Once again, unsurprisingly, BushCo ignored further warnings: IMPEACH

[pfflam]

This has been too much for so long that this will go unnoticed. Too inured are we to the constant lies and incompetence, and too entrenched in the fun of partisan bickering (SDW) are we to even see the cumulative catastrophe of this presidency.

So anyway:

again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-young/the-intelligence-that-eve_b_49321.html


. . . even my four year old daughter recognized something today. Bush was on the radio while I was driving her to school. I was just listening; no comments or disgruntles. She is very articulate for her age, very smart. She started to laugh at his speech patterns, his saying "deh dah' between almost ever phrase, she kept laughing, thinking it was a clown or something . . . how right she was: a dangerous, ideological monster-clown

[screener]

This has been too much for so long that this will go unnoticed. Too inured are we to the constant lies and incompetence, and too entrenched in the fun of partisan bickering (SDW) are we to even see the cumulative catastrophe of this presidency.

So anyway:

again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-young/the-intelligence-that-eve_b_49321.html


. . . even my four year old daughter recognized something today. Bush was on the radio while I was driving her to school. I was just listening; no comments or disgruntles. She is very articulate for her age, very smart. She started to laugh at his speech patterns, his saying "deh dah' between almost ever phrase, she kept laughing, thinking it was a clown or something . . . how right she was: a dangerous, ideological monster-clown

You should tape Letterman for her, his nightly Presidential Speeches are a hoot.

[SpamSandwich]

And what does this have to do with Ron Paul? ;)

[@_@ Artman]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/prez_mugshot.jpg

[BRussell]

One time someone tried to impeach Ron Paul. He pulled out his copy of the US Constitution and threw it so fast that it went back in time and landed on James Madison's desk, thereby giving birth to our system of government.

[Jubelum]

ShawnJ, I expect your redundant thread alarm to be posted shortly. Please do not disappoint us. 8-)

[SDW2001]

One time someone tried to impeach Ron Paul. He pulled out his copy of the US Constitution and threw it so fast that it went back in time and landed on James Madison's desk, thereby giving birth to our system of government.

:lol:

[SDW2001]

This has been too much for so long that this will go unnoticed. Too inured are we to the constant lies and incompetence, and too entrenched in the fun of partisan bickering (SDW) are we to even see the cumulative catastrophe of this presidency.

So anyway:

again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-young/the-intelligence-that-eve_b_49321.html


. . . even my four year old daughter recognized something today. Bush was on the radio while I was driving her to school. I was just listening; no comments or disgruntles. She is very articulate for her age, very smart. She started to laugh at his speech patterns, his saying "deh dah' between almost ever phrase, she kept laughing, thinking it was a clown or something . . . how right she was: a dangerous, ideological monster-clown

First, Steve Young is a wack-a-doo, so let's get that out of the way. Secondly, the piece of "intel" he's talking about is taken utterly out of context. Any President receives an inordinate amount of intelligence, briefings, etc. Mr. Young is taking one assessment and making it seem like it was put front and center on Bush's desk. That is likely not the case. Such an assessment was part of many others...some of which probably said the exact opposite. It's exactly what I've been saying...a potential problem that was pointed out. Perverting it into a front and center piece of intel that Bush "ignored" or "lied about" is disingenous. In other words, it's exactly what I'd expect from Steve Young. And you.

[SpamSandwich]

pfflam (an infrequent but brilliant poster) can post anything he wants anywhere at anytime and it'd be alright with me.

but yeah a thread merge is probably appropriate.

Once more, this time with feeling!

[iPoster]

Not sure who this Steve Young guy is, but this story is all over the MSM this week.
MSNBC, CNN, 60 Minutes, even Faux News. All reporting it as Bush ignoring the specific recommendations of the CIA.

Add this to the CIA telling Bush, Cheney and Rice in 2002 that Iraq had no WMD, and I can't believe some people still think getting some in the Oval Office and lying about it under oath is impeachable, but this isn't! I'm not defending Bill in any way, but at least his dalliances were not directly responsible for over 3,000 GI deaths, and countless Iraqis.

:mad:

[Jubelum]

pfflam (an infrequent but brilliant poster) can post anything he wants anywhere at anytime and it'd be alright with me.

but yeah a thread merge is probably appropriate.

OK. Thank you for the demonstration.

