White House admits fault on 'Mission Accomplished' banner

Unless they go camping in Vermont...

Well, that took them a while to admit.

Technically they didn't admit anything but the pain and suffering it has brought poor ole Dubbya.

The White House said Wednesday that President Bush has paid a price for the "Mission Accomplished" banner that was flown in triumph

... and that they're sorry, and it won't happen again.

... and that they're sorry, and it won't happen again.

Coming from the White House that would be, it won't happen again to Iraq.

Totally.

Then declare victory and go home!

Attempting to answer my own question: wikipedia has this link:

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Interviews with Mr. Bob Woodward -- July 6 and 7, 2006

...
When he received an advance copy of the speech, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took care to remove any use of the phrase "Mission Accomplished" in the speech itself. Later, when journalist Bob Woodward asked him about his changes to the speech, Rumsfeld responded:"I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it's too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back… they fixed the speech, but not the sign." ...

Good for Rummy.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell = War Criminals

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell = War Criminals

If that's the case, you'd better toss in the vast majority of the senate as well. I prefer to think of them as very poor in terms of judgment. But war criminals? Huge stretch, with absolutely no evidence to back it up--and it does a disservice to true war criminals.

Well it all depends who hold the political gavel. Today one is the plaintive tomorrow he is an accused!

The courts will pronounce the verdict, and history will record the Tragedy!

This mission won't be accomplished until many more American servicemen and women have died (unnecessarily) and we finally withdraw from a misbegotten war brought to us by a very foolish man and those that have supported and enabled him.

"So" is a good reply.

Another example of the focus on one-liners.

How's that for a one-liner?

This mission won't be accomplished until many more American servicemen and women have died (unnecessarily)

The liberals would leave the Iraqis to kill each other, open the floodgates for terror--far more death would follow on the heels of our early withdrawal. It wouldn't be Americans, but it would still be humans who would lose their life if we were to leave.

In case you haven't noticed E.D. the Iraqis are already killing each other with great gusto. No one can predict with certainty what happens when we leave. Certainly the right wing's crystal ball seems a bit cracked and tarnished by now. Killing more Americans will not solve the problem.

E.D. -

We base that on this: ABC/BBC/ARD/NHK POLL - IRAQ Monday, March 17, 2008

Only 27 percent say the presence of U.S.
forces is making overall security better in Iraq, up 9 points; 61 percent say it's making
things worse.

There should be referendum on that.

There should be referendum on that.

Since when do the opinions of civilians at home mean more than the critical analysis of military leaders? What war was ever won when left to the devices of politicians and their electorate? War isn't pleasant. Of course people don't want our troops to be there, but the average joe's knowledge of security in Iraq, and our influence on that security, is hardly expert.

So you're saying this mess is the best the 'experts' can do? Some experts, hope we aren't overpaying them.

E.D.Kain...The liberals would leave the Iraqis to kill each other, open the floodgates for terror--far more death would follow...

Don't you just hate those nut jobs and liberals? Everyone with sense knows why we needed to invade, right? Like this guy??

Come on, Chaney is been hypnotized by Bush. He is just an innocent guy.
Bush is the mastermind of the Iraqi invasion, and Chaney and the rest of the neocons are under his spell.

This mission won't be accomplished until many more American servicemen and women have died (unnecessarily) and we finally withdraw from a misbegotten war brought to us by a very foolish man and those that have supported and enabled him.

Even though I was and still am against the war, the Bush administration has opened pandoras box which cannot be closed, they have no option but to stay the distance now. If they pull out or not there will be many deaths an a heck of a lot more if the troops did pull out.

Americans have no clue as to what the horrors of war is really like, it is not black and white. They have never experienced war on their home turf for centuries. Do they have any idea the effect of war torn places has on the psyche on the natives. Man there are a lot of @!$%#ed up kids who who need loads of counselling to sort there heads out once (and if) the country sees normal again.

Come on, Chaney is been hypnotized by Bush. He is just an innocent guy.
Bush is the mastermind of the Iraqi invasion, and Chaney and the rest of the neocons are under his spell

What planet are you on..it's the other way round, Bush is the scapegoat, the puppet who's strings are pulled by dickhead cheney. donald duck rumsfeld and his dad G.H.W.N.W.O Bush.

