Talk:Mission Accomplished speech

old threads that had no title

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york060303.asp

I altered the account of the Jet vs Helicopter issue, (though I still don't think it reflects well on the administration)Ace-o-aces 14:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the "very long war" line at the bottom of the article. While I suppose some people thought we'd be done by now, there's really no basis for calling the Iraq war "very long," especially compared to other wars, and especially considering how many nations US troops are still deployed in.

       While the modifier "very" may be excessive, you should review the lengths of the USA's participation in other wars.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.185.21 (talk) 07:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 

Move?

there have been other uses of the phrase "Mission Accomplished". Should this be moved to Mission Accomplished (Iraq war) -- Astrokey44|talk 05:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you think of any specific ones with historical significance? Ace-o-aces 13:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but the phrase was certainly widely used before May 1, 2003. This site [1] refers to it for the US WW2 campaign against Germany. Searching google for "mission accomplished" leaving out the terms -iraq -bush -george -abraham -lincoln -2003 still gets 500,000 hits [2] -- Astrokey44|talk 14:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I would think you would need a little more about the significance, history and origin of the phrase before it could be its own page. Right now, the Bush speach is what most people think of when they hear "mission accomplished". Ace-o-aces 19:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No move. Disambiguate the others if you want. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Origin of banner

I thought that at one point the White House claimed that the banner was the idea of the troops on the aircraft carrier, etc. Is there any information on who's idea it was, how it was made, etc. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My guess is the administration got it custom made at Bullshit 'R' Us. Yes, for sixty years, Bullshit 'R' Us have provided custom signs, banners and things for PR stunts. Remember, when you need to shovel the shit on your people, its Bullshit 'R' Us.

(sorry, couldn't resist :P)--Kross^Talk 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

actually, the banner came from truth 'R' us, as the removal of sadam's goverment was very successful :), the replacement has not been as successful though :(--68.9.193.246 23:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this, so I'm sorry for replying, but would you consider a heart transplant successful if the only part of the operation that worked out was removing the original heart? 68.6.185.21 (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)CaptainJohnson

This Article - Necessary?

Why does this page exist? Couldn't this all be under the Iraq War article or under George W. Bush's article? This is not substantive enough to be a stand-alone article. Dubc0724 18:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a significant historical event in its own right. I've seen wiki articles on far more obscure subjects Ace-o-aces 05:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there is some level of significance. It appears that its significance to some on WP comes from the potential embarrassment it caused the Administration. No argument it was a stunt done without foresight and was another embarrassment to the White House, but do we need an entire article for it? Do we have an article about Gerald Ford falling down all the time, or Jimmy Carter getting attacked by a rabbit and killing it with a boat paddle? Do we have an article solely devoted to Clinton poking the help? I agree that there are plenty of articles on here that have little or no relevance. I was only proposing that this article be merged into either the GWB article or the Iraq War article or even the Impeach GWB article. Thank you. Dubc0724 13:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if Jimmy Carter being attacked by a rabbit or Ford falling down had something to do with falsely caliming major combat in a war was completed, those incidents would have their own article. "Mission Accomplished" was not like the 'pretzel choking' incident, it wasn't merely embarrassing to a public figure, it was a president saying the mission was accomplished in Iraq years 3 YEARS AGO.

Well there sure as shit is an article about Clinton "poking the help". In any case, this article, while not huge, contains too much detail on this one incdient to fit quite right into another article. A similar thing happened with the article on Babe Ruth's Called Shot. It grew to big for the main article on Ruth and got spun off on its own. Ace-o-aces 00:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That one was just about Lewinsky, but you're right. Thank you for the discussion. I take back my original argument. Dubc0724 15:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

hey this was an historical event, on a lesser scale, but still should be mentioned nasrmg 12:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer Dubc0724, we do have an article about Jimmy Carter getting attacked by a rabbit and killing it with a boat paddle. 81.178.82.13 22:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rummy's statement

Is Rumsfield's statement about the end of major combat relevent to this article? I'm sure all WH staff where reading off the same talking points that day. Ace-o-aces 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant because it was a similar announcement with a similar outcome (the violence in Afghanistan is even worse now than it was during the invasion). PBP 21:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is it now?

