Dear Time Warner,

yes yes yes yes yes!!!

ohhhhhhh yesss..

This one goes up on my wall..

Banner style.. awesome photoshopin' bro.!!!

Arvin

Nice work.

Have a look at these Time magazine covers as well:

Mar. 3, 2003
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/0,16641,1101030303,00.html

Apr. 7, 2003
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/0,16641,1101030407,00.html

Dec. 1, 2003
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/0,16641,1101031201,00.html

...all I can say is BRAVO! BRAVO!

david

thank you, thank you, thank you.

Good job.

Hehe, great. Posted @ BlogsForBush.com

Outstanding. A sledge hammer of refutation, not of our soldiers, but of the smug rat b******* at Time.

10 ring.
919

Very Good my friend. Very good indeed.

Let's not forget that Time's Man of the Year is not to honor the person or persons listed but rather to note them. That is to say, Time wasn't expressing its admiration or agreement with Hitler when it put him on its cover as Man of the Year, Time was instead noting that of that year (1938),

...the figure of Adolf Hitler strode over a cringing Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror. Not the mere fact that the Fuhrer brought 10,500,000 more people (7,000,000 Austrians, 3,500,000 Sudetens) under his absolute rule made him the Man of 1938. Japan during the same time added tens of millions of Chinese to her empire. More significant was the fact Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today.

No, the purpose of Time's "POY" is to sell magazines. And I'll bet they did this one with visions of Grandmothers buying extra copies for the kids at the front.

And the point is they exploit American soldiers all year. And they've even got interviews with mujahadeen fighters trying to kill those soldiers in the same issue.

From the news release on the choice: "Soldiers were singled out as the top newsmakers of the year because "the very messy aftermath of the war made it clear that the mission had changed, that the mission had not been completed and that this would be a story that would be with us for months, if not years, to come," Time Managing Editor Jim Kelly said."

In other words... "long as that body count keeps climbin', we be sellin' lots o' magazines!"

Since Greyhawk is one of those "honored" I suppose his opinion carries some weight, but I disagree with "Kiss my ass." It's a bit too tame.

This is my first visit to your blog. Followed a link from Baldilocks. Evcellent! A permanent link for me. I'll be back!

Time did a poll to determine "readers choice" person of the century (Time cose Einstein). There was a big e-mail effort to get "the American Soldier" to the top, but as you can see by the results, back in 1999 folks weren't too enthusiastic about GIs.

# Person % Tally
1 Elvis Presley 13.73 625045
2 Yitzhak Rabin 13.17 599473
3 Adolf Hitler 11.36 516926
4 Billy Graham 10.35 471114
5 Albert Einstein 9.78 445218
6 Martin Luther King 8.40 382159
7 Pope John Paul II 8.18 372477
8 Gordon B. Hinckley 5.62 256077
9 Mohandas Gandhi 3.61 164281
10 Ronald Reagan 1.78 81368
11 John Lennon 1.41 64295
12 American GI 1.35 61836
13 Henry Ford 1.22 55696
14 Mother Teresa 1.11 50770
15 Madonna 0.85 38696
16 Winston Churchill 0.83 37930
17 Linus Torvalds 0.53 24146
18 Nelson Mandela 0.47 21640
19 Princess Diana 0.36 16481
20 Pope Paul VI 0.34 15812

Link here:
http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/century.html

Merry Christmas to GIs everywhere.

I suppose Time meant "GI" when they said Soldier? Or did they mean to leave out the Sailors, Marines, and Airmen?

Do they know the difference?

Good point about that "soldier" thing. You would think that, oh, PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS who have been covering a freakin' WAR for a year would know the correct way to refer to members of the armed forces.

Also, I believe "troops" works just as well as "G.I.'s". "Servicemen" could work, but then you get into the whole gender thing...

Time can be considered one of the "Moderates" on the side of the thugs that want to bring us back to the good old days of the 7th century. By moderate I mean they just want to "appear" to portray both sides of the story, without actually being objective.

Its incredible that we have these near traitors as major news outlets. And before anyone thinks I have gone off the edge try to imagine Life magazine giving you a day in the life of a SS soldier like Time has with the Thugs we are fighting right now. They want anyone but us to win in their secret heart of hearts.

Traitorous scum.

PAPADOC

Remember, Time and Time / Warner are really owned by Disney. Every time you go see a Disney movie, buy a Disney DVD or go to their theme parks, you're financing the Leftist hatred displayed by the entire group.

GH,

I'm not sure I get the point you're trying to make here. That time is generally anti-soldier? These covers don't illustrate that in my mind.

Certainly, the "Are We Stretched Too Thin" cover could arguably be construed to be pro-soldier. Indeed, most soldiers have been arguing for a decade now that the opstempo is too high for the extant force.

Ditto "Peace is Hell" and "Mission Unaccomplished." Lots of soldiers are getting killed in Iraq doing nation-building; it's worth noting that. Indeed, even the "UNTruth and Consequences" cover is, if anything, anti-Bush.

Nice! First visit, won't be last.

Blogrolled.

Disney does not own any part of Time/Warner - indeed, they are rivals in many ways.

Not tosay the the management of Disney isn't leftist, but they are not in bed with T/W.

Should Time kiss your ass before or after the WMD's are found? Will the mission be reaccomplished at that point?

