FR EXCLUSIVE: "Mission Accomplished" banner was ordered by the Navy, not by the White House

NAVY WEBSITE ^ | 5-1-07 | DFU

[doug from upland]

Because today is the fourth anniversary of the commander in chief landing aboard the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN with the famous "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner, the enemies at home are going to attempt to use it for political purposes. I don't think I need to name the enemies at home. We all know them well. They are the ones who see defeat as politically beneficial to them and will do whatever they can to embolden the enemy and hurt our troops.

To get to the truth of the story, I phoned the media office of the 2nd Fleet in Norfolk, VA. The man who had the answers for me and graciously returned my call was Captain Conrad Chun.

"When something of such high level is planned, such as the landing of the commander in chief on the ship," said Chun, "there are several planning meetings. At one of the meetings was the idea for a banner that said MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." The mission in this case, was the mission of the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN. The men and women aboard the nuclear-powered carrier accomplished their mission and stayed out for a record time -- 290 days. It was a very long cruise for them.

The banner specifically was designed to celebrate and memorialize the ship's successful deployment. According to Chun, they had no way to make the banner aboard the ship, so the White House was asked to have it made for them.

"There are still those who will doubt the story," said Chun, "but after speaking to those on the ship, I have no doubt that is how it happened."

On a side note, Godspeed to my former son in law Josh who is on the Nimitz now. Go, Navy!

[doug from upland]

Bingo.

[jonrick46]

Doug, you should be very proud tonight. The Great One, Mark Levin read your post on his show tonight. I always thought the Mission Accomplished Issue was a contortion by the Left to make President Bush look foolish. I knew then that this was an example of how the Left betrays the military. When the USS Abraham Lincoln celebrated the end of their tour and the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Left began working on how to undermine that success. This carrier had just endured a very long tour. It left San Diego on July 20, 2002 for Operation Enduring Freedom, then participated in Operation Southern Watch, and finally, Operation Iraqi Freedom which lasted to May 6, 2003. That's about a nine month deployment! The aircraft carrier represented the most successful military victory in history. The Left did not want that message to get out to the American people. The image of President Bush standing on the deck with the admiring crew in his flight suit was a magic event in history. For the Left, this was like waving a crucifix in the face of Dracula. The venom that spewed out of their blogs could have floated that carrier.

As former navy Sonar Technician, I remember the pride I had when the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt came aboard our ship to participate in the christening of our skipper’s daughter. I can understand the pride they had when President Bush came aboard their ship. For the Left to vilify that event is unforgivable.

[jonrick46]

There have been other wars where the casualty rate was higher and young American boys endured more pain. We did not have state of the art medicine then. Did we cry in our beer and say it was not worth dying for? Hell no! Did we undermine our effort with pacifist rhetoric and threaten to cut off support for our troops?

I will use a football analogy. In the game of football, there are mistakes made. Balls do not get caught. Men fumble the ball. Balls get intercepted. Runners slip and fall down. Many times, the team fails to make a first down. And then you have to consider the defensive errors that happen during the game. With all of these mistakes, does the team give up. Do the fans get up an walk out because there were too many mistakes? Hell no! The team that wins the Super Bowl is the team that overcomes their mistakes and outperforms the other teams.

This is a guerrilla war. The enemy disguises itself in the civilian population. In fact, the enemy is not from Iraq, but from other countries like Iran and Syria. Guerrilla war is the most difficult war to fight. It is a war that we will need to learn how to win. It is a war that we may have to fight in our own cities some day. What would we do if suicide bombers were taking out shopping malls or movie theaters? What would we do if snipers were shooting at drivers on the freeway? What would we do if we had no idea how to fight such a threat? Our survival depends on how fast we learn how to fight such a threat.

[supremedoctrine]

Absolutely right-—it’s lack of interest in communication, and especially in the ironbound need to sell the effort in Iraq, has understandably been taken as proof of arrogance, and sold as such (since the Bush Administration has laid off selling ANYTHING.) It is the most maddening feature of this Administration, and as many times as I have brought it up on FR, I have gotten shouted down with all kinds of lame explanations of why it was the smartest thing to do , not the stupidest.

