About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

AP report on McCain criticism of "Mission Accomplished" banner did not report his previous promotion of its message

May 02, 2008 5:29 pm ET

SUMMARY: The AP reported that Sen. John McCain "said President Bush should not be held responsible for the much-criticized 'Mission Accomplished' banner five years ago," and that McCain said of the banner, "I thought it was wrong at the time." But the AP did not report comments McCain made "at the time" about the banner in a Fox News interview, in which host Neil Cavuto noted that "many argue the conflict [in Iraq] isn't over," to which McCain replied, "Then why was there a banner that said 'Mission Accomplished' on the aircraft carrier?"

36 Comments

On May 2, Associated Press reporter Libby Quaid wrote that on May 1, the fifth anniversary of President Bush's aircraft carrier landing and his declaration under a "Mission Accomplished" banner that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended," Sen. John McCain said of the banner, "I thought it was wrong at the time." But Quaid did not report comments McCain made about the banner in an interview on the June 11, 2003, edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto (partial video available here), in which host Neil Cavuto noted that "many argue the conflict [in Iraq] isn't over," to which McCain replied, "Then why was there a banner that said 'Mission Accomplished' on the aircraft carrier?"

As a May 2 entry on ABCNews.com's Political Radar blog noted, on the June 11, 2003, edition of Your World, discussing McCain's suggestion that the Senate Armed Services Committee hold post-conflict hearings about the Iraq war, Cavuto asserted, "Senator -- after a conflict means after the conflict, and many argue the conflict isn't over." McCain replied, "Well, then why was there a banner that said 'Mission Accomplished' on the aircraft carrier?" McCain added, "Look, the -- I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict -- the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it's very appropriate."

Further, Quaid reported that, at the May 1 press conference, "McCain said he can't blame Bush for the banner," but that "McCain said Bush should be blamed for comments" such as those of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, and quoted McCain saying of Bush, "Do I blame him for that specific banner? I can't. ... But I do say that statements are made, 'a few dead-enders,' 'last throes,' those are, as opposed to the banner, direct statements which were contradicted by the facts on the ground." But Quaid did not note that in 2006, McCain "commend[ed]" Bush for providing the public with what McCain characterized as an "honest assessment" of the situation in Iraq. McCain made his comments commending Bush in the wake of controversy generated by remarks he made at a campaign event for then-Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) three days earlier, during which McCain criticized the administration, stating: " 'Stuff happens,' 'Mission Accomplished,' 'Last throes,' 'A few dead-enders.' I'm as more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we have not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be."

During the May 1, 2008, press conference, McCain was asked, "Do you blame President Bush for speaking in front of a banner like that?" McCain replied:

McCAIN: Obviously the presidents bear the responsibility for it. I mean, we all do. But do I blame him for that specific banner? Of course not. You know, I don't -- I can't -- I have no knowledge of that, and I can't blame him for it. But I do, I do say, when statements are made -- "a few dead-enders," "last throes" -- then those are -- as opposed to a banner that just appeared -- those are direct statements which were contradicted by the facts on the ground. So rather than hold anybody quote, "responsible" for the, quote, "Mission Accomplished banner," which could have or could not have maybe been put up by some other individual, but when the leaders of government, the secretary of Defense, says that there's only a few dead-enders, then that is an area that responsibility should be placed in my view.

Those comments were similar to remarks McCain made at the August 22, 2006, DeWine campaign event:

McCAIN: I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifice that would be required. "Stuff happens." "Mission Accomplished." "Last throes." "A few dead-enders." I'm as more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we have not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be. And it has contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today, because they were led to believe that this would be some kind of a day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking.

But in an August 25, 2006, press release, McCain "commend[ed]" President Bush "for his public statements offering Americans an honest assessment of the progress we have made in Iraq":

"I have often emphasized the importance of leveling with the American people about the high costs and many difficulties of the mission, the potentially calamitous consequences of failure and the many benefits of success, as the President has also frequently stressed. But I have never intended my concern that the American public be fully informed about the conduct and consequences of the war to indicate any lessening of my support for our mission there. On the contrary, I view a candid, informed public discussion of the war as critical to sustaining popular support for the war and, thus, indispensable to ensuring the ultimate success of our mission. And I commend the President for his public statements offering Americans an honest assessment of the progress we have made in Iraq and the challenges that still confront us there, and, of course, for his determination to defend American security and international peace and stability by succeeding in this arduous and costly enterprise."

From the May 2 AP article:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said President Bush should not be held responsible for the much-criticized "Mission Accomplished" banner five years ago, but said he should be blamed for bungling the early months of the war.

