Saturday, May 5, 2012

Channeling Ray Milland

There are a number of things that bother me about Mitt Romney. The one that probably bothers me the most, though, is the fact that the fellow has never really come to grips with/adequately addressed neoconservatism. I mean, it's almost as of it never existed. Yes, he has in fact delivered the litany of stock Republican pro-strong military phrases. But, still/to this day, I have absolutely no idea what the fellow thinks about Iraq, nation-building, preemptive military strikes, counter-insurgency, etc....................................................................................I mean, is he simply going to do a redux of President Bush's foreign policy and flat-out extend us? Or, is he going to adhere more to the Clinton and Powell doctrines? It's pretty damned important information, I think.

48 comments:

BB-Idaho said...

Depends who he picks for Secretary
of State..Gingrich or Huntsman.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Excellent point! It does depend, and who he gives an ear to.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

He's all in with the neocons.

The Nation says...

Of Romney's forty identified foreign policy advisers, more than 70 percent worked for Bush. Many hail from the neoconservative wing of the party, were enthusiastic backers of the Iraq War and are proponents of a US or Israeli attack on Iran. Christopher Preble, a foreign policy expert at the Cato Institute, says, "Romney's likely to be in the mold of George W. Bush when it comes to foreign policy if he were elected". On some key issues, like Iran, Romney and his team are to the right of Bush. Romney's embrace of the neoconservative cause -- even if done cynically to woo the right -- could turn into a policy nightmare if he becomes president. (excerpt from the May 2012 print edition)

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I kinda had a feeling, wd.

Jerry Critter said...

Republicans have offered little new in the area of foreign policy. Basically, it is back to the Bush policy...and we already know how well that worked out!

Joe "Truth 101" Kelly said...

Mitt's gotta go with a kook to keep the kooks happy.

Jerry Critter said...

Do you think it is possible for Mitt to do a worse job of picking a VP than McCain? And if so, who?

Rational Nation USA said...

If it is Huntsman, assuming he and not Johnson is elected (I am the proverbial optimist and think Gary may do well)... :) we may be okay. And it certainly would paint a clearer picture of the real Romney

Rational Nation USA said...

All that does is confirm Romney sees this as the surest way to the nomination. It really tells us little else.

Rational Nation USA said...

We don't know that. Romney needs the neocons to win the nomination. He's focus is on that right now.

Issue... The man has no philosophical or political center.

Rational Nation USA said...

We agree.

Rational Nation USA said...

Yes. Jeb Bush.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Actually, not every person in the Bush administration was a neocon. They just happen to be the ones who "won". Unfortunately.

Jerry Critter said...

I'm no fan of Jeb, but at least he served two full terms as governor.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I truly think that he would have been a much better President than his frequently maligned and older brother was.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Will: I truly think that he would have been a much better President than his frequently maligned and older brother was.

Maligned?! So you think the problem is that bush's critics are speaking harmful untruths about him?! I have to STRONGLY disagree. I think that the TRUTH is that bush was a crappy president.

Jeb may have been better than george, but that's a VERY low bar.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Maligned was probably the wrong word (though, no, I don't believe that all of the criticisms of Mr. Bush have been exactly fair). I should have said hapless or incompetent. Happy?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Yeah, that really bothers me too. The unfair criticisms, that is. Much more so than the hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths he's responsible for. Poor George bush.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Careful, wd. The Democrats aren't exactly without a shitload of blood on their hands over the years, either; LBJ, Wilson, Obama, etc..

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And the unfairness that I was referring to had to do with the demonstrably incorrect assertion that Bush only did things to benefit the wealthy. 300 of the 370 billion in tax cuts DIDN'T go to the top 2% and nondefense discretionary and entitlement spending both literally skyrocketed under the fellow.

dmarks said...

Will said: "Careful, wd. The Democrats aren't exactly without a shitload of blood on their hands over the years, either; LBJ, Wilson, Obama, etc.."

