# All hail the conquering hero: Bush in Baghdad **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 27, 2003, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594 "2003-11-27T17:40:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2003, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/261 "2003-11-30T21:47:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Sam, you brought up nuclear weapons and other WMD’s, not I. If you can provide cites that those are factual, let’s have 'em. Or perhaps I just wasn’t clear about which parts of the fantasy you stated were least factual. Now, before you get in further as to the administration’s objectives, do you need yet another link to PNAC? I was speaking generally. As in, “In a world where WMD and Nuclear weapons are becoming more available, rogue regimes that express the desire for them and have shown intent to use them are not safe to have around.” I’m also saying that that was the rationale. It may turn out that the rationale was flawed, and it’s looking more and more likely that U.S. intelligence was wrong on many things. That doesn’t change the fact that this was the reason for going to war. NOT ‘for oil’. > [@](#): > > Further, you’re now mentioning “reparations” - well, reparations for what? Who started what in reality? You want the Iraqi people to pay for their own occupation? Look up ‘analogy’ in the dictionary. I said nothing about demanding reparations from the Iraqi people. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2003, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/262 "2003-11-30T21:48:18Z")
thank you for this thread; I am learning a lot. Yes, **Diogenes** I will do the “right thing”, but I doubt it’ll help. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2003, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/263 "2003-11-30T22:10:58Z")
That was the _stated_ rationale, yes, but that wasn’t necessarily among the real ones, as has been discussed at great length here. “Flawed intelligence” is as far as you’re willing to go, but even that we now pretty much know to be far too kind. But you’re getting there, bit by bit. Re “reparations”, whose oil fields are we talking about? Iraq’s, right? Well, who is Iraq if not its people? Whose oil is it then? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/264 "2003-11-30T22:47:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*…Nuclear proliferation and the threat of weapons of mass destruction just made Saddam’s regime too dangerous to tolerate. \*\* None of which he had, nor was likely to get, seeing as the inspections regime was, apparently, doing _precisely_ what it was designed to do. (Come now, **Sam**. Did you _really_ think you were gonna get away with that?) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2003, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/265 "2003-11-30T22:53:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cedric45 \* > \*\*I DO know this… when butt scratching liberals claim that this this is ALL about PROFITS for oil men then they are no better than the money grubbing bastards they claim to expose. \*\* So, out of sheer patriotic stupidity, we liberals must TOTALLY ignore that WHOLE Bush-Cheney/Halliburton thing, eh? Because the Bush Admin, would NEVER stoop to paying off their political cronies like that, would they? I’d say YOU’RE the one doing the butt scratching. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2003, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/266 "2003-11-30T22:57:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DirkGntly \* > \*\ ***Evil Captor** mentioned that we need to develop less dependence on foreign oil, a position “liberals have been pushing since the 60s.” Uhhhhmmm…color me skeptical, but - we _tried_ that, but we seem to be stymied by conflicting goals from the libs here, essentially: > “We need to be less dependent on foreign oil…_but you can’t drill for it on **our** soil or in **our** oceans._” Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…ANWR, anyone??? \*\* Oil is fungible but WILL run out eventually. turning our national parks into refineries is a short term option that doesn’t help much in the short run (i.e. economically) and will hurt a lot in the long run (environmentally). At least you’re starting to admit your past mistakes in reasoning. It’s the first step to rationality. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2003, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/267 "2003-11-30T23:12:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jimpatro \* > \*\*I see a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on here. > How many of you are really shooled in intelligence/counter-intelligence, international affairs, anti-terrorism… > You don’t know what they know…not even close. \*\* Nope, but I think I’m entitled to an opinion (checks, balances, democracy, and all that). _You_ may not be party to the information, but in the UK the Joint Intelligence Committee assessment (bear in mind that the JIC is in fact very well “shooled [sic] in intelligence/counter-intelligence, international affairs, anti-terrorism”) that was handed to Tony Blair before the war _did_ become public. Bear in mind when you read the following