Torture at Abu Ghraib Military Prison

[rabatjoie]

In-depth article in the New Yorker about the cases of torture at the Abu Ghraib military prison west of Bagdad, including Information from a report written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba which was not meant for public release.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

[wdlove]

This is pure and simple barbaric, they are no better than Saddam and his henchmen. :( President Bush deserves credit for coming out quickly and forcibly against such acts. There have always been soldiers in combat that are cruel. I hope that they receive harsh punishment. They are not helping our war against terrorism. This is a gift to the enemies of our way of life.

[MongoTheGeek]

This is pure and simple barbaric, they are no better than Saddam and his henchmen. :( President Bush deserves credit for coming out quickly and forcibly against such acts. There have always been soldiers in combat that are cruel. I hope that they receive harsh punishment. They are not helping our war against terrorism. This is a gift to the enemies of our way of life.

Stopping stuff like that is one of the reason we went there. It good that Bush came out and condemned it. Its really good he kicked out the general in charge. It would be better if it never happened.

[evil]

This is pure and simple barbaric, they are no better than Saddam and his henchmen. :( President Bush deserves credit for coming out quickly and forcibly against such acts. There have always been soldiers in combat that are cruel. I hope that they receive harsh punishment. They are not helping our war against terrorism. This is a gift to the enemies of our way of life.

oh come on. like he couldnt come out against the cruelty right away.
it is obvious that the media would/did get a hold of the story and therefore if the pres. didnt come out against it he would look like a fool.
he was just doing his job, nothing special.

[crenz]

This is going to have huge repercussions in the Arabic world. Now Iraqis will perceive foreign forces even more as "occupants" rather than "liberators". :(

[poopyhead]

I find this to be throughly disgusting
I only hope that we leave these american service people to be judged by and properly punished by the new Iraqi courts when they are formed
we as the perpetrators should not be the ones to punish these individuals
I also hope that all of those abused get the care and financial reparations they most definitely deserve
If this had happened within american borders to american citizens they would have been and should have been locked up without a possibility of parole
their actions show at the very least psychotic, sociopathic personalities that I feel pose a danger to humanity at large

[IrishGold]

I also hope that all of those abused get the care and financial reparations they most definitely deserve


Unless they had it coming(committed some terrible crime to be in there in the first place.)

[themadchemist]

This is going to have huge repercussions in the Arabic world. Now Iraqis will perceive foreign forces even more as "occupants" rather than "liberators". :(

And they are perfectly justified in such a perception. Don't kid yourself into thinking that this will just have huge repercussions in the Arabic world. Countless youngsters are going to sign up for terrorist groups around the Arab world out of disgust and hatred for this sort of American atrocity. After all, this is our own brand of terrorism, isn't it?

I'm speechless. I just don't know what to write. I'm so angry that this happens under the auspices of representatives of the US government and its citizenry.

[MongoTheGeek]

Unless they had it coming(committed some terrible crime to be in there in the first place.)

No one has things like that coming.

[IrishGold]

No one has things like that coming.


Right, you get shot at and try to keep that same mentality.

edit:Just an F.Y.I. I know it sounds like it, but I'm not defending their actions.

[MongoTheGeek]

I find this to be throughly disgusting
I only hope that we leave these american service people to be judged by and properly punished by the new Iraqi courts when they are formed
we as the perpetrators should not be the ones to punish these individuals
I also hope that all of those abused get the care and financial reparations they most definitely deserve
If this had happened within american borders to american citizens they would have been and should have been locked up without a possibility of parole
their actions show at the very least psychotic, sociopathic personalities that I feel pose a danger to humanity at large

These are soldiers. They should be covered under the UCMJ. One thing that the US must do is clean up its own messes.

[MongoTheGeek]

Right, you get shot at and try to keep that same mentality.

edit:Just an F.Y.I. I know it sounds like it, but I'm not defending their actions.

I understand there is a lot of stress involved in being shot at, having friends killed and then having to watch over the people who did it. I am not sure I would be able to resist the temptations presented.

The problem is that molesting prisoners is like molesting children. Taking advantage of someone who is completely in your power. Some of the things I heard about were "yeah so" (locking the prisoners in solitary) others were atrocious.

[themadchemist]

Right, you get shot at and try to keep that same mentality.

edit:Just an F.Y.I. I know it sounds like it, but I'm not defending their actions.

It sounds like these guys were taking their frustration out on a particularly defenseless lot. That's quite a bit different from getting shot at by a group at whom you're shooting.

The suicide bombings are a different story and probably have an even worse psychological effect on our men and women in Iraq. However, I've been wondering this for a while...

Suicide bombings against civilians are definitely terrible atrocities. However, when the target of a suicide bombing is military, is it really terrorism (by the conventional definition) or is it a military action? If it is legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq, anticipating resistance, could it be possible that it is legitimate for anti-American Iraqi forces to retaliate in what they perceive as defense against their homeland. If that means sacrificing their lives to precipitate casualties against their enemies, isn't that what all war is about?

I've been wrestling with this question. We go to Iraq, we initiate aggression, and we expect no one to fire back? I think it's ludicrous not to expect resistance to invasion. I think it's somehow morally relativist (to borrow a term from my conservative friends) to define one type of aggression as legitimate and part of the Hell that is war and to define another as terrorism.

I hae always seen terrorism as violent acts against largely civilian targets with the purpose of causing fear and misery amongst civilian populations. This is in general, of course. The bombing of the USS Cole seems to fit into a consistent (though more loose) definition of terrorism in that it was non-retaliatory. On the other hand, even in this case, is it not a fact that individuals who considered themselves members of a military (or paramilitary) unit whose adversary was the United States sought to engage in a battle of sorts against an American military presence? How is that different from what America and other recognized nations have engaged in from time to time?