Soldiers were singled out as the top newsmakers of the year because "the very messy aftermath of the war made it clear that the mission had changed, that the mission had not been completed and that this would be a story that would be with us for months, if not years, to come," Time Managing Editor Jim Kelly said."

Notice soldiers aren't name because of the good work they have done (toppling despots, freeing a society, rebuilding a country), but for the mess they have made. Hey Time magazine, Fuck You!

bill: you're out of your mind.

The soldiers were man of the year because everyone supports the troops but not everyone supports their Commander in Chief.

Nice Work! I am impressed!!!!!!!!!

Hey, Joyner, why not try looking up some data before blowing your horn?

The fact of the matter is that we were losing nearly twice numbers of servicemen in the 1980s during peacetime training than we are in Iraq today. In 1980 the number of deaths per 100,000 was 117, and the lowest it ever got in the entire decade was 75 per 100,000.

Last year, we lost 71 per 100,000 from all causes. We are on track to repeat that, perhaps a bit highter (i.e. 75 or 80). In other words, our wartime losses will increase to match our peacetime losses 20 years ago.

And just where the hell were you, and Time Magazine, back then? I certainly don't recall seeing you crying any crocodile tears over soldiers's deaths back then, bunkie...

P.S. Almost forgot: nice poster, Greyhawk! :)

I agree with Mr. Joyner's comment, at least for the most part.

The "Stretched Too Thin" claim is definitely true, as many in the military community have been saying for some time now. I did a blog entry about this unfortunately situation some months ago, in which I linked to an excellent entry of Tacitus, a popular conservative military veteran blogger.

Also as I said a guest blog entry, the media is liberal, but the media has also been pro-war, in the past and present. During the last admninistration, CNN's Christiana Amanapour (sp?) was responsible for much of the pro-war, pro-Clinton administration coverage from the "Clinton News Network." (Her husband is James Rubin, Clinton's man at the State Department.) I haven't read those Time articles in those issues of the magazine, but I suspect that they contains some of the same viewpoints and news that many other publications have been covering - including some that are conservative and pro-military.

Stretched too thin? Then "too" implies failure. If we are "stretched thin" then we'll soldier on, if "too thin" we're screwed.

We're certainly stretched. The good folks in uniform are doing incredible work. "Too" is the operative word, and Time knows it.

And Time doesn't say this in hopes of lifting some of that burden off the soldiers backs, Time says it as a jab at the POTUS and administration. It's a scare quote, and sharp people realize it.

BTW Casey, James Joyner was probably in uniform then. He's speaking as an insider.

Time, Newsweek, politicians, ect will all give lip service about supporting our troops just because it plays well with the public. But because they say these things to sell magazines or improve poll numbers doesn’t mean they mean a damn word of it. From the coverage in Time I’ve seen the troops aren’t anything more than another reason to oppose the Bush administration (support the troops but stop the quagmire, the sky is falling). Greyhawk sees through their insincere publicity stunt and I applaud him for it.

Un American Scum is correct....Traitors....if they hate the GI's and the country so bad why don't they leave???? This is a great country no thanks to this trash...but the Left wing / gay community is doing its best to ruin it....

Actually, it was the previous POTUS, and his administration (Clinton/Gore & Albright) whose policies led to a great deal of the frusrating conditions and problems within the military that were present during his term (some of which we are still dealing with today) and adversely impacted our defense and security capabilities. (If you look through the columns of Lt. Col. Oliver North and other pro-military and veteran columnists, as well as a variety of other conservative writers, and other commentators as well, you will see that this point has been emphasized during the past few years.) George W. Bush recognized and spoke about this during his campaign, and blasted the Clinton/Gore administration for this dilemma that they had created with regard to our national defense forces and security situations.

The "stretched too thin" wording is the same that has been used by many conservatives, Republicans, military leaders, veterans groups, foreign policy experts, and others during the past few years, and still today. If you enter "stretched too thin" into Google, that Time magazine piece is the fourth hit that comes up - before it are two articles in the Washington Times (a leading conservative newspaper), and one item at the website of the Heritage Foundation (a leading conservative organization). U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) is a strong support of the military, and an advocate for veterans issues; she has been talking about this issue for several years now, and is the author of that OP-ED piece published in the Washington Times in August (entitled "Stretched Too Thin"). I may not be allowed to link to that column here though; I don't know what the regulations are for posting in the discussions at these blog entries. But anyway, this is a good discussion... Conversations like these help us learn more, and to better understand each other's viewpoints and positions.

Give it a rest, 'Terry', no one's buying.

The articles within this POS magazine slam Bush at every opportunity.

I cancelled this rag in '01 after being a family subscriber for 40+ years (I was a baby), and have never looked back.

National Geo is going to be going away too, as they are starting that left-sided slant on their articles as well.

The world is becomming weird when the Loony Left is "mainstream" and centrists are branded as "right wing extremists". Kennedy would be a right wing extremist" by some folks standards today.

But Natl Geo... what next?

my thoughts exactly, nice work.

OBTW I searched Time's cover archive (linked by Greyhawk's masterpiece above) for examples to demonstrate their balance via a pro-US cover or two, and came up empty.

Any one else wanna try, please let me know if you find any.

Oh, let's keep it to the past year okay?

Zeluna, I must be more conservative than you. ;-)

I cancelled Time several years ago, and had to convince my mother to stop buying me subscriptions to National Geographic sometime in the last five or six.

