Stunning new portrait of John Ashcroft

[XPav]

http://www.pmbrowser.info/hublog/archives/000778.html

I think it really shows his character.

[Bob Cherub]

Even I'll admit that's pretty brilliant.

[XPav]

After looking at it closely though I realize that there's too many duplicates. There needed to be a wider selection of images and it would look better.

[Bob Cherub]

True, I also have trouble getting off without a little variety.

[Jasper]

Nice... My mind boggles at the satiric possibilities. The porn is cute, but there is plenty of more powerfull imagery available. Where does one get ahold of a thousand images of Pinnochio?

[Union Carbide]

Apologies for breaking the forum:

http://www.thepoorman.net/images/the_war_president_big.jpg

[John Reynolds]

I don't know, I dislike the Bush administration as much as anyone else but something about that picture bothers me. Not quite sure what it is about it, though.

[Lizard_King]

I don't know, I dislike the Bush administration as much as anyone else but something about that picture bothers me. Not quite sure what it is about it, though.
You mean, other than the exploitation of photographs of dead servicemen to make a cheap political point?

[Jason McCullough]

Do tell what acceptable modes of criticizing Bush getting hundreds of service members killed in a pointless war is, then.

[Lizard_King]

Do tell what acceptable modes of criticizing Bush getting hundreds of service members killed in a pointless war is, then.
I don't know, probably what you all do 24/7 around here. All I know is if that were one of my relatives or someone I knew, I'd be irritated that smarmy leftists were using them to create their conversation pieces.

Remember, a lot of us in the military don't, you know, 100% jump onboard with the Jason McCullough point of view. I would say most of my Marine peers and superiors, for instance, make me seem like a moderate in foreign policy, especially. That's part of why we do that for a living, rather than excreting unoriginal art. Also, "pointless" and futile to you is just difficult to others, and these others don't necessarily duck and run because something is hard to do.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh please, your crowd doesn't think any criticism is acceptable. Here's a project for you: find an occasion when someone not in the War Party criticized the Iraq war, and the War Party refrained from calling them one of the following:

1) Insane
2) Traitorous
3) Cowards
4) Fascist-lover
5) Racist
6) Selfish
7) Doing it just for shock value
8 ) Doing it just for partisan purposes

You kind of do 7 & 8 above; give me a break, do you really think people made this just for shits and giggles?

From the creator:

Given this image's inflammatory nature, I posted it with a great deal of trepidation. I had a hard time deciding if it was the right thing to do and I am still not sure. No, I didn't have the consent of the families of those pictured, and I apologize for any additional pain that this image causes them. That said, I must say that it is my belief that one distinguishing characteristic between art and other forms of speech is that art takes risks, and if we, as a society, value art we must allow it more leeway than other modes of expression to incite or offend.

'War President' is meant to be a satirical commentary, informed by the whole project of using the dead as political props. I'm not making a dime off the image, and never will attempt to do so. Given this lack of financial or other crass motives, other recent instances of the politicization of the dead strike me as more morally questionable: the coffins of the victims of 9/11 showing up in a political advertisement, the continued suppression of images of the funerals of those lost in Iraq from the mainstream American media, and images of the 9/11 disaster in a campaign ad. A certain party stands to benefit greatly from all three of those instances of politicization.

I'd also like to point out that 'War President' is an image. It is not a textual statement or rhetorical argument. An image is like an empty room and any message that one reads in that room necessarily came in the baggage one carried when one walked in the door. If I made a mosaic of George Washington composed of images of the American dead from the revolution, would viewers likely take that image as an indictment of Washington? I submit that they would not. It would be viewed as a monument to the dead and a celebration of a great leader, a somewhat maudlin monument maybe but surely not offensive. The fact that 'War President' is not viewed such a manner is not due to any intrinsic property of 'War President' but lies somewhere else.

