H.S. Teacher Creates Deck Of Cards Questioning War In Iraq
POSTED: 7:01 a.m. EDT July 15, 2003
SAN FRANCISCO -- A high school teacher, fed up with the Bush administration's playing cards featuring Saddam Hussein, "Chemical Ali" and other most-wanted Iraqis, is now selling her own deck, "Operation Hidden Agenda."
Kathy Eder's 55 cards show pictures of the president, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others along with quotes, mostly from journalists, questioning the rationale for the U.S.-led war. The backs of the cards feature a 1983 photograph of Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand.
Eder, 42, said she decided to create her own plastic-coated propaganda in March as a comeback to the "messages of hate" contained in the cards the Department of Defense issued to help U.S. troops identify suspected war criminals.
The $9.95 deck of cards are being made by Texas-based Liberty Playing Cards, one of the companies that prints the government's "Most Wanted" cards.
Once the product became available online and at a few bookstores, Eder said she sold 3,000 decks in three weeks. She's already placed a second order for 5,000 decks.
Eder has pledged to donate half her profits to five nonprofit organizations that promote nonviolence and provide aide to Gulf War veterans and Iraqis.
Bush Is High Card In 'Hidden Agenda' Deck
Cards Highlight Bush Administration
POSTED: 9:07 a.m. EDT July 15, 2003
SAN FRANCISCO -- High school teacher Kathy Eder is stacking the deck -- against the Bush administration.
She's created a deck of cards of her own, taking a cue from the Pentagon. But instead of featuring Iraq's must-wanted, Eder's cards have pictures and comments critical of administration officials. (Iraq's Most-Wanted Cards)
The San Jose, Calif., teacher says her "Hidden Agenda" cards are not hateful, but factual.
In Eder's version, President George W. Bush is the ace of spades with the title, "Dictator of the World."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is shown in a 1983 picture shaking Saddam Hussein's hand. Eder said she's sold 3,000 of her Hidden Agenda decks, and has ordered another 5,000.
H.S. Teacher Creates Deck Of Cards Questioning War In Iraq
Moderator: S2k Moderators
-
therock1811
- Category 5
- Posts: 5163
- Age: 39
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 2:15 pm
- Location: Kentucky
- Contact:
It makes me mad.-
wx247
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 14279
- Age: 41
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 10:35 pm
- Location: Monett, Missouri
- Contact:
As long as the woman is not using them in school as a propaganda tool... more power to her. Personally, I don't need any new playing cards! 
0 likes
Personal Forecast Disclaimer:
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or storm2k.org. For official information, please refer to the NHC and NWS products.
-
WidreMann
It was their country and they didn't ask us to come. Many of them are happy that we invaded, and many are not, even those who didn't like Saddam either as he was the lesser of two evils. But they don't owe us anything, and frankly, I am not at all surprised they are killing soldiers on a weekly basis or shorter. Freeing other countries from evil dictators has not been a general policy of the US (occasional, but always incoherent), and wasn't even for this war until it was clear the WMD argument was built on sand and so another reason to go in was offered, namely, to get rid of an evil dictator. What does amaze me is how many people were spoonfed nonsense and continue to swear by the President who BS'ed the American public and the world in general and has caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands.I'm also tired of the Iraqis saying "Get out of our country." We freed their butts! It makes me mad.
0 likes
-
chadtm80
It was their country and they didn't ask us to come. Many of them are happy that we invaded, and many are not, even those who didn't like Saddam either as he was the lesser of two evils. But they don't owe us anything, and frankly, I am not at all surprised they are killing soldiers on a weekly basis or shorter. Freeing other countries from evil dictators has not been a general policy of the US (occasional, but always incoherent), and wasn't even for this war until it was clear the WMD argument was built on sand and so another reason to go in was offered, namely, to get rid of an evil dictator. What does amaze me is how many people were spoonfed nonsense and continue to swear by the President who BS'ed the American public and the world in general and has caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands
GIve me a break... So have you placed your order for your anti american cards yet wildermann? Well you havent made a post that ticked me off in a while.. I knew that would come to an end
0 likes
-
WidreMann
To be honest, I actually rather want to get the Iraqi leader cards.GIve me a break... So have you placed your order for your anti american cards yet wildermann?