The person of the year is "The American Soldier". The other four covers slam only the incompentent CIVILIAN leadership. There's no contradiction. There's not one slam of US troops implied in anything time has written.

You don't have to support the civilians chickenhawks to support the troops. (No, GWB in a flight suit doesn't count as a troop).

Greyhawk, my expat life in Bangkok has led to my NOT reading Time for several years now. I used to respect its coverage, with a few exceptions, but THIS explains much about the distorted perceptions of otherwise intelligent people.

If TIME is pandering to the Left, broadcasting these gross misrepresentations as honest reporting and twisting the truth for personal gain, then TIME will reap the results of its craven politics-based hatred.

Good work, Greyhawk! Sic Semper Ignoramus!

This was cool. Showed it to the troops at the unit. They said it was cool and then went back to reading Stuff and Maxim. Except for the one reading Modern Bride.

It is sad about NG. I have all of the issues from 1961 through 2001.

I guess all those programmed nihlists from our Universities have to do something for a living.

Please attempt to learn the difference between soldiers doing the job they are asked to do, and politicians making decisions based more on ideology than sound intelligence.

Good photoshop work.

Poor logic.

Time-Warner can kiss my lilly-white ass too.

I gave up on Time 35 years ago.

It's easy to underestimate the dedication of the US service members in this Global War on Terror. Many of these GI's wear various apparel displaying the NYPD patch (when and where allowed). I've seen sailors and airmen stick similar patches on precision guided munitions. These folks remember what they're fighting for! The believe the POTUS and the believe in his plan. For TIME to criticize the President's strategy or reasons for war is to criticize their beliefs. It's to imply that they're just "blockheads" following an moronic leader. It's an insult to their patriotism, courage, and sacrifice. After serving for 20 years, I still work with these fine young folks. They believe in what they are doing. This is personal.

Geez. It's a magazine, guys. Chill out. If you really want to get mad, get mad at the mindless sheep that make up the American population. That's right: Sheep-- Folks who just go with the flow of some schmo or another. Trouble is, that describes a lot of you.

Just a comment about that Chickenhawk thing. Of the last 9 Presidents, 1 killed, 1 seriously wounded, 3 attacked, this President probably has the most dedicated band of thugs hunting him of any President in history. Not only that but the thugs hunt not only him but his family as well.

To say that he is asking others to do what he will not is just plain stupid. He is already in danger, far more danger than even most soldiers, and how many soldiers also put their families at risk while they face the dangers of battle. He and his family have no rear area, no comfort, and indeed given the history of his Father even when you leave office you are still a target.

None of this is meant to diminish the service of our armed services, but only to diminish this worst of insults of the loony left.

Who if they had their way would turn over the keys to the country and have our women wearing burkas.

PAPADOC

PAPADOC

Ahh yes, the beautiful logic of the right. Send the troops to war against one of Rummy's failed business partners , then cut service benefits. If a magazine recognizes the selfless contributions of our men and women in the armed services, trash that recognition because of the magazine's coverage of the same "leaders" that slashed the benefits. Support our troops, indeed.

Oh, I see. If you criticize Rummy and Wolfowitz of Arabia, you are automatically criticizing the troops. At what backwater community college, assuming you made it that far, did you pick up this logic? And, of course, when you were no doubt sniping at Clinton a few years back your were, in effect, not supporting the troops in Bosnia. This kind of stupidity makes me fear for the future of our democracy.

Going out on a limb here, 5 bucks says terry, passerby, rummyhandshake and commenter are the same loser. 5 more says he's upset because he hasn't been able to get a response.

Um, Time Warner (TWX) and Disney (DIS) are two different companies entirely.

To say that he is asking others to do what he will not is just plain stupid. He is already in danger, far more danger than even most soldiers,

Your point would be valid, except for two classes of soldiers:
1. those that have already died
2. those who don't get government-sponsored secret service protection for the rest of their lives.

Unfortunately that's all of them since Jenna isn't serving. Bush had his chance to serve and went AWOL.

the loony left... if they had their way would turn over the keys to the country and have our women wearing burkas.

I think you really believe this - zany! The left wants coalitions and condoms, not treason and chastity. Actually, Burkas are the next logical step for the religious right. Ever had a look at Liberty University's dress code for ladies?

As a matter of fact, I was rooting for the ouster of a President who lied under oath. Many military members, who are sworn to "uphold and defend the Constitution" were thinking the same (as were many Americans). To claim that defending the country from people who want to KILL YOU is somehow akin to sniping at Clinton is a failure to grasps the basis for this discussion! And, if you were waiting for a college to teach you critical thinking skils...well, there's your problem... Are we safer now than we were 4 years ago? Not safe. Just safer. Whose policies got us here? Remeber what this is about. Check out the URL.

The conservatives are such paranoid freeks. Once again claiming that fantasy of a liberal media. When in fact what this was trying do it didn't. It just proved the paranoia of the Right. The other four covers did not attack our troops, most of them rightfully attacked a loser of a president. And the others, Peace is Hell, someone wanna explain how by stating fact about war time is attacking the troops. Spreed to thin? How is that attacking our troops? It's attacking administration policies. Boy the right are such morons.

Sorry, artvandela, the creator of the above piece was not making a left/right political statement. He's a soldier, responding to a year of media exploitation (If I may be so bold, Greyhawk). If you come here claiming insight to the mind of the troops, then you, artvandela, are the one indulging in fantasy.