On Thursday, the fifth anniversary of Bush's dramatic landing on an aircraft carrier where the banner hung, McCain said, "I thought it was wrong at the time."

"So all I can tell you was that I was the strongest advocate, or one of the strongest advocates, for changing to adopt the surge," McCain told reporters. "And I think that history will judge me by the fact that I thought it was wrong."

McCain said he can't blame Bush for the banner. After shifting explanations, the White House eventually said the "Mission Accomplished" phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq.

But McCain said Bush should be blamed for comments like that of Paul Bremer, the former chief of the U.S. occupation government in Iraq, who pledged that the U.S. military would crush die-hard Saddam Hussein "dead-enders," and of Vice President Dick Cheney, who declared the insurgency "in its last throes."

"Do I blame him for that specific banner? I can't," McCain said. "But I do say that statements are made, 'a few dead-enders,' 'last throes,' those are, as opposed to the banner, direct statements which were contradicted by the facts on the ground."

From the June 11, 2003 edition of Fox News' Your World (accessed from the Nexis database):

CAVUTO: Why do you want hearings?

McCAIN: Well, first of all, I think you might have misunderstood my position a little bit. I have always been in favor of hearings post-conflict as we did after the Gulf War, after Bosnia, after Kosovo where we have congressional oversight hearings, particularly in the Senate Armed Services Committee of which I am a member.

And I believe we're going to have General [Tommy] Franks as the first witness, and I'd like to hear about the tragedy of the friendly fire accidents, how our military functioned so effectively, the strategy and tactics employed, and what their future needs are. That's the appropriate role of Congress. Weapons of mass destruction will be part of that.

But I'm confident --

CAVUTO: But -- but after a conflict --

McCAIN: Let me just say --

CAVUTO: -- Senator -- after a conflict means after the conflict, and many argue the conflict isn't over.

McCAIN: Well, then why was there a banner that said "Mission Accomplished" on the aircraft carrier?

Look, the -- I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict -- the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it's very appropriate.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (May 02, 2008 5:35 pm ET)
         
      "Then why was there a banner that said 'Mission Accomplished' on the aircraft carrier?"

      C'mon! Did he really say that? Is he that freakin' stupid?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (May 02, 2008 5:40 pm ET)
           
        He must be. He thinks that being in Iraq indefinitely will lead to some kind of "victory". Who, what, when, where and why?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (May 02, 2008 5:50 pm ET)
             
          I'm convinced that the "victory" rhetoric is just smoke. Since "victory" defies definition and will be ever elusive, we'll just have to stay there until the oil companies have gotten what they need. Of course, that plan may depend on the prospect of Karl Rove's promised permanent Republican Majority.... which is looking doubtful at this time.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 02, 2008 5:41 pm ET)
         
      Here's a what Gramps said today in a town hall meeting:

      "My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will - that will then prevent us - that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."

      DOH! And I thought we went there to liberate the Iraqi people, save Wal Mart from turrists with weapons of mass destruction, and break Saddam's model Airplanes so he couldn't spray Anthrax on Kansas. I feel cheated!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by therick (May 02, 2008 5:48 pm ET)
           
        The only thing George W. Bush wanted to get out of the Iraq conflict was the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" spectacle.  I wonder how long we'll have to wait for this to occur again after defeating Afghanistan.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (May 02, 2008 5:55 pm ET)
             
          What's really disgusting is to go back and read the quotes from the Corporate Media Whores about President Numbnuts in his jet jockey costume. I think I saw some on the Huffington Post.... keep a barf bag handy as you read them.... it's downright embarrassing.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by therick (May 02, 2008 6:06 pm ET)
               
            I tried to imagine (for instance) Kennedy doing this after the Cuban Missle crisis, and my mind can't wrap around it.  The indignity of this guy, and his willingness to make our country look like a bunch of immature jerks is incredable.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (May 03, 2008 2:30 am ET)
                 

              Interesting comparison.  I wonder though does it say more about the times than just these two Presidents.  I can’t picture anyone from Kennedy’s day publicly displaying such disregard for the highest office and by extension the country.  They say Lyndon Johnson was quite a vulgar character but I don’t remember him displaying this kind of informality on film.  

              Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 02, 2008 6:17 pm ET)
               
            I gotta say that codpiece really made Tweety swoon.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by What Happened to Gannon (May 04, 2008 8:44 am ET)
                 
              Are you sure it wasn't a roll of quarters? Dubya is the "Spinal Tap" of US presidents.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (May 02, 2008 6:03 pm ET)
           

        IN honor of the anniversary of Operation Iraqscam, I heard at least two different explanations for this BS in the media.

        1. The banner was only referring to the mission of those troops on that ship, and

        2. The banner was referring to only defeating the official Iraqi army (I believe it was Brit Hume who tried to pull this one off).

