff on board the ship days before the event, and that staff "choreographed every aspect of the event," which certainly includes the hanging of the banner in a place where it would be seen with Bush. That pretty much tells me that the White House was largely responsible for "bannergate," but I never needed convincing. For those who need convincing, let's look at the White House's SOP for media events.

From the New York Times article:

Officials of past Democratic and Republican administrations marvel at how the White House does not seem to miss an opportunity to showcase Mr. Bush in dramatic and perfectly lighted settings. It is all by design: the White House has stocked its communications operation with people from network television who have expertise in lighting, camera angles and the importance of backdrops.

*******

"We pay particular attention to not only what the president says but what the American people see," Mr. (Dan) Bartlett (director of White House communications) said. "Americans are leading busy lives, and sometimes they don't have the opportunity to read a story or listen to an entire broadcast. But if they can have an instant understanding of what the president is talking about by seeing 60 seconds of television, you accomplish your goals as communicators. So we take it seriously."

The article described one of my favorite examples of the Bush media team tactics:

On Tuesday, at a speech promoting his economic plan in Indianapolis, White House aides went so far as to ask people in the crowd behind Mr. Bush to take off their ties, WISH-TV in Indianapolis reported, so they would look more like the ordinary folk the president said would benefit from his tax cut.

And for those who just know the New York Times cannot be right because it is part of the Liberal Media, surf over to the report on WISH TV's website.

The New York Times gave another example of "the importance of backdrops" in describing a speech Bush gave in Albuquerque on May 15, 2003: "the White House unfurled a backdrop that proclaimed its message of the day, 'Helping Small Business,' over and over. The type was too small to be read by most in the audience, but just the right size for television viewers at home." See the video here. Quoting a Boston Globe article, ABC News reported in July 2002 that "White House officials insist that such frequent branding works, giving distracted television viewers a quick guide to the official message of the day."

According to ABC News and the New York Times article, the man in charge of the backdrops since the summer of 2002 has been the aforementioned Scott Sforza. ABC reported that Sforza "boils down Bush's speeches to their common denominator for almost every important event," and "then considers the placement of the posters, to ensure they do not escape the lenses of television cameras around the room. " Gee, Sforza was on the Lincoln days before Bush's speech, and that "Mission Accomplished" banner was perfectly framed in the lasting image of Bush at the podium. Coincedence? I pretty much doubt it.

Sforza is not the only media wizard working for Bush. There is also Bob DeServi, a former NBC cameraman who is a master of lighting. The New York Times described two events which show the lengths to which the White will go to get just the right light for a single event. The first took place on September 11, 2002.

For the prime-time television address that Mr. Bush delivered to the nation on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House rented three barges of giant Musco lights, the kind used to illuminate sports stadiums and rock concerts, sent them across New York Harbor, tethered them in the water around the base of the Statue of Liberty and then blasted them upward to illuminate all 305 feet of America's symbol of freedom. It was the ultimate patriotic backdrop for Mr. Bush, who spoke from Ellis Island.

You can see a video of this speech on the White House website, but you won't see the Statue of Liberty. For that shot, try the video from the BBC. There you will see Bush centered between the Statue of Liberty and a large American flag. Gee, I wonder why the White House video did not show that? The second event was on November 23, 2002, in Bucharest, Romania. "DeServi went so far as to rent Musco lights in Britain, which were then shipped across the English Channel and driven across Europe to Romania, where they lighted Mr. Bush and the giant stage across from the country's former Communist headquarters." See a picture here.

The New York Times identified one other media magician: "A third crucial player is Greg Jenkins, a former Fox News television producer in Washington who is now the director of presidential advance. Mr. Jenkins manages the small army of staff members and volunteers who move days ahead of Mr. Bush and his entourage to set up the staging of all White House events." Bush hired someone from Fox News? Golly, I never would have figured that.

So what does all this have to do with what Bush said or didn't say or whether he had anything to do with the banner? Let's review the White House SOP for events.