Or Bill Clinton, the liberal democratic President who took us to war against a country (Serbia) that had never threatened us in any way, and without UN approval.

dmarks said...

WD said: "So you think the problem is that bush's critics are speaking harmful untruths about him?! "

That's a big problem, really. People like you hate him so much that they make up silly meaningless insults like "war criminal". You have even demanded his murder (when you asked for the death penalty for Bush, if he got convicted of crimes everyone knows he did not commit). Your rabid hatred of Bush wipes out a lot of logic and reason. That's called "extreme".

Why not be like Will? He dislikes Bush and speaks strongly against his policies. And he is able to do so without falsely accusing him of crimes he never committed, and without demanding Bush's murder. That's called "sane"

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And I don't even really dislike the guy. I just wish that he had listened more to Powell and less to fellows like Wolfowitz and Perle.............And in terms of his motivation, I don't know, I'm not a mind-reader like wd. In Thomas Ricks's book, "Fiasco" (which wasn't exactly a flattering read for Mr. Bush), he states that the regime change advocates were actually LOSING the debate early on and that it wasn't until 9/11 that guys like Perle and Wolfowitz finally started getting some traction. If you were to force me to give an opinion on this, I would say that the decision to invade Iraq was probably more a function of group-think (I believe that this was Scott McClellan's assessment in his book, too) than it was the result of some sinister, diabolical cabal. I'm sure, though, that wd would disagree.

Rational Nation USA said...

Will, rearranging my comment sequence?

Jerry Critter said...

300 of the 370 didn't,t go to the top 2%

So that means the the top 2% got about 70 of the 370 which is about 19% of the total tax cuts.

That sounds like more than their fair share to me.

dmarks said...

Not at all Jerry once you look at how much taxes they pay. For the high earners and high taxpayers, a slight change can result in something like this.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: Or Bill Clinton, the liberal democratic President who took us to war against a country (Serbia) that had never threatened us in any way, and without UN approval.

There never has been a Liberal Democratic president named Bill Clinton. There was a Moderate Democratic president named Bill Clinton though. That guy, who I think is the person you're talking about, ordered the bombing of Serbia (with NATO's cooperation) to STOP a war, and, in doing so, saved many lives. This is why the people of Kosovo consider him a hero and erected a statue in his honor.

bush, on the other hand, lied about WMD so he could invade a country that was no threat to us to become a "war president" and win reelection. And then give billions in taxpayer dollars to his war contractor buddies. And Cheney was eager for his buddies in the oil industry to get their hands on Iraq's oil.

dmarks: ...And he is able to do so without falsely accusing him of crimes he never committed...

I've never made any false accusations, whereas you and Will both ignore real crimes. I say that makes me the reasonable one.

dmarks said...

"There was a Moderate Democratic president named Bill Clinton though."

In actual fact, he was a liberal Democrat. Next...

"That guy, who I think is the person you're talking about, ordered the bombing of Serbia (with NATO's cooperation) to STOP a war, and, in doing so, saved many lives."

None of this changes the FACT that Bill Clinton went to war against another country without UN permission. That's a war crime, according to your armchair attorney games from earlier.

"Bush, on the other hand, lied about WMD..."

No, he did not. WMD were found.

...so he could invade a country that was no threat to us to become a "war president" and win reelection."

And here again we have Bush being no different from Clinton.. It just proves your hypocrisy on this.

"....And Cheney was eager for his buddies in the oil industry to get their hands on Iraq's oil...."

Now isn't that a nutty conspiracy theory if ever there was one.

"I've never made any false accusations"

You just did against Bush. At least you did not demand his murder this time. Not for now, anyway

"whereas you and Will both ignore real crimes."

Crimes which exist only in your imagination, and never in the historic record.

dmarks said...

Correction: Saddam's Iraq was much more of a threat to us than Serbia. Saddam Hussein did indeed threaten to attack the US and murder innocent Americans. Serbia never did this.

