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

















C'mon! Did he really say that? Is he that freakin' stupid?
"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!
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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
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.
... 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.
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.
If you dont mind, who WAS your first choice?
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.
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.
Therick
Don't forget about the OIL and AIPACS demand for a military presence in the middle east
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?
But.... I thought that was a plank in the Republican Party Platform....
"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?
"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?