Things like embassy bombings, hijackings, and destruction of civilian targets--That's real terrorism. When one signs up to defend one's country, though, aren't there inherent risks explicit within the agreement? The military exists as a buffer between enemies and civilians and if there weren't those who would wish to commit acts of aggression against our military, then why would we even have a military? This is especially true when we strike first.

It's almost as if we are tainting the severity and gravity of terrorist acts by grouping military altercations in with them.

Now in no way does this mean that I support car bombings of American troops. I'm against this in much the same way I'm against an American soldier being shot by an enemy. But I also see that such violence is no worse than the shot that an American troop fires (or has to fire) against an Iraqi. That Iraqi also has a family, also has children, and is also under the pressure that gunshots from the enemy tend to cause...What's more, that Iraqi knows he is engaged in a battle that he cannot win. I don't devalue American lives. It's just that I value the Iraqi lives just as much.

Don't flame me. I already feel guilty as if this sort of opinion makes me callous...This debate in my mind is rather distressing. This combined with the fact that after so many images of violence, so many death tolls, I feel desensitized to the plight of our troops and those of others, makes me feel like I'm not such a good person. But I'm trying to come to terms with the facts that I don't understand what it's like and I can't. However, I still see that there's this labeling issue going on with different types of violence and it looks more like government spin than anything else.

If someone has a reasoned opinion/argument that would counter those I have presented, please post it. If someone agrees, post that, too.

[Awimoway]

This is pure and simple barbaric, they are no better than Saddam and his henchmen. :( President Bush deserves credit for coming out quickly and forcibly against such acts. There have always been soldiers in combat that are cruel. I hope that they receive harsh punishment. They are not helping our war against terrorism. This is a gift to the enemies of our way of life.

When I saw the first headline, I hoped that this would be a wake-up call to America that we aren't the pure, holier-than-thou crusaders we'd like to think we are. I love the principles my country stands for, but war is hell, and no one who starts a war will ever be on a pure and noble crusade to save another country. Of course Bush is going to disavow himself of this, but he doesn't seem to be doing much to asses how widespread the problem is. He's acting characteristically disinterested and dismissive as if he hopes this story just goes away, and that right quick. That's not accountable, responsible conduct, in my judgment.

When you put anyone in a position of absolute power over anyone else, bad things are likely to happen. It would be terribly naive to think that this one prison is an isolated incident, and now reports are indeed coming out that this has been common in British-run prisons and other American-run prisons. We hate the Arabs and, when given the opportunity of absolute power over another human being that we hate, many of us will take our aggressions out in the most extreme ways. Again, I love the principles my country stands for, but Americans themselves are humans like everyone else, and I don't at all like the practices these humans are currently exhibiting to the world. They're giving America a very bad name, but we deserve it, don't we?

And we should have seen it coming, 'cause war is still hell.

[Lyle]

Umm, why isn't this in the "Politics & War Discussion" forum?

[themadchemist]

Umm, why isn't this in the "Politics & War Discussion" forum?

I'm sure it will be soon.

[Awimoway]

It's hard to talk about any major news story with political implications without your comments veering toward politics. Believe it or not, I tried to restrain myself with my above post, but it's just impossible for me to give any analysis at all to a story like this without being, to some degree, political. I wish the mods would show a little latitude in the Current Events forum, but they prefer not to. Which is their prerogative.

But it makes it almost pointless to post any news in the Current Events forum that has any political implication at all. I guess we can only talk about things like robotic traffic barrels and why the Yankees suck.

[rabatjoie]

Umm, why isn't this in the "Politics & War Discussion" forum?

sorry, that was my fault! i was looking all over for the "political forums" that were mentioned in some threads, and i concluded that the "current events" forum was the forum that was referred to...

[Lyle]

Believe it or not, I tried to restrain myself with my above post, but it's just impossible for me to give any analysis at all to a story like this without being, to some degree, political.Just to be clear, I wasn't singling out your comment(s). In my opinion the discussion had already started heading down the "politics and war discussion" path well before you posted. ;)

[kuyu]

This is dispicable, but I don't think that's it's reason to condemn the entire military. Those involved should be court marshalled, and their CO's should also be repremanded.

The wierd thing is, these pictures are all over tv and the web, but the pictures of our troops being dragged naked through Fallugah never hit the air waves. Supposedly (I haven't seen it) there's a picture of a kid eating a dismembered arm of a US soldier during the Fallugah thing.

Makes you wonder why these picturese are OK to show, but those weren't. I know that we don't want someone's mom seeing her dead son being eaten on tv, but we don't want someone's mom seeing her alive son molesting prisoners on live tv either. But, for some reason the latter was deemed appropriate.

It's not what the media shows that makes it biased, but rather what it doesn't show that propagates a biased agenda (for the left OR the right).

[Awimoway]

Just to be clear, I wasn't singling out your comment(s). In my opinion the discussion had already started heading down the "politics and war discussion" path well before you posted. ;)

Oh, don't worry. No offense taken. I'm not even complaining about the policy. I just wish that whatever the policy happens to be was made more clear. I know I'm confused.

[rabatjoie]

This is dispicable, but I don't think that's it's reason to condemn the entire military. Those involved should be court marshalled, and their CO's should also be repremanded.

I think you're right when you're saying that one should not condemn the entire military. But what shocked me most in that article is the fact that some of the witness's statements suggest that there might be a system behind this treatment of prisoners - namely that the soldiers were instructed to “set favorable conditions for subsequent interviews”(what a terrible euphemism, btw) by Military Intelligence officers and interrogators from private security firms(!).

[zimv20]

it makes it almost pointless to post any news in the Current Events forum that has any political implication at all.
it's always a judgement call for how political something is, or may become. but anything which is deemed political should be sourced in the Political/War discussions forum.

(i think anything having to do w/ iraq qualifies)

but you're right, just about everything ultimately has to do w/ politics. nearly every question that asks why something is will lead to some political decision or viewpoint.