[sammi jo]

First, Steve Young is a wack-a-doo, so let's get that out of the way. Secondly, the piece of "intel" he's talking about is taken utterly out of context. Any President receives an inordinate amount of intelligence, briefings, etc. Mr. Young is taking one assessment and making it seem like it was put front and center on Bush's desk. That is likely not the case. Such an assessment was part of many others...some of which probably said the exact opposite. It's exactly what I've been saying...a potential problem that was pointed out. Perverting it into a front and center piece of intel that Bush "ignored" or "lied about" is disingenous. In other words, it's exactly what I'd expect from Steve Young. And you.

The intelligence re. Iraq's lack of WMD before the onset of the invasion was accurate. It was even in the public domain that Iraq had destroyed all of its chemical and biological weapons (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0601-08.htm)stocks shortly after the Gulf War in 1991, some 12 years prior. The material (ie garbage) that was cherrypicked by the Bush Administration to make a case for going to war even came from the same report by Saddam Hussein's deceased son-in-law and head of Iraq's weapons programs (Hussein Kamel) that they used to justify the war... they just happened to conveniently omit the most pertinent information, ie the "no WMD" material. It's hardly surprising that the Bush Administration balked about sending in the UN inspectors... because they knew there was nothing to be found.

Bush, Rice, Powell, Cheney, and the whole damn lot KNEW IN ADVANCE that Iraq had no WMDs. So did the CIA, but the White House ignored them. They lied about it to Congress, the US people, and the world, because they wanted and needed to go to war, just like a heroin addict needs his fix. They should not only be IMPEACHED, but also charged with treason, as should the senior executives of the cowardly lapdog maintream corporate media who were their accessories before and after the fact, and consciously decided to pull a blindsider on the U.S people.

:mad:

[jimmac]

ShawnJ, I expect your redundant thread alarm to be posted shortly. Please do not disappoint us. 8-)


However you'll be hearing this more and more as time goes on not less. So better get used to it.8-)

[Jubelum]

However you'll be hearing this more and more as time goes on not less. So better get used to it.8-)

Hear it? Sure. It won't happen. Madame Speaker promised. :smokey:

[spindler]

Any President receives an inordinate amount of intelligence, briefings, etc. Mr. Young is taking one assessment and making it seem like it was put front and center on Bush's desk.

In almost any other situation, your analysis would apply. For example, it's very easy to find some report afterwards that says the levees in New Orleans could be a problem. It is true that it seems dramatic until you realize that it is just one of many different available data.

In this case it is the complete opposite. If George Bush has a shred of competence, then his first question MUST be "What is going to happen in Iraq after we have defeated Saddam's forces." He should have been gathering and reading anything available. Every manager has people around him that he looks to when he needs to gather information to make a decision.

This isn't like one of us on AI where we work full time and we have limited time to read the newspaper. This is what George Bush does all day for his job. How could any sane person NOT be investigating what will happen afterwards? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to have seen that there are several different factions in Iraq and that could easily lead to chaos. I'm sure an professor of Middle Eastern Studies across the U.S. would have been honored to brief Bush on the basics.

Unless this is the ONLY report warning of chaos and the other 999 reports said there would be no problems, then Bush had more than 1 year to find this basic stuff out. He's either incompetent or he did not care.

[screener]

He's either incompetent or he did not care.

I'd say so incompetent he didn't understand that he should care.

After all, it'll always be someone else's fault.

[jimmac]

Hear it? Sure. It won't happen. Madame Speaker promised. :smokey:

Bush made promises also.;) :smokey:

[jimmac]

In almost any other situation, your analysis would apply. For example, it's very easy to find some report afterwards that says the levees in New Orleans could be a problem. It is true that it seems dramatic until you realize that it is just one of many different available data.

In this case it is the complete opposite. If George Bush has a shred of competence, then his first question MUST be "What is going to happen in Iraq after we have defeated Saddam's forces." He should have been gathering and reading anything available. Every manager has people around him that he looks to when he needs to gather information to make a decision.

This isn't like one of us on AI where we work full time and we have limited time to read the newspaper. This is what George Bush does all day for his job. How could any sane person NOT be investigating what will happen afterwards? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to have seen that there are several different factions in Iraq and that could easily lead to chaos. I'm sure an professor of Middle Eastern Studies across the U.S. would have been honored to brief Bush on the basics.

Unless this is the ONLY report warning of chaos and the other 999 reports said there would be no problems, then Bush had more than 1 year to find this basic stuff out. He's either incompetent or he did not care.

" He's either incompetent or he did not care "

Wow! I've said that myself!