[supremedoctrine]

Yes, but the “Mission Accomplished” event, rebroadcasted all day today included the speech he gave somewhere else ( I noticed he wasn’t in the flight suit) which served to underscore the points they were trying to make with the photo op of Mission Accomplished.

[napscoordinator]

Doug,
This is inaccurate. President Clinton at the time definitely visited the USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER in 94 as I was on the ship. The reason I know so well is because when I shook his hand (we had too). He smiled and said hello but it was so forced and fake so I will never forget that experience. I am afraid that perhaps the story may not be complete and missing information. I wonder who the author is?

[napscoordinator]

Just for everyone’s information.

President Visits USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Personnel Notes
US Navy Press Releases

. President Visits USS Dwight D. Eisenhower NORFOLK Va. (NNS) — President Bill Clinton paid a visit to Sailors and Marines aboard USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) Oct. 6 to thank them for their service off Haiti. He reminisced that the ship’s namesake was the first president he could remember from his childhood and spoke of the example President Eisenhower set for the country.

“President Eisenhower’s life of service to our country and incredible leadership throughout his military career, culminating in his leadership in World War II and, of course, ultimately, in his election to the presidency was an inspiration to me and to every other young American, and I know is a continuing inspiration to all of you who are privileged to serve on this great carrier and in this group. Much has been asked of you, and you have delivered,” said the president.

[Alberta's Child]

Then why don't we have 80%+ of Freepers calling for his impeachment now?

Because people today have a lot "invested" in this war -- emotionally, intellectually, and politically. Even many folks who know damn well that the war has been a failure -- and who never would have believed in 2003 that it would have unfolded this way -- will never openly admit it.

[Alberta's Child]

P.S. What does “finishing the job” mean? You probably can’t even find three people in this adminstration who would agree on what the heck this phrase means anymore.

[Alberta's Child]

Your first point about "other wars" is irrelevant. We had high casualty rates in those wars, but the cost of these wars generally bore some relationship to the end result. This meant that Americans could have the expectation that the ultimate price would bring about ultimate results. If FDR had gotten up in December of 1941 and called "totalitarian fascism a religion of peace," he would have been chained to his wheelchair and pitched into the Potomac River.

I'll go with your football analogy, too. Sure, mistakes are made -- and things happen during the course of a game that cannot be foreseen. In Iraq, however, it goes far beyond that. This administration basically went into this "game" with four players -- and insists on punting the ball on first down even though it's late in the game and we're trailing by two touchdowns.

What would we do if suicide bombers were taking out shopping malls or movie theaters? What would we do if snipers were shooting at drivers on the freeway? What would we do if we had no idea how to fight such a threat?

These types of attacks are absurdly easy for someone to carry out right now. Do you ever wonder why this kind of thing doesn't happen on a daily basis in the U.S.?

[Malsua]

Nice to know the truth.

Too bad that the media line is “4 years after Mr. Bush declares victory” and no amount of shouting will change that.

[SittinYonder]

Even many folks who know damn well that the war has been a failure -- and who never would have believed in 2003 that it would have unfolded this way -- will never openly admit it.

How has the war been a failure? The only place the war has failed is in the minds of the Democrats ... and in your mind, apparently.

Goals of the war:
Remove Saddam Hussein from power ... check
Establish a freely elected leadership ... check
Rebuild Iraqi infrastructure (Where Saddam built palaces, we build schools) ... check
Train and equip police/army to defend the new country ... working on it

The biggest goal in the war that wasn't achieved was securing the WMD. Clearly those went to Syria, probably with the aid of the Russians, prior to the start of the war.

But the bodies of terrorists continue to pile up in Iraq - many or most of whom are foreign terrorists who have come to Iraq because they want to fight Americans.

Politically, the war has turned sour, but the ultimate goals of preventing Iraq from becoming a state sponsor of terror and of developing a democracy that might be a spark in the Middle East are goals that are still achievable if our will doesn't break. But the naysayers, who claim the war is already lost and who whine that it's a failure will absolutely undermine our nation's interests and the soldiers on the ground if they can.

