"Tell the truth, tell it often, tell the children" and other propaganda in kids books.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: jaffo
I'm sorry but I have absolutely no recollection of that whatsoever. None. Once talk of it started, yes revenge came up among many people. But when he was elected? No, it was not being talked about as I recall.

After he was elected it was all people could talk about. The drums of war started right away, if anything 9/11 delayed the attack on Iraq.

Note that all of this was later confirmed by Bush's administration who have said goal #1 on him taking office was to attack Iraq it was just a question of how to make such an attack legal.

During the election itself from what I remember (I was only 17 during the campaign and didn't follow politics all that heavily) all the talk centered around Bush's stimulus plan. Vote for him and get a few hundred dollars.

Show me proof that the Administration ever said that. And I want to make it clear, as I have many times before, that I DID NOT vote for that man and that I think the entire administration should be tried for treason due to their ineptitude as to Iraq. But them "admitting that invading Iraq was their number one goal"? Absolutely not. Lay proper blame where it lies, but don't stretch the truth to do so. Was bringing him in compliance with UN mandates a goal? Absolutely. Shoudl it have been? Absolutely. But a "goal" of invading Iraq? No.

a reply to: jaffo

I'll have to find it, some high level people in his administration have said as much in interviews. If I get the time I'll look it up.

I'm aware of the UN mandates as well, if you want to be technical about it Saddam violated the terms of surrender and we were legally obligated to go back into Iraq and remove him from power, there were something like 27 articles he was in violation of and some of them were pretty major ones. But if we want to be more realistic about things, while he was in violation of those terms he was keeping peace in the region and that's worth a lot. How much has been spent, how many have died, and how much influence elsewhere in the world has the west given up as a result of committing to Iraq? There was a gigantic opportunity cost to going back in.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Observationalist

That image is downright creepy. Looking through the thread you linked it from (I wasn't aware of this image) it seems it was copyrighted in October 2001. That means it was likely submitted for copyright before 9/11 which means it was drawn before 9/11.

The only thing I don't understand in that image is the soccer ball.

Ya, we dissected that image apart. It's been a while but I believe the soccer ball represents the pentagon.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: jaffo

I'll have to find it, some high level people in his administration have said as much in interviews. If I get the time I'll look it up.

I'm aware of the UN mandates as well, if you want to be technical about it Saddam violated the terms of surrender and we were legally obligated to go back into Iraq and remove him from power, there were something like 27 articles he was in violation of and some of them were pretty major ones. But if we want to be more realistic about things, while he was in violation of those terms he was keeping peace in the region and that's worth a lot. How much has been spent, how many have died, and how much influence elsewhere in the world has the west given up as a result of committing to Iraq? There was a gigantic opportunity cost to going back in.

Absolutely. But which is worse? Allowing atrocities in the name of peace? Or going in and removing the guy to give the people of his Nation a chance to rule their own affairs through democracy? I say the former. And if the people can't handle democracy, that is not on me or the U.S. It's on them for acting like crazy people. As to the allegation of their "plans" to invade, I'm fairly certain you will find no such statement by anyone who was in power. Would be a pretty stupid thing to say, and maybe even one leading to serious prosecutions for some people, even were it true.

a reply to: jaffo

I think that we don't live in an ideal world, sometimes you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Would it be nice if the middle east practiced our form of government and was stable? It sure would, but sometimes you need to let the lesser atrocity happen in favor of preventing the bigger one.

Here's some quotes on Iraq.

First, Oct. 11, 2000 during the presidential debates.
www.debates.org...

MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?

GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.

BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.

MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?

BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

Second, Dec. 19, 2000. Where Clinton is getting Bush up to speed for the job.
www.historycommons.org...