And I really wish you über-consies would get over the fact that people who disagree with the government's policy are NOT anti-americans. I'm surprised given the grief you guys gave Clinton for just about everything he did, including what should have been something between him, Hillary and Monica.
0 likes
-
chadtm80
-
WidreMann
-
streetsoldier
- Retired Staff
- Posts: 9705
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Under the rainbow
WidreMann....is this line of discourse really necessary? I think not...you seem to enjoy using any pretext at all to inflame people here, and may I strongly suggest taking a sabbatical?
If you have bothered to read the posts here of late (which I seriously doubt), we are already brimming with problems; we don't need more fuel on the fire. Drop it.
If you have bothered to read the posts here of late (which I seriously doubt), we are already brimming with problems; we don't need more fuel on the fire. Drop it.
0 likes
-
JetMaxx
-
mf_dolphin
- Category 5
- Posts: 17758
- Age: 68
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: St Petersburg, FL
- Contact:
LOL JetMaxx. Widremann, for someone so young you have a finely tuned sense of exageration. What President Clinton did with Monica was done at his place of work with a subordinate. Ask any adult, that gets people fired everyday in the real world. As far as the deck of cards, a HS teacher should at least be accurate. To label President Bush a Dictator is both inaccurate and disrespectful to the office he holds. The facts are he was elected in accordance with the laws of the United States. The vast majority of the US Congress supported his actions. This include the Democratic members of the Intelligence Oversite Committee. These people had access to the exact same intelligence information that the President did. Why don't you subject those people to the same blasting?
As far as Saddam's WMD, we've beat that issue to death. He had them and they will be found. Your failure to acknowledge the facts that they existed exposes your arguement and a conservative bashing liberal ploy. Nothing more....
As far as Saddam's WMD, we've beat that issue to death. He had them and they will be found. Your failure to acknowledge the facts that they existed exposes your arguement and a conservative bashing liberal ploy. Nothing more....
0 likes
-
Stephanie
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 23843
- Age: 63
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
- Location: Glassboro, NJ
The Buck Stops There
Bush shifts the blame for his Iraq whopper.
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, July 14, 2003, at 3:31 PM PT
When George W. Bush ran for president, one of his big selling points was responsibility. Americans were tired of Bill Clinton's fudges and legalisms. They were tired of hearing that the latest falsehood was part of a larger truth, or that it was OK because the president had attributed it to somebody else, or that the country should "move on." Bush promised to end all that. He promised an "era of responsibility" in which leaders and citizens would no longer "blame somebody else."
This month, Bush was given a chance to make good on those promises. In his State of the Union address earlier this year, he told Americans, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But in March, the International Atomic Energy Agency debunked the only public documentation for that claim. And on July 6, a U.S. emissary who had been sent to Niger to check out the principal basis of the claim disclosed in the New York Times that he
What do Bush and his aides have to say about this?
1. It's the CIA's fault. On Friday, in a joint briefing with White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice emphasized that the CIA had "cleared" Bush's speech. In case anyone missed the point, Rice repeated it nine times verbatim and another eight times indirectly. Hours later, a reporter asked Bush, "Can you explain how an erroneous piece of intelligence on the Iraq-Niger connection got into your State of the Union speech? Are you upset about it, and should somebody
CIA Director George Tenet took a different approach. He didn't blame CIA underlings who had cleared the speech. "I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency," he said.