[SlyHunter]

I don't remember which thread it was that was posted "oh no British soldiers have done it too" within it showing articles where British soldiers have tortured Iraqi prisoners. Well I just ran into this article.


A former commander of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment has dismissed the Iraq abuse photographs as having "too many inconsistencies".

Colonel David Black argued that the images, apparantly showing soldiers from his old regiment beating and urinating on an Iraqi captive, published in the Daily Mirror, were probably not even taken in Iraq.

He told BBC1's Breakfast that the vehicle shown was never sent to the war zone and the uniforms were not the same as those worn by the regiment.

Col Black said: "The evidence we have seen so far looking at the photographs, there are too many inconsistencies."

He said they had had a highly successful tour of Basra, adding: "It's been a terrible shock to them." Col Black maintained the soldiers would have been wearing helmets or a beret, not floppy hats as in the photos, would have had a regiment identification flash and a brigade flash on their sleeves and the rifle should have had a sling and an attached radio button.

He added the main factor was that the vehicle shown was not one deployed to Basra with his unit. "In fact, the Bedford MK ... which appears in the photographs, as I gather, was not deployed by the Army to Iraq at all because of difficulties with local fuel. That vehicle can't operate with fuel that was available in Iraq.

"So obviously the photograph was probably not even taken in Iraq."

The Daily Mirror later renewed its insistence that the pictures were genuine. In a statement read out on BBC Radio 4's The World At One, the paper said: "We note the comments made by the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and understand why they are very anxious to distance themselves from this story.

http://www.thisislondon.com/til/jsp/modules/Article/print.jsp?itemId=10562467

[professor]

I wonder why some visitors of this forum praise Bush's speaking against the torture events as being something positive and laudable. I think it is the tone set by the U.S. government itself that produces such behavior. When such a clear distinction is drawn between the righteous and the rest of the world (consisting mostly of terrorists), behavior as that presented by those misguided and most likely undereducated and underinformed soldiers is almost a logical consequence. They may have been under the impression that it was totally legitimate to treat Iraqi prisoners like animals.
Is it admissible or not, to draw a parallel between those soldiers torturing Iraqis and some of the guards at a Nazi prison camp?

[professor]

This is dispicable, but I don't think that's it's reason to condemn the entire military. Those involved should be court marshalled, and their CO's should also be repremanded.

The wierd thing is, these pictures are all over tv and the web, but the pictures of our troops being dragged naked through Fallugah never hit the air waves. Supposedly (I haven't seen it) there's a picture of a kid eating a dismembered arm of a US soldier during the Fallugah thing.

Makes you wonder why these picturese are OK to show, but those weren't. I know that we don't want someone's mom seeing her dead son being eaten on tv, but we don't want someone's mom seeing her alive son molesting prisoners on live tv either. But, for some reason the latter was deemed appropriate.

It's not what the media shows that makes it biased, but rather what it doesn't show that propagates a biased agenda (for the left OR the right).

Maybe those pictures haven't been shown in Kentucky, but I remember seeing them all over.

[JamesDPS]

The article literally made me feel ill and dizzy... our military is supposed to be the pinnacle of professionalism and to see this level of barbarism is outrageous. I suppose it's totally hypocritical to hope the guards who committed these acts and those who told them to are all put in prisons with a similar negligence for the Geneva convention and human rights in general, but they need to understand why rules (in this case, international law) are put in place. M.I. certainly needs to re-assess their strategies -- even the CIA Torture Handbook (excerpts (http://www.radio4all.org/crackcia/torture.htm)) stressed psychological dehumanization and the threat of physical harm, but study has clearly shown that no form of torture is effective in obtaining better information, so anyone who tries to defend the mistreatment of prisoners on the grounds that "it saves American lives" is clearly wrong -- not to mention that this kind of mistreatment being public is only going to motivate enemies of the U.S. even more.

On a side note to themadchemist, I think you are correct in your definition of terrorism as an act of violence against non-combattants, so attacking anything military is war, not terrorism. But I think most people have seen now that Iraq has little to do with terrorism DIRECTLY, although it will have the long-term purpose of establishing a U.S. military presence in the Middle East (in a country OTHER than Saudi, which clearly operates in MANY ways that are counter to American ideals - w.r.t. human rights and politics - but which we rely on for oil and geo-political positioning so can't complain about, YET).

[JamesDPS]

This is dispicable, but I don't think that's it's reason to condemn the entire military. Those involved should be court marshalled, and their CO's should also be repremanded.

The wierd thing is, these pictures are all over tv and the web, but the pictures of our troops being dragged naked through Fallugah never hit the air waves. Supposedly (I haven't seen it) there's a picture of a kid eating a dismembered arm of a US soldier during the Fallugah thing.

Makes you wonder why these picturese are OK to show, but those weren't. I know that we don't want someone's mom seeing her dead son being eaten on tv, but we don't want someone's mom seeing her alive son molesting prisoners on live tv either. But, for some reason the latter was deemed appropriate.

It's not what the media shows that makes it biased, but rather what it doesn't show that propagates a biased agenda (for the left OR the right).

I agree with professor -- we've seen those pictures, they were covered. And I think the soldiers and intelligence agents involved, at all levels, should have MORE than just losing their jobs as punishment -- they need to serve time. As far as media bias is concerned, the bias really exists mainly in the fact that news organizations will show anything to increase viewership, at least with the networks that rely on advertising income (which is why I basically only watch The News Hour with Jim Lehrer -- they are not as deeply affected by Nielson ratings and corporate support). Of course certain networks spin in different ways, and they do it to appeal to an audience base. Fox News is notoriously right-wing, and they make a lot of money doing that because it appeals to a lot of people. The same can be said of liberal sources (eg. The Guardian) -- it appeals to a certain target market. If you want to track the bias of any kind of media, just following the money.... that is why publicly funded (i.e. funded by the government) stations like PBS are LESS biased than anyone else -- they get the same funding regardless of corporate support, and of course, donations from people who recognize the quality they represent.