Put it this way, if they planned 911 and Bush knew about it, just look at his expression in the classroom when he was told about the attack. It looked to me as he was thinking "oh my god they actually done it". Look at the video again and you will know where I'm coming from.

So what are you saying, that George W. Bush is an innocent Lamb and Dick Chaney is the Beast?

So now New World Order aka NWO is the seat of the Beast? And you want the Best to go to Palestine with its armies and meet at Armageddon? You want the Beast to come home to Israel so the Second coming of Messiah happens?

No Thank You! I am not ready to see God! He is on vacation!

I think you underestimate the American people and there exposure to war. There are millions and millions of veterans out there that know very well what was is, what war produces and fails to produce. Staying the course is not a reasonable course nor is it the only course. Continuing war does not produce peace. Civil wars are best handled by the country involved, as painful as that is. Iraq has largely partitioned itself now into it's various factions but it is our incursion in to places like Sadr City that is inciting the violence. Bush and his ilk have had 5 years. Enough is enough, withdraw now and get back to fighting the war we cannot afford to lose against the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Civil wars are best handled by the country involved, as painful as that is.

The fallacy in your argument is that Iraq would handle this on its own. It would not. The neighboring states would become increasingly involved, and without some way to involve them rationally and peacefully, this would only lead to more bloodshed--certainly not the self-determination that you believe would be possible.

get back to fighting the war we cannot afford to lose against the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan

...well I can't argue with that!

Well we are half in agreement E.D. which is a start.
Since it is their neighborhood, their relatives, their religion, their languages, their region of the world should they decide to get involved they have a heck of a lot more legitimacy than we do half a world away. We are not the best arbiters of rationality and peace considering that we illegally invaded and made war on a sovereign country who posed no threat to us.
The young men and women that serve the United States of America who joined to defend their country deserve better than this. If we are going to hire them out to serve the interests of the international oil companies and cartels we should at least do it on a volunteer basis.
I will ask you one question that should put everything in crystal clear perspective for you. If Iran attacked the United States would Iraq declare war on Iran? We are not partners or allies with Iraq, we are occupiers. The Shiite dominated government of Iraq has more in common with the Shiite dominated government of Iran than they will ever have with us.

If Iran attacked the United States would Iraq declare war on Iran?

Could they, in their current state of affairs?

But the general idea is this: Democracies have more in common with one another and more interest in one another's safety than racially or religiously based national alliances. Thus, we have more of a shared interest with say, Taiwan, than Taiwan has with China, regardless of their cultural heritage and shared ethnicity.

So, if Iraq were to become a successful democracy, and then Iran were to attack the US, Iraq would have a shared interest in preserving the US and its shared capitalist ties, and they would be our allies against Iran. Sort of like Israel is our ally. Now, it certainly doesn't hurt to also have ethnic and historical ties, so Iran becoming a democracy is an even better outcome, and something we should all hope for. Then we'd have a true bastion of democracy in the middle-east, allies, rather than hostile dictatorships who have shared interests with...

...Russia, China, and so forth.

You dig?

Yeap, Roman Church tried to spread Catholicism all over the world, but it did not quite work. Now America wants to force Americanism to every part of the world in the name of democracy? I doubt that it will be digested as fine cosine.

Some people are just plane meat and potato man! They have their ways and we have our ways. If they are interested in our food they will come around. Let's not force feed them, and say this is good for you.

"Democracies have more in common with one another and more interest in one another's safety than ..."

Yes, and this is why our policies should reflect democratic values. At least if one wants to maximize our advantage.

1/20/09 ( I realize that I am being far too optimistic... )

It has been far too big a price for the removal and death of Saddam Hussein & his sons...

1/20/09 ( I realize that I am being far too optimistic... )

No, you are being delusional.

The Bush administration is still saying "The check's in the mail" and they are still not being held accountable. Wake up America!

Mission Impossible would have been appropriate.