The honorable step for Bush—who had often promised to restore honor to the White House—would have been to follow Tenet's example by declaring, "I am responsible for the approval process in my administration." Instead, Fleischer told reporters on Saturday, "The President is pleased that the Director of Central Intelligence acknowledged what needed to be acknowledged. … The President said that line because it was based on information from the intelligence community, and the speech was vetted." On Sunday,
2. It's the speechwriters' fault. The intelligence reports on which the claim was based were "given to the speech writers; they wrote it," Rice pleaded on Fox News Sunday. When asked on Face the Nation how the line got into Bush's speech, Rice described the process this way: "A text is created." Tenet agreed that the line "should never have been included in the text written for the President." True, every president relies on speechwriters. But if presidents get the credit for good lines (and, as in the cas
3. It's true that Britain said it. Rice went on three of the five Sunday talk shows to insist that the uranium line "was indeed accurate. The British government did say that." On the other two shows, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld likewise argued that the line was "technically correct" and "technically accurate." When Bush ran for president, he derided Bill Clinton for failing to correct the statement by Clinton's lawyer, Bob Bennett, that "there is no sexual relationship" between Clinton and Monica Lew
It's also now OK to hedge your language just enough to avoid clear falsehood. According to Tenet, CIA "officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed." By all accounts, the change consisted of attributing the statement to Britain. On Sunday, Rice assured CNN viewers that "had there been a request to take that [line] out in its entirety, it would hav
4. It's part of a larger truth. On Wednesday, Bush was asked whether he still believed that Saddam had sought "to buy nuclear materials in Africa.' Bush reframed the question in broader terms: "I am confident that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program." On Saturday, Fleischer added: "A greater, more important truth is being lost in the flap over whether or not Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. The greater truth is that nobody, but nobody, denies that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclea
5. It's time to move on. "The President has moved on. And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on as well," Fleischer told reporters Saturday, without apparent irony.
Rice's comments raise several additional questions. In her briefing with Fleischer, she said twice that the CIA cleared the speech "in its entirety." But according to Tenet, the CIA received only "portions" of the draft. On Late Edition, Rice claimed that "the Agency did not react to [the] statement" about uranium during the vetting. On Face the Nation, she added, "Had there been even a peep that the agency [CIA] did not want that sentence in … it would have been gone." Neither comment squares with Tenet'
It's fitting that Fleischer asks us to move on from the uranium story as he prepares to move on to a new career in the private sector. We'd like to move on, too, Ari. It's just that when it comes to presidential responsibility, we seem to be moving in circles.
I have to agree with this. It's not that it is something new that intelligence has turned out to be wrong, inaccurate, etc. but I really feel like we were hell bent on getting our a$$es into Iraq one way or another. Going to war is serious and information that is used to support a cause, IMHO, should be checked, rechecked and checked again.
Bush shifts the blame for his Iraq whopper.
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, July 14, 2003, at 3:31 PM PT
When George W. Bush ran for president, one of his big selling points was responsibility. Americans were tired of Bill Clinton's fudges and legalisms. They were tired of hearing that the latest falsehood was part of a larger truth, or that it was OK because the president had attributed it to somebody else, or that the country should "move on." Bush promised to end all that. He promised an "era of responsibility" in which leaders and citizens would no longer "blame somebody else."
This month, Bush was given a chance to make good on those promises. In his State of the Union address earlier this year, he told Americans, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But in March, the International Atomic Energy Agency debunked the only public documentation for that claim. And on July 6, a U.S. emissary who had been sent to Niger to check out the principal basis of the claim disclosed in the New York Times that he
What do Bush and his aides have to say about this?
1. It's the CIA's fault. On Friday, in a joint briefing with White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice emphasized that the CIA had "cleared" Bush's speech. In case anyone missed the point, Rice repeated it nine times verbatim and another eight times indirectly. Hours later, a reporter asked Bush, "Can you explain how an erroneous piece of intelligence on the Iraq-Niger connection got into your State of the Union speech? Are you upset about it, and should somebody
CIA Director George Tenet took a different approach. He didn't blame CIA underlings who had cleared the speech. "I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency," he said.