[zimv20]

nice to see you posting again, professor

[cc bcc]

I'm worried about the things that we don't get to see. How big is the chance that a photo is taken?

[numediaman]

Contractors Implicated in Prison Abuse Remain on the Job
By JOEL BRINKLEY and JAMES GLANZ

Published: May 4, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 3 — More than two months after a classified Army report found that two contract workers were implicated in the abuse of Iraqis at a prison outside Baghdad, the companies that employ them say that they have heard nothing from the Pentagon, and that they have not removed any employees from Iraq.

For one of the employees, the Army report recommended "termination of employment" and revocation of his security clearance. For the other, it urged an official reprimand and review of his security clearance.

But J. P. London, chief executive of CACI, one of the companies involved, said in an interview on Monday that "we have not received any information or direction from the client regarding our work in country — no charges, no communications, no citations, no calls to appear at the Pentagon."

Ralph Williams, vice president for communications for Titan, the other company, also said Monday that the company has heard nothing, and that none of Titan's workers have been recalled.

Military spokesmen in Washington and Baghdad said Monday evening that they had no information on whether the workers were still on the job or why the report had not been conveyed to the companies.

In a statement issued Monday, CACI defended its employees, saying they are well-trained former military personnel.

The classified Army report asserted that at least one employee of CACI was among those "either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib," the Iraqi prison.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/04/international/middleeast/04CONT.html?hp

Why let a little thing like torture stand in the way of commerce, right?

[SlyHunter]

The Arab world is shocked and incensed by the alleged abuse of Iraqis in one U.S. military prison. Shame on Uncle Sam, say the sons of the desert.

As Steve Martin would say: Well, excu-u-use me! If Muhammad’s mob ever showed an ounce of compassion toward non-Moslems, their outrage would be more credible.

That’s no excuse for what supposedly happened at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

Still, some of the allegations seem mild compared to the horrors that routinely go on in the dungeons of Middle Eastern regimes. Initial reports said prisoners were made to wear women’s underpants, or stripped naked and forced to lie on top of each other – which sounds more like a fraternity initiation than a KGB interrogation.

Other allegations are far more serious. If true, the perpetrators should be severely punished.

On seeing some of the photographs, like the prisoner standing on a block with wires attached to his hands (he was told he’d be electrocuted if he fell off), President Bush expressed disgust. "This treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people," Bush told reporters.

Six Army reservists face courts-martial for mistreating prisoners. They are a tiny fraction of the 3,400 reservists who are guarding terrorist suspects at 16 military prisons in Iraq.

There’s been a shakeup at the Abu Ghraib prison. The General formerly in charge (who says she had no knowledge of the abuse) has been replaced.

In others words, everything that could be done has been done. The soldiers charged with brutality await trial. Their superiors have been reassigned or rotated to the States. There’s an on-going investigation. The situation would not have come to light in the first place had other military personnel stationed at the prison not blown the whistle on their fellow soldiers.

None of this has stopped members of the religion of peace from issuing blanket condemnations. The reaction in the Arab world was reported in a May 2, USA Today story ("Arabs outraged by photos of U.S. forces humiliating Iraqis").

The nation that rid the region of Saddam Hussein -- a megalomaniac who’d invaded two of his neighbors in the course of a decade -- is excoriated both by Arab media and street. (When Saddam was in power, Iraqi dissidents found it next to impossible to interest the Arab press in the rapes and the torture-killings that went on in beautiful, downtown Baghdad on a daily basis.)

But now that it’s infidels who are at fault, you’d think the U.S. had turned Iraq into Auschwitz without the amenities. The New York Times informs us, "such degradations (forcing prisoners to simulate sex acts)…are particularly humiliating to Arabs because Islamic law and culture so strongly condemn nudity and homosexuality."

"The Shame!" screamed the headline in an Egyptian newspaper. "Shame on America," sputtered Cairo resident Mustafa Saad, repeating this theme. "How can they convince us now that it is the bastion of democracy, freedoms and human rights?" the irate Egyptian asked USA Today.

Apparently, Mustafa is unconvinced by the fact that America has taken action. America is investigating. If crimes were committed, America will meet out punishment – to her own.

If America were Egypt, the culprits would get commendations, promotions and a weekend at the beach. Coptic Christians, who constitute 10 percent of Egypt’s population, are routinely persecuted and occasionally murdered by Moslem mobs, to enormous yawns from the Egyptian government.

Remember Jessica Lynch, the American private who was captured by the Iraqi army? Lynch was gang-raped (anally) by her captors. Apparently, the rape of a female POW doesn’t offend the Arabs’ exquisite sensibilities.

Do you recall Americans blaming: a) all Iraqis b) all Arabs c) all Moslems for this bestial behavior? Do you recall protestations of outrage in the Arab world? But then, Lynch was an infidel Crusader and a defiler of the sacred sand of Islam, and – as such – probably had it coming, from the humane perspective of enlightened Arab opinion. (She was also out of burqa.)

When you come to it, when did the Arab/Moslem public last express the least regret over: machine-gun attacks on churchgoers in Pakistan, the anti-Christian jihad that’s resumed in Indonesia, genocide and slavery practiced by the Islamic regime in Sudan, the 2003 bombings of Istanbul synagogues, the recent spate of church burnings in Nigeria, the ongoing persecution of Iranian Jews by that nation’s mullah-ocracy, the orgy of destruction visited on Serbian churches and monasteries in Kosovo by Albanian Moslems, the deaths of over 100 in a 2002 attack by Chechen terrorists on a Moscow theater, the March 11 Madrid train bombing (death toll: more than 200) or the slaughter of more than 3,000 Americans in a single day by 19 airborne Saudis?

On the other hand, with certain honorable exceptions, the Moslem attitude seems to be: If it was done to an infidel, they possibly/probably/definitely had it coming.