• The White House communications director said "We pay particular attention to not only what the president says but what the American people see."
• Bush's speeches "are boiled down to their common denominator," and then Sforza makes sure that it is part of the backdrop and in the camera shot.
  
• Bartlett, the communications director, said the goal is to give people "an instant understanding of what the president is talking about," and that is done through the visual images, not the spoken words. Anyone disputing that conclusion should keep in mind that Bartlett said the "instant understanding" was to come from" seeing," not hearing, "60 seconds of television." Also, look at the preceding bullet point.
  
• As shown by the September 11, 2002, and Romania events, the White House will spare no effort or expense to get just the right lighting for a single, brief occasion.
  
• The White House has "a small army of staff members and volunteers" who arrive at the site of an event days before it happens in order to set up all the staging.

Conclusion as to Components 1 and 2 (part one)

Review the White House SOP. Review the examples of that SOP in action. Now try to make a plausible argument that the White House did nothing but make the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Two of my favorite bloggers summed up this matter rather nicely. Back when he was Calpundit, Kevin Drum (now of Political Animal) had this to say: "Bush knows perfectly well that his staff managed every last detail of the carrier speech, and he knows perfectly well that every reporter at the press conference yesterday also knows it." Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo said, "[T]here is no way that the idea was not debated, planned, vetted and everything else in the White House's political and communications offices. No way." In other words, the banner was the idea of the Lincoln's crew, but the White house decided to implement the idea. The White House, not the Navy, decided what to put on the banner. The White House decided where to put the banner. The White House decided to make sure that Bush and the banner were in the same camera shot. The White House was in charge of this event, and the White House did a lot more than just make the banner. For Bush and McClellan to claim otherwise to any degree is not just disingenuous. It is spineless.

Review the White House SOP and the actions of the media magicians one more time. Now try to make a plausible argument that the "instant understanding" Bush intended to convey was not "Mission Accomplished." Given the White House's emphasis on backdrops and the fact that the banner was the backdrop while Bush was at the podium, I conclude that Bush effectively said "Mission Accomplished" even though he did not speak those words.

Conclusion as to Components 1 and 2 (part two)

Part one of my conclusion on Components 1 and 2 is based in large part on facts outside of the event on the aircraft carrier. Part two is based on facts directly related to that event. I'll take them in reverse chronological order. Regarding the banner, Ari Fleischer, who was the White House Press Secretary at the time of the event, was quoted in an April 30, 2004, CBS News report as saying "We put it up. We made the sign." (emphasis added). So there is an admission that the White House did more than just make the sign. As it turns out, there was also some evidence of that back in October 2003. USA Today published an article on October 28, 2003, which said "Military officials agreed that the banner was their idea..." That sounds pretty good for Bush--but wait, there's more to the sentence: "...but said White House aides signed off on it, made it and positioned it prominently behind the spot where Bush made his remarks." Ouch. Looks like Josh Marshall was right. The White House knew about the banner and vetted the idea.

Recall that Bush said "I know it (the banner) was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way." In light of that comment, other parts of the USA Today article are particularly interesting:

But Bush's advance staff did have a hand in the banner, said other military officials who asked not to be identified. Personnel aboard the Abraham Lincoln asked the White House to make the banner because there were no art supplies aboard the ship, the officials said. The White House advance team then brought the banner to the ship and positioned it behind Bush.

White House communications director Dan Bartlett confirmed some of those details. "I received a phone call from the ship. They asked if they could have something that recognized that they had accomplished their mission. We agreed and helped develop a banner that reflected that," he said.

The White House communications office, well-known for the care it takes with the backdrops at Bush's speeches, created the "Mission Accomplished" banner in the same style as banners the president uses in other appearances, including one in Canton, Ohio, just a week before the carrier speech. That banner, with the same typeface and soft, brush-stroked American flag in the background, read: "Jobs and Growth."

