A Washington, DC press photographer vents about the political wranglings in our Nation's Capital.
My first posting seems to have disappeared....
Published on November 19, 2007 By joe-pro-photographer In War on Terror
]"The reasons why we went to war in Iraq don't matter any more, we are there and that mission is accomplished."

That's a quote from a fellow blogger, buried under 99 other responses. Of course, I think he's wrong. The reasons we went to war in Iraq are central to our mission, and those reasons are changed and manipulated at the whim of this administration.

Measures of success, in a similar fashion, are "evolved".

Today, Bush cites the lower death tolls and levels of violence as his barometer of success. Never mind these numbers, when they were bad, were classified by this administration and kept from the American people. Never mind that photos of our soldiers, those who were killed in the ultimate sacrafice for our country, were hidden from view (and the photographers vilified.) Never mind that we seem to prop up the least likely leaders in a country whose termoil reaches back to about 400 ad, if not beyond. Never mind Bush seeks the advice of the Saudis (since before Bush was even elected)to shape his form policy. (wording is deliberate).

The reasons we went to war in Iraq are key. Those reasons set the framework of what our goals -- and measures of success -- should be. By losing view of those reasons, we muddle around in waters that should be crystal clear. Perhaps it is this lack of vision which leads to scandals like Abu Grab. Perhaps it is because we are blinded by confusion we can't see the forest for the trees. When our truest beliefs -- that freedom and justice and a certain moral action -- are shoved aside in the name of security is counter-American.

That's why I believe this administration, no matter what the outcome of the Iraq war, will be viewed as one of the worse in our more than 200 year history. I believe this Administration is unamerican.

Response? None will be deleted. That, also, is UnAmerican.



Comments (Page 7)
8 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 
on Nov 22, 2007
Who says the intel was good? Name one person.


i don't know does blair count.
on Nov 22, 2007
i don't know does blair count.


Funny you mention Blair, do you remember something called the Downing Street Minutes? Back before the war began the British PM and his advisors sat down and discussed the fact that the U.S (read Bush administration) was jonesing to go into Iraq and they were going to make the intel "facts" fit their case. See, normally you gather intel and THEN build your case. If you do it the other way around, that is called a lie. In this case, we got a whole pack of lies.
on Nov 22, 2007
Downing Street Minutes


They were just as cooked up as the Bush National Guard Memos.
on Nov 22, 2007
In the absence of solid legal grounds for war, in other words, the allies tried to bomb Saddam Hussein into providing their casus belli. And when that didn't work they just stepped up the bombing rate, in effect starting the conflict without telling anyone.


you mean that the main stream media just forgot to report all of these bombings going on iraq from 2002 to 2003. and saddam didn't say anything about it. the only one on here who would believe this is gene.
on Nov 22, 2007
i don't know does blair count.


Nope, we're talking US intel here. Blair doesn't have access to that. And Blair's own intel suggests we messaged things to fit our agenda. So, let's stick to US people. Who in the US says this intel was good, in a position to know? Let's stick with facts (they were as cooked up as the bush national guard memos), please.

Come on, surely there are people who say the intel was good? David Kaye? No. Tenet? No. Scott Ritter? No. Defense Intelligence Agency (investigated those trailers we heard so much about) Wooos. No. I know, the Iraq Survey Group! They were appointed to study this! They had access to all the info! Nope. Sorry. George Tenet? Nope.

WHO THEN?
on Nov 22, 2007
Nope, we're talking US intel here. Blair doesn't have access to that.


all this means is you will not accept any body. and there is one other group that we are forgetting the Spanish had the same Intel and their own.
on Nov 22, 2007
For what it's worth Bush will go down in history as a poor President because he was ill-advised. If you're going to listen to people like Cheney and Rumsfeld then your listening to second class!
on Nov 22, 2007
all this means is you will not accept any body. and there is one other group that we are forgetting the Spanish had the same Intel and their own.


Comeon. That's a cop out. You can come up with someone. Come on, try. Don't go overseas. I don't know anything about Spanish Intel. Stick with AMERICAN, be a patriot.

One little name, and a quote if you got it. Just one.

Take some time, research it. I gotta go be with my family, I'm gettin' in trouble.
M
on Nov 22, 2007
Still waiting on that name. One person who says the intel was good and we should have used wmds as a justification for war. One person.

I got it! I know one.

Rush Limbaugh.
Woops,
Nope.
Crap.
on Nov 22, 2007

One person who says the intel was good and we should have used wmds as a justification for war.

That one is too easy - Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, madeline albright.  Like Ted said, hindsight is 20-20.  Foresight is not always that good.

And lest we forget (please lest us forget!) Al Gore.

on Nov 23, 2007
The intel was good for them and their campaign, the selfish little pricks. A clever response! But I think now that the facts are on the table even they would say the intel was piss poor. Still, a clever response.

Gives me an idea for my next posting....
on Nov 26, 2007

the selfish little pricks.

Hope you had a good thanksgiving. 

But I can see you dont like any of them.  I can see we are going to agree more often than not.

on Nov 26, 2007
It was great, thanks. I'm really worried about this election. Usually, I think "here's a great candidate". Then something happens, (EEEEEEOOOOOOOOWWWWWW) and the media drums my guy out. (not that I was a big fan of EEEEOOOOOOOWWWWW, but it's a great example of how the media kills a candidate)

But at least I had a chance to think, here's a guy I can support. This go 'round, I am disillusioned. This go round, I'm wishing for better days. How bad is that when Al Sharpton looks GOOD????
on Nov 27, 2007
But at least I had a chance to think, here's a guy I can support. This go 'round, I am disillusioned. This go round, I'm wishing for better days. How bad is that when Al Sharpton looks GOOD????


All Candidates? Or just the front runners? ON the Democrat Side, you have Biden (who I think would be a very weak president - but hardly bad like Hillary) and Richardson (I think would be a good one there).

On the Republican side, you have Thompson (My favorite), and Ron Paul. Night and Day in many respects.

I agree with you only to the point that it looks like the apparent nominees are going to be hold your nose types. But with 17 (or has that changed) candidates now, there is something for everyone.
on Nov 27, 2007
I really am only paying attention to the front runners, partly because of work. I always vote for a long shot in the primary, it seems when it comes to my personal politics. But, I see danger ahead for the democrats if any of the front runners are triumphant. On the Republican side, I see danger, too. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out -- and perhaps I'll need a refill on my vitamin V.
8 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8