America's soldiers are doing their chosen (no draft, remember? No one is forcing anyone to join up these days.) and agreed upon duty. The commander in chief is calling the shots. Thus, attacking the "loser of a president" is invalidating everything those soldiers are doing in the interests of keeping US safe. Telling them "I hate everything you're doing and everything you represent" is not really softened by stating "but hey, I don't hate you personally."

Whether the war is right, wrong or a bit of both is irrelevant at this level. If we fail to support our troops, eventually there may come a time when our troops will fail to support us. And then we'll be in neck-deep shit.

America's soldiers are doing their chosen (no draft, remember? No one is forcing anyone to join up these days.) and agreed upon duty. The commander in chief is calling the shots. Thus, attacking the "loser of a president" is invalidating everything those soldiers are doing in the interests of keeping US safe.

Oh, there's some logic. So if the president invaded Pennsylvania and replaced Governor Rendell with Ahmed Chalabi it would be wrong to criticize him because we might need our troops some day?

Your theory says "the president can do anything whatever and it's wrong to criticize him because you might hurt the troops feelings." Well pardon my French, but F that my friend.

Oh for God's sake. Sure, if you want to take it to ridiculous extremes like that -- > -- go right ahead.

Any extension of ANY statement to an extreme level of ridiculous fits.

The only point I tried to make is that whether I agree or disagree with the war, I will support our troops and by extension the president. If the president is doing something like overthrowing governors well that's something we have the constitution to back us up with, isn't it?

Oh, yes - greyhawk, I cant agree more with your cover.

AND as we know the US is full of checks and balances - you can disagree with the president, his policies and the war, as long as you do make the destinction - we (the troops) are trying to accomplish something here. We dont believe we are spending this cold, wet, muddy christmas in Iraq for nothing.

Oh for God's sake. Sure, if you want to take it to ridiculous extremes like that -- go right ahead.
Any extension of ANY statement to an extreme level of ridiculous fits.

No, most statments are much more reasonable than the one you posted and can't be taken to such absurd lengths. You were trying to say you can't support the troops and not support the president. I said yes you can and gave an extreme example. Now that we've established that you CAN, it DOES matter whether or not the President is right or wrong, contrary to your original statement.

You say the constitution backs us up when Bush invades Pennsylvania, but I could say to you "how dare you whine about your Constitutional rights when there's a war on. Support the troops and by extension the president!" and it would sound ridiculous because you only support the president when the president is doing something good. In Pakistan they have rigged referendums to stifle dissent. Here we encourage dissent so that we can double check our actions, and when the dissenters have a point we change our actions.

We don't refrain from dissenting on matters of life and death; that's when dissent is most critical.

I will continue to support our troops and oppose this President's lies about WMD among other things, and be completely consistent in doing so, just like all the Conservatives who complained about Kosovo a few years back. I'm sure you'll reserve the right to complain about a future Democratic administration's military adventures. Consistency, please.

bryguy

Consistency? How about coherency?! When did the Congress authorize the use of force in PA? Did I miss something? Did they have WMDs confirmed by the intelleigence agencies of at least a dozen other countries? Had they violated 17 UN resolutions? WHAT in the hell are you talking about? I believe if you stop just listening to what your loony friends are telling you and actually did a little research on your own, you would discover that the President has acted quite responsibly. Did you want to wait until deployable WMDs struck the US mainland or its allies before you were convinced? Now, within just a week of capturing SH, Iran has agreed to unannounced nuclear inspections and Lybia has agreed to get rid of WMDs (that they previously claimed they didn't have.) Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have accomplished a lot by so effectively executing their tasks. Naysayers that complain UNJUSTIFIABLY about the President's policies encourage our enemies and make our military's job longer and more difficult. TIME has encouraged our enemies by giving an impression that the American people disagree with the present foreign policy. The bad guys use this rhetoric on their recruits -- if they will just wait until the election, the Americans nominate insist on a President who will remove US Troops from Iraq. I'm not going to make some stupid W. Clark statement suggesting that this could already be over, but when the enemy is convinced of the moral certainty that they will be destroyed, they will melt in to the countryside, or yield to the inevitable as did Kadaffi.

I will continue to support our troops and oppose this President's lies about WMD among other things, and be completely consistent in doing so, just like all the Conservatives who complained about Kosovo a few years back. I'm sure you'll reserve the right to complain about a future Democratic administration's military adventures. Consistency, please.

By all means, feel free to complain. I shall indeed feel free to do the same. There's where our similarity will end, however. The difference between you and I will be (that) whether I'm on the dissenting/complaining side or the accepting/defending side, I'll have more than half a clue as to what my stance is and why I believe I am correct. I'll have made my own decisions based on the information available to me (that would be the same information available to you, unless you happen to have some secret source of insider info). And while I may not express myself as eloquently or intellecutally as others, my opinions will at least be my own and not the mindless prattle I've absorbed listening to moonbats.

because you only support the president when the president is doing something good.

At least on that one point, we agree. There's some consistency. And I shall call you on the slip -- by extension of far less ridiculous level, you've just admitted that the present efforts of our president are, in fact, the result of doing something good and thus deserve our support (unlike something silly like invading Pennsylvania -- although, well, it IS just Pennsylvania. Is anybody actually using it?).

