Comments: Life Before Blugs

Jon, don't you get it?

Blogs are supposed to be about which conservative blogs have recently posted material that inadvertently reveals them to be racists. Then people can make clever remarks about these posts in the comments.

Posts like these are too long and no one will want to read them!

Posted by Save the Oocytes at August 20, 2008 03:03 PM

Blogs are supposed to be about which conservative blogs have recently posted material that inadvertently reveals them to be racists. Then people can make clever remarks about these posts in the comments.

Hopefully there's room for all kinds, just as there's room for movies about jiggling breasts and car crashes, AND little personal films that quote obscure government documents.

Posted by Jonathan Schwarz at August 20, 2008 03:16 PM

Just goes to show ya, cooperating with the Bush family members gets YOU a date with the hangman. (or worse)

Posted by Mike Meyer at August 20, 2008 05:17 PM

And yes, I concider Bill Clinton a member of the Bush family.

Posted by Mike Meyer at August 20, 2008 05:19 PM

That's quite the e-mail. I started a blurg mainly for the same reasons, to spare friends and family e-mails and article roundups. Regardless, that e-mail has an impressive amount of detail, provides a clear timeline, and explains the gamesmanship nicely.

Posted by Batocchio at August 20, 2008 06:07 PM

Jon - don't you get it?

Actually Jon, I think you do in the main (thank heaven for WMD obsessives), but equally I don't think you've quite got all of it yet. Whilst you've got it 95% spot on, the 5% that is missing (or 'unaccounted for' in UNSCOM/UNMOVIC speak) is still very very important.

Let's start here - paragraph 10 of NSD 54 signed by GHWB on 15 January '91:

10. Should Iraq resort to using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, be found supporting terrorist acts against U.S. or coalition partners anywhere in the world, or destroy Kuwait's oil fields, it shall become an explicit objective of the United States to replace the current leadership of Iraq. I also want to preserve the option of authorizing additional punitive actions against Iraq.

Now the thing is that Saddam actually did do a lot of this that he was explicitly warned not to do. And that's how come some of the weapons came to be unaccountable.

In the early days of the inspection process it was really only the Scuds that Saddam had a hard time explaining away. He knew he'd ordered the use of a few with CW warheads fitted, and he didn't/couldn't/wouldn't admit to this, mainly for fear of US retribution. Back then no-one was even aware that there had been a BW programme so that wasn't a problem for him. But the Scuds were. So he had to destroy some unilaterally and in secret, going outside the 687 mandate, in order to attempt to cover his tracks. If he had let UNSCOM do its work properly in the first place they would have found a hole in the accounting straight away, which as far as I am aware, would have been nine Scuds and nine CW warheads. Now the US didn't want to press him publicly on this, being as it would have revealed a) untruth during GWI and b) a blatant disregard of veterans owing to the fact that CW was never investigated as being a potential cause of GW syndrome based on the false premise that no CW was 'officially' used at the time.

As the years went by other issues were thrown into the mix which conflated the reasoning for maintaining the sanctions and inspections regimes and prolonged the punishment of Iraq as a whole. During this time Iraq tried to claim that some of the Scuds had been used up in a missile interception project (although could not document the fact), and the US tried to claim that VX was found on warhead fragments despite complete Iraqi denial.

Both at the end of the day and in reality, Iraq WAS punished punitively, mainly by the intrusive regimes as already mentioned; and the then-current leadership of Iraq WAS replaced just as was set out by GHWB, albeit by his own son.

The only real problem for us mere mortals here is this - connecting A to Z directly can sometimes be a highly convoluted and tortuous process. The other problem is that very few people can be bothered to go all the way through the steps to find the bottom line.

Posted by Simon at August 20, 2008 06:36 PM

Sorry to nitpick, but one maybe hoisted "by" or "with" one's own petard, but not on it.

Posted by Bob at August 20, 2008 06:39 PM

Sorry to nitpick, but one maybe hoisted "by" or "with" one's own petard, but not on it.

Huh. Thanks for that -- I never realize a petard was a bomb. I always thought it was some kind of rope or something, hence the "hoist" part.

Posted by Jonathan Schwarz at August 20, 2008 06:52 PM

I wonder if "hosed" is a corruption of the usage of "hoist" in that saying.

Posted by darrelplant at August 20, 2008 07:22 PM

I'm fascinated by the people who were unable to conceive of any reason Saddam wouldn't like weapons inspectors other then "he must've actually had weapons to hide".

Points A) and B) rely on facts some people might not know, but I'm quite baffled that some people weren't able to at least guess at C) and D), which I would think you'd be able to do if you had, well, ever read the paper or interacted with human beings before.

Posted by Christopher at August 20, 2008 09:36 PM

"Hoist on your own petard" is from Shakespeare, and it's got an interesting meaning that we've largely forgotten. It means "lifted into the air by your own fart".

At least, this is the interpretation I've read. It makes sense to me, I like it, and I'm sticking with it. Jon, I encourage you to do the same!

Posted by Aaron Datesman at August 21, 2008 07:36 AM

The petard was one of the first shaped charges and was used to blow out massive doors and gates. About the size of a human head it was propped up against the door (hoisted) on top of two sticks the third leg being the target door. "Hoisting your own petard" means blasting down your own door or destroying your own defences, opening up your own breech.

Posted by Mike Meyer at August 21, 2008 11:46 AM