Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

Bitch, please. If so, just leave the country now.

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2005/br...zone%20011.jpg

Or maybe not.
 

Senator Cronyn probably thinks this judge was so upset by judicial activism that he went and killed himself.

GOP Senator on the Courts
 

I think your conflating the results they achieve with the seriousness of their efforts. Or did John Kerry really pay only lip service on the Iraq invasion? After all, he did vote for it.

show you our objectvivity? objectivity- we don't need no stinking objectivity
 

I don't think that they were anti-American. I think they were anti-war.

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

are they praying over a dead body?

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

Sure looks like it.

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

Of course. But remember, in SF a photo of a bunch of guys in cool boots and unis hunched over so their butts are flexed is a very positive image.

show you our objectvivity? objectivity- we don't need no stinking objectivity
 

Okay. Are they anti-Bush also? Isn't this bias?

This photo *is* anti-American?
 

Q.E.D.

Photos
 

The Photos as a whole seem to accurately depict the war in Iraq. If that makes them anti-war to anyone, that tells you what that person's attitude is to the war in Iraq.

Frankly, there aren't very many heroic acts in war the way it is fought today. US strategy is to overwhelm the enemy whenever possible and to minimize risk to US forces. And we plan pretty well, and keep our people as far out of the line of fire as possible most of the time. I'm sure every photographer in Iraq would love to catch the very rare occassions when acts of heroism are needed in battle, because those photos would SELL!

On US soldiers helping Iraqis, we've pulled in our Civil Assistance missions because they were too risky. CA is strong in Afghanistan, and a very big part of the overall mission, but no one wants to buy photos of Afghanistan because it is not the story. But in Iraq, CA is virtually non-existent and so most soldiers are not engaged in helping Iraqis on a regular basis. Again, many do, but often times they are violating orders when they do and don't want a photographer around. (For example, doctors have been under orders not to provide assistance to Iraqi civilians unless they are injured by US troops -- any photo showing a doctor aiding a civilian is either going to be captioned "Physician tends to Civilian Injured by US Fire" or is going to get that physician in a hell of a lot of trouble. They are supposed to be saving their supplies to assist US personnel.)

show you our objectvivity? objectivity- we don't need no stinking objectivity
 

I don't think they're particularly anti-Bush. For about half of them, I'm shocked that the photographer survived long enough to take the shot, much less get the picture developed and into a publication, regardless of whose "side" he or she was on. I figure if soldiers in kelvar and helmets have their heads down, so should I.

The first one was the hardest for me to look a, since I was unprepared for it and didn't realize what it was until I clicked to enlarge. It is probably the most powerful of the group, and I hope never to look critically at it again because it pains me to think about. Is it anti-Bush? I don't think so. I think it probably shows better than any written or verbal description of what happened a year ago (today? yesterday?) on that bridge in Fallujah. Its horrific subject matter and the expressions on the crowd's faces make for a powerful photograph. I don't think it's saying "Bush is bad" at all. I think it's saying, "this happened," which is what a news photograph is supposed to say. The subject was certainly anti-American in the most blatant way possible, but I don't think that the photograph was anti-American.

As for the rest, I seemed to see more Iraqis and Americans hurt or killed by other Iraqis. The brutality of war seemed, to me, to fall on the shoulders of the insurgents, and however much anyone argues about the handling of the insurgency by the coalition forces, ultimately the responsibility of the violence falls on the individual insurgents. With the exception of the women waiting outside of Abu Garib, we are not necessarily the bad guys in my reading of this series of photographs.

GOP Senator on the Courts
 

(1) No one ever said Kerry was a swing vote.

(2) The Iraq invasion is not the sort of legislative affair that lends itself to what we're talking about. To tweak legislation is the essence of being an effective Senator. The four you mentioned talk a good game, but they're not doing their share of tweaking.

eta: FB x-post?

Do you really think this photo is anti-American?
 

"Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? "

-- John Moody, 04/06/04

GOP Senator on the Courts
 

Share of tweaking? Who's doing any tweaking these days? It's pure majoritarian politics. Congress has passed 6 bills this year, Class Action, Bankruptcy, Schiavo, and three technical things since then. Class Action and Bankruptcy were negotiated over years, agreed to by republican leadership, and pushed through without amendment. The house even agreed to vote up or down, with no amendments at all.

So, I'm not sure what you're expecting the NE Reps to do, any more than you expect anyone to do anything.

GOP Senator on the Courts
 

Who gave the GOP leadership that power? That's not how the Senate has always worked.