I'm getting a lot of requests about usage rights etc. Use 'War President' however you want, but don't use it for monetary benefit, and please don't
alter or modify it.

http://amleft.blogspot.com/archives/2004_04_01_amleft_archive.html#10813433295590473

[Kyle Wilson]

That said, I must say that it is my belief that one distinguishing characteristic between art and other forms of speech is that art takes risks, and if we, as a society, value art we must allow it more leeway than other modes of expression to incite or offend.

The men and women whose pictures make up that mosaic took risks. The artist is just being a dick. There's a difference.

[Midnight Son]

Hey, LK, as a vet, I had no problem whatsover kicking Saddam's ass out of Kuwait. But the reasons given for going back this time are lies, halftruths, guesses and so oh. I think most Americans prefer to be on the side of Good and destroy Evil. So why are all the other despots in the world still running around free? Is it because they are OUR despots? (Which Saddam used to be!)

[Bob Cherub]

Midnight Son, since you've never really voiced any worthwhile views on the subject, just spouted off catchphrases, lefty (or to you, moderate) propaganda, and words a 2-year old would know, I'd like to hear you explain how the Iraq war is a war of "lies".


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


Given those quotes, your proclamations that Iraq is a war of lies can only mean one thing, that you believe all of these people lied as well.

Or is it that these people all told the truth but would have never actually GONE to war with Iraq over these issues. If that's what it is, then Bush isn't necessarily a liar since he believed what all these people believed but perhaps "reckless" for actually going to war with the information. The same information that convinced Clinton to bomb Iraq and for Al Gore to say four years later that he still has WMD.Thus he's not really a liar and you're basically making stuff up because it sounds hip!

So which is it, are they all liars or for some reason just Bush is a liar because he believed the same thing every Democrat on Capital Hill believed.

And also what the United Nations believed.

I'm willing to wager you're not up for the challenge and will simply reply to this post with another lefty catchphrase and avoid a meaningful discussion where people actually hear your view instead of some opinion piece from a random blog.

[Lizard_King]

Oh please, your crowd doesn't think any criticism is acceptable. Here's a project for you: find an occasion when someone not in the War Party criticized the Iraq war, and the War Party refrained from calling them one of the following:

1) Insane
2) Traitorous
3) Cowards
4) Fascist-lover
5) Racist
6) Selfish
7) Doing it just for shock value
8 ) Doing it just for partisan purposes

You kind of do 7 & 8 above; give me a break, do you really think people made this just for shits and giggles?

Honestly, no. Again, I think stupidity and ignorance have a much greater role. I've hardly ever had a problem with caricatures and demonizations of George W. Bush, especially when clearly meant as satire. It's really just a matter of bad taste more than anything, in this case.

In any case, I don't think the rhetorical namecalling in your adorable little list is any more fallacious or idiotic than the shit "your crowd" (and here I am talking about the people you regularly self-identify with, all your blogtellectuals and whatnot) fires back. While 1-8 may often be bandied about in the absence of a real argument, sometimes it is just calling a thing by its name.

[Jason McCullough]

Which brings up the other difference: all the infantile acting on the left is by people with no connection to the democratic party, and often on the margins of society.

On the right, it's official arms of the GOP.

[Lizard_King]

Which brings up the other difference: all the infantile acting on the left is by people with no connection to the democratic party, and often on the margins of society.
I love it when you talk about yourself in the third person.

On the right, it's official arms of the GOP.I guess Maureen Dowd is not infantile? That despicable little gnome on Crossfire? Ted Kennedy? Give me a fucking break. Moreso than fringe trendy acts like Ann Coulter...don't even get me started on the hysterics put on display by the last Democratic speaker of the house. Stop trying to draw false distinctions between different flavours of idiots.

[Jason McCullough]

Do you even pay attention to what people like Tom Delay say? I'm pretty sure Ted Kennedy never accused Republicans of something like being responsible for Susan Smith, for example.

