↓
 
Home » The Times: still spinning after all these years

The Times: still spinning after all these years

The New Neo Posted on by

I know, I know, I should leave the NY Times alone to its dwindling readership and coffers. I should take the pledge to never type in its sorry URL again.

But I’m weak. Every now and then some link catches my eye at another site and the temptation to click is irresistible. And so today at Real Clear Politics I happened on this editorial, stunning in its shamelessness even for the Times.

Here’s the lede:

President Bush will never live down “Mission Accomplished”—and should not. When the White House’s spinners spun that claim five years ago (remember the aircraft carrier?), it seemed cocky and premature. As Mr. Bush continues his $526 billion war-without-end in Iraq, it seems stunningly deceitful.

The piece is titled “Spinning the Spin.” The lofty editors mean to refer to the Bush administration as the spinners, but it’s the Times that is getting awfully dizzy here.

Earth to Times (and anyone else who’s been on planet Xenon for the past few years):

(1) That banner referred to the mission of the crew of the ship USS Abraham Lincoln, on which Bush spoke that day. The ship was about to return home after combat operations in the Gulf, its mission accomplished.

(2) On that occasion, Bush declared “major combat operations” over (that is, the official war against Sadaam’s forces) and added [emphasis mine]:

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous…Our mission continues…

(3) Bush’s showboating (literally) that day, making a grand entrance in a jet that landed on the carrier, and appearing in a flight suit in front of the banner, was a macho display of strutting that we probably all could have done without.

That’s just the first paragraph of the editorial. The rest is devoted to stating the obvious—things still aren’t perfect in Iraq—and driving home the non-obvious,that this state of affairs requires our exit, pronto.

In the last paragraph the Times makes it clear that all of this must be done before the next President takes office. The Times no doubt is betting that this person will be a Democrat.

So it’s far better that the Iraqis be abandoned now, whatever the consequences, than that we stay long enough to make as certain as possible that all the blood and treasure expended there was not for naught. Far better to have the resultant blood and “mess” be on Bush’s hands, rather than having it sully those of a new Democratic administration.

[ADDENDUM: About those casualty figures for April that the Times cites.]

Comments

The <i>Times</i>: still spinning after all these years — 22 Comments

  1. I’m convinced that Bush’s major failure as a president results from his speech anxiety, which may well be rooted in dyslexia. He misses so many opportunities to take his case to the people, often a people waiting and expecting him to do just that. But he doesn’t show up. The “statesman” is one who can infuse the citizenry both by informing and by expressing its hopes and convictions. A statesman Bush is not.

    In rhetoric, the definer controls the turf. One of the missed opportunities is to differentiate between war and recovery in Iraq. Although both war and reconstruction involve military support, they are not the same thing. We won the war against Hussein. Now we’re trying to enable Iraq to rebuild itself as a free state should be allowed to do.

    Because Bush doesn’t not go on the offense to make his case with the people, he ends up reacting, defending against the definitions of Iraq by the liberals. By the time Bush reacts, the left has the definitions codified by litany and mantra: No progress is made; the war goes on and one, as it was in the beginning, it is now, only worse.

    Rumsfeld conducted an excellent war–which is why the liberals hate him. However, his war strategy was inadequate to the nature of the reconstruction tasks, and he got hung out to dry with no recognition for his war accomplishments. I think he must surely be very bitter.

  2. OH, OKAY…. but just this once. Today. How long do I have to hit the refresh button to get the scoop on Jello Molds?

  3. You’re right in that Bush is unfairly credited with the mission accomplished sign– sort of.

    The sign was requested by the crew of the ship, but the white house ordered it and had it printed up.

    Bush never said “mission accomplished” in his speech. But some of the content of the speech implied that. Again, sort of. Examples:

    “In the battle of Iraq, The United States and our allies have prevailed.”

    “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11th, 2001.”

    Substitute “battle” for “war” and then you really have a blunder. “Battle” could simply mean the first phase, the “major combat operations.”

    And I think if you examine the war plan from that time, there was this attitude that once we took Baghdad the hard part was behind us. So his showmanship that day was really a miscalculation. If it had proved to be true, if post-invasion Iraq fulfilled the best case scenario sold to the public, then that moment would stand as one of the all time greats, like VJ day in Times Square.

    But I remember that day, with him in the green flight suit, smiling, confident, and I thought, this could come back to haunt him.

  4. OK, I admit it. I love macho guys strutting in flight suits. I think the NYTimes writers are just jealous that they would never have the nerve to fly an airplane, let alone one that was extremely difficult to fly.

  5. I used to enjoy the Times’s editorials and think they were well-written, thought-provoking and interesting. But at some point, and I’m pretty sure it was during the 2004 campaign season, it seemed to me that the tone of their editorials abruptly became much harsher, shriller, and angrier, especially against Republicans and the right. It was something I definitely noticed at the time, and even though at that time I would still have classified myself as a Democrat, I found it very offputting and it was one of the factors in driving me away from the paper. The vitriol in the article you quoted above, neoneo, is emblematic of the shift in tone I noticed and doesn’t particularly inspire in me a desire to pick up the paper again.

