NarrBL: Well, food is natural at marathon meetings, corporate, church social, or elsewhere, isn't it? And not many cookies are eaten...
It's natural this presentation should have been a lightning rod for much ill feeling, but it seems worth remembering that these images are from the immediate phase of a catastrophe, not anything about later actions taken.
In particular, if you look into who is being pictured in the whole photo set on flickr, the most prominent are two high-powered public relations consultants, there certainly to advise on how to communicate to the local nation, and who have a lot of conversation with Condoleeza Rice, the most alert and also emotional at times person shown.
In the photos chosen for DPReview's mini-article, Cheney is shown as contemplative, which his history suggests has been a big role, as an answers man; but in the real photo set, he is constantly on the telephone, constantly, turning aside to listen or join into the discussions Rice is holding.
No, Clinton didn't and there's a big difference between air attacks, which Clinton had continued as an extension of the first gulf war of 1991, and the term "invade", and I was real careful to use the word "invading".
acidic: I think Dick Cheney should take Donald Trump on a hunting trip.
I don't think that The Donald would apologize to Cheney for getting himself shot.
The Clinton administration had no particular interest in invading Iraq, nor did the first Bush of administration of 1989 to 1993; Cheney who was defense secretary at the time even said so.
You've confused some idiots in the US, in the later 1990s, including Cheney, with some broad national wish.
No, those urges were 48 hours later.
That's hardly "later".
The invasion was later--after the fall 2002 sales pitch.
Smitty1: From reading many of the comments about these photos, most of which are not about these photos, I'd say most of you will be getting Mr. Cheney coal for Christmas.
And it seems the quickest way to see which political side on which the viewership is leaning is simply to post a few photos of Dick Cheney and let the comments fly! We seem to be leaning hard left at the moment.. didn't take long to meet Godwin's Law.
"There were also no "lies" told to the country. Saddam was refusing to work with U.N. Inspectors"
This is an example of you lying.
Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld all lied publicly about the reasons for invading Iraq. (And so did others.)
The UN "regulations" were an excuse. And you've fallen for it.
Except within days Cheney and Rumsfeld were pushing to bomb Iraq in meetings regarding this attack.
Steve in GA: Looking through the comments here, I'm struck by depth of the depth of the vitriol. Apparently, few of the commenters saw these pictures and simply paused to remember that awful day and the 3,000 people that died.
The first viceroy that Bush installed (Jay Garner) didn't start selling off the country and didn't disband the Iraqi army and stop paying them.
And he was working with the State Department at rebuilding things like the Iraqi parliament.
So even though he was in a mess that Bush Cheney made with little or no knowledge of Iraq, Garner was making the right choices.
Needless to say he lasted about 5 weeks in the job before being replaced by the fool Bremer.
Daniel L: Nothing but a war profiteer.
No, you got caught lying.
mpgxsvcd: I understand why people still buy Canon DSLRs because they have so many Canon lenses that they don’t want to get rid of. However, I don’t understand buying a compact fixed lens camera from Canon when the competition is so obviously superior.
I am sure this is a fine camera. However, gaining the 400-600mm range is not worth giving up almost everything else that would make your picture quality and shooting experience better.
The one thing this camera has going for it is the Canon name. Otherwise it simply can’t match what everyone else offers.
Thanks, I've used both though.
So I'm not going to bother with reviews.
No "it" is not. See the soft, when open, 50mm Zeiss 1.4.
No, you really need to stop lying about X, Y, and Z. Just like Cheney, dad and daughter, need to stop lying.
Softness of a lens is not the entirety of a lens' quality.
The LX100, of course that's a better pick. But I didn't bring it up.
The G7X is an excellent stills camera, in some regards better than the Sony RX100III, it's got a better lens, and the Sony RX100III has plenty good lens.
The G7X is a better high ISO camera.
For a jpeg only still shooter, I'd pick the Canon.
Ah, yes, because the Moony owned/run Washington Times is so trustworthy and it's been correct so often, not.
And even if that paper were somehow correct, the US still illegally invaded Iraq, and had no plan for the occupation except selling off Iraq to friends of Cheney--separately illegal.
It wasn't Nazi Germany taxing big business so much; it was big business running the Nazis.
And communist governments own the means of production.
You really need to start reading more than Glenn Beck.
Steve in GA:
I don't need to be reminded that a bit more than 2700 people died that day.
And I don't have to pause to remember that fact.
I'm note the fact daily. As I note the fact of Cheney's crimes.
Stop quoting Glenn Beck, it's massively well evidenced that the Nazis had massive corporate backing, that's not socialism.
Indeed learn to free your mind from Beck and the John Birch Society.
Nazis sure did a lot more killing with conscious intent in just 5 years than your accusations about communism.
SirSeth: Oh look, the guy that should be in jail for lawlessly trampling on 4th amendment rights.
No, it's not "whatever", you remain wrong on significant subjects of grave import.
Subjects a lot more important that the capacities of the newest sensor from Sony or the newest lens for Fuji. Screw these up and you screw up the world big time.
Snowden needs spying on, why what felony do you think he committed? In other words what is your justification on your warrant application?
Oh right, they (Obama/Cheney/Bush) decided to do away with that.
Pollard is a convicted spy.
Sure I can think of laws that Manning may have broken, but he revealed US crimes in Iraq. Kind of a bigger deal that one. He should never have been prosecuted, since he didn't reveal any real secret--just ass covering by a thug contractor and the US military.
Tape5: So much mean baseless diatribe aimed at Cheney, his colleagues and the Americans here.
Look up "baseless".
And I say that as an US citizen living in the US.
Like a lot of your ilk, you've ignored the fact that Bush first caused the civil war in Iraq.
And then Bush negotiated an USA withdrawal over the course of 2007.
Then you've ignored the fact that the Obama administration attempted to negotiate exactly what you say. But for obvious reasons the Iraqis would have none of it. We'd already destroyed their country.
Mostly because the USA (Bush/Cheney) had done zero planning for an occupation at the time of the 2003 invasion.