After the Arab street is through lecturing us on the humane treatment of prisoners, perhaps David Duke could address us on racial tolerance, Al Sharpton could comment on responsible social activism and al-Qaeda could instruct us on ecumenical relations.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13239
Allot of good news reporting from this mag even if some people don't seem to think so.

Believe it or not I did not paste 100% of the story here read the full story at url up above.

[mactastic]

Well if they do it, why shouldn't we? Is that your point Sly? Or is it that the A-rabs are making a mountain out of a molehill and they shouldn't be offended by things they all do? Are you excusing our behavior because 'theirs is worse'? Are you saying that good people everywhere shouldn't be incensed by these incidents?

[SlyHunter]

Well if they do it, why shouldn't we? Is that your point Sly? Or is it that the A-rabs are making a mountain out of a molehill and they shouldn't be offended by things they all do? Are you excusing our behavior because 'theirs is worse'? Are you saying that good people everywhere shouldn't be incensed by these incidents?
Not my point at all. We police our own. We punish those even in our own armed forces for violating our rules.

I'm saying we should be even more "incensed" by what they have done to us.

Let me reprint this part of the above quote for you.

In others words, everything that could be done has been done. The soldiers charged with brutality await trial. Their superiors have been reassigned or rotated to the States. There’s an on-going investigation. The situation would not have come to light in the first place had other military personnel stationed at the prison not blown the whistle on their fellow soldiers.

None of this has stopped members of the religion of peace from issuing blanket condemnations. The reaction in the Arab world was reported in a May 2, USA Today story ("Arabs outraged by photos of U.S. forces humiliating Iraqis").

The nation that rid the region of Saddam Hussein -- a megalomaniac who’d invaded two of his neighbors in the course of a decade -- is excoriated both by Arab media and street. (When Saddam was in power, Iraqi dissidents found it next to impossible to interest the Arab press in the rapes and the torture-killings that went on in beautiful, downtown Baghdad on a daily basis.)


Maybe you missed this part as well

When you come to it, when did the Arab/Moslem public last express the least regret over: machine-gun attacks on churchgoers in Pakistan, the anti-Christian jihad that’s resumed in Indonesia, genocide and slavery practiced by the Islamic regime in Sudan, the 2003 bombings of Istanbul synagogues, the recent spate of church burnings in Nigeria, the ongoing persecution of Iranian Jews by that nation’s mullah-ocracy, the orgy of destruction visited on Serbian churches and monasteries in Kosovo by Albanian Moslems, the deaths of over 100 in a 2002 attack by Chechen terrorists on a Moscow theater, the March 11 Madrid train bombing (death toll: more than 200) or the slaughter of more than 3,000 Americans in a single day by 19 airborne Saudis?

Allot of points were made in that little story.

[mactastic]

I saw both of those parts. As to part one... Do we let the LAPD investigate itself or do we call in an outside investigator? What was it the Republicans hated so much about Janet Reno? Oh yeah, that she would quash investigations not friendly to her boss. And yet you expect the world to just accept that we will police our own to make sure this never happens again? Even if I believed that the military was capable of a completely unbiased look at itself and it's practices and heedless of any potential embarrassment it would face, I wouldn't be so naive as to expect the rest of the world to believe it. Once again our credibility is on the line.

You seem very willing to believe that a group of sexual sadists coincidentally were all assigned to the same unit and all decided to act in this manner, completely disobeying orders to treat prisoners humanely, and that nothing of this sort is happening anywhere else. Is that what you think? That this was some kind of crazy coincidence?

And part two... Many parts of the Arab press have condemned attacks against civilians. You are confusing 'radical muslims' with 'all muslims' again.

[SlyHunter]

I saw both of those parts. As to part one... Do we let the LAPD investigate itself or do we call in an outside investigator? What was it the Republicans hated so much about Janet Reno? Oh yeah, that she would quash investigations not friendly to her boss. And yet you expect the world to just accept that we will police our own to make sure this never happens again? Even if I believed that the military was capable of a completely unbiased look at itself and it's practices and heedless of any potential embarrassment it would face, I wouldn't be so naive as to expect the rest of the world to believe it. Once again our credibility is on the line.

You seem very willing to believe that a group of sexual sadists coincidentally were all assigned to the same unit and all decided to act in this manner, completely disobeying orders to treat prisoners humanely, and that nothing of this sort is happening anywhere else. Is that what you think? That this was some kind of crazy coincidence?

And part two... Many parts of the Arab press have condemned attacks against civilians. You are confusing 'radical muslims' with 'all muslims' again.
Bad premise. We can't make sure it will never happan again, we can only punish the new culprits.

are you implying its happening everywhere else? That the entire Army is made up of "sexual sadists". Odds are more likely one or two strong personallity types were in command with a few weak willed individuals who either "joined in with the fun" or stood on the outside and pretended they saw nothing. But remember it was one or more of those people stationed there that turned them in.

[mactastic]

I never said it's happening 'everywhere else' but I don't doubt it's happening in at least a few other places.

[kuyu]

I agree with professor As far as media bias is concerned, the bias really exists mainly in the fact that news organizations will show anything to increase viewership,
Of course certain networks spin in different ways, and they do it to appeal to an audience base. Fox News is notoriously right-wing, and they make a lot of money doing that because it appeals to a lot of people. The same can be said of liberal sources (eg. The Guardian) -- it appeals to a certain target market. If you want to track the bias of any kind of media, just following the money....

Well put, my point exactly. I didn't see many of the pictures on TV because 80% of TV is biased towards the left, and most of those outlets will do anything to sway the public against the war.

I heard about them on am radio (which is 80% biased to the right), and most of those outlets will do anything to sway public opinion for the war.

More than seeing the pictures, it's the way the Fallugah thing got swept under the rug when the fighting there escalated. They (most of tv) still reported the death toll, but not the root cause of our schermish there.