that the UK intelligence reports were a large part of Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN. Wanna know what the JIC said to Blair, back in February of this year? Please read [this](http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/wmds.htm) carefully. > [@](#): > > “there was no intelligence that Iraq had provided [chemical or biological] materials to al-Qaeda or of Iraqi intentions to conduct chemical or biological terrorist attacks.” > > “Any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of terrorists,” it continued. > > The JIC, which includes the heads of the UK’s three intelligence and security agencies, judged that al-Qaeda and associated groups were by far the greatest threat facing the west, and “that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq,” according to the report of the parliamentary committee. > > The JIC further concluded that, while there was no intelligence that Iraq had provided such weapons to terrorists, “in the event of imminent regime collapse there would be a risk of transfer of such material, whether or not as a deliberate Iraqi regime policy.” In other words, “invade Iraq, make the Al Qaeda situation much worse”. Armchair quarterback I may be, but the intel people in my part of the world who really _do_ know their shit entirely back up the Liberal assessment. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/268 "2003-12-01T01:24:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > This war is not in any way about oil. It was about exactly what Bush says it was about - the Middle East being a very dangerous place for the world, and getting more dangerous by the day. Nuclear proliferation and the threat of weapons of mass destruction just made Saddam’s regime too dangerous to tolerate. . . . “WMD” . . . “Nuclear proliferationn” . . . “not about oil” . . . Given everything that’s happened (including the transparency of the deceit), and how many debates I’ve seen **Sam** post in, this is probably the saddest post I’ve read on these boards. I don’t know if it’s denial or plain stupidity but, sometimes, you just want to despair. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/269 "2003-12-01T02:48:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cedric45 \* > I actually ridicule them for a totally different reason than the one you imply. Too bad you didn’t give the faintest clue as to what that reason was. > [@](#): > > Maybe you should review my entire post and the post it was in response to. I did. Exactly where did you, in those five lines, get specific? You didn’t. And the post you were responding to (which I’m assuming you quoted in relevant part; if you didn’t, your bad) didn’t either. One thing I will never, EVER understand, as long as it continues to happen, is the phenomenon of posters misrepresenting previous posts. Folks (that is, **cedric45** and those similarly oblivious), here’s a clue-by-four to hit yourselves over the head with: _your earlier posts are still there. We can go back and read them._ It’s not like conversation, where neither your memory nor mine of what you said five minutes ago is 100% reliable. End of _that_ rant. For now. > [@](#): > > Of course it is about oil but NOT about profits for oil men and American SUV’s. They aren’t mutually exclusive. The war can be “about oil” in the sense of minimizing disruptions to the oil supply over the long term, and yet still be “about oil” in the sense of making sure that Halliburton and other well-connected Bush/Cheney buddies get more than their share of the boodle. And at the same time be “about oil” in the sense of giving the US government an unusual degree of influence over the producing and exporting decisions of at least one oil-rich Middle Eastern nation. > [@](#): > > It’s about economic survival; and perhaps literal survival. I’m very aware of the extent of American dependence on foreign oil. But that’s getting needlessly apocalyptic, don’t you think? America withstood the 1973-74 OPEC oil embargo, and the Ayatollah’s supply disruption of 1979-80. It wasn’t pleasant, and they both resulted in severe recessions - well, severe as we measure such things, at least. We’re even more dependent on foreign oil today, but OTOH we’ve got a more robust, more efficient economy than we did in the 1970s. I’m not worried about our economic _survival_, should the Islamic oil producers unite and turn off the spigot again. > [@](#): > > The formation of a Pan Middle Eastern nation is not outside possibility. Look at a globe… One nation composed of Iran, Iraq, Saudi, Syria etc. Qatar and Kuwait would disappear like a camel fart in a sandstorm! What percentage of the world’s oil supply is now cut off? Are the Arabs going to conquer Iran, or vice versa? Iran isn’t an Arab nation, and isn’t interested in being subsumed into a basically Arab conglomeration. I doubt that even the Arab nations you mention have any chance of voluntarily uniting, and no Arab nation is strong enough to conquer the others anyway. Besides, we’d block such aggression - which we’d be on much stronger moral footing to do. This would be more akin to kicking Saddam out of Kuwait than it would be to kicking Saddam out of Iraq. > [@](#): > > What now happens in Europe? In America? In Asia? What happens when the trains, buses, ships and transfer trucks don’t run because they have no fuel? What about the plastics industry and other industries that depends on oil in order to make the products you have to have everyday? A hint: economic collaspe and Mad Max Thunderdome here we come! Getting a bit apocalyptic again, I see. > [@](#): > > I DO know this… when butt scratching liberals… And your name-calling is cute too. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/270 "2003-12-01T03:03:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DirkGntly \* > > 1. Perhaps it WAS all about the oil, however, oil is a national interest, and securing Iraq secured oil…it may be a shallow analysis, but I believe it also to be true. Personally, I don’t really have an issue with our securing a significant source of oil for the forseeable future. Even if the “securing” is done by invading another nation? Whoa. > [@](#): > > 1. **Evil Captor** mentioned that we need to develop less dependence on foreign oil, a position “liberals have been pushing since the 60s.” Uhhhhmmm…color me skeptical, but - we _tried_ that, but we seem to be stymied by conflicting goals from the libs here, essentially: > “We need to be less dependent on foreign oil…_but you can’t drill for it on **our** soil or in **our** oceans._” Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…ANWR, anyone??? How much oil can we drill for in ANWR, do you think? Best guess is about 4 months’ supply, at current US consumption rates. And ANWR is believed to be the best untapped oilfield we’ve got. When it comes to oil in our oceans, that tends to be less about liberals and conservatives than a NIMBY thing, as evidenced by Jeb Bush’s opposition to drilling off Florida’s coast. At any rate, if we were able to reduce _consumption_ by 3.5% over projections for the next ten years, we’d save as much oil over that period by such conservation measures as we expect to be able to extract from ANWR. And that’s really small potatoes; we’ve done much better than that in the not-too-distant past. The only thing that’s lacking is the political will, on the part of our leaders, to make that a priority. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/271 "2003-12-01T03:18:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > Anyone who thinks this is ‘all about oil’ doesn’t understand the oil market. > > Here’s the thing - oil is a fungible resource. That means that once it’s on the market, it’s irrelevant where it came from. There is nothing special about ‘Iraqi’ oil. Actually, the fungibility of oil is Reason #1 that it might well be “about oil” in the broad sense of minimizing supply disruptions over time. > [@](#): > > So what is the scenario under which Saddam could have prevented the U.S. from benefitting from Iraqi oil? By not selling to the U.S.? Fine. If he sells it to someone else instead, then they will buy less oil from their other suppliers, freeing that oil up for U.S. purchase. You’re barking up the wrong tree here, Sam. The potential threat was never that of Saddam shutting off the spigot, but that of a potential Islamic revolutionary government in Saudi Arabia shutting off _its_ spigot, _a la_ Iran, 1979. The pre-war supposition was that should that happen, Iraq was the nation most able to quickly ramp up production to take up the slack. (Oops: another prewar supposition bites the dust. No biggie; there’ve been bigger ones.) The problem was that an unfriendly Iraqi government would have little reason to do so. But a regime that felt it owed its very existence to the benevolent Americans, OTOH, very well might. Especially if its president was named Chalabi. Revolution in Arabia, with drastic cuts in oil exports from that land? Iraq makes up the difference, worldwide production remains steady, everyone’s happy except the Arabian revolutionaries. > [@](#): > > The bottom line is that the Middle Eastern nations survive on their oil sales. As a result, the one thing you can count on is that all of that oil will be pumped out of the ground and sold. And the U.S. will have as much access to that oil as anyone else, regardless of the political situation there. I again refer you to Iran, 1979, and the Middle East generally, 1973-74. > [@](#): > > This war…was about exactly what Bush says it was about - the Middle East being a very dangerous place for the world, and getting more dangerous by the day. Nuclear proliferation and the threat of weapons of mass destruction just made Saddam’s regime too dangerous to tolerate. I see **Elvis** has already answered this one more than sufficiently. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/272 "2003-12-01T06:26:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DirkGntly \* > > 1. Perhaps it WAS all about the oil, however, oil is a national interest, and securing Iraq secured oil…it may be a shallow analysis, but I believe it also to be true. Personally, I don’t really have an issue with our securing a significant source of oil for the forseeable future. So if I deem it in my interest to take your money, you won’t mind if I just whacked you in the head with a baseball bat and steal your wallet, eh? ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/273 "2003-12-01T07:10:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cedric45 \* > So Islamic extremism hasn’t grown any at all since then? That was then, this is now! Is the sky falling where YOU live? :dubious: The former is a rather interesting question. How much has Islamic extremism risen since the 70’s and 80’s? How many terrorist acts were there then versus now? Seems to me the frequency was pretty high. Tensions may be higher at the moment than on average during the 80’s, but I’m not aware of any monumental changes in Islamic fundamentalism since that time. There were suicide bombers. There were hijackings. Perhaps there wasn’t much in the way of suicide hijackings, but that singular tactic doesn’t really indicate a _theological_ or even necessarily an _ideological_ change. And if we continue to use Iran as an example from recent history, we’d note that there has actually been a secularizing backlash since the revolution in '79. While it’s certainly possible that a revolutionary gov’t might lead the Saudis to turn off the oil temporarily, they wouldn’t survive long by doing so. Without oil money, how does a Saudi gov’t provide for its people and realistically, its own security? The concept of a Pan-Arabic nation is even more unlikely, as has been pointed out… Granted, OPEC _if it ever got its act together_ could put a serious hurt on the Western world. But they want their oil money just as badly as we want their oil. Those economies don’t just go away overnight based on pure ideology alone. So no. The sky isn’t falling. When was the last time the Middle East was remotely stable? Under British Rule? Under the Ottoman Empire? ---
**Author:** ![cedric45](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d07c76/32.png) [@cedric45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cedric45)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/274 "2003-12-01T12:49:10Z")
Whoa there! Take it easy! We may be closer in opinion than you think. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > **They aren’t mutually exclusive. The war can be “about oil” in the sense of minimizing disruptions to the oil supply over the long term, and yet still be “about oil” in the sense of making sure that Halliburton and other well-connected Bush/Cheney buddies get more than their share of the boodle. And at the same time be “about oil” in the sense of giving the US government an unusual degree of influence over the producing and exporting decisions of at least one oil-rich Middle Eastern nation.** That was the point I was trying to make. I wish I could express myself as well as you have done here. (Well, actually I can… it just takes 10 or more drafts to get it right and I got a business to run.) Liberals use the middle reason almost exclusively and that _by itself_ is worthy of ridicule. “Freeing the Iraqi people” (ack!) makes more sense although that exclusive view is just about as “worthy”. > [@](#): > > But that’s getting needlessly apocalyptic, don’t you think? I’m not a pessimist but I find that looking towards the downside has a benefit… if I’m surprised, at least it’s a pleasant one. > [@](#): > > Iran isn’t an Arab nation, and isn’t interested in being subsumed into a basically Arab conglomeration. A few western European nations had no interest in becoming Soviet either. Didn’t stop that from happening. I can’t help but imagine that the same type of situation occuring in the mid east would be a hell of a lot more bloody. Especially if anyone decides it’s a good time to wipe out Israel. Nuclear warfare anyone? > [@](#): > > I doubt that even the Arab nations you mention have any chance of voluntarily uniting. _snip_ Besides, we’d block such aggression - which we’d be on much stronger moral footing to do. No one thought the “Iron Curtain” would ever go away either but it happened seemingly overnight. I think this is the scenario more likely to occur than the forcible union mentioned above. We’d have no moral footing to do anything if the Arabs announced they decided to bury the hatchet and unite into one big happy family. Presenting a totally non-aggressive front would be a huge world political coup for the Arabs, no? > [@](#): > > And your name-calling is cute too. You should see me stick out my tongue and make bbbbbbbbbbtttt noises!😃 ---
**Author:** ![cedric45](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d07c76/32.png) [@cedric45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cedric45)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/275 "2003-12-01T13:11:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mrblue92 \* > **Granted, OPEC _if it ever got its act together_ could put a serious hurt on the Western world. But they want their oil money just as badly as we want their oil. Those economies don’t just go away overnight based on pure ideology alone.** I’m not so sure any group of humans are that rational. (remember tulip mania? the crusades? nazism?) All you need is a leader who can and will work to replace economic reality with a fanatical religious mindset. (Hitler had less to work with didn’t he? National/racist pride worked for him and I’m certain that any religion has much more power.) We’re pretty self-sufficient and self-reliant at our household but I seriously question our ability to hold out longer or even better than someone squatting in a cave/desert suffering-and-doing-without-to-the-greater-glory-of-Allah. An apartment dwelling American who believes that food “really does come from the grocery store” wouldn’t stand a chance. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/276 "2003-12-01T15:07:14Z")
The ever delightful and informative “All Hat No Cattle” site [http://www.allhatnocattle.net/](http://www.allhatnocattle.net/) refers us to [http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen11282003.html](http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen11282003.html) for this droll bit of commentary: " **I may be a bit naive, and it has been a while since I served on active duty, but I can’t recall ever sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner at 6:00 AM.** Air Force One touched down at Baghdad International Airport, under cover of darkness, at 5:20 AM Baghdad time. Bush was on the ground for two and a half hours, his plane departing Baghdad at around 7:50 AM. Considering that it likely took some 30 minutes for Bush to disembark from Air Force One and travel by a heavily secured motorcade to the hangar where the troops were assembled, that means our military men and women were downing turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, pumpkin pie, and non-alcoholic beer at a time when most people would be eating eggs, bacon, grits, home fries, and toast. But there on national television, when most Americans were preparing to sit down to their own traditional Thanksgiving dinners, we saw a tape of President Bush serving mashed potatoes and corn to American troops at a “traditional” Thanksgiving meal in the early hours of the morning. What’s more, when a clearly exhausted Bush strode around a curtain – after a “What’s My Line” mystery guest routine by Iraq proconsul L. Paul Bremer – 600 American troops were said to be “shocked and awed” by Bush’s surprise appearance. I would have thought most of the troops, many of whom are support personnel who work relatively normal working hours, would have been more surprised when they were ordered to get up before sunrise to eat Thanksgiving dinner between 6:00 and 7:30 A.M." (emphasis gleefully added) ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/277 "2003-12-01T15:30:58Z")
From the [drudge report](http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2003/11/27/20031127_225205_flashbb.htm): > [@](#): > > The President left Waco secretly Wednesday at 8:25 p.m. Eastern (7:25 p.m. Texan) with a small pool, stopped at Andrews to pick up a few staff and a few more poolers, change planes and then head to Baghad. Both flights were what we think of as the normal Air Force One, Boeing 747 with the normal marking. The President landed in darkness at Baghdad International Airport at 9:31 a.m. Washington time (5:32 p.m. local) on Thursday, Nov. 27, Thanksgiving Day. He took off at 12:03 p.m. Eastern time, so was in Baghdad roughly 2.5 hours. Bush showed up at 5:30 **PM** , not **AM**. ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/278 "2003-12-01T15:39:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cedric45 \* > Hitler had less to work with didn’t he? National/racist pride worked for him and I’m certain that any religion has much more power. Hitler had _less_ to work with? Less??? How many state-of-the-art Arab airplane/tank/submarine manufacturers are there? Hitler had so many lucky factors falling together that it’s almost absurd: the top-notch military training (at least for the Wehrmacht’s significant early years), the overwhelming fear of the Allies from the First World War, the failure of early Allied organization (as well as outright command) on multiple fronts, the brilliance of some German strategists such as Manstein who carried Hitler through France (despite Hitler’s second guessing, which would first wound him at Dunkirk and ultimately destroy the Wehrmacht in Russia), and, as implied, the raw power of the Germany economy. The German Army may have had a large number of non-Germans serving it at war’s end, but almost all its major victories were accomplished by German troops with a sense of unity, not some mismash of divisive and scattered nationalities. [The only major exception to this was in North Africa with the Italians, and that (despite its potential importance) was largely a sideshow given by one skilled tactician fighting a losing battle.] There’s a _reason_ we have this thing called “Godwin’s Law”, you know. If anything, more nationalism and radical fundamentalism in the Middle East will continue its tendency to _divide_ Arab nations, not _unite_ them. Try asking Jesuits and Mormons to agree to a unified theocracy sometime and see what happens… ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/279 "2003-12-01T15:43:32Z")
When is sundown/sunrise in Baghdad this time of year anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2003, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594/280 "2003-12-01T16:45:33Z")
Sunrise today was at 6:20 a.m, so at Thanksgiving it would have been a little earlier. Sunset’s at 4:55. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-hail-the-conquering-hero-bush-in-baghdad/215594.md?page=15)