Jerry Critter said...

So, when a Domestic Terrorist threatens us, it is Free Speak, but when a foreign leader does, it is Cause For War.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: In actual fact, [Bill Clinton] was a liberal Democrat.

Bill Clinton was a Moderate/Corporate Democrat. Proof of this was his adoption of the "third way". The "third way" advocated that Democrats adopt some Conservative policies. By it's very definition it isn't Liberal! the other two ways are Conservative and Liberal. By adopting the "third way" Clinton was EXPLICITLY REJECTING the Liberal label.

dmarks: None of this changes the FACT that Bill Clinton went to war against another country without UN permission.

Bill Clinton's goal was to STOP a war. We didn't invade with ground troops or do any "regime change". The situations are totally different/in no way comparable. He had NATO cooperation, while bush had no cooperation from any international body.

dmarks: And here again we have Bush being no different from Clinton.. It just proves your hypocrisy on this.

This just proves your weak grasp of the facts. No invasion, no regime change, no 10 year war that will end up costing trillions. Not comparable. Vastly different.

dmarks: Now isn't that a nutty conspiracy theory if ever there was one.

Alan Greenspan, in his book, "The Age of Turbulence" says, the Iraq war was "largely about oil".

dmarks: Crimes which exist only in your imagination, and never in the historic record.

bush illegally invaded Iraq, authorized torture and the wiretapping of American citizens (just three of his biggest crimes).

These things ARE a part of the historic record. If you say that none of those things happened, then it's you, not me, who is living in a reality created largely by his imagination.

And Saddam posed ZERO threat to the United States.

dmarks said...

WD gets so many facts wrong:

"Bill Clinton's goal was to STOP a war. We didn't invade with ground troops or do any "regime change"."

Kosovo had a regime change, for sure. Right away. How can you not be aware of this? The desired regime change in Serbia came about not long after. In this, Clinton was just like Bush.

Bush quite legally (under international law) retaliated against Saddam's regime in order to end war. Saddam's army was killing his own people at the rate of tens of thousands per year. In this, also, Clinton was just like Bush. Except unlike with Serbia, Iraq did attack us.

You get so many facts wrong, or are so hypocritical. These are just two of them.

"Alan Greenspan, in his book, "The Age of Turbulence" says, the Iraq war was "largely about oil".

I can't let this non-sequitur pass. So, an economist who has no idea what he was talking about outside of his field ventured his uninformed opinion. I'm sure you could also find pastry chefs somewhere who say the same thing. Big deal.

"And Saddam posed ZERO threat to the United States."

Another whopper. Did Saddam Hussein himself pay you to lie before he died? Saddam Hussein hosted and funded several terrorist groups, all in violation of the cease fire. If you are thinking at all, you are thinking "pre-911" to claim that terrorist groups are no threat at all. Saddam fired on innocent American peacekeepers: itself an act of war and aggression. Saddam himself stated his intention of attacking and killing innocent Americans. He posed a threat, for sure. You are making a fool of yourself: all of the facts contradict you.

And finally, Bill Clinton was a liberal/leftist Democrat. He was in government, and was not employed by corporations, so he wasn't corporate. The "Third Way" regardless had nothing to do with corporations: it was a compromise path to lean more toward the public interest, and away from the interest of the State. The inclusion of "corporate" in your description of Clinton is pure imagination.

":He had NATO cooperation, while bush had no cooperation from any international body."

What a hypocrite. You passionately insist on silly points (like, it is a war crime if the UN does not approve) then you run away from them rather than apply any consistent logic to the guy on your side. Your blind seething hatred of Bush has you chucking out all logic and consistency.

dmarks said...

And yes, I will fact check these:

"This just proves your weak grasp of the facts. No invasion, no regime change, no 10 year war that will end up costing"

1) Bill Clinton ordered an invasion of Serbia and Kosovo. This occured. Do you want the dates of each incursion? Sorry, it's real history, and you can't erase the fact there was invasion.

