Bush's Mission Accomplished

American Thinker ^ | July 19, 2008 | Paul Kengor

[vietvet67]

It was a little over five years ago, on May 1, 2003, that President George W. Bush was set to speak aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. It was assumed the president would arrive on the aircraft carrier in the way a president arrives on an aircraft carrier -- via helicopter. Instead, the president of the United States, who in the 1970s flew fighter planes in the Texas Air Guard, entered via an SB-3B Viking, which he flew with two other pilots, leaving the landing -- one of the most dangerous feats in aviation, akin to parking a car at a hundred miles an hour -- to one of the co-pilots.

The plane skidded to a screeching halt on the small runway, a few feet from the ship's edge. A beaming Bush emerged in his bomber jacket, tucked his helmet under his left arm, and posed for pictures with the military. He proceeded to give an excellent speech under a banner marked "Mission Accomplished." The president correctly reported that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

At the time, Bush's landing received rave reviews -- a fact today conveniently forgotten. Conservatives, naturally, enjoyed it, but so did many liberals.

"We saw some very powerful pictures," reported CBS's Bob Schieffer. "I think this was a remarkable moment. I mean, it really was.... [H]ere you have the president flying onto the aircraft carrier. The first president to fly on to an aircraft carrier in a fixed wing jet like he did, climbing out in that flight suit, looking very dashing. This whole day was quite an event.... We saw a little spontaneity today. We saw a little showmanship that we haven't seen in a long time in politics, and frankly, I think that's kind of good."

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, later a fierce Bush critic, called it "a great moment," as did his colleague, Chris Matthews. Matthews, in fact, was effusive. He colorfully characterized the landing as a dare to Democrats hoping to challenge Bush's bid for two terms, as if the president were saying to them, "Try to do this. Look at me. Do you really think you've got a guy in your casting studio ... who can match what I did today?" Matthews went on, entertainingly:

"Imagine Joe Lieberman in this costume, or even John Kerry. Nobody looks right in this role Bush has set. [Bush has] medium height, medium build, looks good in a jet pilot's uniform, has a certain swagger, not too literary, certainly not too verbal, but a guy who speaks plainly and wins wars. I think that job definition is hard to match for the Dems....  We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical.... Women like having a guy who's president. Check it out. Women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits. We don't want an indoor prime minister type.... We want a guy as president. And by the way, Democrats for years have made fun of Republicans, like Ike, who defeated the Nazis, and Ronald Reagan, who was probably the most evocative person for the World War II generation, and this guy. They always make fun of them for being simple. And guess what? They always win two terms, and they're always right."

Yet, aside from those accolades -- a natural, honest response -- something else was stirring. In the New York Times, the angry Frank Rich dismissed the landing as Hollywood hype: "The Bush presidency," growled Rich, "might well be the Jerry Bruckheimer presidency," referring to the producer of Hollywood features like "Top Gun," "Black Hawk Down," and "Armageddon."

Of course, it is hard to take Rich seriously on anything, including references to the dramatic arts -- his specialty. Rich observed the scourging of Jesus in The Passion of the Christ and literally thought about gay porn. (Don't believe me? Click here.) Nonetheless, the op-ed page of The Times has a Scripture-like influence on liberals, and this salvo by Rich was the start of something: Much of the left, for the first time since the Iraq invasion a few weeks earlier, now began to descend on Bush, especially those who had predicted a bloodbath in Iraq and didn't get one. They would excoriate the landing, from its message to its symbolism, and they would not cease and desist for the next five years.

From the Senate, Robert Byrd (D-WV), who had harshly criticized Bush war policy, called the Lincoln landing a "spectacle" that was an "affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq." At the House, Henry Waxman (D-CA) lost his mind, actually demanding a Congressional investigation of the landing.

Liberals were lunging, reaching, grasping for something to criticize. They had been shown up. They would wait stubbornly until something bad developed in Iraq, and got just what the doctor ordered once the body bags began piling up in Iraq from 2005-7 in the occupation/reconstruction that  followed. They would incessantly, mercilessly pound the "Mission Accomplished" episode as an example of a brazenly, arrogantly premature celebration by George W. Bush.

