Troubling Imagery, if it's not a hoax.

dolores haze · May 17, 2009

Bird of Prey said:
It doesn't strike me as fake. It strikes me as right in line with the administrations fever pitched "preemption." The administration had the country's support, and I think the big three bought their own rationale, meaning that if God didn't give them a reason, it may be that they didn't have a reason. So, Rummy made it God's calling, and I guess he fashioned the war in his mind as just that: a quasi-Crusade.

I don't understand you at all. Just last week you were arguing that it was fine and dandy for soldiers to be handing out bibles in a war zone.

Bird of Prey · May 17, 2009

robeiae said:
Nonsense.

Oh Lord. If Iraq had not turned into some protracted drain - if Bush had seen a concrete victory in Iraq a short period of time - the "axis of evil" would clearly have been in his administration's sights.

Cranky · May 17, 2009

robeiae said:
I'm not suggesting it was humor, necessarily.

What I'm suggesting is that the cover sheets were essentially unrelated to anything, at all. It's like Shaffer told his staff, "hey, throw a nice pic on the cover, something interesting." Maybe the first one with a Bible quote got Shaffer a phone call or the like from Bush, "nice quote," or whatnot. So, Shaffer told his people, "hey, Bush likes the Bible quotes so do some more of those, sometimes." I really don't know. But that's why seeing all the other covers would be helpful.

That's why I linked to Shaffer's bio. He's a career intelligence guy, it seems. Until he retired sometime in 2003, apparently. And I can't find anything online that indicates he's some kind of Christian firebrand.

Regardless, the linkage here with Rumsfeld is flimsy, at best. From what I can see, the author was more interested in people making their own assumptions than with exploring reality.

Naw, I didn't think you were suggesting it was humor. My mistake. I was saying that this was something ELSE altogether.

And I still say that nobody would have done it, even in the scenario you describe. Especially since he's a "career intelligence guy". That makes this scenario (either one) even more wrong. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my hat with with hotsauce humbly. I'm that sure of it.

robeiae · May 17, 2009

Bird of Prey said:
Oh Lord. If Iraq had not turned into some protracted drain - if Bush had seen a concrete victory in Iraq a short period of time - the "axis of evil" would clearly have been in his administration's sights.

Clearly. And you know this because you read minds...

Don't kid yourself. They knew Iraq was a long-term occupation from the get-go. And they new Bush could only serve two terms. Quite obviously, the hooey about Bush making himself "dictator for life" was, well, hooey. So, this idea that they wanted to conquer the world is, again, nonsense.

Bird of Prey · May 17, 2009

dolores haze said:
I don't understand you at all. Just last week you were arguing that it was fine and dandy for soldiers to be handing out bibles in a war zone.

That's an entirely different issue. Individual soldiers feeling compelled to "share the word" so to speak is not the same as the people in power using "the word" to bolster or justify or twist an immoral motive into a moral one.

Bird of Prey · May 17, 2009

robeiae said:
Clearly. And you know this because you read minds...

Don't kid yourself. They knew Iraq was a long-term occupation from the get-go. And they new Bush could only serve two terms. Quite obviously, the hooey about Bush making himself "dictator for life" was, well, hooey. So, this idea that they wanted to conquer the world is, again, nonsense.

Talking about reading minds!! YOU have access, Rob, to what they "knew?" The Neoconservative movement's two term tenure wouldn't have ended with Bush had the Iraq War gone well. And I have no doubt that Cheney - who ran the show anyway - would have succeeded him.

robeiae · May 17, 2009

Bird of Prey said:
That's an entirely different issue. Individual soldiers feeling compelled to "share the word" so to speak is not the same as the people in power using "the word" to bolster or justify or twist an immoral motive into a moral one.

Very good. I like consistency and you are correct here, imo.

robeiae · May 17, 2009

Bird of Prey said:
Talking about reading minds!! YOU have access, Rob, to what they "knew?" The Neoconservative movement's two term tenure wouldn't have ended with Bush had the Iraq War gone well. And I have no doubt that Cheney - who ran the show anyway - would have succeeded him.

Cheney?!?! CHENEY?!?!? You're joking, right? He was--and is--completely unelectable as POTUS. Everyone--including Cheney--knows that.

dolores haze · May 17, 2009

Bird of Prey said:
That's an entirely different issue. Individual soldiers feeling compelled to "share the word" so to speak is not the same as the people in power using "the word" to bolster or justify or twist an immoral motive into a moral one.

The issue is the separation of church and state - which applies to everyone from the lowest ranking soldier all the way up to the President. Or at least it should.

Bird of Prey · May 17, 2009

robeiae said:
Cheney?!?! CHENEY?!?!? You're joking, right? He was--and is--completely unelectable as POTUS. Everyone--including Cheney--knows that.

It would have been very different, Rob - even the public's opinion of him - had Iraq been a success. . .

William Haskins · May 17, 2009

cheney would never be elected president because of his heart condition.

robeiae · May 17, 2009

Bird of Prey said:
It would have been very different, Rob - even the public's opinion of him - had Iraq been a success. . .

nah. even in the 200 Campaign, Cheney showed that he lacked the presence. He was always a behind-the scenes-guy. Even allowing for the worst-case lunatic fringe version of reality, Cheney was never gonna be out in front. Find a different neocon.

Cranky · May 17, 2009

William Haskins said:
cheney would never be elected president because of his heart condition.