Clinton gives Bush his list of his top five priorities. At the top of the list is dealing with Osama bin Laden. Clinton also discusses the tensions between Pakistan and India, who are threatening each other with nuclear strikes; the crisis in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine; he discusses North Korea; and he discusses Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Bush shakes Clinton’s hand after Clinton wraps up his presentation, and says, "Thanks for your advice, Mr. President, but I think you’ve got your priorities wrong. I’m putting Saddam at the top of the list."

Feb. 7, 2001, George Tenet then director of the CIA speaking to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
usiraq.procon.org...

"Our most serious concern with Saddam Hussein must be the likelihood he will seek a renewed WMD capability both for credibility and because every other strong regime in the region either has it or is pursuing it. For example, the Iraqis have rebuilt key portions of their chemical production infrastructure for industrial and commercial use. The plants he is rebuilding were used to make chemical weapons precursors before the Gulf War and their capacity exceeds Iraq's needs to satisfy civilian requirements.

We have similar concerns about other dual-use research, development, and production in the biological weapons and ballistic missile fields; indeed, Saddam has rebuilt several critical missile production complexes."

Paul Oneill in 2004 speaking of his time early in the Bush administration, in the interview for his book. At the time he was the Treasury Secretary and member of the National Security Council.
www.cbsnews.com...

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.

Is that enough sources?

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Those illustrations flashed me back to this ancient thread Strange Exam Paper Illustration - What Do You See?

I'm fairly certain it was confirmed this illustration was published before 9/11/2001

Blocks spell Armageddon, two towers airplane, box cutter....etc
Interesting thread. Also happens to be the first thread I ever posted on.

Here is a pretty good analysis of the whole caboodle in that picture. Just about everything and more has significance.
Artistic work is attributed to Ben Frost. If the picture is not clear, and since the ATS preview is not available I will post the file link after I post anyway. Use the magnifier.



files.abovetopsecret.com...

The boy's shoes are quite significant given the time period, and they do resemble someone who wasn't/was in charge at the time, (perhaps hence the two representations, as well as lefty and righty) and was from a far off land, and I don't mean OBL.
How Frost, also from a far off, (different) land, got this together in the time frame is more creepy than the picture itself.

what makes children questione the Easter Bunny ? telling them about it in the first place.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Kram09


Please do not say it's freedom of speech because we have that in England.

Certainly one of the most comical statements I have seen here in a good while.

It probably is less propaganda and more about somebody making a quick buck making an simple book that adults will pick up.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

it's never too early to teach (read indoctrinate) the kids.

a reply to: Observationalist

Dear OB....this picture is very disturbing.....what year did you first see it?

NMH

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Yes! I would never let my child have something like this. Life is hard enough nowadays. They shouldn't have to worry about this. The poor babies have plenty of monsters under the bed to worry about already. They have the whole rest of their life to learn about it.

I remember hearing about nuclear war & mutually assured destruction when I was about 10 or 11, for many years after, that was a fear that was constantly with me. Nightmares , panic attacks, the whole nine.

Let the children be happy & innocent & unafraid for as long as possible.

A straightforward factual account for the most part. The four dictators though, they didn't have much to do with terrorists. Gaddhafi blew up a plane, that was it. Assad is fighting ISIS. Hussein didn't sponsor any terrorists. I'm sure the "truthers" will blow a gasket over this, though, LOL. Really coloring-book age kids have little interest in this kind of thing.
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I don't think the sketch of the kids to be anything extraordinarily insightful, just a bunch of narrative symbols lumped together, as has been done for 1000s of years by artists....just in a less crude manner.

files.abovetopsecret.com...


As a side note, as soon as Jeb-Jeb peers out from under a rock for the presidential campaign, 911 questions will start flying again. (pun intended)

This is so disturbing I can't believe this was published! Pretty sick individual to actually draft it up. I was thinking no way someone wants kids to color in the planes crashing and the flames and people jumping to their death?? His youtube video has a lot of dislikes. I hope he receives ample negative attention to the point that he stops selling/producing more copies and he removes all the current copies from the shelves. S&F Great catch.