So, the White House advance team did work on the banner. Again--ouch. Now look at the quote from Bartlett. Apparently, the crew of the Lincoln did not ask for a banner that said "Mission Accomplished." It was the White House that "developed a banner that reflected" the crew's request. Looks like I was correct in saying that the White House decided what to put on the banner. And that means that the White House intended for the message "Mission Accomplished" to be conveyed.

Spineless.

Saying "Mission Accomplished" is bad, but having it be the lasting image is even worse.

I am staying with my assertion that people remember the visual images from George’s Aircraft Carrier Carnival more than Bush’s spoken words. With that in mind, recall the three major visual images: 1) the plane landing, 2) Bush in a flight suit, and 3) the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Of those three, the banner was the last one–just like “sensitive” was the last adjective used by Kerry. “Sensitive war on terror” is what people remember most from Kerry’s speech, and “Mission Accomplished” is what people remember most from this event. That is “even worse” because people do not remember the speech. People do not remember that Bush said there was still a lot of work to do. People do not remember that Bush did not say the phrase “mission accomplished.” People do remember “Mission Accomplished.”

More to the point, people remember “Mission Accomplished” and do not know of or do not remember any explanation for what that meant.

Saying “Mission Accomplished” and not explaining the meaning is even worse yet.

As noted previously, the Bush administration made no attempt to explain what “Mission Accomplished” meant until six months after the speech. This was a bad move because for six months everyone was allowed to speculate on what “Mission Accomplished” meant. One might think that in six months, the White House could come up with one brilliant explanation. Think again.

What's brown and sounds like a bell?

In the case of the "Mission Accomplished" banner, the answer is the “explanation” from Bush and his press secretary Scott McClellan. In a general sense, the answer to the question is "dung." It's a joke from a Monty Python skit--The Visitors, Episode 9, which also has llamas and a lumberjack--but I digress.

According to Bush, “The ‘Mission Accomplished’ sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished.” So, does that mean that “Mission Accomplished” only applied to the crew of the Lincoln? That seems to be what Bush was saying. And that seems to be what McClellan said the following day:

The President was pleased to personally thank our sailors and aviators and naval officers on board the USS Lincoln for their service and sacrifice after what was a very lengthy deployment. It was the Navy, the people on board the ship who had the idea of this banner and made the suggestion, because they wanted to have a way to commemorate the fact that these sailors and the crew on board the ship had completed their mission, after a very lengthy deployment.

*******

[T]he idea of the banner--for the banner was suggested by those on board on ship. And they asked--they asked if we could help take care of the production of the banner. And we more than happy to do so because this is a very nice way to pay tribute to our sailors and aviators and men and women in the military who are on board that ship for a job well done.

*******

What I'm saying is that this was about paying tribute to our sailors and aviators and naval officers on board the USS Lincoln. That's what this was about. Let's keep that in context.

*******

The mission for those people on board the ship was accomplished.

*******

You had a number of men and women in the military on board that ship, sailors, aviators, naval officers, that were on board that ship, they were returning back to the United States and returning to -- one stop along their way -- to their home port up in Washington, I believe -- the state of Washington, stopping in San Diego. And those on board the ship thought it was nice way to say to all those on board the ship, thank you for a job well done. And the President personally went there to do that.

(emphasis added). O.K., O.K., Scott. We get it. The event and the banner were all about thanking the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln for the performance of their mission.

But...the banner didn’t say that. It just had two words: “Mission Accomplished.” And the banner was not next to or close to anything indicating that it applied only to the crew of the Lincoln. I guess we will just have to look to Bush’s speech to see if he explained that the banner was all about the crew of the Lincoln. Let’s see...Bush did say this:

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment -- yet, it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other, made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.

(emphasis added). Well, here it seems Bush thanked all of the military, not just the crew of the Lincoln. Then again, maybe by "you, the members of the United States military" he meant just the crew of the ship since they were all members of the military. Still, that is not clear. Maybe this statement shows that the banner and the event were about thanking just the crew of the Lincoln:

Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision and speed and boldness the enemy did not expect, and the world had not seen before.