  6. As Neo is “riffing a reference” (caution: stolen but unacknowledged idiom) to Simon’s “Still Crazy,” I suspect the Grey Lady might find “still spinning” a positive virtue. Interesting, isn’t it, that being “youth crazy,” which even Churchill considers a justification for being liberal (for a time) is the desired constant state for liberals and is the certifiable state for conservatives? I’ve not raised this before with the Sanity Squad, but–as we have a member-host–how can anyone with a psychoanalytic perspective of human development not find contemporary liberalism regressive?

  8. Bush never said “mission accomplished” in his speech. But some of the content of the speech implied that. Again, sort of.

    …and some other parts of the speech implied otherwise.

    Interesting concept, no? Saying you’re done with one thing, and yet you have some other things to finish.

    The ability of the press to twist things is frightening and frustrating at times. (…oh, and I’m amused at the suggestion that Bush could “avoid confusion” by going back to same press and explain the situation. As if the press wouldn’t distort things further to fit their narrative.)

  9. I read the Mission Accomplished speech a few months because i was fighting with some idiot leftist about it.

    It seems very apparent by the context that the Mission Accomplished banner was directed toward the achievemtnsof that naval ship and its long deployment.

    Bush made very explicit that there was years of struggle to go, and that things will still be difficult.

    The Left distorts what it wants to distort.. they of the mindset of a 10 year old..

  10. Was WWII over, won, and done with after the British won the Battle of Britain? Was it a cake walk from that point to the final victory? Had we finished off the Japanese after the Battle of Midway?

    For crying out loud, how hard is this?? Oh, wait, I forgot. We’re talking about the party that re-defines words to fit their needs. Kinda like their 2004 candidate being defined as a “hero.” Talk about disservice to a word!!

    Even if, like most of the screeching left, you’ve never been in the military or paid our military history any attention, you ought to be able to understand normal, every day English:

    “In the battle of Iraq, The United States and our allies have prevailed.”

    “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11th, 2001.”

  11. Dumb question: Is it common for Navy ships returning from deployment to festoon themselves with these signs?

    If so, presumably there are many more photos out there of other Navy ships returning from deployment with Mission Accomplished signs. Any links?

    Two points of clarification:
    1. According to the Wiki page linked by NNC above, the original speech did include the phrase “Mission Accomplished.” Rumsfeld took it out, but the sign remained. Rummy: “They fixed the speech, but not the sign.” So the sign was obviously explicitly and directly tied to the text of the speech.

    2. Also according to Wiki, Bush did not fly or land that plane. “The S-3 that served as “Navy One” was retired from service and placed on display at the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, Florida on July 17, 2003. The museum makes it clear that President Bush was a passenger–not the pilot–of the plane. Unlike his father, who was a Navy pilot, George W. Bush was never trained to land on a carrier.”

    It’s ironic, really. When they orchestrated this photo op, Bush’s handlers dreamed of creating an iconic moment that would define the Bush Administration for all time. Need I say it? Mission Accomplished!

  12. Funny how you fail to mention Bush REGRETTING the whole “mission accomplished” faux paux… He said it himself.

    But of course, you only use the White House’s words when convenient. Like blaming Clinton for 9/11.

    Funny how the 4000+ US soldiers dying b/c of G-Dub’s daddy complex is not “major”, right?

    The image of Bush with “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” in the background, along with the “looking at Katrina from a plane five days after your extended vacation” photo, will forever be the lasting images of the Bush failure for our nation’s history.

  13. I can hardly wait for a Democratic president. Only then will we see people like Derek spin every mistake their guy (or gal) makes, esp when they come to the realization that the war on terror won’t end with their butt in the Oval Office chair

  14. when they come to the realization that the war on terror won’t end with their butt in the Oval Office chair

    No, it won’t. In fact, it will get worse. But they will STILL blame in on Bush.

    I wish I could live in the “our poo don’t stink” world of the lefty liberal. It would be really cool to live a consequence free, everything is someone else’s fault world.

  15. When there is a dem in the WH all the right wingers will still be advocating unchecked executive power, right? And they will continue to equate disagreeing with the prez or his policies as treasonous. Can’t wait!

  16. kamper:
    They will probably beat up strawman at every chan-oh wait, that was you.

  17. Hm. Hey kamper, someone using the handle “walrus” posted effectively the same thing over at Blackfive. Was that you or do you have the same cut’n’paste habits as Mr. Walrus?

    Just wondering because if it was you you might have gotten an answer to your question about the “Mission Accomplished” tradition. If it wasn’t, perhaps you should go over there and ask… if you actually want an answer.

  18. Patrick,

    I can state categorically that I am NOT the walrus.

    Coo ka roo ka choo.

    (Couldn’t resist that one)

  19. When there is a dem in the WH all the right wingers will still be advocating unchecked executive power, right? And they will continue to equate disagreeing with the prez or his policies as treasonous. Can’t wait!

    When Republicans supported WWI, WWII, Korean War, and the Vietnam war by recognizing the President’s war powers, it was all right with you people. When it comes to being the one that have to sacrifice political ambition for the greater good of the country, now it’s a different matter for the narcissists of the Left.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