2) There was regime change in both Kosovo and Serbia as a result of the US action. There, not only wasn't it "no regime change". It was two.

3) The cost of the 10 year war against the terrorists is $1.3 trillion. By any standard of rounding, it is about a trillion, not trillions. Do the math. For once.
---------

By the way, I supported what Clinton did. But at least I will deal realistically with the facts of the invasion and multiple regime changes.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

One of the key pieces of "evidence" that Mr. Bush committed a war crime was that the man failed to secure a U.N. authorization for his military action. Clinton, not only didn't have a U.N. authorization, he and the NATO countries didn't even attempt one. And, as dmarks has already stated, Mr. Milosevic absolutely was toppled as a result of this.............Oh, and, for the record, I was AGAINST what Mr. Clinton did (though, yes, once the operation was instituted, I absolutely wanted it to succeed) in the Balkans, just like I was against what Mr. Bush did in Iraq.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

So I guess there is no such thing as a war crime... so long as the country taking military action is the United States?

Another key piece of evidence against Mr. bush... the fact that his administration lied about WMD and started the war under false pretenses... but I guess that doesn't matter either?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: Kosovo had a regime change... How can you not be aware of this?

There was already a war going on when Bill Clinton decided to step in to save lives. In Iraq the reason for the invasion was to get rid of Saddam: Regime change at the direction of the US (that is what I was referring to). This did NOT happen in Yugoslavia.

dmarks: Bill Clinton was a liberal/leftist Democrat. He was in government, and was not employed by corporations, so he wasn't corporate.

I already pointed out to you how Bill Clinton REJECTED the Liberal label, so this is just you ignoring the facts. One of the core tenants of the Third Way was funding campaigns by accepting corporate cash in return for government favors. Bill Clinton was corporate all the way.

dmarks: [the third way] was a compromise path to lean more toward the public interest...

Wrong again. The Third Way was a compromise path to lean AWAY from the public interest, and toward the interest of corporations. Also, with this statement you ADMIT that Bill Clinton wasn't a Liberal. Liberals reject the Third Way because they believe in acting in the interest of the people, not in the interest of corporations.

dmarks: There was regime change in both Kosovo and Serbia as a result of the US action.

It was a regime change of the people, not one initiated by the United States (as was the case with Iraq).

dmarks: What a hypocrite. You passionately insist on silly points (like, it is a war crime if the UN does not approve)...

Fine, I'm a "hypocrite"... if. by hypocrite you mean a person who makes a distinction between a limited engagement (78 days) intended to save lives, versus a completely unnecessary protracted war (9 YEARS!) that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, but made some military contractor cronies of bush very wealthy (and saved the company that VP Cheney used to run).

dmarks: The cost of the 10 year war against the terrorists is $1.3 trillion. By any standard of rounding, it is about a trillion, not trillions. Do the math. For once.

What 10 year war against the terrorists? I'm completely unaware of any such war. If you're talking about the 10 year war of choice against 2 countries that didn't attack us, then you're wrong about the total cost. YOU should do the math. For once. As reported by the Washington Post, the final cost will be in excess of 3 trillion.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The people of Iraq didn't want to get rid of Saddam Hussein (those genocides against the Kurds and Shia had nothing to do with the fact that those peoples were trying to throw off the yoke of Mr. Hussein?) and the United States didn't want to get rid of Milosevic?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And we didn't know ahead of time that the Kosovo conflict was only going to be 78 days. Just because it went better than expected mitigates the fact that there was a lack of a U.N. authorization? Come on, wd, a principle is a principle.

dmarks said...

WD: Both countries attacked us. The attack by one of them, in fact, is engraved in the minds of most conscious Americans: 9/11. Apparently you aren't one, so you don't know of this attack and the date on which it occured.

"It was a regime change of the people, not one initiated by the United States (as was the case with Iraq)."

