catapult magazine

Great article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/politics/16IMAG.html

I understand that you disagree with whether or not the mission was accomplished. The mission being ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was to remove Sadam Hussein and the Baathe (sp?) party from power. This was accomplished. No one in the administration is saying that our work in Iraq is done.

As to the photo op, what was untrue? – there was open sea to one side of them, the guys behind him were not wearing ties when the picture was taken.

Just out of curiosity, how many of the people consistently lambasting Bush on *cino are CONSISTENTLY praying for him. As in, did you pray for him today? Even if he’s as far from a Christian as many claim and more evil than we could ever expect – are you praying for him? Or is the rationale to simply undercut those placed in authority and persuade others of their incompetence, ill intentions, etc. I think there is a place for persuading others, but not without the first part.

It’s a sincere question.

In laryn’s devense, it doesn’t seem to me that she is so much lambasting Bush as the way we peddle images INSTEAD OF ideas and facts. There is nothing wrong with Bush putting forth an image, but if we don’t get the straight story of what is going on, if we don’t get to find out what he (or anybody else in office) thinks about stuff, how he really feels about issues, and so on, then I would argue there is a problem with the system. I don’t want to vote for the best image manipulator, I want to vote for the person who esposes the best ideas, solutions, etc, to the problems our country faces. Seems to me laryn is saying that image without idea is a bad thing — regardless of who is in office.

Incidentally, I have been praying for Bush ever since he took office. I did not vote for him (along with the majority of Americans) and he is certainly not my favorite presidents — but this is all the more reason to pray for him, no?

Indeed

The mission most definitely included more than just removing Hussein from power. All that talk of democracy was intimitely tied to the mission, and disarming Iraq (ie. finding all their hidden weapons and disposing of them) was the major impetus behind the war way back in the beginning.

As to your questions about the photo op, what was “untrue” about the open water behind them was that they had told everyone that he had to fly in on the jet because they were so far out at sea that a helicopter (which would be less dramatic, wouldn’t provide as good of an excuse to dress up like a pilot, and would cost much, much less) couldn’t make it. So when I refer to the untruth of the open sea behind them, I am referring to the untruth they were presenting and hoping to maintain with that image. In reality they had to keep the vessel out at sea an extra day, barely off the coast, keeping men and women who had actually been out fighting away from their homes and families for another day so that he could perform his publicity stunt (and unfurl his banner).

For you curiosity, yes, I pray for Bush. I also prayed a lot for Hussein in the lead up to and execution of the war, and try to pray for other leaders as well. As far as consistency, I do it perhaps as consistently as I do anything (except things like eating and breathing), which might not be saying a whole lot.

BBC is correct, this is not an issue that resides with Bush alone. If you are uncomfortable discussing propaganda directly involving Bush, we could also include other things, like the rescue of Private Lynch, or the former Iraqi Information Minister. It’s about propaganda in general and is not meant as a slam on Bush alone. It just so happens that the shoe fits him, and I think he should wear it.

ps. BBC, I am a boy.

I have to agree with Dave in most of what he has said. Granted, President Bush played the media card. But then again, publicity and politics have always gone hand in hand. I just have to hand it to his advisors because they do it really really well. I pray for President Bush daily. I believe that it is our call as Christians to support those in leadership with our prayers. I wasn’t a big Clinton fan, but I still prayed for him.
As for the “un-trueness” of the President’s aircraft carrier event, I never heard any of what Laryn suggested (although I am not doubting or questioning you…don’t be hatin’). Here in CA it was announced for what it was, ship just off the coast kept in place so President could land and greet and congratulate. Everyone new it was publicity, but it was also a way to grab the countries attention and make a statement of the finality of the “official” war and the thankfulness and debt our country owes to the men and women in uniform.

My main criticism of Bush concerning this event isn’t for anything except his bad taste. If he is making a movie of his presidency, it’s exactly the sort of movie I find distasteful.

http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=05-27-03&storyID=16702

In this link, the writer mentioned journatlists “at least at the serious national level.” Fortunately, the Berkely Daily whatever it was has a place among America’s trusted news sources just below Iraq’s Ministry of Information. Ah Berkely – Nicest little town the America that banned flying the flag in the days following Sept 11.

As to WMD, the Iraqi’s themselves are not denying their possesion of WMD, they did before we went in, then they said, “We destroyed them all right before you came.” They are obviously somewhere – doubtfully destroyed, hopefully hidden within Iraq, but more likely, they got out of the country. The fact that the WMD have not been found does in no way warrant the collective “I told you so” that the Berkelites are claiming, even by the Iraqi’s own testimony.

Which Iraqis said what, Dave? Seems to me like some are saying what the Americans want to hear. Others are saying conflicting things. Others don’t know what they are talking about and are saying stuff anyways. Iraq is pretty chaotic right now I’m guessing.

As for American intelligence, I’m not very impressed. First they say the WMD are there and we’re supposed to trust them. Then the WMD turn out not to be there. There are only two conclusions I can draw about American intelligence: Either it’s not very good or they intentionally lied to us. Either way, it has not shown itself to be trustworthy.

There appears to be some animosity towards Berkely. :) Perhaps I should clarify that these links I post are just things that I’ve come across that seem to relate in one way or another to this topic. I don’t necessarily endorse where they come from or what they are saying, though I suppose I’d hesitate to condemn everyone who lives in the town. And I’ll grant that this last one definitely appears to be very homegrown and low-tech. But hey, if there’s anything worth reading there, maybe it doesn’t matter how flashy the site is. That seems oddly relevant.

Anyhow, to the point. I’d be interested in hearing (or reading) of the Iraqi’s that are admitting that they’ve got the weapons. Could you post them, or links to them? Most of the reports I’ve read are of Iraqi’s saying, “We don’t have them. We told you.” Or of speculations that they were destroyed before the war began (begging the question: why did we go to war to disarm them?) I agree, it’s entirely possible and maybe even probable that they’re hidden away somewhere. But if we had evidence that was hard enough to warrant killing 5,000 civilians and all those conscripted soldiers, I’d expect to have found something.

Which brings up another instance of the image factory producing false images—all the testimony and speculation about Iraq’s weapons program, most of which has been exposed as hollow (and in at least one instance, knowingly false) but produced enough of a scare to bring about a war.

That’s why I think the idea of a president that manipulates image to sugar coat falsehood is so dangerous. If he was just making a movie about himself—who cares? But this isn’t Hollywood, and the people that die because of the lies are really dead.