Well, that really does not address just the crew of the Lincoln because they were not the only members of the military that carried out Operation Iraqi Freedom. Bush's next sentence was

From distant bases or ships at sea, we sent planes and missiles that could destroy an enemy division, or strike a single bunker.

Hmm...Bases are not naval ships, and "ships" means Bush was not talking about only one ship. Consequently, this sentence indicates that Bush was not talking about just the crew of the Lincoln. Maybe his next sentence did.

Marines and soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground, in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history.

Sailors, who stay on ships, did not charge across 350 miles of land, but Marines do charge across land, and Marines are part of the Navy. However, Bush said Marines AND soldiers, so he adressed more than Navy personnel. Consequently, this sentence does not show at all that Bush was talking about only the crew of the Lincoln. Gee, maybe his next sentence did.

You have shown the world the skill and the might of the American Armed Forces.

Wow, you mean the crew of the Lincoln alone showed the world the skill and might of the entire American military? Now, that's just not possible.

Am I being ridiculous? I actually think so, but I am not doing this analysis to convince myself. I am doing this to explain and show to people--especially Bush supporters--that the Bush administration is just full of crap. The banner did not say it applied only to the crew of the Lincoln. None of the above excerpts from Bush speech thanks or addresses ONLY the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln. In fact, all of those excerpts thank and address ALL of the US military. And yet Scott McClellan, Bush's official spokesman, told us that "this was about paying tribute to our sailors and aviators and naval officers on board the USS Lincoln. That's what this was about." Now that is a big steaming pile of crap.

Still not convinced? After he said all of the foregoing excerpts, Bush said this:

And tonight, I have a special word for Secretary Rumsfeld, for General Franks, and for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States: America is grateful for a job well done.

(emphasis added). So...what's brown and sounds like a bell? The White House's explanation that the "Mission Accomplished" banner and the entire event onboard the Lincoln was just about thanking the crew of that ship.

Still not convinced? Then please answer these questions: Do you really think that the President would make a televised speech to the entire nation and, instead of thanking ALL of the approximately 150,000 people he sent to war and the thousands of other who were part of the war effort, thank only 5000?

Now that I have spewed righteous indignation, I have to concede that part of Bush's speech did specifically address the crew of the Lincoln. Here it is:

Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight. After service in the Afghan--and Iraqi theaters of war --after 100,000 miles, on the longest carrier deployment in recent history, you are homeward bound. Some of you will see new family members for the first time--150 babies were born while their fathers were on the Lincoln. Your families are proud of you, and your nation will welcome you.

Here would have been a good place to say something like, "This banner behind me is for you, the crew of the Lincoln," but Bush did nothing of the sort. It would have been so easy to say something like that. Such a statement would have clarified things and made life easier for the Bush administration. Why in the world would Bush not make such a statement if the event and the banner were truly all about thanking the crew of the Lincoln? One reason I contend that this excerpt does not verify Bush's and McClellan's "explanation is that moments after he specifically addressed the crew of the Lincoln, Bush said this:

All of you--all in this generation of our military--have taken up the highest calling of history.

(emphasis added). So if anyone wants to argue that the words for the crew of the Lincoln support the "explanation," explain why Bush later said words that expressly, conclusively, and irrefutably addressed the entire military.

So why didn't Bush take the very simple step of saying one sentence explaining that the "Mission Accomplished" banner applied only to the crew of the Lincoln? My answer--and hey, I could be wrong--is that he didn't do that because that was not the meaning the White House intended to convey.

So the "explanation" given for the banner is brown and sounds like a bell. Maybe there is something else in the speech that could give the meaning of "Mission Accomplished."

What other missions might have been accomplished?

Perhaps the banner referred to the war on terrorism. Did Bush's speech mention this? Yes, it did: "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." Hey, that sounds like an accomplished mission. However, Bush then said "Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed.," and "The war on terror is not over[.]"