I guess it's the old adage "if it bleeds, it leads" but perhaps it should be amended to say "if it bleeds, it leads (so long as it supports our agenda)"

That goes for both left and right biased news orgs.

[zimv20]

80% of TV is biased towards the left
prove it.

and feel free to take this into account: of the nearly 400 TV interviews conducted on CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS in the week before and the week after colin powell's address to the UN, exactly 3 of ther interviewees expressed anti-war views.

good luck.

[Zaid]

An interesting article in the New Yorker (where does this paper normally stand?)

New Yorker Article (http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040510fa_fact)

It alleges that private contractors (read mercenaries) employed by the Pentagon are in charge of interrogations and placed in a position of authority over the soldiers at Abu Ghraib.

The slodiers are alleging that they are being made scapegoats for practices condoned and ordered by the 'contractors'. How far up the chain does this go?

Since these contractors are not part of the military, they can't be disciplined by the Army.

I thought that there was a US law which prohibited torture within the US and prohibited US citizens from comitting torture abroad. (could someone confirm this?)

If that is the case, would a criminal investigation be conducted against some of these contractors? This would also apply to the soldiers, or does being in the military give one immunity to such things?

Personally I think these guys (soldiers and 'contractors') should be held and handed over to an Iraqi court system when it is constituted.

[zimv20]

An interesting article in the New Yorker (where does this paper normally stand?)
it's a literature and culture magazine

what you're looking at is the seymour hersh article. he does investigative reporting and, imo, is really good at it. he's done articles about the taleban and afghanistan, et. al.

[numediaman]

Latest:

Sharp Criticism Is Voiced in Congress on Abuse of Iraqis
By DAVID STOUT

Published: May 4, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 4 — The furor over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners intensified today as leading lawmakers from both parties demanded answers on the origin and extent of the problem. Some legislators said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld should come to the Capitol.

Today's closed briefing was hurriedly arranged after the committee chairman, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, called the Pentagon on Monday night and said the committee needed some answers. "Speaking for myself, I'm gravely concerned about this situation," Mr. Warner said. "I have been privileged to be associated with the military for over a half-century, been on this committee for 25 years now, and this is as serious a problem of breakdown in discipline as I've ever observed."

President Bush was campaigning in Ohio today and did not mention the prisoner-abuse affair in his early appearances.

Mr. McCain, who endured more than five years of harsh treatment as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese, said he had no way of knowing whether the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad were isolated, or whether they represented wider mistreatment, perhaps at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, or in Afghanistan.

"There are so many allegations swirling around this situation, that we must have a public hearing, with the secretary of defense testifying, in order to clear up all of these allegations," Mr. McCain said. "Not an hour goes by that there isn't an additional allegation."

Meanwhile, Mr. McCain said he was also very angry that a 53-page Pentagon report on what is known so far about the abuses was sent to news organizations before it was sent to the Armed Services Committee. "That's quite a commentary," he said.

[numediaman]

From Bush's speech today in Ohio:

"Because we acted, torture chambers are closed."


Guess Bush hasn't been keeping up with current events.

Which reminded me of this quote from October 2003:

"What's in the newspapers worth worrying about? I glance at the headlines just to kind of (get) a flavor of what's moving," Bush said. "I rarely read the stories," he said.

[zimv20]

From Bush's speech today in Ohio:
"Because we acted, torture chambers are closed."


hmmm... did an earlier draft end the sentence w/ the phrase "for remodeling"?

[SlyHunter]

Should we post the pictures from Saddam's torture victims and compare them with the ones being broadcast over the internet?

Yes those responsible should and will go to jail. No its not as big of a deal as everyone seems to be making it.

[kuyu]

prove it.

and feel free to take this into account: of the nearly 400 TV interviews conducted on CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS in the week before and the week after colin powell's address to the UN, exactly 3 of ther interviewees expressed anti-war views.

good luck.

Okay, I'll try. But you have to prove that the radio is conservative. :)

Studies indicate that 45% of Americans feel the news is too liberal. 14% feel that it's too conservative.

A 1996 study showes that journalists were overwhelmingly Democrats. Eighty-nine percent of journalists voted for Clinton, compared with 43% of the population. I wonder how many voted for Bush? (I didn't, before you start to stereotype me). My guess would be around 10-15%, which is far less than the percentage of americans.

Truth is, I'm a little liberal and a little conservative, but I can definately see the difference. Conservatives have the radio, and liberals have the tv. I generally here the same news on both, but it comes out different.

Example: Radio: Today 10 soldiers were killed in Iraq from RPG's. 6 more were injured. a staff seargent close to the fighting cites foriegn insurgents as the cause for the gun battle. In other news, president bush visited seniors in georgia this afternoon to discuss medicaid/medicare.

TV: Today 10 soldiers were killed in Iraq from RPG's. 6 more were injured. a staff seargent close to the fighting does not believe the fighting will end anytime soon. In other news, presidential candidate john kerry visited auto workers in michigan to discuss workers rights.

It's what they choose to report (or not) that makes it biased.

I got this stuff from a google. read this
http://www.fair.org/extra/0203/goldberg.html
and this
http://www.cybercollege.com/bias.htm

The jist of the two is that conservatives run the media, but that the face of the media is liberal. Just as I couldn't be a reporter and not put a conservative spin of stuff, the mainstreamers can't either.

[pseudobrit]

Studies indicate that 45% of Americans feel the news is too liberal. 14% feel that it's too conservative.

19% of Americans think they are in the top 1% of income earners. Shows you what opinion polls are worth when we're talking about facts.

[skunk]

90% of the world population don't know their ass from their elbow...

[mactastic]

90-some-odd percent of people feel they are an above average driver.

Let's talk about the bias towards content. You'd think if 'theliberalmedia' was so liberal, all we would have heard about on the one year aniversary of the invasion was how poorly things were going, and constant vitriolic criticism of both Bush and his administration. But as this (http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-anniversary.html) report from Fair.org points out, that was not the case.