Personally, I find it nice to see something good coming from an administration with which I have often disagreed over the last 3 years. But that's just another indication that supporting one's president doesn't ever mean blind acceptance or ignoring wrongdoing.

And as for Mr. or Ms. Clews, well said.

Oh, and just a note for the humorless. Please unknot your panties -- the bit about Pennsylvania and no one using it? That was a tongue in cheek comment. A frivolity, if you will.

Did you want to wait until deployable WMDs struck the US mainland or its allies before you were convinced?

No I wanted to wait until the WMD's existed, long before they were deployable.

When did the Congress authorize the use of force in PA?

You seem to be unclear on the concept of hypotheticals. For the SAKE of ARGUMENT, let's pretend Rendell had some U.N. Resolutions against him. Hell, let's pretend the Senate gave Bush a declaration of war against the Commonwealth of PA. THEN would it be ok to criticize the President? Let's assume also, as is the case in Iraq, that we have a difference of opinion about Rendell's ability to deploy WMD's.

Had they violated 17 UN resolutions?

Did we wait for UN approval before invading? Are we therefore LAWLESS?

Now, within just a week of capturing SH, Iran has agreed to unannounced nuclear inspections and Lybia has agreed to get rid of WMDs

Both of these nations were making such moves before the invasion. But I will concede you one point: punishing someone for a crime they did not commit does deter those who actually have done the crime. It's just an abomination of justice, that's all. None of this defeats my assertion that even if the troops don't like it it's ok for me to criticize the president - we differ about the nature of the war, I just don't want people telling me to shut up because I'm not patriotically correct.

Naysayers that complain UNJUSTIFIABLY about the President's policies encourage our enemies and make our military's job longer and more difficult.
Should I check with the ministry of naysaying to determine whether my honest opinions are patriotically correct first? Should I find a free speech zone far from the ears of soldiers and the media? Your argument begs the question. I believe that my complaints are justified. You're saying BECAUSE we know they're NOT justified it's wrong. Who the F are you to decide who is and isn't entitled to disagree with you?

In fact, had Bush just gotten UN support for his invasion, there would be negligible opposition to the war. The fact is people didn't support it because it was a bad idea, and it doesn't surprise me that this helps our enemies recruiting. A unilateral war based on lies tends to PISS PEOPLE OFF.

If you think wartime dissent should be restricted, you may want to think about a constitutional amendment to repeal the freedom of speech. Maybe then Osama wouldn't be so jealous of our freedom anymore.

By all means, feel free to complain.

That's all I wanted. Thank you for being reasonable.

I will ignore the rest of your insults and bid you a good holiday.

Bryguy, is this "Once upon a time"? Do you live in the land of fairy tales. Your hypothesis leaves a lot to be desired because it fails to provide adequate paralles to the topic at hand.

As for WMDs, we knew Iraq had them because WE GAVE THEN SOME OF THEM! We (and the UN) simply asked Iraq to account for them. So, since you now understand that we had them, I guess Operation Iraqi Freedom is okay with you. Right?

And, since the UN is not in the habit of defending us (or anyone else including Bosnia, Rawanda, Liberia, etc), it is not a wise policy to request their permission to defend ourselves (despite Dr. Dean's opinion). And, since the President was specifically supported by an act of Congress to perform such actions as necessary to protect the Republic from Iraq, I would hardly call it LAWLESS. Also, since the majority of the inhabitants of the country we are liberting are pretty glad we're there, I think your claims of lawlessness ring pretty hollow. I suppose the 300,000 Iraqis that SH is alleged to have murdered were okay with you. Not really your problem. It was okay for their anger to fester against Western Civilization for imposing sanctions on them, while we just "contained Hussein". Meanwhile, the UN passed more sanctions. The people got more angy...

Free speech carries with it the responsibility for truth. Now, we're not often able to check out certain facts firsthand. But, there are many times when we selectively listen to only the facts supporting a particular position. When I say justifiable criticism, I mean criticism based on the whole picture. I know what you wouldn't do. But, what would you DO? What actions would you recommend to make our country and our world safer from these religious zealots? A look at what the President has said, proposed and done is backed up by OUR and OUR allies intelligence agencies. It is not as if he's running around the world personally trying to infiltrate terrorist groups. Sheesh!

The President's job is first and foremost to use the best intelligence and advice he can to protect this country and its citizens. I think he believes that, our service members believe that and they're doing that. I think that TIME's articles undermine that concept (if they're even aware of it) and focus on political sniping.
I encourage debate on solutions, but I detest half-truths in support of an agenda.

Clews,

Get a "clew", man. I was just using that example to disprove the radical statement that wartime dissent is wrong, and for no other purpose. It was just a way of demonstrating that wartime dissent is not ALWAYS wrong- it depands, as you point out so late in the game, on the SPECIFIC SITUATION.

Given that we disagree about the nature of the SPECIFIC SITUATION, dissent is ok.

If Bush's case for war were honest (i.e., based on human rights with a coalition no WMD lies and no funny business with Halliburton et al) I WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED IT IN A HEARTBEAT.

The fact that Saddam was bad doesn't make lying ok any more than the fact that "it was just about sex" did.

Well, I guess that's the rub. If President Bush believed the information coming from this country's intelligence agencies and from those of our allie, there's no lie. You may disagree with the conclusions or methods or whatever, but that's not a lie. To lie requires that one know the truth and then deliberately misrepresent that truth. Bush has not done that.

