Hey, InMarin. Thanks for handling this one. And thanks for posting the pics that inspired this article.

As far as this being a spontaneous gesture, I would think the presence of the flag that flew over the Pentagon on 9-11 in Baghdad would rule out spontaneity. That flag sponteously arrived in Baghdad?

That someone with enough power at the Pentagon ordered that flag taken overseas and into Baghdad (and that we've seen no disavowal of this bizarre choice) I think more than makes the point I was highlighting in the essay--that we're a deeply troubled nation.

If that flag would have been taken to the heart of Al Qaeda headquarters in Afghanistan, that action would have been merely immature--there would at least be a symmetry to it, a kind of logic of retribution.

But Baghdad? Baghdad? Such an action doesn't even have the logic of retribution going for it. It's like the guy who goes on a killing spree at his place of work in response to problems with his wife. It's not just brutal--there's a puzzling kind of insanity to it as well. Why did he kill them? Even he doesn't know. But at the time, it made sense to his disordered brain.

I asked elsewhere too, but might as well ask again. Is there any information that indicates when this photo was taken? I haven't been able to find any information on this. Looking at photos and clips of the statue coming down, it looks earlier in the day than this.

UPDATE: Ben Logman has some screenshots of the BBC coverage of the statue toppling as well as some real-time commentary on his blog.

Now it could be that the soldiers surrounding the square weren't letting anyone through, but your Indymedia shot is not far off, even if half the people had left. The BBC did pan in and out during quiet periods because it turned around a couple of times to look at some ministry in flames. The crowd was always quite modest.

http://www.right-thinking.com/comments.php?id=P1118_0_1_0

There is also a link to OxBlog's take on the pictures, if you care to look it over.

THe BBC link didn't work.

It really upsets you all that most networks used close-ups to get the drama of the statue falling as is common. How come you haven't written an article about CNN's dereliction of journalistic duty?

Wow, some people will try anything to sway opinion.

So what if the US went in and toppled every statue around and put American flags on them while doing so? Does that then make Iraqi civilians somehow compelled to then start throwing garbage at the statues, break them to pieces, hit them with shoes, then drag the heads around?

Gee wiz. Isn't it tragic to be so wrong that you have to try to nitpick every detail of every situation that doesn't go the way you were so sure it would? I bet you think that US troops gave each person $50 to take part.

I'm sure in your neighborhood there would be many thousands of people out in the streets immediately after a direct military action when the outcome could not yet have been determined.

With the "journalists" of the BBC, Al Jizzeara, and CNN repeating to anyone who could hear them the same Saddam propaganda as they've been hearing for 20 years, it's amazing there was even one person brave enough to walk out in the streets and dismantle that statue.

The fact that this happened at all is simply amazing. And it is great.

rw,

You wrote:

"Isn't it tragic to be so wrong that you have to try to nitpick every detail of every situation that doesn't go the way you were so sure it would?"

well, you (inmartin) misunderstood me again (big surprise). i said you MIGHT AS WELL sit at home and "debate" with no one seeing as you are fixed in your ways. so to say "what am i doing right now" is pretty pointless since i said might as well. also, i'm not at home, fyi, i can't afford a computer right now, so whenever i'm on here i'm at school or work. but i digress.

my point is such (which you still haven't addressed) it doesn't matter whether it was premeditated or not (which you haven't PROVEN that it was [it takes more than saying something is proven for it to be so])that still doesn't point out some "disturbed" state of the US. it wasn't neccessarily about revenge. (side note, i think that the al quada camps they found in iraq DID prove that if not supporting the group, saddam was at least allowing it [and he DID support terrorist against isreal, what's the diff?]) personally i think that that flag was a simbol of everything america stands for. i don't know about you, but i think that 9/11 was america's finest hour. it showed what the US is all about. we didn't collapse because of it, we came together. people died to try to save lives (instead of dying to take lives like our enemies). that flag is about the strength of freedom and democracy.

however, because you don't like bush and didn't agree with the war you have to pick these points (which ARE reletively small) to pieces to make it look like you were right (which you were very far from). you say that these facts shouldn't be hidden??? when did i ever say that they should??? all i said was that it's very obvious that you get a sick pleasure out of things going wrong in iraq because you'd rather be right. bringing up points and discussing them is different than focusing on only the downside just because you're anti-bush (or anti-american).

you say that i am a name-caller. well, i don't know what calling me ignorant and willingly un-informed, which is implied by telling me to read a newspaper, is. i don't only watch fox news. i'm not even "right-wing." i like to think independently rather than follow blindly one side or the other and label myself. by the by, i read the washington post (which is pretty LEFT leaning) everyday. i'm sure i meant to say more, but that's all i can remember now.

[note: if this seems a little disjointed, i'm sorry, but, like i said, i'm at work, so i'v had to write this off and on and it's hard to keep a train of thought]