It's a pretty easy equation to figure out isn't it?:smokey:

[@_@ Artman]

This isn't like one of us on AI where we work full time and we have limited time to read the newspaper. This is what George Bush does all day for his job.

George Won't Be Reading This (http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/george-wont-be-reading-this/2295/)

"A simple question for the president of the United States: If you don’t read the newspapers, how can you criticize the media coverage of Iraq?

A few weeks ago, George W. Bush noted during an interview that while he glances at newspaper headlines, he “rarely” reads the actual articles because 'A lot of times there’s opinions mixed in with news.' So where does he get his info? Bush said he prefers to be briefed by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. 'The best way to get the news,' he explained, 'is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what’s happening in the world.' Lately Bush also has been warning the American public not to pay attention to other sources, such as journalists who report that all is not going well in the land of occupation. 'We’re making good progress in Iraq,' Bush said. 'Sometimes it’s hard to tell when you listen to the filter.'"

But...

What the president reads (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/bush.readinglist.tm/index.html)

'"Authors who have talked with Bush about their writing are anxious to point out that he has done his homework.

'He obviously had read it and taken it seriously,' says Gaddis, who writes about American foreign policy after 9/11. 'The image of him as unquestioning just seems totally wrong.'

But if Bush is gathering information, it often seems to be sustenance for his pre-existing views. Soon after the attacks of 9/11, he read the Civil War history April 1865, and the example of Lincoln's strength left him even more convinced that he should not change direction.

'Lincoln set the goal and stayed the course,' he wrote to author Jay Winik. 'I will do the same.'

He did not mention another point made in the book, which some of Bush's critics would note: how wars are managed at the end is as important as how and why they are begun."

[SpamSandwich]

George Won't Be Reading This (http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/george-wont-be-reading-this/2295/)

"A simple question for the president of the United States: If you don’t read the newspapers, how can you criticize the media coverage of Iraq?

A few weeks ago, George W. Bush noted during an interview that while he glances at newspaper headlines, he “rarely” reads the actual articles because 'A lot of times there’s opinions mixed in with news.' So where does he get his info? Bush said he prefers to be briefed by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. 'The best way to get the news,' he explained, 'is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what’s happening in the world.' Lately Bush also has been warning the American public not to pay attention to other sources, such as journalists who report that all is not going well in the land of occupation. 'We’re making good progress in Iraq,' Bush said. 'Sometimes it’s hard to tell when you listen to the filter.'"

But...

What the president reads (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/bush.readinglist.tm/index.html)

'"Authors who have talked with Bush about their writing are anxious to point out that he has done his homework.

'He obviously had read it and taken it seriously,' says Gaddis, who writes about American foreign policy after 9/11. 'The image of him as unquestioning just seems totally wrong.'

But if Bush is gathering information, it often seems to be sustenance for his pre-existing views. Soon after the attacks of 9/11, he read the Civil War history April 1865, and the example of Lincoln's strength left him even more convinced that he should not change direction.

'Lincoln set the goal and stayed the course,' he wrote to author Jay Winik. 'I will do the same.'

He did not mention another point made in the book, which some of Bush's critics would note: how wars are managed at the end is as important as how and why they are begun."

And by golly, if he happens to free some slaves while enforcing the war on Iraqis, that's just a little chicken gravy on the biscuit.

[Aquatic]

He's either incompetent or he did not care.


Wow that just about sums it up. Of course it sums up Heckuvajob Brown, Gonzales, Libby, Rove, Cheney, basically every hack and scandal in associated with this exucitive branch, now doesn't it? Worthy for my new sig. Sometimes I think the more tersely something is summed up, the more poignant and cogent the point is. Well put spindler.

[screener]

[QUOTE]First, Steve Young is a wack-a-doo, so let's get that out of the way.

wack-a-doos everywhere.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Perverting it into a front and center piece of intel that Bush "ignored" or "lied about" is disingenous. In other words, it's exactly what I'd expect from Steve Young. And you.

Deceit,
http://www.conservapedia.com/Deceit

"Deceit is the deliberate distortion or denial of the truth for personal or ideological gain.[1]
Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong.[2] Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong.[3]"

:???:

[iPoster]

George Won't Be Reading This (http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/george-wont-be-reading-this/2295/)

'We’re making good progress in Iraq,' Bush said. 'Sometimes it’s hard to tell when you listen to the filter.'"

Wait, what? You mean the filter than says you're a ****up? :no:

It's shameful he took that 'stay the course' saying from Lincoln. :rolleyes:

[SDW2001]

Not sure who this Steve Young guy is, but this story is all over the MSM this week.
MSNBC, CNN, 60 Minutes, even Faux News. All reporting it as Bush ignoring the specific recommendations of the CIA.