Did any American claim before the war that Iraq ABSOLUTELY DID NOT HAVE WMDs? If so, I never heard it. So, after years of trying to verify that absence, it was time to guarantee the safety of the Republic. Bush restating intelligence data from his advisors and intelligence agencies, then acting accordingly is hardly lying!

Here's another hypothesis; let's pretend that it was the other way around. Let's pretend that Bush ignored all of this "inconclusive" data. Let's say he demanded proof before action and elected to "contain Hussein" until he had that proof. And, then, if that proof came in the form of a biological agent dispersed in a large city. If hundreds of even thousands died, would Americans beleive that the President acted responsibly to protect us? Of course not. What if we knew about the various intelligence reports that he had received stating otherwise? My guess is that he would be impeached for dereliction of duty if he could last that long without a lynching.

Merry Christmas.

If President Bush believed the information coming from this country's intelligence agencies and from those of our allie, there's no lie.

Good grief, where does the buck stop? He appointed all those advisers and is responsible for their conduct. None of them have been fired. He retaliated against Joseph Wilson when he disagreed with the party line by outing his CIA agent wife.

To lie requires that one know the truth and then deliberately misrepresent that truth. Bush has not done that.

Don't go getting all Clintonian on me. He made it seem that it was absolutely certain that there were WMD's. Everyone remembers the list of chemicals and quantities. Rumsfeld even said we knew where they were. Well, where are they?

If Bush didn't hear any of the criticisms of the intelligence referred to in his SOTU address before the war, he may be grossly negligent rather than being a liar. The president may have advisors, but they sell newspapers just down the street from the White House. A president whose failure to seek alternate perspectives before taking us to war results in the deaths of hundreds of soldiers on false pretenses- well, conservatives are better at imagining punishments for that sort of thing than I am.

Maybe that's why the administration was so mad at Joseph Wilson- the advisors were afraid that the president might pick up a copy of the New York Times and start asking hard questions.

after years of trying to verify that absence,

You forget to mention that we found no reliable evidence to the contrary. Hans Blix was still working on it when we invaded.

If hundreds of even thousands died, would Americans beleive that the President acted responsibly to protect us? Of course not.

Bush has a hard job, and he's not up to it. He does not seem able to tell good intelligence from bad. I've heard the phrase "faith based intelligence" applied to their operation and that's what it seems to be. He doesn't care about the state of our alliances around the world or about establishing principles by which international law can be enforced.

We are not making friends in the Islamic world. By going it alone the U. S. is making itself an even bigger target than it was when 9/11 happened. I do not feel safer from chemical attack than I did before the war. Think about how your logic applies to the citizens of the Islamic world- they are living in fear of a preemptive war that could come at any time, and we've made it clear that we blame states for the actions of individuals, sometimes states that have no connection at all to the terrorists themselves. Should they wait until their nations are Iraqified, or should they just strike now while they still can? Preemptive war is a very dangerous doctrine to endorse.

Finally, if there were WMD's, and we *didn't* find them, I think it's more likely they'll be used now than it was before the war.

Wow! I'm used to dealing with mostly technical and scientific types for the past 30 years of my employment. This is a whole new experience to communicate with a segment of society that just makes up stuff to use as evidence!

I'm sorry, I don't follow the newspaper line at all. I mean, President Bush has said he doesn't read the newspapers. His advisers read them and try to inform him of the facts without the spin. As you say, it's a hard job. Surely you're not suggesting that the newpaper editors (drama kings and queens that they are) are somehow more knowledgeable about our security than federal agencies. If so, maybe we should ask them why THEY didn't warn us of 9-11. Why didn't THEY tell us where HS was hiding. Sure could've saved a lot of time and lives.

As for firing folks, why? On what premise? That you in your omniscient wisdom KNOW that they have misled the President? For one thing, while Bush is responsible for his cabinet and other his political appointees, he is NOT responsible for the hiring and firing within federal agencies. The CIA, DIA, and FBI are such. Their respective supervisors would have to prove (individually) that they were incompetent in order to be fired. Their rights as employees are protected under United States Code, section 5. Remember Travel-gate?

The outing of Wilson's wife was done by Robert Novak. Novak does NOT work for President Bush.

Regarding WMDs. You can't prove a negative. Heh, we knew where HS was too, but he didn't stay put. It took us years to find Eric Rudolph right where we were looking for him, in our own country. Are you saying that UBL doesn't exist because we can't find him? Kind of like peek-a-boo! If you close your eyes, all the bad things in the world will dissapear! But, dammit, open them up again and BOO! (or BOOM!)

And, somehow this post makes your previous post seem less sincere.

If Bush's case for war were honest (i.e., based on human rights with a coalition no WMD lies and no funny business with Halliburton et al) I WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED IT IN A HEARTBEAT.

Yet now you're concerned about making folks in the middle east angry.

We will make terrorists and dissidents angry. I sure don't know how this is all going to play out. But, I will not critcize a President or his policies in matters of national security when I don't have access to his intelligence sources. I did not critize Clinton for bombing the aspirin factory and a tent (at the time).

Until I have adequate evidence to the contrary (not just politically motivated speculation), I'll continue to support our President, his policies, and the brave servicemembers executing our Nation's will. God bless them all on this Christmas Eve.