If you want to see true failure, pull out the troops now and watch Iraq dissolve into a civil war where Taliban-like terrorists take over and provide al Qaeda and the like with a nation base - just like they had in Afghanistan - sponsored by Iran.

You're working off the talking points of the MSM (talk about a lot "invested" in the failure of the war). The MSM's talking points didn't fly with me four years ago, and they don't fly now.

[doug from upland]

Thanks for the comments. I emailed Mark the story 19 minutes before show time and was really glad he was able to get the truth on the air. Capt. Chun was very pleased to talk about it.

[WesternPacific]

Channel 8 in Dallas ran a story last night which began with "Four years after President Bush's declared "Mission Accomplished"....."

Straight from the dumbocrates talking points.

[Alberta's Child]

All this talk about "freely elected leadership," "rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure," and training a police/military force to "defend the new country" is a lot of nonsense, when you consider that Iraq isn't even a real country anymore (not that it ever was).

If you want to see true failure, pull out the troops now and watch Iraq dissolve into a civil war where Taliban-like terrorists take over and provide al Qaeda and the like with a nation base - just like they had in Afghanistan - sponsored by Iran.

Great -- then level the place to the ground and start all over again. There's no reason to have U.S. troops building a dysfunctional nation in a Third World sh!t-hole thousands of miles away.

I hate to break this to you, but Iraq has already dissolved into a simmering civil war -- with U.S. troops serving as "peacekeepers" among people who don't have even a simple understanding of what a free country is.

Here's the only quote that matters, as far as I'm concerned . . .

"Well, just as it’s important, I think, for a president to know when to commit U.S. forces to combat, it’s also important to know when not to commit U.S. forces to combat. I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shi’a government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular, along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all." --- Dick Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 4/7/91

Someone needs to explain to me why the same Dick Cheney who thought it was a terrible idea to invade Iraq in 1991 -- when the U.S. and its coalition had 500,000 troops in the region -- yet somehow decided it would be feasible to do it in 2003 with only 130,000+ troops.

[Mr. Silverback]

All this talk about "freely elected leadership," "rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure," and training a police/military force to "defend the new country" is a lot of nonsense, when you consider that Iraq isn't even a real country anymore (not that it ever was).

Interesting...ususally one regards a country with a constitution, borders, and army, etc. as a real country. Why doesn't Iraq qualify?

OK, pop quiz:

If we leave, the Al Qaeda guys in Iraq qill only do one of two things. They will stay in the country, or they will leave.

If they stay, what will they do?

If they leave, where will they go and what will be their next step?

[doug from upland]

I just spoke briefly with a woman at the news desk and told her a little about Capt. Chun’s comments. She was off to a meeting but claimed she will call me back to discuss it. We’ll see.

[SittinYonder]

All this talk about "freely elected leadership," "rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure," and training a police/military force to "defend the new country" is a lot of nonsense

Then call Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and tell them that you appreciate the good work they're doing in the House and Senate and that you support them. Say as much nice stuff to them as you can, so that maybe you can make them feel better about themselves after they get my message.

[Alberta's Child]

Iraq soesn't qualify because it has always been a post-colonial construction that did not have a common language, a common culture, etc. It was a "state" and not a "country" -- and in fact needed (and still needs) a strong-armed dictator to maintain order because it doesn't have the ability to exist in an orderly manner without it.

Across much of the Kurdish region today there are "Iraqi" government offices where Kurdish flags are flown all over the place and Iraqi flags are nowhere to be seen. Yeah, that sounds like a real country, all right.

If we leave, the Al Qaeda guys in Iraq qill only do one of two things. They will stay in the country, or they will leave. If they stay, what will they do? If they leave, where will they go and what will be their next step?

I don't know who these "al-Qaeda guys" are in Iraq, so I have no idea what they'll do if they stay there. If they leave, then their "next step" (if they even have a plan) would probably be to topple the Saudi royal family.

[Alberta's Child]

I’d like to call Dick Cheney, but I have no idea which one I’d be speaking to.