And do tell: what criticisms have I made that our out of bounds?

[Midnight Son]

Yo, Cherub, what exactly was Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda?

Where exactly are the WMD's?

Who did Saddam invade lately?

Got any answers to that or do you just wanna throw some more quotes my way?

LK: It's quite enjoyable when the gnomes on Crossfire make the right wing drones splutter with rage. Good viewing.

[Peter Frazier]

I think the Bush portrait would have been better if they had based it on a shot of him taken when he was saying his 'bring it on' speech.
Lizard, were you up in arms at any time that Bush coopted the military for his own cheap publicity purposes? Flying in on a carrier, sneaking into Baghdad.... I don't remember you decrying those acts.

[bee cubed]

i despise bush, but i find that picture to be very disturbing, borderline offensive. of course, that is what free speech is all about...

the picture of ashcroft is hilarious, though. thanks for that.

[Ben]

McCullough, every single time some leftist does something stupid you pop up with your "Oh, that's not how the left is. He's crazy. Also, the right has crazy person X, too"

At some point you have to come to terms with the fact that there exists a significant subgroup of complete fucktards on "your" side. They aren't all just some internet crazies, look at people like Chet and Midnight Son.

Peter, how are those publicity stunts coopting the military? The aircraft carrier was typical politician stuff, and I have no idea what you could possibly be hinting at with the sneaking into Baghdad thing.

This wasn't a publicity stunt, it's using pictures(without consent) of dead soldiers to score a cheap shot.

Anyway, Midnight and Cherub are having a discussion, everybody else shush. I feel we are on the verge of being granted a new outlook on life.

[Bob Cherub]

Yo, Cherub, what exactly was Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda?


And this was an announced reason we invaded Iraq? Link me.


Where exactly are the WMD's?


Wow, surprised it took you all of ONE OTHER QUESTION to come up with this gem. Once again, all of the Democrat leaders you like to fellate also believed there were WMDs. Were they lying also? If Bush is the liar you say he is, so is: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Bob Graham, Ted Kennedy...shall we go on?


Who did Saddam invade lately?


And this was an announced reason we invaded Iraq? Link me.


Got any answers to that or do you just wanna throw some more quotes my way?


Got any intellectual discussion going on in your moderate head or do you just wanna through more lefty talking points my way?


LK: It's quite enjoyable when the gnomes on Crossfire make the right wing drones splutter with rage. Good viewing.

Wow, much hate for the "right wing drones"... I thought you were moderate?

Seriously Midnight Son. If I've contributed nothing to this forum you've manged to contribute even less. You post some link to a left-wing e-zine with some slanted story regarding Bush's evils then end with a try-to-be-clever one-liner. I've tried to imitate your style recently. I hope the drones appreciate my efforts.

But you've never actually engaged in a rational discussion here. Are you incapable of critical debate? You know, actually supplying evidence to back up your arguments? Or are you just about lefty one-liners. Is that all you can muster? I'm rather disappointed actually. I gave you my argument that while you could consider Bush's actions reckless, it would be very difficult to label him a liar considering the same belief was shared by nearly every important politician, including leading Democrats, in Washington and I gave you many quotes to support my argument. You have yet to show any evidence that Bush lied about Iraq having WMDs. To do so you'd have to show me evidence that there was someone important in Washington to definitively say--without a shadow of a doubt--Iraq didn't.

Can't wait to see you're reply. Will it be "No war for oil!" or the clever "Bu$h is evil!" ??

Thanks!

[Jasper]

From the creator:

I'd also like to point out that 'War President' is an image. It is not a textual statement or rhetorical argument. An image is like an empty room and any message that one reads in that room necessarily came in the baggage one carried when one walked in the door. If I made a mosaic of George Washington composed of images of the American dead from the revolution, would viewers likely take that image as an indictment of Washington? I submit that they would not. It would be viewed as a monument to the dead and a celebration of a great leader, a somewhat maudlin monument maybe but surely not offensive. The fact that 'War President' is not viewed such a manner is not due to any intrinsic property of 'War President' but lies somewhere else.