Add this to the CIA telling Bush, Cheney and Rice in 2002 that Iraq had no WMD, and I can't believe some people still think getting some in the Oval Office and lying about it under oath is impeachable, but this isn't! I'm not defending Bill in any way, but at least his dalliances were not directly responsible for over 3,000 GI deaths, and countless Iraqis.

:mad:


You can post that mad face all you want, but you're utterly wrong. Bush, Cheney and Rice were not "told by the CIA that Saddam had no WMDs." Get real. Shit..people say things like this often enough until you start to believe it.

[SDW2001]

The intelligence re. Iraq's lack of WMD before the onset of the invasion was accurate. It was even in the public domain that Iraq had destroyed all of its chemical and biological weapons (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0601-08.htm)stocks shortly after the Gulf War in 1991, some 12 years prior. The material (ie garbage) that was cherrypicked by the Bush Administration to make a case for going to war even came from the same report by Saddam Hussein's deceased son-in-law and head of Iraq's weapons programs (Hussein Kamel) that they used to justify the war... they just happened to conveniently omit the most pertinent information, ie the "no WMD" material. It's hardly surprising that the Bush Administration balked about sending in the UN inspectors... because they knew there was nothing to be found.

Bush, Rice, Powell, Cheney, and the whole damn lot KNEW IN ADVANCE that Iraq had no WMDs. So did the CIA, but the White House ignored them. They lied about it to Congress, the US people, and the world, because they wanted and needed to go to war, just like a heroin addict needs his fix. They should not only be IMPEACHED, but also charged with treason, as should the senior executives of the cowardly lapdog maintream corporate media who were their accessories before and after the fact, and consciously decided to pull a blindsider on the U.S people.

:mad:

You linked to what is essentially an opinion piece, sammi. The fact is that Saddam did not verifiably disarm fully. Your link even says that. Please.

[SDW2001]

In almost any other situation, your analysis would apply. For example, it's very easy to find some report afterwards that says the levees in New Orleans could be a problem. It is true that it seems dramatic until you realize that it is just one of many different available data.

In this case it is the complete opposite. If George Bush has a shred of competence, then his first question MUST be "What is going to happen in Iraq after we have defeated Saddam's forces." He should have been gathering and reading anything available. Every manager has people around him that he looks to when he needs to gather information to make a decision.

This isn't like one of us on AI where we work full time and we have limited time to read the newspaper. This is what George Bush does all day for his job. How could any sane person NOT be investigating what will happen afterwards? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to have seen that there are several different factions in Iraq and that could easily lead to chaos. I'm sure an professor of Middle Eastern Studies across the U.S. would have been honored to brief Bush on the basics.

Unless this is the ONLY report warning of chaos and the other 999 reports said there would be no problems, then Bush had more than 1 year to find this basic stuff out. He's either incompetent or he did not care.

I think you're portraying it wrongly. What suggests that there was no discussion of the aftermath and a total lack of planning...just the results? I mean, it's clear that there were many mistakes made...but to me it comes across as underestimating, not "lack of planning." In fact, the main problems I attribute to Rumsfeld's insistence on using a lighter, smaller, quicker force (read: not enough troops) and disbanding the Iraqi army. The logisitcal planning beyond this was fine...we were just not prepared for the insurgency (that's a problem in and of itself, I realize, but it's a separate issue).

[jimmac]

You can post that mad face all you want, but you're utterly wrong. Bush, Cheney and Rice were not "told by the CIA that Saddam had no WMDs." Get real. Shit..people say things like this often enough until you start to believe it.


Do you mean like " Iraq " " 911 " " Iraq " " Al Queda "?;)

[iPoster]

You can post that mad face all you want, but you're utterly wrong. Bush, Cheney and Rice were not "told by the CIA that Saddam had no WMDs." Get real. Shit..people say things like this often enough until you start to believe it.

http://911truth.org/2006/Doonesbury911911911.jpg

Say, you know you're right about that!!

It wasn't just the CIA, he ignored the UN Inspectors also...

A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.

The report, to be outlined to the U.N. Security Council as early as Friday, is based on information gathered over more than seven years of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the 2003 war, plus postwar findings discussed publicly by Kay.

The study, a quarterly report on Iraq from U.N. inspectors, notes that the U.S. teams' inability to find any weapons after the war mirrors the experience of U.N. inspectors who searched there from November 2002 until March 2003.