The point is no longer whether the war was right or wrong. I was against it from the beginning. The question now is whether we can in good faith leave the country to the chaos that would ensue upon our withdrawal. The Iraqis are not prepared to handle the security situation on their own yet.

Ed,

The country is in chaos now. There's a civil war there in fact it's a two way, sunni vs shiaa as well as shiaa vs shiaa.

Stay the course is a failed policy. We need to get out.

The country is in chaos now. There's a civil war there in fact it's a two way, sunni vs shiaa as well as shiaa vs shiaa.

Stay the course is a failed policy. We need to get out.

There are two fallacies in your argument. The first is the assumption that because the country is in chaos, our leaving will somehow either improve the situation or not worsen it. Simply because it is currently chaotic in Iraq, does not mean that it couldn't get much worse.

The second fallacy is that of failed policy. You assume that because the Bush war policy is a failure, that the only redress is to "get out" which is not true. Assuming that there is only one solution to a problem is taking the easy way out. A failed policy can be met with a variety of solutions. Getting out is one of them, but by no means the only one.

For instance, the change in military leadership, the "surge", and the better dialogue and partnership with various tribal leaders has made a change in the course of events in Iraq. These are all new policies, or improved policies, and hardly represent "staying the course."

Also, there is the idea that better diplomatic relations with other States in the region could lead to a furthering of the Iraqi cause. Certainly we must be cautious about who and how we deal with Iraq's neighbors, but I do believe that increased talks with Syria, Iran, and other Middle-East states could lead to more stability.

"Getting out now" will not solve anything.

And once again, I'd like to reiterate this point: I was an avid and vocal critic of the war in Iraq. I felt that it was a foolish mission, especially in light of the unfinished business in Afghanistan. I believe we should, if possible, finish what we start prior to jumping headlong into another conflict. Iraq may have been a target worthy of military action, but I don't believe it posed an imminent threat. Iran, on the other hand, may be an entirely different matter...

For instance, the change in military leadership, the "surge", and the better dialogue and partnership with various tribal leaders has made a change in the course of events in Iraq. These are all new policies, or improved policies, and hardly represent "staying the course."

the surge was not the success you'd like to think it was. It worked largely because Al Sadr decided to let it work. When he decided the cease fire he declared was no longer in his best interest the so called gains from surge disappeared in powder smoke.

Simply because it is currently chaotic in Iraq, does not mean that it couldn't get much worse.

You seem to be assuming our staying won't make it worse. That is unproven at best and the facts seem to be against it. This is a failed policy in a failed war and we need to take our people out.

the surge was not the success you'd like to think it was.

All of this is a work in progress. The anti-war crowd thinks it should all happen at once, but it doesn't. It takes time.

time is up, the surge is over.

I am concerned this thing will snowball to Iran! The costs to humanity will be insurmountable.

This war is probably more of financial burden than the the Vietnam war. In term of casualties, the deaths are less - for USA but the heavily wounded, maimed physically and mentally are in great numbers.

E.D.-
I am intrigued by your comments, because you seem a compassionate person who is really concerned with doing the "right" thing, rather than being caught up in national pride or other irrelevant issues. I am coming at this from the other side of the camp, the school of thought that we have so thoroughly misunderstood the situation in Iraq that we cannot possibly piece the situation back together now, considering the level of distrust and anger from much of the civilian population. I am also concerned, though, about the lives and welfare of those same civilians, and would prefer to find a situation which allows us to get out without exacerbating the civil war currently going on. So what would you propose? Presumably you have an end in sight, some theory as to how we could phase a withdrawal concurrent with other efforts which would make more likely a stable Iraqi nation. I am curious as to your thoughts.

Who likes poetry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_white_mans_burden

So what would you propose? Presumably you have an end in sight, some theory as to how we could phase a withdrawal concurrent with other efforts which would make more likely a stable Iraqi nation. I am curious as to your thoughts.

Thank you, Celestia. This is exactly how I hope all debate at Newsvine will someday be. Two sides finding common ground and each searching for a common solution.

Tough question, though. I think the problem with withdrawing too soon is that it weakens not only the security situation in Iraq, but also our diplomatic strength there and in the region.