        I haven't seen anybody in the media really talking about this in any serious way.

        Nor about Justice Scalia suggesting that torture is protected under the Constitution because, while it may be cruel and unusual, it's not punishment.

        Not much about the Republican candidate stating that he'd be "fine" with keeping our troops in Iraq for 100 years, or his back pedaling on it.

        What I have seen is an excited media demanding that another candidate explain to the dummer Americans that his pastor is a different person than the candidate, but that he couldn't disown or condemn him.

         Then when it became apparent that many still did not understand the issue, the candidate had to explain that he didn't agree with many of the pastors statements.

        And I have seen our special media jumping to call this a flip=flop. I've been poking a lot of fun at the whole reject/denounce/condemn/renounce BS, but deep down I knew it wasn't really funny. In an effort to dumb down everything for the slowest Americans, we're going to find every issue reduced to the black & white world of the Sean Hannity mindset, and that's a losing situation for the functioning humans.

         

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by therick (May 02, 2008 6:15 pm ET)
             

          I just about fell off my chair when Scalia said that.  He in essence argued that if a person isn't arrested for a crime, then they aren't being punished, and if they aren't being punished then it's not "cruel and unusual punishment."

          I guess that means that it's okay to torture anyone at any time, as long as they haven't committed a crime.  And on the flip side, it is against the law to torture those who HAVE committed a crime.

          Hmmm?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (May 02, 2008 6:27 pm ET)
               

            That was stunning, Rick, and after the past 8 years, I'm not easily stunned. Even worse than his statement- that innocent people have less Constitutional protections than guilty ones- was his  comment following the statement, something along the lines of "that's my opinion, and it's right".

            Is this the sort of "Originalist" that the flag waving idiots are being suckered into supporting? Yikes!

            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (May 02, 2008 6:40 pm ET)
                 
              And one that Rino called one of the great legal minds of our time. Yikes, what do they feed these guys?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (May 03, 2008 2:34 am ET)
                   
                I was curious as to why he seemed to be received so well by a an audience of English students.  I thought they all hated Bush and company abroad.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (May 02, 2008 6:36 pm ET)
             
          With Scalia's new interpretation, I'm convinced that these people will be able to justify anything, no matter how ridiculous.

          The really scary thing is that people will buy it. Every day I have less faith in our citizens. It's like they don't want to know.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by markcyst20051409 (May 02, 2008 10:08 pm ET)
               

            Hello Mr W.King.I think it may be the case that Scalia is trying to cover for past "transgressions" as well as for the next round of pure ugliness. I live in Canada but do alot of work in the States.I am alway worried that if for some weird reason my name comes up bad I may disappear.Pre 9 11 that thought never crossed my mind. The fear then was getting shot.I used to think of going into Detroit as going into a war zone. After 9 11 the boarder crossing looks like one. Now I understand the need for perfectly secure boarders(and this one is pretty tight,after 7 years I still get treatred with suspect) but with the "new world order" way of doing things, I don't trust you guys any more. 

            You want oil. Canada has huge reserves and many of us are worried that your crazy government will someday look north to the best neighbors you will ever have and start some sh t

            Report Abuse
            • Author by eweston8542983 (May 03, 2008 12:27 pm ET)
                 

              There's at least two major things ahead of Canada on the threat list Mark.

              Iran, certain powerful elements want to go there so badly they can taste the sand between their teeth already.

              The american public, Rush is already pinning for a repeat of the the 68 Democratic convention. The CIA and the FBI helped forment that chaos. Will the groups demonstrating at this years convention be infiltrated is not so much a question as how their incitement to violence can be thwrarted. Sufficient excitement (very subjective term there) for shrub to declare martial law? Suspend the election till things calm down. This would tend not to calm people down. Blackwater could get a chance to unlimber all that urban control trainning and gear on the US population. All for the greater good of course.

              So you should get plenty of warning. Probably be alot of recently ex- americans standing with you.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by princeofwheels (May 04, 2008 3:02 pm ET)
                 
              Keep writing here and your name will certainly "appear". But first, you need to be "baptized" by Rev. Savage.  My favorite is vermin.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by BillJ-MN (May 02, 2008 10:59 pm ET)
             

          ... Justice Scalia suggesting that torture is protected under the Constitution

          This shows us in the clearest terms possible why McCain must not be our next president!!!  We desparately need a Democrat to pick our next Supreme Court justices!!!

          Regardless of who gets the nomination, even if you hate the way the candidate campaigned, we must support the nominee.  Hold your noses and swallow your gorge if you must, but vote for the Democratic nominee. 