Maybe Bush meant that democracy had been established in Iraq. Well, no he didn't: "The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done."

What other missions were mentioned by Bush? How about Afghanistan? Bush said, "In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists, and the camps where they trained." But then he said this: "Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a Special Operations task force, led by the 82nd Airborne, is on the trail of the terrorists and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan. America and our coalition will finish what we have begun." In other words, the mission was not completed.

Now I know what you Bush apologists are thinking. The mission that was accomplished was the end of major combat operations. That is a good argument. After all, Bush opened his speech with "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." Why, then, did Bush not expressly say that "Mission Accomplished" meant the end of major combat operations? Again, this would have been so easy to do, and it would have eliminated any ambiguities.

Recent attempts at an explanation

During an April 30, 2004 appearance with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, Bush had this to say:

A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier, saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we'd accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein.

So now the mission which was accomplished was the removal of Saddam. But...but...on October 28, 2003, Bush gave one--and only one--explanation of "Mission Accomplished," and that was that it meant that the crew of the Lincoln had completed their mission. Then on April 30, 2004, he said nothing about the crew of the Lincoln and and that the "accomplished mission" was getting rid of Saddam. Since I am comparing Kerry's recent verbal gaffe to Bush's conduct, I am compelled to say that Bush executed a nice flip-flop.

However, "Bush's Brain," a/k/a Karl Rove, was sticking with the original explanation just two weeks earlier. According to an AP report entitled "Rove Regrets 'Mission Accomplished' Sign," Rove, "speaking at an editorial board meeting with The Columbus Dispatch in Ohio on Thursday, echoed Bush's contention that the phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing their 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq."

I don't which is more ridiculous--Rove sticking to the original bullshit explanation or Bush completely abandoning it and making the obvious explanation--which he could have so easily done during his speech on May 1, 2003--a year after the speech. Even so, notice that Bush perhaps did not change his position. On April 30, 2004, he did not say that the banner referred to the removal of Saddam, while on October 28, 2003, he specifically said the banner was for the crew of the Lincoln. Wow, and the Republicans complain about Kerry being nuanced and indecisive. C'mon, George. Find a spine and give us a straight answer.

Why the lack of an explanation is so bad and what that says about the Bush administration.

Multiple interpretations and speculation

The bottom line is that Bush did not provide any explanation in his speech as to the meaning of "Mission Accomplished." As I said earlier, allowing six months to pass without offering any kind of explanation allowed speculation--and criticism. One of the major problems with the banner is that, standing alone, it is open to several interpretations. Some of those interpretations were presented in Scott McClellan's press briefing on October 29, 2003. What I am about to do will be repitition and add to this already very long post, but it will be instructive. I have already reproduced some of McClennan's responses, but I did not reproduce the questions. Those questions present the reasonable interpretations of the "Mission Accomplished" banner, and McClellan's answers show more lack of a backbone.

Q: Are you denying now that the President had the distinct intention at the time of that speech that Americans would see that picture and think the mission in Iraq has been accomplished, the overall mission?
MR. McCLELLAN: What I'm saying is that this was about paying tribute to our sailors and aviators and naval officers on board the USS Lincoln. That's what this was about. Let's keep that in context. And the President was pleased to personally go on board the USS Lincoln and thank our men and women in the military for an outstanding job, for accomplishing their mission, and for -- when they were returning to the United States.
Q: The President did not want Americans to see "mission accomplished" and think, great, the war is over?
MR. McCLELLAN: The idea for the banner and the idea for the sign was suggested by those on board ship. And we were pleased to help them with that.
Q: And he never knew that would be the interpretation, that the mission -- his mission was accomplished?
MR. McCLELLAN: The mission for those people on board the ship was accomplished.
Q: But the President didn't know that this would be interpreted throughout the world that we had -- that the combat mission was over, basically?
MR. McCLELLAN: The major combat operations were over. That's what the President said in his remarks. But he also went on to say that there are difficulties that remain and dangers that continue to exist, and that it's important that we stay the course and finish our work and continue to work with the Iraqi people to help them realize a better future. And that's exactly what we are doing right now.