Both were in real fact initiated by the US.

"protracted war (9 YEARS!) that cost hundreds of thousands of lives"

Your math is imaginary. The actual death toll is only a little over 100,000. Not hundreds of thousands. And most of these deaths are caused by the terrorists. Most importantly, this death toll is somewhat less than the hypothetical sum of what it would have been if the terrorists had remained in control in Iraq. Bush told the truth and saved lives.

Both were initiated by the US.

I will address your other false claims later.

------------------
But first a question, WD. Was George W. Bush lying when he said that Saddam Hussein had been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which was a threat to countries in the region and he had made a mockery of the weapons inspection process?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Both countries attacked us. The attack by one of them [was] 9/11. Apparently... you don't know of this attack...

I know of this attack, and I know who was responsible for it... something you're confused about. Al Qaeda attacked us, and Al Qaeda isn't a country, nor do they run one.

dmarks: Your math is imaginary. The actual death toll is only a little over 100,000. Not hundreds of thousands.

I admit I was wrong on the death toll. I low-balled it. The actual total is estimated to be in excess of 1,400,000 according to the nonpartisan organization "Just Foreign Policy".

dmarks: ...this death toll is somewhat less than the hypothetical sum of what it would have been if the terrorists had remained in control in Iraq.

"The terrorists" never controlled Iraq. Also, the death toll is MUCH, MUCH higher than if bush hadn't illegally invaded. bush lied and more than 1 million people died.

dmarks: Was George W. Bush lying when he said that Saddam Hussein had been engaged in the development of [WMD] technology which was a threat to countries in the region and he had made a mockery of the weapons inspection process?

Yes. bush lied. Saddam wanted WMD, but the weapons inspections worked and he was unable to move forward.

dmarks said...

Correction 1:

WD said: "I know of this attack, and I know who was responsible for it... something you're confused about. Al Qaeda attacked us, and Al Qaeda isn't a country, nor do they run one."

Fact. Al Qaeda and Afghanistan were in lockstep... an extremely close alliance that is well documented. The government of Afghanistan gave its full support to Al Queda and its operations, knowing full well what Al Qaeda would do using the blessing, financial, and other support it got from its close allies and benefactors: the Afghanistan government.

Correction 2:

WD said: "I admit I was wrong on the death toll is 116,000 max. According to Iraq Body Count, which considers actual deaths (facts). Not the site you mention which pulls figures from thin air with no evidence.

Correction 3:

WD said: "The terrorists never controlled Iraq."

They did until Bush and the coalition overthrow them. Saddam Hussein was one of the world's major terrorist kingpins.

"Also, the death toll is MUCH, MUCH higher than if bush hadn't illegally invaded"

There was no illegal invasion. You are getting into la-la land when you are referring to events that never happened.

"Yes. bush lied."

Bush told the truth. We all know this. However, the quote I gave you was a bit of a "sting". It proved two things: your hypocrisy, and that you never bother to check anything.

The statement I presented as one from Bush... one you incorrectly termed a lie... was actually made by Nancy Pelosi

You really have no idea what is going on any of this, do you?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: The statement I presented as one from Bush... was actually made by Nancy Pelosi. You really have no idea what is going on any of this, do you?

I bet you think you're really clever, but what this "sting" proves is that YOU really have no idea what is going on in reagards to any of

this. The Nancy Pelosi quote is from 12/16/1998 and was what the politicians believed to be true AT THE TIME.

But in June of 1999 weapons inspector Scott Ritter said, "When you ask the question, does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons? the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed".

And on 3/7/2003 head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, confirmed that what Scott Ritter said in 1999 was true when he told the Security Council that, after his team had done 247 inspections at 147 sites, they found there was no evidence of resumed nuclear activities, nor any indication of nuclear-related activities at any related sites. He went on to say that evidence suggested Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990 and no longer had a centrifuge program.

He concluded that Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997.