Anybody have any information about the where-abouts of the infamous banner now? Did the White House have it destroyed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.254.11.208 (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, I would like to know this information as well. Ewlyahoocom (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

Perhaps this information does deserve it's own page, but maybe under a title like "Controversy Surrounding End of Major Combat Operations in Iraq" As it is now, the article is definitely POV. I would expect this article to mainly be about the phrase, in the english language (somewhat like the OK article), and it's history and evolution; with just a mention of its relevance to the aircraft carrier speech.

This article appears to just be highly political one, and it shouldnt be. it should be an article about the phrase it's self, not just an politicized discussion about one thing that happened to use that established phrase on a banner.

in summary: this should not be a politically focused article, and it is. therefore neutrality tag should definitely stay, because I am heavily disputing the neutrality.

thank you.

-- Joetheguy 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've often thought the article could be changed to Mission Accomplished Speech, since it does focus mostly on the Bush speech and not the phrase. I Would have no problem with that. Other than that, I think the article maitains NPOV. You can't hide the fact that the speech was an embarasment for the Bush admin, but that doesn't make it POV Ace-o-aces 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I agree that an article on the "Mission Accomplished" the phrase, history, etc. is relevant and should be captured on wikipedia. In light of that, and Ace's comment above, maybe we should change the title of the article.

I also agree that it is a politically focused article, but that is because the speech was a political event. I contest your point that the article is POV. If you are "heavily" disputing the neutrality, please provide some sentences, phrases or other examples of where you feel the article is POV.146.23.212.21 11:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Forgot to sign in. The above paragraph and removal of POV tag was by...Thedukeofno 11:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, how do we go about changing the name? If we do I think it should either be Mission Accomplished Speech or Declaration of Mission Accomplished Ace-o-aces 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ace, actually I think we have to create a new article named "Mission Accomplished Speech" or some such, and then move this info there. Then revise this article to reflect "Mission Accomplished" the phrase. I honestly don't have enough "passion" around either to do it myself. However, I don't feel the existing article is POV.Thedukeofno 13:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can think of one POV sentence in this article, the one which says that Bush landing on an aircraft carrier was "historic". Jhobson1 (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is NPOV as the criticism and parts are all pretty much from a historic or 'recording' standpoint, rather than any direct attacks, point of view, or criticism by part of an author here. Just because something stupid happened, and a lot of people laughed about it, does not make it POV. For example, Shawinigan_Handshake is NPOV. Annihilatron (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

POV 2

General browser here - this article does a disservice to Wikipedia in that it is clearly a POV article from a bias prospective. From my prospective, obviously not that of the article, the Mission Accomplished meme was clearly directed at the ignorant and useful idiots in the population. While Mission Accomplished is clearly understood by those that have been there and done that its meaning was significantly twisted by Bush/war opponents. The article fails to make that point well - not sure that would even be an appropriate thing to do here any way.

The carping about Bush flying was petty. I am certain as a fighter pilot Bush throughly enjoyed the flight. Not sure why the article even bothers to discuss given that it again was just anti-Bush spin - but I guess that is the purpose of this article anyway.

Again this article degrades WikiPedia and supports its critics when they state the articles are not to be believed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rheitzman (talk • contribs) 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

How about adding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda to the categories at bottom? This topic is a text book example. --Rheitzman 19:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How pathetic, "twisted by Bush/war opponents". The same type of intentional ignorance is what you sad little Neocons and farm boy soliders use when things like 'yellowcake stockpile found in Iraq', while ignoring the fact it was guarded by the UN since before the Iraq war. Sorry that "Mission Accomplished" paints the sheer ignorance and stupidity of the Bush administration, but your going to have to deal with it. 124.182.59.85 (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

No personal attacks; also, there are several articles like this, which all have verifiable facts. Refer to above POV topics. Annihilatron (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Where in Wikipedia is Scott Sforza?!

How is it possible that there is no entry for Scott Sforza, the former (?) ABC dude who is the WH 'visionary' behind the whole set-up on the aircraft carrier? Even this article does not mention him! -jmkilburn