IMHO this is dead on, and very telling. Bush is very much responsible for the reckless deaths of these soldiers (although I don't blame just him, he is the commander in chief). The invasion of Iraq was based on lies, done for the wrong reasons, has been ineptly handled, and has done us vastly more harm than good -- with the exception of a few war profiteering companies gouging the US military with steep oil prices and no-bid contracts.

This image brings all of these issues to mind, while the same picture of Washington or Lincoln would ellicit something entirely different. IMHO this is because Bush Jr. is clearly the worst president in American history.

Is the picture in poor taste because of this? Perhaps -- but it's point still rings true. The scale of this mans dishonesty is more deserving of impeachment than Nixon's skulldugery.

[Jason McCullough]

McCullough, every single time some leftist does something stupid you pop up with your "Oh, that's not how the left is. He's crazy. Also, the right has crazy person X, too"

Didn't say the left was pure and good. There is a significant difference in that the *official representatives* of the left - in the form of the democratic party and its affiliated PR organs - tends to focus on the issues more than calling everyone a traitor.

[Peter Frazier]

Peter, how are those publicity stunts coopting the military? The aircraft carrier was typical politician stuff, and I have no idea what you could possibly be hinting at with the sneaking into Baghdad thing.

This wasn't a publicity stunt, it's using pictures(without consent) of dead soldiers to score a cheap shot.

Okay, you answered your own question about the first one. Him getting a carrier to be ready (with the whole security shit involved) to be at the right place and time to show off that he is a manly-warrior is typical politician stuff, aka cheap political stunt. Of course, the carrier had nothing better to do at that time, huh? Hell, why don't I try hiring one out for my kid's birthday party since they're at a loose end for things to do?
Secondly, the Baghdad thing. How did that help in terms of military objectives? He lands in utmost secrecy with a tight security cordon, dashes into a hanger, gets photographed with the troops, has a short interview with selected members of the interim government and pisses off. Yeah, very helpful, and noone ever suggested that it would be a good PR thing. Of course not- it was just for the few members of the 101st who were lucky enough to attend. Suuuure.
As for coopting the military- I would say putting everyone on a heightened security alert while you do your PR thing and then making sure that it's front page news involves coopting the forces. If you really think it was the morale boost that the troops needed, you're on another planet.
Really, neither event was necessary and both involved using the images from both for political gain.
Now, can you tell me how it is a cheap shot to juxtapose images of soldiers killed in an unnecessary war with the person who sent them there? I think it's a pretty pertinent image that reminds us that soldier's destinies are created by one man, rightly or wrongly. You could do the same thing with FDR and marines killed in Tarawa, but I think people would say that they died for a good cause. Not this one.

[Midnight Son]

Good point.

WW1= Good Cause
WW2= Good Cause

Iraq = Not proven.

Oh, Cherub, I'm now "Independent." Pissing everyone off is so much fun!

[Bob Cherub]

Damn a whole day and you still couldn't muster an educated response.

Color me surprised.

[Midnight Son]

Cherub, I see you take me much more seriously than I take you.

[Bob Cherub]

Hey, if you want to admit you're a complete farce with no intelligent thought...a robot that can only spout off lefty catch phrases...a feeble minded troll that lacks the ability to put together a persuasive argument...a delusional halfwit that calls MBA and PHD educated individuals "morons" then then that's your business.

But it's not a tad embarassing to you that you lack the ability to discuss your position, provide evidence, and back up your argument with some substance instead of a few lefty slogans?

You said it, not me.

[Midnight Son]

Ah, the old argument from authority..... Cherub, unlike you, I want the truth! Whatever conclusion it leads to. There is much more info that has to come to light yet. Now, point your obsessive-compulsiveness somewhere else.