But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant.

No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War.

CBS said the CIA's intelligence source was former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri and that former CIA Director George Tenet delivered the information personally to US President George W Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top White House officials in September 2002. They rebuffed the CIA three days later.

So, after seven YEARS of UN 'boots on the ground' in Iraq, Saddam just magically produced WMDs? Iraq was also under an embargo/blockade/No Fly since the Gulf War ended, (which I personally took some part in, BTW) which would have made it extremely difficult (though not impossible I must admit) to bring the required equipment into the country.

Utterly wrong? Try again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_Memo)

Looks like it's been in question since at least 2003. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/)

[screener]

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=847762007

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Mr Bush would like to see a US role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea.

Another brilliant idea from the Decider.
Is their no end to the brilliance of this Imbecile.

[spindler]

What suggests that there was no discussion of the aftermath and a total lack of planning...just the results? I mean, it's clear that there were many mistakes made...but to me it comes across as underestimating, not "lack of planning."

This would apply if George Bush had said after six months "Uh oh we greatly underestimated this task." and then started doing things differently. The fact that he went on for another four years with the exact same plan, the exact same troop number (eventually with a meaningless bump) and continued on with his talk about "progress" shows that either he was too incompetent to understand the situation or just didn't care.

[iPoster]

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=847762007

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Mr Bush would like to see a US role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea.

Another brilliant idea from the Decider.
Is their no end to the brilliance of this Imbecile.

Similar to South Korea? Does he mean contributing to the strategic defense of a sovereign nation with a stable, democratic government? ORLY?

:rolleyes:

This would apply if George Bush had said after six months "Uh oh we greatly underestimated this task." and then started doing things differently. The fact that he went on for another four years with the exact same plan, the exact same troop number (eventually with a meaningless bump) and continued on with his talk about "progress" shows that either he was too incompetent to understand the situation or just didn't care.

Like I've commented in other Bush threads:

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. ”

-Benjamin Franklin

[screener]

[QUOTE=iPoster;1088467]Similar to South Korea? Does he mean contributing to the strategic defense of a sovereign nation with a stable, democratic government? ORLY?

Maybe one of the right wing spinners can spin it for us.

I'm sure bin Laden and associates appreciate Bush's efforts to supply them with recruits for the cause.

This new initiative, preparing the enemy with good news, is simply brilliant.

Another recruiting tool handed to them, I can't say it enough, but just brilliant.

[SDW2001]

Do you mean like " Iraq " " 911 " " Iraq " " Al Queda "?;)

I guess that was supposed to be clever. Actually though, it's exactly what I mean...it's just not how you've stated it.

One of the Truths by Repetition is that the Admin tried to link Saddam and 9/11. The very most they said was that "we don't know" at one point. But if you listen to media, and folks like you, they claimed such a link for years. It's just not the case. Now, they did talk about terror ties in Iraq and loose associations with those who committed or planned the 9/11 attacks. But that's not the same.

[SDW2001]

http://911truth.org/2006/Doonesbury911911911.jpg

Say, you know you're right about that!!

It wasn't just the CIA, he ignored the UN Inspectors also...





So, after seven YEARS of UN 'boots on the ground' in Iraq, Saddam just magically produced WMDs? Iraq was also under an embargo/blockade/No Fly since the Gulf War ended, (which I personally took some part in, BTW) which would have made it extremely difficult (though not impossible I must admit) to bring the required equipment into the country.

Utterly wrong? Try again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_Memo)

Looks like it's been in question since at least 2003. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/)


1. The report: Uh..we're talking about what was presented before the war, not what was collected after and compiled.

2. The UN inspectors were incompetent. Hans Blix, the 22nd choice for the head inspector job, had never found any weapons during his career. Also, it wasn't supposed to be, as Bush said, "a scavenger hunt" for weapons. Iraq was supposed to unequivocally cooperate with the inspectors (which everyone agrees they did not), show them remaining weapons, if any, and of course provide PROOF that they had destroyed their stockpiles and program. They didn't do any of those things. And you know it. Really, I think you do.

CBS said the CIA's intelligence source was former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri and that former CIA Director George Tenet delivered the information personally to US President George W Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top White House officials in September 2002. They rebuffed the CIA three days later.

:lol: CBS. Right...CBS? No, it's not like they'd...TRY TO EMBARRASS BUSH BY MAKING IT LOOK LIKE HE LIED OR IGNORED INFORMATION, right? GASP! :wow:

3. What capacity did you act in during Gulf War I?

4. You're making many faulty assumptions, one of which is that the UN Inspections were meaningful, comprehensive and done in full cooperation with the Iraqis. Do you forget? Saddam openly refused at points to cooperate with UNSCOM. He booted the inspectors. He hid things. There was even evidence of this in the lead-up to the second war, as NSA intercepts prove. So, the judgment of the international community in addition to the US was that Saddam had remaining undiscovered/hidden stockpiles and that he likely had an active WMD program as well. Lastly, Saddam clearly was in material breach of Resolution 1441, requiring full compliance. That's what the war was about...his lack of disclosure and compliance. I love how you guys run around thinking that that standard was for us to catch Saddam with his pants down. That's not how UN Inspections are supposed to work, friend. The only caveat here was that the UN Security Council, emboldened by France, Germany and to a certain extent Russia and China (all of whom had business dealings with Saddam) wouldn't enforce their own resolution.

[@_@ Artman]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/17birkLG.jpg

[iPoster]

IRT SDW2001:

I was an enlisted man in the Navy. Did Desert Storm in 91, also deployed to the Gulf in 92 and 93-94, and most recently in 2001 for a routine deployment that turned into Enduring Freedom after 9/11. My earlier tours were on an axillary(support) ship, but in 2001 I was on a destroyer, our mission was MIO (maritime interdiction operations) off Iraq, enforcing the UN embargo. Basically consisted of capturing boats/ships smuggling things into (weapons, banned items) or out of (oil) Iraq.

I have to concede the point about Saddam not giving full compliance. I don't know if he thought he was trying to be smart, just didn't know that his generals had gotten rid of everything but were afraid to tell him, or what. The ironic thing is, if he had fully complied, he'd probably still be in power.

In hindsight, which option would have worked out better:

A) Invade Iraq, smash most of the infrastructure, topple the government, cost over 3,400 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqis, not to mention Trillions of dollars and potentially decades of occupation.

B) Continue with the containment/diplomatic policy, Saddam would still be in charge, but not a threat, no lives would be cost, and the deficit would not have been run up to astronomical levels.

IRT Artman,

Nice one, I like how the city is destroyed but the mosque is undamaged! Is that a real painting from Iraq or was it done for commentary?

[jamac]

Righteous! (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-geyer_31edi.ART.State.Edition1.4370227.html)

[addabox]

From the linked article above:

But by all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness.

Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

Gosh, that's not terrifying or anything........

[@_@ Artman]

IRT Artman,
Nice one, I like how the city is destroyed but the mosque is undamaged! Is that a real painting from Iraq or was it done for commentary?

It is a painting (http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/21/sandow_birks_fantasy.html) by the artist Sandow Birk.

..Birk has made a number of paintings, including The Liberation of Baghdad, seen here. The paintings are more satirical and ironic, and many are based on paintings of the glories of war in Napoleon’s time and from Russian socialist images of battlefield glories.

The Liberation of Baghdad, says Birk, is about “what we were told would happen -- happy, joyfully liberated Iraqis welcoming American troops as we free them from the shackles of oppression.”


He also did an amazing version of Dante's Inferno (http://www.trilliumprints.com/inferno/index.php).

iPoster. Didn't know about your service in the Navy. If there was anyone who could give insight to this crisis we are in, it would be one who saw things from that end. I never dis servicemen they are only following orders and their duty. Seen this? The most breathtaking photo I've seen from Baghdad...

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/iraqibombin21.jpg

More photos and description here (http://www.prosebeforehos.com/alec/05/29/happy-memorial-day/)...If this soldier helped save one, just one innocent boy's life out of 650,000...that will do.

[franksargent]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/17birkLG.jpg

I here that Cheney, et. al. commissioned the painting. :rolleyes:

But on a more serious note, there is a lot of symbolism in the painting.

Iraqi's ignoring the two dead civilians in the foreground (one in the shadows), two dogs fighting in the foreground (in the "light" of what would happen in the aftermath), Iraqi flag (background 2nd tank, e. g. dissolving a sovereign state on preemptive grounds, forming a state of occupation) (at first I thought the soldier was a tranny :lol: ), Mickey Mouse on the "right' side in the shadows, wearing a tie, btw what's MM saying, also what does the sign on the "left" side say? Perhaps the the left is enlightened, while the right is not?

Also, the mosque (to me) symbolizes the Iraqi people's beliefs, you can't destroy that, you can't install a western democracy into a culture even if you destroy all of their physical possessions.