Bush's 'Bannergate' Shuffle

Bush's 'Bannergate' Shuffle The White House dance over that 'Mission Accomplished' banner may portend a broader credibility problem

Saturday, Nov. 01, 2003 When George Bush landed on the deck of the U.S.S. Lincoln last spring, Democrats fibrillated. They denounced the scenes of a triumphant Commander-in-Chief surrounded by cheering troops as crassly choreographed for 30-second campaign ads, and fumed that the whole stunt had been paid for by the taxpayers. Now,the same critics can't wait to cue the tape. As American casualties mount and bombs shake Baghdad, the image of Bush's flight suit strut under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" is so discordant, his opponents believe, it says more about the administration's arrogance and incompetence than any stump speech could. "Never has government money been spent so well," snickers one operative for a Democratic presidential candidate.

The perfect photo-op has flopped. Engineered by the most image-conscious White House in history, the carrier landing portrayed Bush as master and commander, an ideal bookend to his spontaneous performance with a bullhorn in the rubble of the World Trade Center after 9/11. Instead, the hothouse tableau already sharply at odds with the reality in Iraq did even more damage to White House credibility last week. Asked at a news conference whether the "Mission Accomplished" banner had been prematurely boastful, the president backed away from it, saying it had been put up by the sailors and airmen of the Lincoln to celebrate their homecoming after toppling Saddam's regime.

Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech.

The administration's two-step was quickly dubbed "bannergate," winning a suffix that the partisan and the bored often use to puff up the puniest of non-scandals. But while the banner business means little by itself, the shifting and shading could become a symbol of Bush's suddenly growing credibility problem, coming as it does in the wake of the controversy over claims in the president's State of the Union address and other pre-war speeches about Iraq's yet-to-materialize weapons of mass destruction and leaks from White House officials about the identity of a CIA operative. Errant spin also undermines White House efforts to insist its account of post-war progress in Iraq is the most accurate one. "At a time when the economy is getting better and our policies are being vindicated," says a White House official, "this kind of stuff is killing us."

The president's opponents surely hope so. "He blamed the sailors for something that his advance team staged," said General Wes Clark. "I guess that next thing we are going to hear is that the sailors told him to wear the flight suit and prance around on the aircraft carrier. This is a president who does not want to take accountability." White House officials dismiss criticism from the president's opponents. "They have ten different positions on the war that they can't get straight," said a senior Bush aide. "I'm glad they can keep a single position on the banner." Communications Director Dan Bartlett, who approved the hanging of the controversial banner does not back away from it or the carrier celebration. "That was an important moment to mark in time," he says, noting the speed, bravery and success with which the soldiers and airmen prosecuted the war. "We're not going to take anything away from celebrating them. There are no regrets."

Some Bush allies are not so steadfast. As criticism of the president's visit to the Lincoln has grown, so too has the number of voices from the president's own camp who argue that, regardless of what message may have been sent to the troops, the White House sent an even bigger one of self-satisfaction and boastfulness to the rest of the world. The image-making may backfire for the White House because it broke one of its own cardinal rules. "When you're in the end zone act like you've been there," say senior officials of the confident repose they strike after any White House triumph. But after Saddam's statue fell, says one administration official picking up on the football analogy, the Bush team staged "an end zone dance. The problem is that they spiked the ball on the ten before they crossed the goal line." In the end, no matter how good the celebration may have looked, it could still be ruled a fumble.

"But while the banner business means little by itself, the shifting and shading could become a symbol of Bush's suddenly growing credibility problem..."

Yeah, is that the same credibility problem that had him gaining 3 points in the last poll which was before the GDP numbers came out?

heheh This is just a little hit piece so the Dems can sully the coming campaign commercial which will show President Bush in his Flight Suit getting rousing cheers from the Troops.

Not for nothing, but may I say, TIME s*cks. We are currently the beneficiaries of a free subscription to this rag, courtesy of a Princeton Review SAT prep course my kid took. This magazine is just a bunch of cr*p, maybe it was good at some point in time, but it has just stunk the entire time I've been reading it.

I used to tag along with my dad and brothers to the barber-shop, years ago, just to read the magazines. It would be almost 30 years ago now. I swear, in all that time, TIME has just gotten worse.

I read an article in the most recent one that came to my house. The thing reads like a smart 17 year old wrote it. It's pathetic.

Read the ECONOMIST, now that's a magazine. TIME is a useless piece of fish-wrap that you can't even use to wrap dead fish in.

The administration's two-step was quickly dubbed "bannergate," winning a suffix that the partisan and the bored often use to puff up the puniest of non-scandals.

The other day, a Congressional Democrat saw President Bush discreetly pick his nose right before giving a speech and immediately dubbed what he had witnessed "Nosepickgate".

I'm a Bush fan, and this little foible bothered me a bit: "little things, big things" premise; that is until I read the story again. It says that senior Bush aids were the ones who were pissed that the banner was attributed incorrectly. The story glosses the plain fact that these former were pissed at other (presumably lower-level) staffers for getting their toes caught in a reflexive (Clintonesque) fib: these youngsters probably thought they were being pretty slick on behalf of our Prez. The article also, when convenient, establishes the fibbers as "The White House Administration" to falsly impress the reader that it was GW who was responsible for the fib. (This is an object lesson on how to tell the truth and lie at the same time.)

