Once I reached “The mainstream media don’t want you to know about this,” I knew the OP was going to be a crock full o’ nonsense.
Nice to get an easy prognostication once in a while.
With one big difference: Kosovo was never made a campaign issue.
Yep, and Clinton didn’t land on any aircraft carriers with a big “Mission Accomplished” sign, either. You start policizing something, don’t cry when it comes around to bite you in the ass.
Anyway, it isn’t like no one brought up the Clinton Admin’s issues (including Kosovo) during the Gore campaign.
Clinton can’t pilot a plane. So there.
But seriously, I accept your argument on general terms: indeed, there were no victory parades after Kosovo. However, do you seriously insist that if Bush would mum the celebrations after the fall of Baghdad, he would be treated more sympathetically by his critics? I think he would be only called callous, scheming and then much worse…
Yeah, well, just to clarify things, fighting ignorance and all that, GWB was only a passenger on that “mission accomplished” trip. Same diff.
A former Air National Guard pilot, who hadn’t had any stick time in years, shot a carrier landing without ever having been trained in this technique, in an aircraft type that he had never before flown? Somehow I doubt it.
I should leave it for one of the pubs to post this, but:
[
](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/)
He didn’t land the plane or really do anything much at all. The real pilot just let the monkey take the stick for a few seconds. W’s stick probably wasn’t even hooked up to anything, it was probably like thopse fake steering wheels you can get to amuse toddlers in the back of the car.
Not that it matters. The fact that GWB once took some flying lessons with an obsolete aircraft in order to duck the Vietnam War does not mitigate against the fact that he conducted a self-congratulatory television stunt announcing himself as the victor in a war which he did not fight in and which was not (and is not) over.
If Kerry gets to be POTUS, he can navigate his gunboat up the Potomac on the way to work every day, as far as I’m concerned.
Quote:
Too bad he didn’t try to land the thing on the carrier.
Did anyone ask him if he liked gladiator movies?
What do you mean, he didn’t fly it? He wore a pilot suit didn’t he? I saw him, right there on the carrier deck with the banner the sailors thought up all by themselves without any assistance from anybody who had ever heard of Carl Rove, wearing a pilot suit with a real pilot helmet and everything. If he wore a pilot suit he must have been the pilot, right?
Unless it was Halloween and it a was a Tricks or Treats suit…
It’s like the song:
I see by your outfit
That you are a cowboy,
If I get an outfit
Can I be a cowboy, too.
Thanks wake up call. No one has ever written a bio about me before (at least to my knowledge). I’m truly flattered by your investment of time and energy to research my history with this site and its mainly earnest and very helpful folks. There is, IMHO, no better place on the web to get timely and reliable answers to general questions than GQ–about computers or anything else. And your “Best of Hyjyljyj” selections were very well chosen. They made me laugh anew, as I had forgotten posting some of them.
What I had suspected from the preceding posts might be a condescending cascade of derision turned out to be a delight. Even though the OP may not be credulous enough to believe that Hussein humbly complied with the UN and completely destroyed all his WMD without telling them or saving any proof of the destruction process, and even though enough sarin to kill thousands of people was just found in Iraq last week per CNN, in “going easy on the OP” you chose the high road and are an example to be followed.
Joining as a “Charter Member” was the best five bucks I ever spent. Thanx again—h.
You wouldn’t care to provide a citeypoo for that would you?
Well, in turn, I accept your argument (did we just agree on something?)
While I don’t think that him landing with the banner would necessarily lessened] the amount of criticism levied at his administration, it would have lessened the intensity of it. I mean, that is just political fodder, like any kind of iconography is. If you put up a statement or idea, it represents you, and as it gets shot full of holes, so are you. Even Rove agrees that it was one of his worst movements (even though he tries to downplay it as a coincidence and misunderstanding). I think the images of it DID alienate some people, and it certainly paints a much more vivid picture in the history books - Bush literally declaring “mission accomplished” and then having years of quagmire.
No citeypoo for what goes by on the TV screen. Probably the sarin is harmless except to the soldiers treated for exposure last week. And the two bombs found are probably the extent of the WMD in Iraq. Nothing to worry about. Anyway, wiith regard to the OP, here’s a tidbit from the Wall Street Journal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005096
I hadn’t thought about it before, but the parallels between Kosovo and Iraq are quite strong. In addition to the above points, both wars had presidents who were in severe political trouble at home (Clinton over the Lewinski scandal, Bush because the economy was in the toilet), and his opponents openly accused him of “Wagging the Dog.”