          We can't afford any more justices as un-American as Scalia.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (May 03, 2008 1:44 am ET)
               

            Bill, I've never been registered with a political party, and actually have voted 3rd party most of my life. That was, until W. came along, when the GOP put me on damage control and made an honorary Dem outta me.

            I think a lot of the bickering between Obama and Clinton supporters will be worked out by the time of the general election, it's just a bit harder for those actually in the party to vote for the one that was battling their candidate.

            I really prefer Obama over Clinton (neither was my first choice among the Dems), but it's not going to take a lot of soul searching on election day to vote "bye bye, GOPpers".

            The Dem candidate would have to promise to re-instate prohibition or legislate every radio station be Country-Pop to make it a difficult decision for me. 

             

            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (May 03, 2008 2:17 am ET)
                 

              If you dont mind, who WAS your first choice?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (May 03, 2008 3:24 am ET)
                   
                Hey Solon. I liked Kucinich and Edwards better, and in the way out there column, i wish Gravel had been around a while longer, at least to stir things up.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (May 02, 2008 5:57 pm ET)
         

      Man, I can't fault anyone losing track of John on this one.

      Like trying to grab a reptile with the explosive sh*ts. I have no experience here, and its very appropriate.

      As far as the post major hostilities actions go. I think this was the time when the administration threw the plans into the dumpster. One of them was the 12 to 18 month occupation deployment plan. Which I believe set us upon the path that lead to the current situation.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 02, 2008 6:03 pm ET)
           
        Honestly, I hope that somebody from the inside has an attack of conscience and writes a book revealing what they were REALLY thinking when they started this war, and why they REALLY did it. I think everything they've told us so far has been total bullsh*t. I've seen a lot of credible theories, but it's all just speculation. We may never know..... and I seriously doubt that anyone will be held accountable for it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (May 02, 2008 7:10 pm ET)
             

          Nerzog, There was a post on rawstory about a book like that. From Lt Gen Ricardo S.Sanchez,"Wiser in Battle."

          The occupation plan was mentioned in it. An investigation by the Pentagon's Joint War Fighting Center into what happenned was presented to Rumsfeld as a briefing. Quoted from the book,"This is not going anywhere,"he said,"Oh by the way, leave all copies right here and don't talk to anybody about it."

          It might be another selfserving spew, might be interesting.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by sambo (May 02, 2008 6:00 pm ET)
         

        Therick

              Don't forget about the OIL and AIPACS demand for a military presence in the middle east 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by therick (May 02, 2008 6:02 pm ET)
           
        While that's true of Cheney, it has nothing to do with what Junior wanted.  He just wanted to play soldier for a day--playing cowboy got boaring to the little retarded chimpface.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (May 02, 2008 6:02 pm ET)
         

      Now honestly, how can the AP be expected to find McCain's earlier comments?  It's not like they can just run a search and pick them up in a few seconds, or that they have access to a vast array of resources.

      It's one thing to suck at your job.  It's something else to suck at an easy job.  And it's something else to get very rich while sucking at an easy job.

      Where's that free market thingy that'll get these fools replaced by someone who can run a search?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 02, 2008 6:05 pm ET)
           
        "And it's something else to get very rich while sucking at an easy job."

        But.... I thought that was a plank in the Republican Party Platform....
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 02, 2008 6:20 pm ET)
           
        Great post
        Report Abuse
      • Author by darkmass (May 02, 2008 9:25 pm ET)
           

        "It's one thing to suck at your job.  It's something else to suck at an easy job.  And it's something else to get very rich while sucking at an easy job." - Steeve

        I'm sorry, Steeve, it seems you have become a bit confused.  How could you have forgotton that sucking at their job is what they are paid to do?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (May 03, 2008 2:39 am ET)
           

        "Where's that free market thingy that'll get these fools replaced by someone who can run a search?"--Steeve

        Buried under the gigantic pile of college legacy's applications marked accepted?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by markcyst20051409 (May 02, 2008 9:47 pm ET)
         
      Liar Liar Old Man On Fire
      Report Abuse
    • Author by markcyst20051409 (May 02, 2008 9:49 pm ET)
         
      I preferr the stragedy of declaring victory and getting the hell out.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by puttforever4682 (May 03, 2008 8:38 pm ET)
         
      O f course some people believe that the Mission accomplished referred to the killing of Saddam Hussein.  The big announcement complete with banner had to be held back when it was discovered that assassination of a Foreign head of state is illegal and all hell would break loose.  The Saddam who was hung was apparently unrecognizable to his wife and was deemed a double by her and others.  
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

  • Associated Press
    Associated Press

    The Associated Press
    450 W. 33rd St.
    New York, NY 10001

    Main Number
    +1-212-621-1500