Wow! I'm used to dealing with mostly technical and scientific types for the past 30 years of my employment. This is a whole new experience to communicate with a segment of society that just makes up stuff to use as evidence!

Wow! Liberals make arguments, conservatives make insults back at them! I'm sure if your reasoning was solid you wouldn't need to attack me personally, it would just detract from the point you were trying to make.

The outing of Wilson's wife was done by Robert Novak. Novak does NOT work for President Bush.

And who did Novak quote then? Himself? A Senior Administration Official telling Novak in the first place was the outing- Novak just facilitated the multiplication of the seriousness of the offense by publishing it. The White House phone logs should make for a very short suspect list unless they all talk to Novak every day. There's a felon in the White House and conservatives don't care.

As for firing folks, why? On what premise?

The mistaken belief expressed by the administration that we knew the exact quantity, nature, and location of the Iraqi WMD's. It is the most colossal intelligence failure of my lifetime and has seriously hampered the credibility of American intelligence and diplomacy for decades to come. Oh, and the felon of course.

And, somehow this post makes your previous post seem less sincere.

You don't know me. How dare you question my sincerity. That's what we call an "ad hominem" attack, which is latin for "my arguments are insufficient without personal attacks" or something like that.

Yet now you're concerned about making folks in the middle east angry.

I'm concerned about the US alone making Mideastern radicals angry. When the rest of the world (or at least a majority under U.N. approval) acts together it's law, not vigilanteism. This is why we settle disputes through the law rather than through lynchings - justice is only credible when it is impersonal.

I will not critcize a President or his policies in matters of national security when I don't have access to his intelligence sources

Then our democracy is in for a bumpy ride. Leaders benefit from the speculative literature developed around known and suspected facts without revealing the nature of their sources. There are cases where limited secrecy is justified, but now that we are in a "Mission Accomplished" state it's time for Bush to show his hand on WMD intelligence, and it turns out he was bluffing the whole time.

Until I have adequate evidence to the contrary (not just politically motivated speculation), I'll continue to support our President,

Let me put it to you this way. The people on the Senate intelligence committee live in the United States. They are privy to (or should be!) the evidence justifying such a war. If the evidence was compelling, this would not be a partisan issue. Remember, they live here and an attack could hit them just as easily as anyone else.

At least four members of the current Senate Inelligence committee, plus Bob Graham who was on at the time, did not vote for the war. This tells me that they were not convinced. If there was bipartisan agreement about this issue I would put more faith in the evidence Bush & pals had. But there was not. Don't you think those folks would look foolish if we actually did find WMD's that posed an imminent threat? They may be political animals but they are not suicidal either literally or in terms of their careers.

Happy xmas folks. Sorry for the long post, it will be my last until after the holiday and perhaps forever, so flame away.

Bravo, Greyhawk! Well done.

As for the other covers not being anti-soldier, remember President Bush is our Commander in Chief. A smear against him smears the military by association.

Didn't mean to bruise your inner child. I get a little passionate when I read folks acuse a President I believe is doing his level best to fulfill his oath of office being constantly attacked as being a liar, an idiot, and as someone who has attacked Iraq so his buddies could get rich. If there was hard evidence of this, it would be an impeachable offense.

I'm pretty sure that the authorization to use force on Iraq was a bipartisan agreement. Of course, that isn't convenient to your argument so you overlook that.

The Mission Accomplished banner was hung by the sailors. And, their mission was accomplished. They were on their way home, having assisted in the historic race to Baghdad. True, it was propabably ill advised for the White House PR folks to allow it to stay (given the tendency of folks of your ilk to make the absolute worst of it.) But, most Americans were proud of what they had accomplished and felt it was a justifiable celebration by the marines and sailors on board. If you heard the speech from the flight deck, President Bush indicated the War was far from over. I think he only declared "an end to major combat operations".

So I shouldn't question your sincerity but you can just sit around hurling insults and nonsense on the Commander-In-Chief. So who are you? Grow up!

As long as you use the newspapers to tell you what to think, you'll be subject to their half-truths and biases.

I'm glad you're so sure that there are no WMDs. You sound like the rest of the Democrats talking about the failed policy to capture HS. But, after he was captured, morons like Dean said, "America is not safer". Good grief! How are we supposed to take you folks seriously? Nothing will ever appease the hatred you have for this President. If we found a cave full of WMDs, you guys would still make up some other lame excuse to criticize. I'm glad you're gone. It's been an interesting (but hopeless) experiment.

Merry Christmas, Greyhawk! Thanks for the super pictures and the bandwidth. Great post!

I knew about Time back in 1984 when I was deployed down to Central America. They were more interested in publishing stories that supported their stance opposing U.S. involvement in the region than in reporting the truth. So this little photo montage just confirms that they haven't changed.

To the "oppose the policy & support the troops" crowd. If you are so opposed to Bush that you are rooting for U.S. policy in Iraq to fail, that means you are rooting for American troops to die, because that's what defeat means.

The longer the fight, the more troops die. The more setbacks in Iraq, the more troops die. Soldiers and Marines have died and will continue to die if the Bush policy suceeds. But more will die if we fail.

If you really want to support the troops, don't gleefully point to the lastest jihadist attack in Iraq as vindication of your belief that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was immoral and that everyone hates the U.S. because of George Bush. Instead, hope that this spasm of violence following Saddam's capture is the last dying gasp of a despicable regime. Then we can get a democratic Iraqi government established and pull our fighting men and women home.

