It's 8:45 p.m., Wednesday, April 9, 2003. I just got back from having a happy hour burger at my local tavern, and I must have seen the Saddam statue come down a dozen times in half an hour. Seeing as how I get most of my news online, I've missed the impact of such live military theater events on television.
Now that the wave of euphoria has passed, however, let's see if there are any embedded journalists who are going to find out which commanding officer orchestrated both the statue pulldown [so like an endzone celebration] and the near simultaneous unfurling of hundreds of American flags in the hands of grateful Iraqis.
Questions like these make journalists uncomfortable. Why? Because it implicates the journo in tacitly exposing the man behind the curtain.
Journo: "Excuse me General, but which of your officers is responsible for manipulating us into broadcasting the exultation of your triumph?"
Not that I mind, of course. Today's celebrations in the streets represent psychological warfare at its finest — the tipping point, if you will, where the world at large must mumble their mea culpas in Bush and Blair's general direction.
Think about two things for a minute. Does anybody think a whole bunch of Iraqis had those American flags stockpiled for the day no one thought would ever come?
And does anybody think a couple of privates, a corporal and Sgt. Bilko just commandeered a ladder truck to pull the statue down? No way, the two events were blocked and blueprinted and whoever came up with the idea is ready for another star. Or two.
So, blogging friends, if you read this, and come across any news reports that identify the officers behind April 9's military-media theater, please post them in comments below this essay.
It will be interesting to see which news organizations do it first, and which ones follow. And which ones spin it the way they see the war.
Article comments
1 - Tom Johnson
I don't doubt for a moment that our troops in Iraq happily handed out those American flags, but the tearing down of Saddam's statue? You really reveal that you definitely did not watch that on the news this morning, as I did. I sat mesmerized for 45 minutes before I had to leave for work this morning, watching exuberant Iraqis vent their frustration on this giant bronze likeness of Saddam. They pounded and wailed, climbed on it, pushed, but it wasn't coming down. Americans were present but didn't intervene until it was obvious the Iraqis wanted it down and couldn't possibly do it themselves. They called in an M-88 recovery vehicle, which is basically a tank tow-truck, hooked up a chain, and yanked it down.
Not everything has to be a conspiracy, people.
2 - Dallas Maverick
Exactly Tom. Believe it or not, this guy's anger goes all the way back to the 2000 election, which Bush won legitimately. I know I'll get blasted for that comment, but before anyone says anything, the object of the election is to win the Electoral College (and yes, it has come out that Bush would have won Florida anyway), not the popular vote (also, the object of a recount is to reaffirm election results, not to see if someone can pick up more votes). It has been that way for over 200 years. I guarantee that if the tables were turned, conservatives would not have held a grudge for this long.
Now, in response to the article; to quote the movie 13 Days,"What is it about the free world that pisses the rest of the world off?" I mean, really, what is it about Iraqis gaining their freedom that liberals loathe? It couldn't be that they gained it while Bush was in office, oh no. If this happened under Clinton, or Gore (I'm glad I only have to imagine), the media would be a lot more upbeat, not reporting every five minutes that we are losing the war. They wouldn't be calling the scene of thousands of Iraqis dragging Saddam's head through the streets of Baghdad staged. So I ask, what is it about freedom that liberals cannot stand?