August 20, 2005

Cargo Cult...

Stephen Spruiell points to a good quote from Christopher Hitchins on MSNBC's Hardball:

...Christopher, do you think that this represents—or she [Cindy Sheehan] represents some sort of tipping point in public opinion in America?

HITCHENS: Certainly not. She has, just today, lied about a statement that she made several times before to the effect that her son was killed in a war run by a secret Jewish cabal within the administration. She now says she didn‘t make that statement. She did make that statement. So as well as being an hysterical paranoid ideologist, or at least being manipulated by people who are, turned this into camp fruitbag and nutbag, she has decided not to have the courage or maybe the cowardice of her conviction. She now says she didn‘t make a statement that she definitely did.

FINEMAN: I think, Christopher.

HITCHENS: And she is also inviting a terrific riposte. What if we were to say, very well, the conduct of this war will depend on an opinion poll which we‘ll take of relatives of the fallen in Iraq, only they can decide, only they have the authority. She would lose...

To the poor goops who think Sheehan has "moral authority" (but would sneer at the other 2,000 or so grieving mothers if they were ever so tacky as to hire flacks and become celebrity war-supporters, or America-supporters) any lie is acceptable as long as it is for the cause. Except there is no cause.

I might have some sympathy if there were anything positive or noble that the Sheehan types were FOR. Any better plan, any hopeful scheme or dream. If there was anything they were willing to fight FOR. But they are only negative. Only AGAINST. They are empty.

They sport some rags of leftist rhetoric, but even that is a sham. There's no revolution planned, no bright future of scientific socialism. The leftists of the past one could admire for their disciplined quest for a better world, even though you knew they were totally wrong. But today's "anti-war" left is a kind of pathetic cargo cult, re-enacting empty Marxian rituals.

Sheehan will soon be forgotten. A fawning media can make her a temporary celeb, but she can't go beyond her "15 minutes." Why? Because, as the saying goes, you can't beat somebody with nobody.

Posted by John Weidner at August 20, 2005 01:53 PM
Comments

I found your archive link about Bush in the F-102, and you bend reality in truly amazing fashion.

In fact, the F-102 was entirely removed from the Pacific Theatre the same month Bush first put his tush in one.

So, not even the Palace program could have put Bush there.

Bush was in what is sometimes called a "champagne" unit with the son of Governor Connoly, son of Senator Bentsen, and a few black people... if they happened to be members of the Dallas Cowboys football franchise.

The plane itself, originally a response to the Soviets unveiling a new bomber at the 1947 Berlin air show, and had no practical mission in Viet Nam. The North Viet Namese happened to lack a bomber force. You cite "wikipedia" for the idea that 14 were lost in Viet Nam. This is incorrect. Only four were. The USAF has no records of any being shot down in air-to-air combat with any MiGs, but there is anecdotal evidence that this happened. You cite the incident unquestioningly, when questions abound whether it ever happened.

The plane was being phased out for _years_ before Bush was in one, and was completely phased out of active units of the Air Force in 1973. It had _only_ been in Keflavik, Iceland, for its last two years. Iceland, you might note, was not a frontline of the cold war.

However, one time, as a result of the 1973 situation in the Middle East, the 111st was briefly put on alert status. Bush was not around for that.

Edjumacate yourself, ya bum.

(by the way, I joined the US Marine Corps once, even if I never saw combat, or anything like dangerous duty, but then again, the President's name was Clinton).

Posted by: Josh Narins at August 20, 2005 07:53 PM

I assume you are referring to this post.

As I stated there, I was merely copying an article from aerospaceweb. If you don't like it, complain to them; I'm not posing as an expert on the F-102.

However, the information in the article conforms to other articles and reminiscences I have read elsewhere, so I will assume that it's correct, and that you are talking through your hat.

Posted by: John Weidner at August 20, 2005 11:39 PM

>I found your archive link about Bush in the F-102, and you bend reality in truly amazing fashion.

I don't get how this relates to the "Mother Cindy" story.

Posted by: Huck Foley at August 22, 2005 11:46 AM

The part I've always been interested in is the last 18 months of Dubya's service. Or more accurately, the lack of service.

He joined the TxANG in 1968 after he graduated Yale, with a 6yr committment. Finished flight school 1969, pilot certified 7/9/70. By all reports was actually doing pretty good...until early 1972. He was scheduled for a flight physical in May 1972, but failed to show up and in fact NEVER completed it. As a result, he was grounded from all flying duties in August 1972, with two years still to go. ANG policy at the time was to transfer flyers who were grounded to Regular AF for the remainder of their time. But nothing happened to Bush.
The 147th Ftr Grp CO, Bobby Hodges, send to his commander an official AF/ANG form listing flyers for "Suspension From Flying Status", dated 9/5/1972, and Dubya's name is on it. This was, in fact, one of the documents the White House released. But no subsequent action was ever taken, and in 1973, with more than 8 months committment remaining, he was granted an Honorable Discharge.
However, having failed to show up for a scheduled annual flight physical (Failure to Report for a Mandatory Formation), he should have been punished. And when it dragged on, it should have led to a court-martial. Why didn't it? Why was he allowed to just stop flying?

No reasonable explanation has ever been put forward to make clear how he could just stop flying.

Posted by: Zoomie at August 22, 2005 09:09 PM

"The part I've always been interested in is the last 18 months of Dubya's service. Or more accurately, the lack of service."

Yeah right whaddevvuh ... Whycha find a blog or something where that IS the topic?

Posted by: Huck Foley at August 24, 2005 01:13 PM

I seem to recall that one of the networks had some documentation on that.

CBS, wasn't it? Memos from his commanding officer and everything.

Posted by: Lurking Obsever at August 24, 2005 04:08 PM

Lurker - nope, I'm talking about the documents BUSH released...for example: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif
a real honest to goodness U.S. military document which says "6. Verbal orders of the Comdr on 1 Aug 1972 [note the date - two years prior to finishing his committment] suspending 1STLT GEORGE W BUSH [SSN deleted] ANGUS (Not on EAD), TX ANG, Hq 147 Ftr Gp, Ellington AFB, Houston TX, from flying status are confirmed, exigencies of the service having been such as to preclude the publication of competent written orders in advance. Reason for suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination. Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13. Authority: Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13."

Looks pretty clear, guys....he was ordered in for his annual flight physical. He never showed. He was yanked from flight status and grounded. Per his own released records, he never flew again.

When I was on flying status, failing to show up could mean AT LEAST an Article 15, and failing to ever complete it was a guaranteed Court Martial. But no punishment of any sort ever happened. Why not?

And while copies of this are all over the 'net these days, the original was one of the documents Bush himself released to the press. This is not in dispute. Only the questions about it remain unanswered.

Posted by: Zoomie at August 24, 2005 06:11 PM
Weblog by John Weidner