Sorry if i offend people here,
But im afraid "resident" bush is an idiot and a liar. As far as the "liberal media" argument goes, go back to sticking your head in the sand with Rush and Bill. Youll find it more comforting there until Howard Dean kicks all of your asses next year!!!! The Bush league is on its way out, your monkey cant even talk properly!!!! I cant wait until Howard uncovers all the dirty laundry of the Bush family and holds it up for the world to see. W is an embarrassment to all of us, including our boys getting killed over there to make the world safe for Halliburton.
Fuck him and Fuck the republicans!!!

"citizen" writes:

"Fuck him and Fuck the republicans!!!"

If you are looking for a one-party country, you missed the Soviet Union by a few years, but I think communist North Korea or communist China still have openings.

See if you can get in there.

Also, a recent survey indicated 90% of media journalists and editors vote for a particular political party, care to guess what party it was? (Hint: it wasn't Republican)

You may be interested to learn that those crazy liberals at Time Magazine printed yet another embarrasing cover.

Truly shameful.

this thread still active? always interesting to see how wrong all the righties were regarding Iraq especially now that the WMD justification was so blantantly WRONG.

Hi right wing wackos. It's me writing again about six months after the original posting which was a very clever use of some Time magazine covers. Let's look again at those covers in light of what we know about the situation in Iraq. Let's think about what we've learned about the situation and about how perhaps in light of the last few months, Time magazine was incredibly prescient in it's coverage of the war. Who was telling the truth and who had a better command of assessing the situation? Time Magazine? or Dick Cheney, Dr. Rice, Donny Rummy and Friends? I'd vote for Time Magazine.

(I don't mention the Prez cause he is so fucking dumb it doesn't really matter what he thinks anyway.)

Each cover now appears to be incredibly ON TARGET for what has been revealed to be true about the situation. Bush Inc. took you all down the garden path and the media in general ate up his bullshit like it was bowl full of M&M's.

Hey Greyhawk....still have that big printout of the Time covers up on your wall???? Ha ha ha...ha ha ha...ha ha ha....what a loser you are.

Your mudsville title is quite correct, but it should be "seemingly" peaceful but wicked men sleep soundly because they have rough men..

Time Warner sucks, especially in Minneapolis. Mr. Parsons and Mr. Feyen, the top two execs were barely cleared of Fraud charges. The Courts decisions were clearly based on Political clout than on evidence, as Retirees were swindled out of their savings.

I had Time Warner Business Class service in Minneapolis for five years, four was spotless Cable TV, nice broadband to the internet, and the ability to host my own server inexpensively.

When Parsons and Feyen took over, it all began to unravel in typical Corporate American Style. They let go, fired or cut staff that knew how to deal with technical issues. They hired Convergys, a call center operation, which hires people off the street for $5 and hour in Ottawa. So you are no longer talking to A: A Time Warner rep B: Someone who remote and barely knows how to tie their own shoes. Case in point, I argued with a guy whose screen name was GI JOE.

Your big fat cable bill is loading someone's pockets and not going into the service I hear in here. Time Warner "service" people missed on siz occassions, a failing amphilpher and Co-Axial cable going to in my home. They kept replacing terrible Zyxel Cable Modems that were used somewhere else, repaired, and palmed off on me as NEW. Imagine their indifference when they did this 'fix' and it did not work.

You are not getting anything approaching high tech gear, but old, used, behind the times cable boxes, modems and whatever is bouncing around Installers trucks at the time.

You should A: Ask if you are speaking to a Call Center person. Federal Law forbids them to lie, but they will. Ask them for their address. If they report they are Convergys or not in your area, keep calling the Time Warner office in your area until you reach someone accountable. Mr. Parsons is CEO of Time Warner Inc of Minnesota.

B: Dispute all charges for service work done. Ask the birthdate for all equipment installed in your home. It is Fraud to charge you for problematic equipment and pass the charges on your bill as NEW equipment. Even if they dont charge you but for the service, demand why you are getting repeated problems in the same area.

C: The Public Utilities Commission has no direct control over cable operations. But they must answer to complaints, since the cable line is a utility line. Find out the mandatory height of cable lines, and if, like me, you find your line on the ground, or even under the roof line, it is probably illegal. Complain loudly.

Complaints should drive out lousy competitors for superior ones like Comcast or Dish providers or WI-FI providers if you use Time Warner for internet access. I spoke to many people whom all have problems with Time Warner. Its about money, of course. If they have to steal from retirees, then you are not getting the service your $100 a month? $150 a month? bill you are enttitled to.

So think about what kind of equipment you have near your computer or your set top box on your TV before you curse out the "programming" or speed issues. You could have a very old cable from the Pole, a bad connector no one bothered to check, a used or abused modem/set top box. All so people like Mr. Parsons can stuff his pockets till the game is up.

And your wallet is emptied.

Thank you for your time.

Remember ladies and gents,

Her Majestys forces are out there to. We will carry on even if you will, with hollywoods help, attempt to write us out of the history books (see 'Saving Private Ryan'). Policy is for politicians and we can change those at election time. Politics is not a soldiers job, soldiering is, political soldiers are a bad idea (see the SS).

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

From Kiplings 'Tommy' 1892'.