In point of fact, Bush had been correct in that the mission had been accomplished. The military effort to remove Saddam Hussein and liberate Iraq was over. That was Phase 1, a separate, successful mission, altogether different from the much more treacherous, difficult period when the United States sought to stabilize Iraq, fighting Al-Qaeda on a daily basis, and seeking to establish a rare oasis of sustainable democracy in the sick powder keg that is the Arab-Muslim Middle East. In its typical lack of sophistication on matters military, the left simplified the whole thing-Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, Phase 15-as "The War."

But here's what everyone seemed to miss: a crucial marker was indeed laid on the deck of the Lincoln that day. In retrospect, the landing provided a profound example of the major, ultimately most destructive liability of the two-term Bush presidency: the utter failure of the president and his administration to respond to critics, to fight back, to engage not Al-Qaeda but domestic detractors on the left.

Rather than counter the likes of Senator Byrd, even with benign, humorous one-liners to defuse the situation -- "Senator Byrd is just jealous that he doesn't look that good in a fly-suit..." for instance -- this president and his team set the standard for their prototypical response over the next five years: they curled up in a fetal position. As they did, George W. Bush was kicked unceasingly, by Byrd, then Howard Dean -- "George W. Bush is not my neighbor!" -- then MoveOn.org, then John Kerry, then Ted Kennedy, then a re-emergent Al Gore, then Cindy Sheehan, then Michael Berg -- "My son [Nick Berg] died for the sins of George Bush" -- then Arianna Huffington, then George Soros, then the New York Times, then David Gregory, then Dana Milbank, and then-good Lord, what an embarrassment! -- Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and no less than the president's own turf.

As someone who has studied the faith of George W. Bush very carefully, I can affirm that he truly takes seriously the Judeo-Christian ethic, and perhaps this was his way of turning the other cheek. When Bush in December 1999 called Jesus Christ his favorite philosopher, he really meant what he said. For the next five years, he handed over his check -- and his backside -- to a venomous left filled with rage, looking to unleash its torrent of hatred upon the man. While I admire Bush's virtuosity, he should know that nowhere in Scripture are Christians called upon to be doormats for domestic extremists and fanatical dictators. Yet, too often, he became just that.

That's what the landing on the Lincoln seems to have signaled: President Bush became a whipping boy, one who took the beating without ever punching back. It was as if he crashed on that landing deck. The landing signaled the start of a kind of presidential no-response team, ceding the battle to the president's ravenous critics, who for five years now have been permitted to frame public perception and ultimately win the debate. Even now, well into a period when the nasty occupation/reconstruction has turned the corner, seemingly for good, and when it alas looks as though we have persevered and won -- thanks in large part to this same president, who has finally gotten the right general -- George W. Bush's approval ratings continue to nosedive, to where he is now the most unpopular president since Harry Truman. That's what happens to a president who refuses to respond -- whether by himself or through his communications team -- to vicious, unrelenting critics.

And it is quite ironic, though no coincidence, that the fifth anniversary of the Lincoln landing arrived at almost the exact same time that CNN-Gallup released its poll revealing that President Bush had surpassed Truman's record-low disapproval rating.

In the end, a mission was indeed accomplished five years ago: the left learned that it would be able to pummel this president and get away with it, to his long-term detriment. It was, as typical of the left, an emotion-driven response, but it was also goal-oriented: it sought several victories, including the White House itself. The left's venom would not poison the well enough to win the White House in November 2004, but it may achieve the job in November 2008, as the Republican Party under President Bush seems stuck on the landing deck.

Paul Kengor is author of God and George W. Bush (HarperCollins, 2004). He is also professor of political science and executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His recent books include The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007) and The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (HarperPerennial, 2007).

[stevestras]

Some fair points in this piece.

I believe that President Bush thinks of himself as the President of all Americans, not just republicans. This approach of fairness causes him to have critics on both sides of the aisle. While these critics bicker about Bush, he quietly accomplishes most everything he wants to without getting into mudslinging.

[ballplayer]

Cant argue with that, I can be Frustrated by the lack of fight in The Bush administration but you have to admire him for his personal strength . I dont like a lot of what he has promoted ,illegal immigration ,spending but sure would rather have 4 more years of him than what we have in store for all of us in the next 4

[Loud Mime]

That's what the landing on the Lincoln seems to have signaled: President Bush became a whipping boy, one who took the beating without ever punching back. It was as if he crashed on that landing deck. The landing signaled the start of a kind of presidential no-response team, ceding the battle to the president's ravenous critics, who for five years now have been permitted to frame public perception and ultimately win the debate.