John McCain

I deleted the stuff about John McCain because it is really irrelevant to the article and seems to be only a ploy to make him look bad in the upcoming election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.109.213 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree this looks like another attempt to link McCain to Bush, and has little to do with the subject. McCain's comments aren't that relevant- to the war or to the article.This.machinery (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright can we get some consensus here? I agreed with this post and deleted the content, then it was reverted and I got a anonymous message from Wikipedia saying I was wrong. John McCain has very little to do with this speech, and I doubt that he would be mentioned AT ALL if he were not the Republican nominee. Shall we mention every single politician who uttered the phrase "Mission Accomplished" circa 2003, regardless of whether or not they wrote, spoke, or were otherwise involved at all in this event? This is obviously politically motivated, and the exclusive section is absurd. McCain was not mentioned before he won the nomination, and the fashion by which he has been inserted into this article is embarrassing to Wikipedia. The quote of him using the phrase directly is about Saddam; not even the same subject as this speech. Please explain how he is relevant to this article, don't just start an edit war. This.machinery (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"In a July 22, 2008 op-ed piece in The New York Post, McCain called "waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely" "the worst mistake of the Bush administration"."Getting Iraq Right: How to Keep Progress Going". The New York Post. Published July 22, 2008. Accessed July 22, 2008.

How in God's name is this not notable? The Republican candidate for President explicitly criticized what the current Republican President did. This is eyebrow raising to say the least. 24.32.204.89 (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Codpiece?

I want to see an example of the allegations that G.W. Bush had a codpiece on. This has been said in numerous Al Franken books. Any actual info, not from a comedian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangikusboy (talk • contribs) 20:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Why aren't there any pictures of the banner other than the Daily Show photoshop? 74.94.21.101 (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I added File:Bush mission accomplished.jpg under a fair use claim. As far as I know, this is most famous image of the speech MSNBC CNN , along with the image where Bush wears a pilot uniform. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the iconic image that keeps being used in cartoons[3][4] and in political parodies[5][6] along with the image of the pilot uniform [7][8].

It's important that the reader sees how the banner is readable during the speech itself, see:

"Bush did not use the phrase "Mission Accomplished," but that message was emblazoned on a prominent banner directly behind the president as he declared major combat operations over in Iraq." Bush says he would give 'Mission accomplished' speech again, NZ Herald, Sep 28, 2004

Also [9]. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"then-President"

I don't think we need to revise all references to Bush as "then-President," as in these edits: [10][11]. Would we go and update Basketball, Alaska Panhandle, etc. to change "President Theodore Roosevelt" to "then-President Theodore Roosevelt," for example? TJRC (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Freemason Symbol

Apparently a lot of conspiracy theorist allege that there was a freemason symbol behind then-President Bush when he gave the speech. It is true that there were skull and bones behind him but that does not mean they were there because of freemasonry. Anyway I think this is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PonileExpress (talk • contribs) 22:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation/relevance?

"In recent years, [the phrase Mission Accomplished] has been particularly associated with this event."

I don't live in the US and I haven't even heard of this event. I would also be surprised if people in the US completely changed the meaning of a phrase that has been in use practically forever as a result of a single event - hence, a citation would be good.158.143.212.225 (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

red alert

"Mission Accomplished" is from red alert game.--Ll0l00l (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation for casualty timeline claim in opener

Considering it is the crux of the issue - and pretty hard to (logically) "refudiate" considering the timeline alone - I have a very hard time believing that no one has provided a citation before now. That said, and for the record, it has been cited now. TraeHova (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edited the line referring to Camp As Sayliyah, Qatar speech for clarity

I changed the wording to remove a misstatement of fact and for clarity:

Previous: Bush reiterated a "Mission Accomplished" message to the troops at Camp As Sayliyah on June 5, 2003 — about a month after the aircraft carrier incident: "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished."

I changed "reiterated" to "did offer" because he did not offer a "mission accomplished" message on the carrier so it couldn't be "reiterated" especially in light of the fact that he was now speaking to troops in Afghanistan and not forces from Iraq.

I also added "in Afghanistan" after "message to the troops" because the original wording seemed to imply that he was speaking on the same subject, the war in Iraq, when he was not.

Onetec (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://books.google.com/books?id=sKhTmObavHIC}}
  • In 2003 Mission Accomplished speech on 2011-05-25 07:34:21, 404 Not Found
  • In 2003 Mission Accomplished speech on 2011-06-11 06:05:18, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081112/pl_bloomberg/ahlrnlvfhsmc
  • In 2003 Mission Accomplished speech on 2011-05-25 07:34:21, 404 Not Found
  • In 2003 Mission Accomplished speech on 2011-06-11 06:05:27, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Anything about the speech itself?

I can't find in the article anything about the speech, itself. Most of the article is about the banner. There are so many facts, I'd imagine, it could have its own article. What was the speech about? Did he talk only about the war, or about other things, too? 80.98.146.68 (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)