There is no doubt that GW is displeased by this lie told by, likely, a single, self-important hotshot staffer: GW is also a consciencious "little things-big things" adherent. I also know that he is forgiving, and will probably simply ask the transgressor if he has now lernt his lesson, and strongly pursuade him or her to sin no more. Publicly, GW will avoid placing the blame where it belongs: he's not a whiner, and has no reason to be defensive. If pressed, he'll probably take full responsibility for it: he is that kind of man.

The truth is there in the story. Y' just gotta get through the piss-yellow to grab it.

MHO

The U.S.S. Linclon and it's troop's mission was accoumplished. Their mission was complete - they were going home (for awhile). Their very proud and triumphant Commander-in-Chief was surrounded by his cheering troops. The troops had every reason to be proud, they completed their mission with honor. Who put the sign up makes no difference

That's the way I took it.

Only a fool would assume the war was over. Only a fool would think there is no more terrorism in the world. Only a fool would think we are safe. We were not safe before. We are not safe today and we will never be safe.

Dan Rather, "Homeland Defense: Good or Lucky?" MIdWeek 10/29/03 World View, (for some reason I can't post an article anymore) says "Since that infamous day in 2001, there have not been any large-scale terrorist attacks on United States soil. If public-opinion polls are to be believed, terrorism has also dropped from the top ranks of everyday Americans' concerns."---Terrorism seems once again to be something that happens "over there"

The rest of Rather's article made me feel as if he - the dems - are waiting and hoping terrorism strikes are homeland again.

The democrats are so eaten with jealousy, I think they wish failure. Which means they wish America and our soldiers harm and failure.

"He blamed the sailors for something that his advance team staged," said General Wes Clark. "I guess that next thing we are going to hear is that the sailors told him to wear the flight suit and prance around on the aircraft carrier.

"Prance"? Oh, brother...here's Clark, not missing an opportunity to suggest that despite praising the character of the Bush White House profusely in personal appearances, he really does hate W as much as Howard the Yuck does.

As a former Marine, I'm actually bothered at the thought of a Clark presidency. His superior officers imply Clark was released from NATO(?) because of improper & unethical behavior. Thats a pretty harsh indictment that, when coupled with all his deceitful flip-flops, makes you wonder...

...does America really want an Army General with "ethics" concerns sitting in the Oval Office?

Take a quick glance around the 3rd world, look at the pattern that routinely emerges when people like him grasp the reigns of power.

"The perfect photo-op has flopped. Engineered by the most image-conscious White House in history"

Oh really? How about (on a beach that was pure sand) when slick willy made a cross out of stones at a D-day memorial celebration? ooops forgot... Or when Bill and Hill were dancing on a beach? ooops forgot that too... Or when willy was yuking it up at Ron Brown's funeral till he noticed the camera was on him then suddenly came to tears? OOOPS!

"Mission Accomplished" banner had been prematurely boastful"

Kind of like immanent? See the speech.

"Some Bush allies are not so steadfast. As criticism of the president's visit to the Lincoln has grown, so too has the number of voices from the president's own camp who argue that, regardless of what message may have been sent to the troops, the White House sent an even bigger one of self-satisfaction and boastfulness to the rest of the world. The image-making may backfire for the White House because it broke one of its own cardinal rules. "When you're in the end zone act like you've been there," say senior officials of the confident repose they strike after any White House triumph. But after Saddam's statue fell, says one administration official picking up on the football analogy, the Bush team staged "an end zone dance. The problem is that they spiked the ball on the ten before they crossed the goal line." In the end, no matter how good the celebration may have looked, it could still be ruled a fumble."

Seems to me that there were people yelling "Claim victory" after we got to Baghdad. And the press fell silent when the statue came down because the real quagmire came to light for all the world to see. That is the quagmire that the press was in. Now in an effort to gloss it over they are trying to make every set back a quagmire in an effort to vindicate themselves.

For Babs, a song:

Tiny robots in the trees,
Robots catch my twinkling spy
Twinkling robots, if you please,
Singing songs of plastic pie:

"Plastic pie, plastic pie,
Shot a spastic in the eye.
Jesus heal'd that spastic's eye!
Pretty, pretty plastic pie."

Do the robots sing, we cry?
Sing unbounded in the trees?
Robots sing, and robots fly,
Flying, singing in the breeze:

"Pretty, pretty plastic pie,
Much more fun than just plain pie.
Me, oh my, oh why can't I
Have a pretty piece of pie?"

1994: A sitting President of the United States goes aboard an aircraft carrier as part of the 50th anniversary of the Normandy invasion, and his staff shows utter contempt for the occasion, the military and the country by stealing towels and robes.

The media and the political class are silent.

2003: A sitting President of the United States goes aboard an aircraft carrier as part of its voyage home after the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam war to congratulate the crew, announce the end of major hostilities in Iraq, and warn that the road ahead is long and ardurous: "We have difficult work to do in Iraq...The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. " He does this under a banner saying, "Mission Accomplished."

The media and the political class are beside themselves with venom going on 5 months with no end in sight.

Staggering.

I STILL don't understand the problem, as "Mission Accomplished" could well refer to the removal of Saddam. Never was it said or implied that the hostilities were over - just the major hostilities. The trivialities that the democrats are going after - 16 words here, a sign there - does anyone believe that these hypocrites can lead this country in the 21st century?

Oh yeah, it's about their absolute standard for honesty in governance . . .

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.