You mean, the "Idon'thaveoneitis" he's reputed to suffer from?

robeiae · May 17, 2009

dolores haze said:
The issue is the separation of church and state - which applies to everyone from the lowest ranking soldier all the way up to the President. Or at least it should.

Well, if a soldier chooses to prostelitize on his own time and dime, that's his business. It has nothing to do with the separation of church and state doctrine.

robeiae · May 17, 2009

And how 'bout that Obama budget?

Sorry. I thought this thread could use yet another topic...

robeiae · May 17, 2009

Cranky said:
You mean, the "Idon'thaveoneitis" he's reputed to suffer from?

Cruelty, thy name is Cranky.

Cranky · May 17, 2009

robeiae said:
Cruelty, thy name is Cranky.

Hey, I did qualify it with "reputed". A shriveled raisin of a heart is, in fact, still a heart.

Bird of Prey · May 17, 2009

dolores haze said:
The issue is the separation of church and state - which applies to everyone from the lowest ranking soldier all the way up to the President. Or at least it should.

I think the issue is important, particularly as it relates to leaders that interpret American law, but I'm a realist, and I don't expect perfection from people under enormous stress in combat. To boot, I was more concerned about the topic of "Christianity's dire spread" among the troops, as an issue of substance when it's a minor transgression at best. Lastly, I find the same people who consistently attack Christianity here seem to go mute when it comes to any other faith including some pretty ugly demonstrations of "faith." I find it suspect and as such, unjustifiable.

dolores haze · May 17, 2009

robeiae said:
Well, if a soldier chooses to prostelitize on his own time and dime, that's his business. It has nothing to do with the separation of church and state doctrine.

Sure, when off duty and out of uniform. Otherwise, that's taxpayer dimes.

robeiae · May 17, 2009

dolores haze said:
Sure, when off duty and out of uniform. Otherwise, that's taxpayer dimes.

Right, except for the uniform part. Can a soldier attend a religious service in uniform?

Regardless, the point here was only that BoP's positions are not incompatible, at all.

Bird of Prey · May 17, 2009

robeiae said:
nah. even in the 200 Campaign, Cheney showed that he lacked the presence. He was always a behind-the scenes-guy. Even allowing for the worst-case lunatic fringe version of reality, Cheney was never gonna be out in front. Find a different neocon.

Behind the scenes? Is he behind the scenes right now, Rob? Nope, he's right out on there in the wide open on the talk shows. I think you're misjudging him, but you have your opinion.

Robert Toy · May 17, 2009

robeiae said:
Right, except for the uniform part. Can a soldier attend a religious service in uniform?

Absolutely

robeiae · May 17, 2009

Bird of Prey said:
Behind the scenes? Is he behind the scenes right now, Rob? Nope, he's right out on there in the wide open on the talk shows. I think you're misjudging him, but you have your opinion.

Last time I checked, BoP, he no longer holds elected office. Is he planning a Senate run, now?

I think the idea that Cheney would have succeeded Bush as President is just batty. Really, he wasn't even looking to be Veep, imo.

dolores haze · May 17, 2009

Bird of Prey said:
I think the issue is important, particularly as it relates to leaders that interpret American law, but I'm a realist, and I don't expect perfection from people under enormous stress in combat. To boot, I was more concerned about the topic of "Christianity's dire spread" among the troops, as an issue of substance when it's a minor transgression at best. Lastly, I find the same people who consistently attack Christianity here seem to go mute when it comes to any other faith including some pretty ugly demonstrations of "faith." I find it suspect and as such, unjustifiable.

The topic was not "Christianity's dire spread" among the troops, but the plan for a group of christian soldiers to spread the christian word to the locals. As I said to Rob, I wouldn't care if they were doing it when off duty and out of uniform.

robeiae said:
Right, except for the uniform part. Can a soldier attend a religious service in uniform?

Yes, attending a religious service is completely different from handing out new testaments in Pastun to the locals. I have no desire to deny any soldier the right to practice their religion, but I would not be happy for them to be doing missionary work while in uniform.

I apologize if I seem to be going off topic, but I think if Bush DID see the wars in Iraq/Afgahanistan as a christian crusade, then it's hardly surprising that some troops on the ground would also.

Bird of Prey · May 17, 2009

dolores haze said:
The topic was not "Christianity's dire spread" among the troops, but the plan for a group of christian soldiers to spread the christian word to the locals. As I said to Rob, I wouldn't care if they were doing it when off duty and out of uniform.

Dolores, it's a bone to pick, nothing more. I'm grateful we have soldiers that demonstrate the level of decency that they do, and I guess I don't like an attempt to malign them over something so trivial. And I think Christianity is a pretty decent religion as religions go, as it exhibits all kinds of intensity among believers and scales of tolerance among believers, the bulk of them pretty nice folks imo, and I guess I'm sick of having them maligned, too. Thus, my reaction to the thread you're referring to. . . .

Troubling Imagery, if it's not a hoax.

international guttersnipe

Benefactor Member

Touch and go

Benefactor Member

Benefactor Member

Touch and go

Touch and go

international guttersnipe

Benefactor Member

poet

Touch and go

Touch and go

Touch and go

Touch and go

Benefactor Member

international guttersnipe

Touch and go

Benefactor Member

FOB and Slayer of windmills

Touch and go

international guttersnipe

Benefactor Member