March 15, 2004

A year after the invasion of Iraq began, the Sunday morning interview shows all focused on the anniversary. But viewers would have had a hard time finding a debate on the controversial decision.

ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos featured an interview with Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was also the sole guest on Fox News Sunday. CBS's Face the Nation featured Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as well as pro-war New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

Only NBC's Meet the Press showcased competing perspectives, with separate interviews with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, a critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war.

The one-year anniversary of the start of the war provided an opportunity for the networks to reflect on pre-war claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the occupation of Iraq, and the global effect the war has had so far. But a meaningful debate about such matters would have to include forceful critics of the Bush administration.

Instead, the networks' Sunday shows mostly sought out the same administration officials who were responsible for much of the pre-war misinformation. If anything, the interviews served as a reminder of just how little scrutiny the media gave to administration claims about Iraq before the invasion. (See FAIR's "A Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage," http://www.fair.org/press-releases/un-powell-iraq.html.)

While network interviewers like to think of themselves as holding administration officials' feet to the fire, in practice the networks seem more concerned to ensure return visits from high-ranking guests than to ask tough questions. Broadcast journalists rarely challenge officials when they give misleading or deceptive answers. (See FAIR's "Another Falsehood on Iraq Goes Unchallenged," http://www.fair.org/activism/powell-inspectors.html, and "PBS Fails to Hold Rumsfeld Accountable," http://www.fair.org/press-releases/un-powell-iraq.html.)

So out of everybody on the 'Sunday talk circuit' only Tim Russert managed to present anyone for the opposition. Sounds pretty liberal to me. :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

Studies indicate that 45% of Americans feel the news is too liberal. 14% feel that it's too conservative.

i really don't think that means anything. i disagree w/ that 45%. am i wrong because there's more of them?


A 1996 study showes that journalists were overwhelmingly Democrats. Eighty-nine percent of journalists voted for Clinton, compared with 43% of the population.

for that to be relevant, it would have to be demonstrated that such affiliation made its way into editorial content and story choice/location to such an extent that it could be called liberal. the act of doing that study is what's interesting, not the political affiliation of the journalists. does it follow that the gender and racial bases of journalists also dictate a paper's stance on such issues?

such examination ignores the fact that editors edit and editors-in-chief decide content.

the way to determine this is to examine the actual content of papers and TV news and examine the bias as it's presented to the user. how many pro-war interviews, how many anti-war? what kinds of candidates do the papers support? is equal time given to opposing views? how many articles about clinton's and bush's draft dodging?

these are the studies i'm interested in seeing.

[SlyHunter]

Something I ran accross looking for something else. An AI report on France.
FRANCE 2002 :
http://aleta.free.fr/ff.php

Ill-treatment of asylum-seekers

There were numerous reports that police ill-treated asylum-seekers allegedly resisting deportation. Individuals described how, while handcuffed, they had been slapped, beaten with truncheons or dragged along the ground. In March a preliminary judicial inquiry was opened after a report was sent to the prosecutor of Bobigny by a Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MAE) official, stationed at the newly opened holding area of ZAPI 3 at Roissy-Charles de Gaulle Airport. The official stated that he saw Blandine Tundidi Maloza, a woman from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, lying on the waiting room floor. Her legs were covered with ''wounds tinged with blood that were clearly recent''. The woman claimed that the injuries were caused by a police officer kicking her, pulling her backwards and dragging her over the ground by her hair while she resisted attempts to put her on a flight to Douala, Cameroon. Her application for asylum was later accepted.

There was concern about the isolation of children in holding areas. In June, two children, aged three and five, were reportedly separated from their parents and held at Roissy for four days. A 14-year-old girl of Congolese origin was held at ZAPI 3 for 10 days, separated from her mother and in the presence of male as well as female adults.

Ill-treatment of other foreign nationals

In February, Malian national Baba Traoré was arrested by frontier police as he was travelling by train from Spain to Paris to renew his passport. Baba Traoré, who had valid work and residence papers for Spain, and was resident in the Canary Islands, claimed that he was punched in the left eye at the police station in the town of Hendaye. Shortly afterwards he was handed over to Spanish police officers, and on the same day underwent urgent surgery on his eye. Medical reports stated that his eye had been severely damaged by a ''direct blow''. Baba Traoré lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor of Bayonne.
In August, Koneisi Geddeman, an undocumented national from Suriname, was reportedly severely injured in French Guiana after being repeatedly kicked and beaten in the stomach and head while he was handcuffed and lying on the ground. He was pursued by National Police officers in Cayenne after fleeing when asked for his papers, and was allegedly beaten by up to six officers, both in the street and in the police station, where he was also head-butted. He was held for several hours in a cell without medical care and started to vomit after drinking water. Koneisi Geddeman was subsequently admitted to hospital in Cayenne, where he reportedly remained for several weeks after undergoing surgery.

Ill-treatment of minors

The Court of Nanterre opened an inquiry into the alleged serious police ill-treatment of a minor who required urgent surgery for removal of a testicle after being held in police custody in July. According to reports, 16-year-old ''Yacine'' was taken to Asnières police station, in the Paris area, where he initially resisted attempts to handcuff him and insulted officers. He was taken into a corridor where, although handcuffed, he was punched, kneed and kicked. Contrary to the law, his mother was not immediately informed about his arrest, despite requests by ''Yacine''.
Allegations of police ill-treatment were made in June by a group of children of African, North African and Macedonian Rom origin in the Goutte d'Or area of Paris. One of the children, 12-year-old ''Ahmet'', told AI that he had been struck on the head after being taken to the Goutte d'Or police station in connection with an alleged theft. The children said they had also been insulted, threatened and racially abused.