The honorable step for Bush—who had often promised to restore honor to the White House—would have been to follow Tenet's example by declaring, "I am responsible for the approval process in my administration." Instead, Fleischer told reporters on Saturday, "The President is pleased that the Director of Central Intelligence acknowledged what needed to be acknowledged. … The President said that line because it was based on information from the intelligence community, and the speech was vetted." On Sunday,
2. It's the speechwriters' fault. The intelligence reports on which the claim was based were "given to the speech writers; they wrote it," Rice pleaded on Fox News Sunday. When asked on Face the Nation how the line got into Bush's speech, Rice described the process this way: "A text is created." Tenet agreed that the line "should never have been included in the text written for the President." True, every president relies on speechwriters. But if presidents get the credit for good lines (and, as in the cas
3. It's true that Britain said it. Rice went on three of the five Sunday talk shows to insist that the uranium line "was indeed accurate. The British government did say that." On the other two shows, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld likewise argued that the line was "technically correct" and "technically accurate." When Bush ran for president, he derided Bill Clinton for failing to correct the statement by Clinton's lawyer, Bob Bennett, that "there is no sexual relationship" between Clinton and Monica Lew
It's also now OK to hedge your language just enough to avoid clear falsehood. According to Tenet, CIA "officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed." By all accounts, the change consisted of attributing the statement to Britain. On Sunday, Rice assured CNN viewers that "had there been a request to take that [line] out in its entirety, it would hav
4. It's part of a larger truth. On Wednesday, Bush was asked whether he still believed that Saddam had sought "to buy nuclear materials in Africa.' Bush reframed the question in broader terms: "I am confident that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program." On Saturday, Fleischer added: "A greater, more important truth is being lost in the flap over whether or not Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. The greater truth is that nobody, but nobody, denies that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclea
5. It's time to move on. "The President has moved on. And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on as well," Fleischer told reporters Saturday, without apparent irony.
Rice's comments raise several additional questions. In her briefing with Fleischer, she said twice that the CIA cleared the speech "in its entirety." But according to Tenet, the CIA received only "portions" of the draft. On Late Edition, Rice claimed that "the Agency did not react to [the] statement" about uranium during the vetting. On Face the Nation, she added, "Had there been even a peep that the agency [CIA] did not want that sentence in … it would have been gone." Neither comment squares with Tenet'
It's fitting that Fleischer asks us to move on from the uranium story as he prepares to move on to a new career in the private sector. We'd like to move on, too, Ari. It's just that when it comes to presidential responsibility, we seem to be moving in circles.
I have to agree with this. It's not that it is something new that intelligence has turned out to be wrong, inaccurate, etc. but I really feel like we were hell bent on getting our a$$es into Iraq one way or another. Going to war is serious and information that is used to support a cause, IMHO, should be checked, rechecked and checked again.
0 likes
-
mf_dolphin
- Category 5
- Posts: 17758
- Age: 68
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: St Petersburg, FL
- Contact:
I don't have a problem with most of your arguements Stephanie. However, to equate the sidestepping on this issue with President's Clinton's bold face lies just doesn't fit. There was a mistake made and I wish President Bush would have handled it better myself but I've seen no evidence presented that he knowingly used inaccurate information. You can't say that for President Clinton....
I still believe that there was sufficient reason for President Bush and the coalition to take the action that we undertook. I understand that there is a minority of people that don't agree. So be it.
I still believe that there was sufficient reason for President Bush and the coalition to take the action that we undertook. I understand that there is a minority of people that don't agree. So be it.
0 likes
-
Stephanie
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 23843
- Age: 63
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
- Location: Glassboro, NJ
I think that the State of the Union address is public knowledge Lindaloo. I also think it's important that all of the facts be known especially since we've SENT OUR OWN FORCES OVER TO CLEAN HOUSE in Iraq and they've lost lives because of the decisions made. We're still losing lives everyday.
As for President Clinton, he should've admitted to it instead of lying, but to me, that was a personal issue, not something that we had people risk their lives for. That's my point.
As for President Clinton, he should've admitted to it instead of lying, but to me, that was a personal issue, not something that we had people risk their lives for. That's my point.
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests