I’m sure there were multiple statues. I remember another one or possibly the same one later in the day on which some Iraqis were jumping.
Anyway, I’m sorry for not explaining the images I saw, because I thought I saw it on mainstream US tv news.
An American soldier climbed the statue, wrapped the flag around the statue’s head, and everyone kept pulling the statue down. That flag looked mighty heavy, but I could be wrong. My tv doesn’t have 3D images-- wouldn’t that be cool?
Now the administration is saying that WMD’s wasn’t the real reason for the war.
“[S]ome officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy. Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam’s weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.
‘We were not lying,’ said one official. ‘But it was just a matter of emphasis.’"
Not bad! Not only has the administration been arrogantly trying to push everyone around who opposes them, it turns out they were deliberately misleading us and the rest of the world while, at the same time, mocking opponents for being stupid cowards.
Aren’t they great? Let’s give 'em a great big hand — just be sure to use the back.
The all-important link:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html
One more thought. Didn’t the administration initially try to block debate in the Senate? And didn’t they ultimately ignore the UN? That’s showing the world democracy!
From m-w;
Sorry, jocko, you’re lying.
Thanks for catching that, braintree.
May Allah bless the Master for his comment…
I for one, am waiting patiently for the W administration to “prevent” the Iraqis from freely electing a Parliament dominated by religious extremists.
Just what do you expect him to do if the 60% Shiite majority in Iraq attempts to make the dead Ayatollah Khomeni their next PM?
IIRC, Reagan started the U.S. support of Saddam, not after his invasion of Iran but in response to Iran’s support of extremist Shiites in Iraq.
Of course, by the early 1980s, Saddam already had murdered tens of thousands of his political opponents - starting with his fellows in the Baath party.
IMHO, this war was trumped up not for “freedom”, not for for WMD, not even for oil, but simply as a means to bamboozle the American public into believing that W is a “resolute leader”.
The rest is all icing on W’s cake.
More tax cuts! Yea!
More “defense” spending! Yea!
The US already spends (wastes) more on “defense” than all of the rest of the world combined. Lets spend more! Yea!
Close down the (commie-Roosevelt) UN! Yea!
We sure showed dem sand-ni***rs! Yea!
Hey rag-***d, this machine gun burst is for 9-11! Yea!
We need at least three Gitmos in Iraq - “leased” forever! Yea!
Make America safe again! (till the next murders) Yea!
(The 68 or so dead Americans killed by Saddam’s “army” proves conclusively that Iraq was a deadly threat to America’s security.)
Support the troops - or else! Yea!
Re-elect (elect) W!
Yea!
dos centavos
Well now!
If only we were on Fox news. What a much better place this world would be if we could only set up a reeducation center for Brit and the boys.
I can dream can’t I?
Paul Krugman has a lovely column in today’s NYTimes. As a certain nance whom I like to think of as the Madame DeFarge of the Internet might put it, here’s the money quote:
“Meanwhile, aren’t the leaders of a democratic nation supposed to tell their citizens the truth?”
The link: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/opinion/29KRUG.html
Requires registration but, hey, it’s the NYTimes for free! Rah!
First off, well done braintree. Great links.
Second,
Iraqis are free from Saddam Hussein, thanks to the US. They seem to be free from all institutional governance as well, thanks to the US. Not so conducive to personal or political freedom, or to peace.
OK, I’m coming back.
Maybe one of us should ask Cecil what the true purpose of the war is. Despite what we believe about him I think he will tell the truth. Someone needs to clear it up and it can’t be the news, Administration officials, professional spin doctors, or those absolutely opposed to the war and the President no matter what. I’ll ask The Question.
We all have our opinions and beliefs, but we are all conjecturing sometimes, if not all the time.
Isn’t it possible that:
the war may have postive consequences beyond the bizarre theories of Wolfawitz (sp?) , et al, for the justification of the war? and is to believe so liberal or ???
as many people might be killed in Iraq if it falls apart over the next decade than would have been killed had Iraq not been invaded? is to believe so liberal or ???
was the Holy Roman Empire a holy, roman empire? 
Just kidding on the last one, serious on the others…
Replying to drhess:
Sure, it may (and probably will) have unintended positive consquences. It may also (and even more likely will, because things fall apart more easily than they rebuild) have unintended negative consequences.
Of course. And, if Bush the First had not tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait by essentially telling him, “Hey, go for it, dude,” and then used it as an excuse to attack Iraq the first time around, then most of those people who suffered and died under the subsequent sanctions, or who were put to death after they rose up and tried to topple Saddam and the US failed to support them, would have led relatively normal lives. But that’s all shoulda coulda woulda. We’ll never really know, will we?
No more than Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party is liberal, democratic, or even a party.
Bush the first did not sanction Iraq invading Kuwait. That’s a misrepresentation of the events.
Iraq brought up the border dispute with a U.S. official. The official said the U.S. had no interest in their border disputes. This was about where to place a border, back or forth a few miles. Iraq interpreted this as an okay to take all of Kuwait. That’s a totally different situation.
Well done Cecil, my man. I couldn’t agree more,
however, you are in a publicly respected position
here on the SD anyway, and so go easy on the view points!
My little aside i thought of today:
I find it interesting that Americans believe that should a repressed country be “liberated” that humanity does not ‘default’ to the American idealism and way of life. I refer not only to the imposition of “democracy” we will no likely see but also to some american news coverage that seemed completely non-understanding of the shiite muslims having their religous festival which involved beating themselves up - slightly arrogant. But that’s beside the point.
Here ends my rant.
I retract “Americans” from my previous post and replace it with “some Americans”. Maybe that was arrogant of me. Still we’re not all perfect.
Maybe someone already addressed this, but the general consensus I saw from the anti-war crowd after the invasion started seemed to be, “Well, we said our peace, and we may not like Bush, but we might as well support what the troops, since they’re doing their jobs.”
I haven’t seen or heard one negative thing about the troops themselves.
Still no WMD, not much in the way of terrorists, when will the the conservative elite media (i.e. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times, etc.) finally admit that they have been proven wrong?
You left out Fox.
He said “elite.”
He also said “conservative”. If CNN, ABC, CBS and the NY Times are so described, then we need to convene and agree on the new definition for the word.
CNN is about as conservative as Fox is “fair & balanced”. During the war, CNN devoted approx. 20 times as much airtime to the scattered anti-war demonstrations as it did to the many pro-America demonstrations occurring simultaneously. The reason is that the former had the propensity to develop into highly newsworthy displays of bloody violence and hatred by the “peace” demonstrators (and often did so). This was while their OWN polls showed about 70% of Americans in favor of ousting Hussein.
It should be noted that this does not make these 70% of people “pro-war”. That term is illogical. Are people “pro-pollution” because they drive a car? Are they “pro-tedious chores” because they like a clean house or “pro-pain” if they build their muscles?
The way most of us (not on this site, clearly) view it is that the other side started the battle, which everyone hates, and we were left with zero choice but to finish it–in three weeks. It needn’t have taken so long had certain countries cooperated a bit more, but there it is. That was one battle. The war rages on against those who hate you and me with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns and who would make it a crime punishable by death to be having this discussion right now, or even using the Internet to look at pictures of the Great Holy Leader.
The only way I’ve found to get “Fair & Balanced” coverage in the electronic media is to take in CNN (regular plus World View), NPR, C-SPAN and Fox News.