We need to have a military presence if we or the Iraqi government who we currently support is ever to remain strong enough to come to terms with the neighboring states, the tribes, the militias and other factions. As long as we are the strongest, no other group will rise up and begin all-out killing their opponents.

If we leave, I believe just such a group will rise up and begin slaughtering their enemies (innocents included) until their power is solidified. Nothing about the actions of the Iraqis thus far indicates to me that they would come to some peaceful solution on their own.

Far more than an insurgency, this fight is a civil war.

So if we leave before security is achieved, and before some sort of diplomatic agreement is achieved with some of the neighboring states, then this civil war will simply erupt upon our exit--not vanish as we, of course, would hope.

So we must continue building the security, working with the various leaders, training the Iraqi army, and so forth. Sorry if this is short on details, but I think those are best left to the military leaders involved, and the State Department officials involved in diplomacy.

I'll try to come up with something a bit more fleshed out and write an article about it.

Thanks for the civility, though. Like a breath of fresh air!

160k referees for a 30 year existing civil war. America has been refereeing for 5 years. 25 Years of deaths under Sadam < 5 years of deaths under America

Can someone help me with the ratio? I am guessing 1/1000

Is there something wrong with this picture?

Simple forecasting probability.

If America stays in Iraq will the number of Iraqi deaths be greater or less than if America goes home?

We need to have a military presence if we or the Iraqi government who we currently support is ever to remain strong enough to come to terms with the neighboring states, the tribes, the militias and other factions. As long as we are the strongest, no other group will rise up and begin all-out killing their opponents.

Well, I certainly see the logic, here, but what I wonder is whether we haven't blown our credibility in the region to the point that everyone would be better off if we withdrew while phasing in other mediators who are perceived as having less of a personal investment in the region. It seems obvious, at this point, that we went in without a thorough understanding (or at least, ignoring any understanding) of the various factions and their long histories of animosity toward each other, and also that whether we intended it or not, there is a perceived bias on our part against the Shia faction of their society. If what we are really interested in is the welfare of all the people there, I'm not convinced that maintaining the strongest military presence in the region is going to do anything other than ensure that we have to remain there indefinitely to keep the disparate factions apart.

Clearly, there is no simple solution to the mess we have helped to create.

I'll try to come up with something a bit more fleshed out and write an article about it.

Consider yourself watchlisted, mister (missus?). I look forward to seeing what practical solutions can be proposed.

Thanks for the civility, though. Like a breath of fresh air!

It was your rational voice which caught my attention. Thank you for that. Perhaps we can all get a little farther in reaching a useful middle ground.

Good exchange, Celestina & E.D..

I, of course, lean to Celestina's view.

E.D. writes about pulling out: "before some sort of diplomatic agreement is achieved with some of the neighboring states"

The plan is to achieve such an agreement, having the neighboring states take over much of the security role. If it's clear we are leaving, they will be motivated to step in for their own benefit. If they see it as just helping us to build a permanent presence, they won't be motivated.

they will be motivated to step in for their own benefit. If they see it as just helping us to build a permanent presence, they won't be motivated.

Our presence there is part of the problem. This has to end. Let's get rid of Bush, mend our fences with the UN, build an actual alliance with real muscle and turn the administration of this mess over to a real international force. We are not going to solve the problem using the same tactics that created the problem.

Wheel, I do not think it's going to happen! As much as this thing should never have been started and we should leave as soon as we can. We must leave! But this is a runaway train! There is no way to stop it! It is heading for a meltdown and everyone seems to be blind to see it.

Read the Bible prophesies!

The Beast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_%28Bible%29

The sheep and the seven headed Demon! Does this ring any bells?

Who is the sheep and who is the Demon and who are the seven heads! Where are they taking us?

It is all heading to Palestine! The Armies will meet in Palestine at Armageddon.

Let us all find away out of this quagmire before the prophecy fulfills itself.

Let's hope this is some stupid folklore and nothing more!

It seems obvious, at this point, that we went in without a thorough understanding (or at least, ignoring any understanding) of the various factions and their long histories of animosity toward each other, and also that whether we intended it or not, there is a perceived bias on our part against the Shia faction of their society.