All of the preceding questions and responses show 1) reasonable interpretations of the "Mission Accomplished" banner; 2) that McClellan didn't have the cajones to address those interpretations, much less explain why they were incorrect; and 3) the White House allowed the speculation to continue because, as shown above, McClellan's explanation was crap.

Has "Mission Accomplished" been taken out of context? Maybe, but that is beside the point.

Now I know what some of you Republicans are thinking. These questions were not reasonable interpretations because Bush's speech shows them to be incorrect. After all, Bush said there was work to be done in Iraq. In other words, you Republicans want to argue that the banner was taken out of context, and that takes us back to John Kerry's "sensitive war on terror." Recall that way up at the beginning of this post I said that Kerry's comment was taken out of context. Ignored were his other comments--which were all strong--as to how he would fight the war on terror. Ignored were his words after "sensitive war on terror" which could easily be intepreted to mean that he would make an effort to get more cooperation from other countries. Consequently, "sensitive war on terror" was definitely taken out of context. Now recall that I said that was beside the point.

I said there were two points, the first one being that Kerry's comments could be interpreted as "sensitive war on terror," especially because Kerry did not explain what he meant. This same reasoning applies to the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Without any explanation, either on the banner or in Bush's speech, and with Bush's declaration that "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed," it is reasonable to interpret the banner in the manner posed by the questions to McClellan. What absolutely boggles my mind is why Bush did nothing in his speech to explain what the banner meant. If the banner truly was meant to signify ONLY that the Lincoln had accomplished its mission, Bush could have said so in one simple sentence. If the banner was meant to signify the end of major combat operations, Bush could have said so in one simple sentence. If the banner was meant to signify the removal of Saddam, Bush could have said so in one simple sentence. If he had done that, no one would be talking about the damn banner. Instead, he did nothing, and as a result, as noted in this AP article, "The 'Mission Accomplished' boast has been mocked many times since Bush's carrier speech as criticism has mounted over the failed search for weapons of mass destruction and the continuing violence in Iraq."

The second point I made about Kerry's statements was that "Kerry should have been 'sensitive' enough to know that such wording was just asking for ridicule[.]" Stated differently, he should have known better. And Bush and his staff should have known better. They should have known that unless "Mission Accomplished" was explained in the speech, Bush would come under heavy criticism. They should have known that "Mission Accomplished" needed to be explained in the speech given that Bush did say that there was a lot of work left to do in Iraq and that the war on terror had not been won. They should have known that the banner above Bush would be the lasting impression from the event. Let's assume for the time being that they did not realize any of this. First of all, that would qualify all of them as certified morons. Secondly, they could have overcome their stupidity by giving a simple, rational, plausible explanation of the banner's meaning. Instead, they

first said that they had nothing to do with it and that it was all the Navy's idea;

then conceded that they made the sign;

then admitted that they put it up;

then admitted they "developed" the idea;

then--6 months after the speech--come up with the unmitigated bullshit that the banner and the event were a tribute to the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln ONLY; and

then 6 months after that (one year after the speech) Bush said his speech stated that we'd accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein."

This is the best these guys can do? This is pathetic. It is bad enough that no explanation of the banner was given in Bush's speech. It is bad enough that it took six months to get any explanation. But it is damn near incomprehensible that the first explanation is one that was not only not supported but contradicted by Bush's speech. AND it is damn near incomprehensible that it took another six months before they came up with an explanation that was clearly supported by the speech--and even then did not say that was the meaning of the banner!

Maybe the White House did know better.