The sad part is, I’m solidly conservative. I voted for Bush in 2000, but he’s turned into an amoral warmonger that I can’t in good conscience vote for again.
The interesting part is that, while Bush’s supporters make a big deal about these two shells, the actual military guys in Iraq seem to be largely dismissive of them. What I’ve read indicates that both the sarin shell and the mustard gas shell were relics of the Iran-Iraq war, and were at least 15 years old. Chemical weapons do not have unlimited shelf lives, and a handfull of long-neglected shells would be militarily insignificant.
Noone thinks that Saddam was a nice guy, but the fact that the handful of items found all pre-date the first Gulf War (which is over ten years ago now) raise the ironic possibility that maybe he really did destroy his stockpiles.
That would be funny. Well, tragic, but funny.
What is interesting to me is this… “they” say that Saddam’s gov’t documented things quite well, and they have found detailed records (well, in the stuff that wasn’t destroyed in looting or by the officers as we invaded) of most stuff. The one thing they never found was documentation confirming or denying the destruction of the weapons - not even anything about where they are all buried (which one would presume would be in a secure site) if that is what he did.
So the question is… are those records missing because:
-
They never existed. There were no programs post-Gulf War 1.
-
Saddam carefully ensured that they never existed, to conceal his defenselessness from his regional enemies, with whom he was using the weapons as a deterrant
-
They all were destroyed by officers or looters.
-
We haven’t found them.
Maybe some others, but this is off the top of my head. We basically have two groups -
One, that they never existed, for whatever reason, so there is nothing to find. This is plausable. Of these two, I think the more likely on is option (1). There would have to be SOME documentation.
Two, that they were ALL destroyed or hidden. I see this as less likely - the odds of one or two documents out of hundreds or thousands (spanning a 10 year timespan) surviving are too high.
So until I see anything that hints otherwise, I think they just plain never existed.
From the link:
Who gets to decide whether Hussein had a need for “so much” (unquantified) pesticide? (And if the WSJ op ed writer is so persuaded that there was too much, why did he not quantify it?)
As to the sarin that was exploded last week: it is not a weapon of mass destruction. As I pointed out in an earlier thread on this topic, it was contained as a binary weapon in a 155 mm (~ 6 inch) shell. In order to be effective, it must be fired from the 155 mm cannon or howitzer so that either the shock of firing or a fuze that is armed in flight mixes the binary agents which are then spread by the explosive charge upon striking its target (or approaching its target if a timed or proximity fuze is part of the package). The reason the members of the bomb squad were not more seriously harmed is that if the shell is exploded without the prior action of being fired from a gun, the explosive charge actually disperses the two agents that would be expected to mix to create sarin. (U.S. gas rounds in 155 mm shells typically contain 2.7 lbs of explosive and 6.5 lbs. of gas; I see no reason to belive that the Iraqi weapons were more heavily armed, as increased weights would shorten the range of the weapon.)
So, while the shell provides a nasty welcome to inadequately protected troops or trapped villagers, it is inadequate as a weapon of mass destruction.
Current evidence suggests that a lot of Saddam’s weapons may not have existed to be destroyed. Saddam ran a Soviet style system where if you failed, you got shot. So you’d better put down on paper that you succeeded, whether you had or not. Make a long story short, his people claimed to have created a lot more stuff than they actually had, and the ONLY thing about it that existed was documentation. Hence, no way to document it’s destruction.
The sarin shell, as has been pointed out to you, is considered by pretty much everyone, even those who wish they had some WMD evidence to show, to be a non-story. Unexploded shells of this sort from past wars are lying around all over Iraq, and everyone knew that there were things like this floating around. It’s obvious that the terrorists didn’t even know what the shell was, making it far more likely that it was something someone picked up out of the desert rather than knowingly from a stockpile. These aren’t the WMD we were looking for, by a long shot.
Are you going to respond at all to my reaming of the “whannnaaahhhh WW2 wasn’t politicized!!!” nonsense?