We certainly ignored history, something that is never a good idea. More later...great response, though.

Any war that you have to explain at length...that has multiple explanations and our own military is quoted repeatedly as not understanding why we are there...what we are accomplishing, is BS. We need to back out of there the sooner the better. The administration asked for time and the surge was supposed to buy that time for a political solution and none has been forthcoming. Bush is simply playing for time so that he can dump the whole mess on the next president who can then be blamed for the "failure" of the war in Iraq.

"Read the Bible prophesies!"

That's what got us into this mess.

I love this country and your over the top but very true comments. Keep bringing the paine to the debate!

It is great that you love America, more people should. They should also stand up for the True Liberty of what America is made to represent!

If it takes pain, then that is what it takes, to fix the deep problems that Bush administration imposed on Americans and the rest of the World!

We are all in pain from the Bushism!

Unfinished business that requires solutions beyond white house platitudes...

It's the 5th anniversary of the 'mission accomplished' media talking point.

Bit melodramatic Igor. People have been calling others false messiahs since time immemorial. Bush isn't all that bright, and he failed to implement policies with much care or cohesion, foregoing utterly the transparency necessary to build trust between the world and the administration. But he's no anti-christ.

I mean, come on! If there ever is a Dark Messiah/Anti-Christ/Beast or whatever, he should be able to pronounce his words!

I mean, come on! If there ever is a Dark Messiah/Anti-Christ/Beast or whatever, he should be able to pronounce his words!

Burning Bush, Shaved Bush, Dumb Bush! LOL

I mean, come on! If there ever is a Dark Messiah/Anti-Christ/Beast or whatever, he should be able to pronounce his words!

LMAO. Well, yeah...there's that.
Though we might all just be deluded, sucked in by his veneer of blinding idiocy, stupefied by his seeming incomprehensibility...all while he secretly reprograms our brains and suckers us into eventually eating our children. Those nonsense phrases could be primordial code, you know.

suckers us into eventually eating our children.

Some people have to be suckered into that? What a strange world.

Well I guess if the Devil was sending his disciple - 666 what if not send him as a sheep! Sheep are so innocent and gullible! They would have trouble pronouncing other than Bah, Bah, Bah!

Though we might all just be deluded, sucked in by his veneer of blinding idiocy, stupefied by his seeming incomprehensibility...all while he secretly reprograms our brains and suckers us into eventually eating our children.

Well we are sacrificing our children on the altar of stupidity at the direction of a man not competent to lead a platoon let alone a nation. Look how many people on newsvine are still willing to give this "smirking chimp" more time, time to do what? Is the Iraqi army suddenly going to get smarter and stronger and victorious against the militias? The very militias who are under the command of those in the Iraqi government? We are now arming and training the Sunnis, the very people that were planting IED's and suicide bombing Americans a few months ago.
Recently I saw a clip where a reporter asked a squad leader who or what group he was fighting and his answer was "anybody that was shooting at him". What more time is going to buy is more dead Americans and more dead Iraqis. We are not saving Iraqi lives, we are prolonging a civil war.

I am not trying to preach the Bible here, there are enough people already doing that, but are all these things really coincidences?

Look at it another way.

Imagine in the future time travel is a reality. Now WW3 has ended, someone goes back in time to tell the tale, because of his technology he is called a god or messiah. the people of those times wrote revelation in only the way they could describe things at that time. How do you explain a mushroom cloud (mountain of fire) to someone from the past?

Revelations is not a prophecy conjured up by a crystal ball but a warning of an actual event in the future sent to the past.

With the way technology we have created (test tube babies, flight, landing on the moon/space travel, computers) that they would look aat us in the way of gods,

Plus take into context the coming microchipped population (the mark of the Beast/sytem), a world leader forcing democracy and world peace to the nation spilling blood in the process (the Anti Christ).

Wouldn't this be more believable story today than a man in clouds writing a book?

Sorry clouds are occupied by Angels. I am only human! I hope a few read the Vine Tree and learn from our revelations! LOL