There is another way to look at this. It is possible that the White House did "know better," but decided to go ahead with the banner anyway. Look at the statements by Bush, McCelellan, Bartlett, etc. In the law, something is deemed to be unambiguous if there is one--and only one--reasonable interpretation. None of the administration statements can be said to be unambiguous. They are worded in such a way so that they 1) don't really pin down the administration to one position, and 2) permit the administration to justify multiple--and changing--positions. Bush's "explanation" on April 30, 2004, is a good example. Here is what he said:

A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier, saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we'd accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein.

On the one hand, he said "we'd accomplished a mission," which is pretty much the same as "mission accomplished," meaning further that Bush could be interpreted as saying that the "Mission Accomplished" banner referred to the removal of Saddam. However, if someone publicly questioned anyone in the administration about why the President had changed his position (as discussed above), they could say that on April 30, 2004, Bush said "accomplished a mission," not "mission accomplished," so therefore Bush was not talking about the banner. Such a position would be aided by the fact that, as pointed out earlier, Bush did not directly refer to the banner. Then again, if someone publicy points out to anyone in the administration that the explanation of the banner being just for the crew of the Lincoln is bullshit, they could say that on April 30, 2004, Bush, by using the phrase "we'd accomplished a mission" clearly meant that the meaning of the "Mission Accomplished" banner was the removal of Saddam. Some would call this clever. I call it dishonest, particularly since Republicans go on and on about what a straight shooter and strong leader George Bush is. I said it before, and I'll say it again: C'mon, George. Find a spine and give us a straight answer.

But back to the banner...I think it is likely that the White House intentionally left the banner ambiguous and intentionally chose not to provide any explanation in the speech. That way "Mission Accomplished" could mean whatever people wanted it to mean. Whatever would make people feel good, that's what the banner meant. Bush's speech was such that if anyone tried to say "Mission Accomplished" was an overstatement, he could say that he never said the whole mission was accomplished. At the same time, if by chance things in Iraq changed very quickly (WMD found, no more insurgency, etc.), then Bush could claim that even the most optimistic (or myopic) interpretation of "Mission Accomplished" was correct.

Recall the discussion of the Media Magicians and how the White House loves loves to put the central, "boiled down" message of Bush's speeches into visual backdrops. Given all of that, I think it is likely that the White House intentionally wanted the central message of the entire event to be "Mission Accomplished" even though they knew that could be very risky. In other words, the White House made a conscious decision to go before the American public and be intentionally vague. Now that's strong leadership, ain't it?

And another thing...the banner was so unnecessary.

Look once again at what John Kerry said. In describing how he would fight the war on terror, he said he would be "more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic," and "more proactive." He could have--and should have--stopped right there. He so did not need to then say "sensitive." That was completely unnecessary. And the same can be said about the "Mission Accomplished" banner. As I said, Bush's speech was pretty good. It described some success, paid tribute to those responsible for it, set out the difficult work that lay ahead, and expressed determination to get that work done. Had it not been for the banner, people would have probably paid more attention to the speech, and thus Bush might not have received all the criticism that has followed. Furthermore, if there had been no banner, the visual images people would be left with were the plane landing and Bush in the flight suit. Those were strong images, and for many people it showed Bush as a rugged, strong leader. I am among those that thought those images were ridiculous, but even I have to say that they were not really dishonest given that Bush was a pilot and is the commander in chief. Now think about the "Mission Accomplished" banner. As I have argued, there is a big dose of dishonesty regarding that banner, both at the event itself and in the months that followed. So instead of being satisfied with visual images of a rugged, strong leader and a good speech, the White House decided to go with the banner. I just do not understand. Before the event, the risks of the banner should have been obvious, and the effectiveness of the other images should have been obvious.

Conclusion

No matter how you look at it, "bannergate" reflects very badly on Bush and his staff. They look stupid, reckless, spineless, manipulative, clueless, or dishonest--or all of the above. If this was an isolated incident, it would be insignificant. However, it is far from isolated. It is typical. The Bush administration has consistently done things that are stupid. They have consistently ignored things that are obvious and should compel action the opposite of what they do. They have consistently been vague and dishonest.