Now, who could not agree with that?

[T. Jefferson]

He accomplished great things, but had the PR team in history. McCain and his PR team appear even worse. Like the author states, Reagan slayed the detractors with funny liners every time and made them fools. People would sit back and anticipate and remember the lines, instead the A*holes whining. It worked.

[ghostrider]

Even now, after the champion has been beaten unmercifully by a rookie, this sounds like a continuation of the defense that got him pounded.

[Sacajaweau]

The initial mission WAS accomplished. We KNEW this would be a long war and he said it many times. We saw practice sessions of soldiers doing door to door "work".

We also got rid of Saddam...who more than likely would team with Osama at some point...The architect and the WMD kings. A devastating combination.

Do people realize how close Saddam was to getting out from under the UN?

And had we not gone to Iraq....I have no doubt that alqueda would have simply moved their operations to Iraq.

[Fee]

One of the long term benefits of Iraq War, is that the US has a foward operating base against Iran via land bases. Think of the risks putting a carrier task force into the Persian Gulf to provide air cover assuming Saudi Arabia and Gulf states refuse to give us access to bases. In the age of stand off air to surface missiles, many US sailors would be in harms way.

[Orange1998]

We also got rid of Saddam...who more than likely would team with Osama at some point... Maybe

Do people realize how close Saddam was to getting out from under the UN? Another maybe

And had we not gone to Iraq....I have no doubt that alqueda would have simply moved their operations to Iraq. Big Maybe

The points you describe are not the reason to go to war. Just think of all the American lives lost IF Reagan went to war with Russia. After all he branded them the "Evil Empire". Russia fell in part because Reagan knew that economic and political illusions would be their demise. Russia war in Afghanistan was a catastrophe and eventually withdrew with tail between legs. Russia could not feed the machine any longer. Does this sound like the path America is taking. The Muslim countries are conspiring to change our way of life, right under our noses.

[Sacajaweau]

yOU’RE STUCK IN YOUR LITTLE BOX...

[Orange1998]

And your head is in the sand.

[Christian4Bush]

mark for later

[mkjessup]

And what the lying liberals, leftists and ‘Rats conveniently forget is that the great big ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner did NOT refer to Operation Iraqi Freedom, it did NOT refer to ANYTHING *except* the specific mission of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, returning to port after a successful campaign in support OF the overall Operation.

The liberation of Iraq was and is a good thing. Between the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam and his depraved sons in Iraq, our President has freed over 60 million muslims from tyranny and that is a very good thing.

I personally think that he has allowed himself to be manipulated into joining the appeasement camp regarding North Korea and Iran, but he was right to take out Saddam with the rest of the garbage and only a fool or a total phuckwit would think the Middle East would be better off with THREE rogue terrorist states (Iraq, Iran -and- Libya) striving to develop a nuclear weapons capability FIRST.

[Huck]

The president correctly reported that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.

Total bull.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I don't think president Bush has been “ appeased” in the appeasement camp .... just yet.
You got to remember ? Bush told Israel a week ago to keep your powder dry and wait and make necessary preparations to attack Iran.
The diplomatic delegation that was sent to Iran this passed weekend is the same thing as what it was just before we attacked Iraq back in 2003.
President Bush sent a team to Iraq just before we invaded to talk to Saddam.
This weekend, Iran said no.... so ? we can be seeing something happening soon in regard to Iran.

[pyrless]

“Bush told Israel a week ago to keep your powder dry ...”

and

“The diplomatic delegation that was sent to Iran this passed weekend ...”

and

“we can be seeing something happening soon in regard to Iran.”

Connecting the dots. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Good work, I think you’ve got it.

[mkjessup]

I don't think President Bush has been “ appeased” in the appeasement camp .... just yet.

I think a few million North Korean peasants suffering from starvation and the prospect of Comrade Chia Pet cozying up the U.S. might take issue with that.

You got to remember Bush told Israel a week ago to keep your powder dry and wait and make necessary preparations to attack Iran.

That is an unsubstantiated story coming out of the UK media and has not been confirmed in any way, shape or form.

The diplomatic delegation that was sent to Iran this past weekend is the same thing as what it was just before we attacked Iraq back in 2003.

We'll see.

