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

NAVY WEBSITE ^ | 5-1-07 | DFU

[roses of sharon]

Wow, good troll bait thread!

[Bryan24]

THE BANNER WAS CORRECT!

We went in and took down Saddam Hussein, his government and his military in about 4 weeks.

The banner didn’t read “The War Is Over” or “Time To COme Home”, did it?

[Mr. Silverback]

Who is “the enemy” here?

1. Al Qaida.

2. Any group in using arms in a way that interferes with the establishment of government in Iraq.

[Mr. Silverback]

Outstanding post.

[SittinYonder]

ping to thread

[Alberta's Child]

Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn't have the means, the money, or the political will to defeat an "enemy" like that without detroying large swaths of the country.

I thought we learned this lesson in Vietnam, but maybe not.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Would Bush stand in front of a banner at a dumbass convention that proclaimed “Dumbass!”? No, of course not. The Bush people knew that the banner would be presented behind him while he gave his speech. The WH agreed to produce the banner for them because they understand the message that is conveyed by that banner being presented behind him in the context it was in— Bush in his flight suit talking about the war. Clinton started the use of these banners at presidential appearances that were heavily photoshopped— shortly after photoshop came out. The Bush WH does an even better job of it. They are very aware of how pictures can communicate things. The White House was talking about “dead enders” at that time. They wanted to convey the message that Iraq had been liberated and that a threat had been thwarted (”America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished.” — a post “Mission Accomplished” speech to the troops in Qatar).

Don’t be naïve.

[Mr. Silverback]

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

You really should call Murtha, Reid and Pelosi. I'm serious. They're trying to get your work done on the national stage. Don't be miserly with your thanks.

[Mr. Silverback]

than Gen Pertraiuos (the population will start respecting us when they see our soldiers die).

Is it just that I haven't had enough coffee yet, or is that pretty trollish?

[Mr. Silverback]

There is no longer a reason to be in Iraq.

Yeah, just like there was no longer a reason to be in Vietnam...and didn't that work out great? What a bunch of twits. Good on you, doug.

[Bryan24]

"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

Did it occur to you that we had a lot of troops already tied up in Afghanistan already?

So what did our "undermanned" force of 130,000 troops do? We took down an entire country in 4 weeks. Completely defeated his military, took down the government.

Here's a question 4 you - When Dick Cheney made that statement in 1991, had the first WTC bombing, the African Embassy Bombings, the Khobar Towers Bombings, the Assasination Attempt on President Bush I, the USS Cole Bombing, and the 9/11 Attacks, had any of these taken place yet?

Do you think Dick Cheney might have realized that we've waited around too long to take care of a pressing problem?

[doug from upland]

Thanks for the sage advice. I’ll try not to be naive. Just having fallen off the turnip truck, however, will make it difficult for me. I hope I can accomplish that mission.

[Alberta's Child]

I understand the rationale for why Dick Cheney v.2002 thought an invasion of Iraq was a good idea. What I don't understand is: What transpired between 1991 and 2002 that made him think Iraq would not descend into civil chaos, that establishing a government in Iraq was feasible, that governing Iraq was feasible, that it "made any sense at all," etc.?

In spite of your attempts to rationalize this, it's worth noting that the predictions laid out by Dick Cheney v.1991 turned out to be EXACTLY CORRECT.

"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."

Unfortunately for us, the 2006 and 2008 elections are going to turn out to be a thorough vindication of this statement.

[Alberta's Child]

Dude -- One of the reasons I opposed this war from the start was that I had a pretty good idea it would propel people like Reid, Murtha, etc. into the positions they occupy right now.

Sometimes I hate being right.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Seriously, do you honestly believe— honestly— that the WH had no idea what the message was of photographs in newspapers (and video clips on TV) of Bush giving a speech regarding how the war is going in front of that banner? The WH knew exactly what people would think by seeing those photos and video clips and they approved of people thinking what they would think.

[Bryan24]

Had you rather that we just left Iraq alone? After then invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq was where the terrorists would go for support.

So, tell us, what could we have done differently? Remember, WE DIDN’T HAVE 500,000 TROOPS AVAILABLE. The media and the dems conviently omit that fact.

[Mr. Silverback]

I thought we learned this lesson in Vietnam, but maybe not.

Ah...and now we come to the root of the problem: You don't have a clue about asymetric warfare.

Read up on the Linbacker campaigns in Vietnam. They brought the North to the brink of defeat...and not one bomb was dropped where we were fighting the guerillas.

You might also want to take a look at the ideas advanced in "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife." It's a study of why the Brits succeeded in their guerilla war in Malaya and we failed in Vietnam. The author concludes that trying to fight Vietnam like we fought WWII was exactly what did us in.

Lastly, we won in Vietnam before we lost. It was geniuses like you that lost it for us.

Following your logic, Malaysia, Nicaragua and El Salvador should all be Marxist police states now.

[Ragnar54]

The mission of defeating the Iraqi armed forces was accomplished in about 3 weeks. Rounding up leaders of the old regime took a little longer, as did discovering that most of the WMDs had been moved out because of the extra time we gave Saddam. The “war” currently being fought amounts to trying to capture or kill agents of the Iranian and Syrian governments, while giving them safe havens (Iran and Syria) and sources of munitions (Iran and Syria). This mission could be accomplished with a few well placed nukes. When is the Iranian parliament meeting again?

[Mr. Silverback]

So waht? they’re doing what you want. Harry reid is telling us the war is lost. John Murtha is whining about how horrible it is that our troops are under so much pressure. Call ‘em up and thank them.

[angcat]

Draws then in like flies to Shi_!