FACT: bush ignored the IAEA's findings and ordered the invasion of Iraq on 3/20/2003 (he also ordered that the inspectors get out of Iraq and end their inspections). bush said the mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people". But Iraq was already disarmed and we knew it because the IAEA told us... which means bush LIED.

dmarks: There was no illegal invasion. You are getting into la-la land when you are referring to events that never happened.

There was an invasion and it was illegal under international law. Bush violated Articles 33 and 39 of the UN Charter by invading Iraq. He also LIED when he said the purpose of the invasion was to "disarm" Iraq. We know bush lied because the IAEA told bush that Iraq didn't have WMD. You're venturing into la-la land when you insist that a country could be "disarmed" of weapons they didn't have.

dmarks: Bush told the truth. We all know this.

Actually, those of us who pay attention to the facts know that bush lied. Because the IAEA, who had had inspectors on the ground at the time said they were finding no weapons. Those who THINK bush "told the truth" have been duped by the liars on the Right.

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

dmarks: They did until Bush and the coalition overthrow them. Saddam Hussein was one of the world's major terrorist kingpins.

Many dictators support terrorist activitites. The US does not have plans to invade every country where this is true.

FACT: bush took our focus off al Qaeda to wage an illegal war of choice against a country lead by a dictator that al Qaeda considered an enemy.

Wikipedia: Bin Laden told his biographer that "the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is fucking his mother". Saddam Hussein was a Ba'athist, and Ba'athism is a movement which combines pan-Arab nationalism with secularism and Arab Socialism. It is therefore very much at odds with political Islamism [end Wikipedia excerpt].

dmarks: Fact. Al Qaeda and Afghanistan were in lockstep. The government of Afghanistan gave its full support to Al Queda and its operations...

They were NOT in lockstep. A 5/16/2011 article from "The Nation" titled "The Taliban Is Not Al Qaeda" says, "When Al Qaeda arrived in Afghanistan from Sudan around 1996... its membership was not more than 30. Al Qaeda fighters, and the growing number of recruits who came to Afghanistan from elsewhere, kept apart from Taliban fighters, who resented Al Qaeda, and there was a great deal of animosity between the two. Osama bin Laden insisted that international actions against the United States and other countries was crucial to his strategy, while Mullah Omar [Afghanistan's de facto head of state from 1996 to late 2001] opposed such actions..."

dmarks: Not the site you mention which pulls figures from thin air with no evidence.

This is a lie. The figures are NOT "pulled from thin air with no evidence". The figures are from a study published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. While the figures are estimates, they are estimates with a 95 percent confidence interval (Wikipedia: "In statistics, a confidence interval... is used to indicate the
reliability of an estimate").

Concerning the peer-reviewed study, Lila Guterman, in a in January 2005 Columbia Journalism Review article stated, "I called about ten biostatisticians and mortality experts. Not one of them took issue with the study's methods or its conclusions. If anything, the scientists told me, the authors had been cautious in their estimates".

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Crickets from dmarks? I guess I win this argument.

dmarks said...

Before I continue, was Bush a war criminal for sending 20,000 troops into Afghanistan without any sort of UN authorization at all?

The Honorable, Esteemed And Distinguished Judge Dervish Sanders (A High IQ Individual) said...

Another "sting" dmarks? Those 20k troops were President Obama's "surge", right?

dmarks said...

Of course. The troops were sent without UN approval. Which according to what you said earlier, makes Obama a "War Criminal". If you are consistent, that is. But you aren't.

Other points you attempted to make have been addressed in other comments. The most laughable of your attempts here was to somehow deny Saddam was a terrorist kingpin by pointing out that others were also.

dmarks said...

Also, WD said: "bush said the mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people"

Large numbers of undeclared WMD munitions from the previous Gulf War were found after the invasion. This part of the mission revealed and secured these. Like the rest of Bush's statements, the first part was not a lie at all. And all three missions were accomplished.