President Bush sent a team to Iraq just before we invaded to talk to Saddam.

True enough, but Saddam's position was weakened to the point that he might have taken the deal to leave the country if he had truly understood that the U.S. was not going to back down. Saddam never really believed that it would come to war. He thought it would be one more game of brinksmanship.

This weekend, Iran said no.... so? We can be seeing something happening soon in regard to Iran.

I hope you are right. I really do.

[Kaslin]

Here are a couple of great replies to the article, One is from someone who was on the USS Lincoln and was a witness

I was there that day. Perhaps lost in most of this debate is the simple but important fact that the Commander-In-Chief took the time to personally recognize and thank the men and women of ABRAHAM LINCOLN who had just spent nearly 10 months answering the call of duty. Deployments are usually 6 months, and LINCOLN had been on her way home when she was turned around and extended for OIF. "Mission Accomplished" exactly describes the work of ABRAHAM LINCOLN and her entire Strike Group that year. Having the Commander-in-Chief say thanks in person was a huge morale booster for some tired Sailors on that ship, as well as a morale booster for the military as a whole. It is not my place to debate "Mission Accomplished" as it pertains to the greater Iraq War...but I for one felt very proud and very humbled (and still do) that my President took the time to recognize a job well done. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciated it.

Posted by: SaltyDog | July 19, 2008 03:15 AM

And here is the other one.

-- snip -- As for W.'s speech, I was on that deployment with SaltyDog. My squadron flew our Super Tomcats off the day before to make room on the flight deck. I watched from a TV set like most everyone else, but several of my very best friends were there, including the pilot who flew Navy One aboard. What you might not know is that the President wanted to come aboard in one of our Tomcats, the definitive fighter, because he was a fighter-guy and wanted to check it out. VF-31 certainly wanted to fly him. I can't begin to tell you how important the first arrested landing for a President was to us. And I can't tell you how disappointed we all were when the Secret Service insisted that the President fly with an agent. The only jet with more than 2 seats was the Viking, so it was chosen.

It turned out to be a great choice, because if he had flown in the Tomcat, he would have ridden in the back. In the right front seat of the Viking, he was able to take the controls, execute a rendezvous with his lead, and fly formation all the way out to the ship. Your petty observation that he was not a carrier-based pilot is absurd. Every Naval Aviator has a very real connection with W. He IS a pilot. A rusty one to be sure, but he is one of us. He took the controls and flew himself out there as one of our wingmen. It was a great look at who he was at heart, and a very cool thing to do as our President.

The article that Paul wrote struck a very deep chord with me. Nothing has made me sadder and less proud of the liberals in this country than when they started tearing down that event. The simple fact is that the mission remains accomplished. Iraq is no longer a threat to any of her neighbors, and Hussein will never turn his army on his own people again. President Bush was very careful to note in his speech that there was still much work to be done, so trying to make fun of the banner behind him while ignoring his message... well, its just childish. And let me just say, running this country is for grown-ups.

One last W. anecdote: My squadron was asked to do the opening fly-by for the Saturday race before the Daytona 500 that next year. Sunday, the aircrews were in their flight suits, sitting on the pit wall, watching the opening ceremonies. President Bush was there to start the 500 and while on stage, he caught a glimpse of the very distinctive Felix the Cat patch on one of their flight suits. He excused himself and walked down to the guys. After meeting them all, he sat down on the pit wall and explained to them that he loved that trip to ABE, but he was disappointed that he had missed meeting the Tomcat guys. He asked how the deployment was for them. He told them he loved flying out there, and expressed his respect for what they did with those aircraft on that ship. They shot the breeze until the various handlers reminded them that millions of people were waiting and watching. It was a very genuine moment with a very genuine guy.

I will always be proud to have been part of that deployment, and I will always be thankful that the President took the time to come out and pay his respects in person. Liberals make themselves look small and un-American when they criticize that particular evolution. It was a great moment for the Navy. It was a great moment for the country.

Robert

Posted by: Robert Jones | July 19, 2008 10:23 AM

[shield]

I’ve always supported President Bush...I haven’t been a fair weather type of supporter. But then I trust President Bush.

[vietvet67]

Thanks for posting those.

Further illustrates how the treasonous left hijacked this honorable event.

Evidence that it was honorable and patriotic is the fact that Olberman to this day closes his soap opera program with reference to it..