CPT report

In July the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) published its report on a visit in May 2000 to various police stations, holding areas and prisons. The CPT observed that most allegations of police ill-treatment involved the National Police and consisted principally of individuals being punched, kicked, violently pushed to the ground and handcuffed too tightly. The CPT also noted allegations of ill-treatment inflicted on foreign nationals at airports during attempts to deport them. The CPT observed that conditions of detention, notably in National Police establishments, were incompatible with human dignity, and often ''repulsively dirty''.

Prolonged isolation of prisoners

In January AI called on the government to take immediate steps to resolve the situation of members of the former armed group Action directe (Direct Action), whose health was reported to have deteriorated alarmingly as a result of prolonged periods of isolation since their arrest in 1987. At least two, Georges Cipriani and Nathalie Ménigon, had reportedly suffered breakdowns in mental and physical health. AI noted that there was evidence that the treatment of the prisoners had fallen short of international standards which seek to minimize the detrimental effects of isolation.

Effective impunity

There was continued concern that delays and obstacles to trials of some police officers contributed to a climate of impunity.

Ten years after Youssef Khaïf, a young man of Algerian origin, was shot and killed while attempting to flee in a stolen car, a police officer charged with his death was acquitted by the Yvelines Court of Assizes in September. The killing of Youssef Khaïf occurred in June 1991 at Mantes-la-Jolie, Yvelines department, during the disturbances which followed the death in custody of 18-year-old Aïssa Ihich that May. Although the prosecutor excluded the defence argument of legitimate defence, and accepted the officer's guilt, he requested only a suspended prison term as a ''nominal sentence''.
The officer's trial took place only after a series of legal obstacles had been overcome. The family of Youssef Khaïf intended to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights against the acquittal.
The trial of those implicated in the death in custody of Aïssa Ihich in May 1991 also took place after 10 years' delay. Aïssa Ihich died from an asthma attack after being severely beaten while lying on the ground. In March 2001, two police officers were sentenced by the Correctional Court of Versailles to suspended 10-month prison terms for acts of violence. The prosecutor had requested that the officers be found not guilty. A doctor was given a 12-month suspended prison sentence for involuntary homicide by negligence after deciding that Aïssa Ihich's condition was not incompatible with the prolongation of custody sanctioned by the prosecutor. An appeal by the officers and doctor was heard in December by the Appeal Court of Versailles, when the prosecutor argued that the police officers should be found not guilty but that the sentence against the doctor should be upheld. The Court's decision was deferred until February 2002. The case was notable for its role in reforming the rules governing police custody.
In January the Appeal Court of Aix-en-Provence confirmed the order of an investigating judge not to proceed against police officers in connection with the death by asphyxia while under prolonged restraint of Mohamed Ali Saoud in Toulon in 1998. The victimfamily, who had joined proceedings as a civil party, appealed to the Court of Cassation.
In December, the Court of Appeal of Orléans closed the case against a police officer for the shooting, in the back of the neck, of 16-year-old Abdelkader Bouziane in 1997. An investigating judge, and the Court of Appeal of Paris, had earlier rejected the officer's argument of ''legitimate defence'' and decided that he should be tried in a court of assizes. In March the Court of Cassation had annulled this decision.

Algerian war: torture and killings

In a book published in May, General Paul Aussaresses, a high-ranking French military officer during the Algerian war of independence from 1954 to 1962, admitted not only that he had personally taken part in torture and summary executions, claiming that they had been necessary, but maintained that the French government of the time had been directly implicated in them. AI called the claims extremely serious and urged the authorities to open a full and prompt investigation. While condemning the actions of General Aussaresses, by the end of the year the government had continued to resist calls for such an investigation.

In May and June a number of legal proceedings against General Aussaresses and others were initiated by groups and individuals. In July and September an investigating judge refused to act on judicial complaints filed against General Aussaresses by two human rights organizations for ''crimes against humanity''. However, in November, General Aussaresses appeared before a Paris correctional court for ''complicity in apology for war crimes''. Judgment was deferred until January 2002.

Initial steps were taken to officially commemorate the massacre of Algerians in Paris 40 years before, when a plaque was mounted on the Pont Saint-Michel to the memory of ''the many Algerians killed during the bloody repression of the peaceful demonstration of 17 October 1961''. Inauguration of the plaque by the Mayor of Paris in October was hotly contested by some police unions and politicians. The precise number of Algerians who drowned after being thrown into the Seine by police officers, or were killed in police stations, on the night of 16 October 1961 still remained unclear but up to 200 were thought to have lost their lives.


I had to do allot of editing to get it under the 10k limit.

[mactastic]

If you want to know the political leanings of GM you don't go asking the people on the assembly line what their political affiliations are. You go ask management. Same with news organizations. If you want to know what their political biases are, don't ask the reporters, ask the editors and the management.

[Sayhey]

This story keeps getting worse and worse.

The full extent of the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners began to emerge last night when the United States announced it had launched investigations into the deaths of 23 detainees and the murder of two others.

The British Government was also under immense pressure as it admitted that 33 cases of civilian deaths, injuries or ill-treatment in its custody have been looked into. Meanwhile, controversy continued to rage over the pictures published in the Daily Mirror newspaper allegedly showing the torture of Iraqi prisoners, with further allegations they had been faked.

In the US, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Pentagon top brass were heavily criticised over their failure to prevent the abuse and torture of Iraqi detainees. In Washington, an army official revealed that one US soldier was convicted of murder for shooting a prisoner to death in September 2003 at a detention centre in Iraq, and that another prisoner was killed at the Abu Ghraib jail near Baghdad two months later by a private contractor working for the CIA.

The soldier - convicted by court martial - was thrown out of the service but did not serve time in jail. The official said that the soldier shot the prisoner after he had thrown stones at him. The serviceman was found to have used excessive force. No action was taken against the CIA contractor because the military had no legal jurisdiction.

A third death among the 25 being investigated was ruled a justifiable homicide, because the authorities said that it happened as the prisoner was attempting to escape.

Of the other 22 death investigations involving prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, 12 prisoners were found to have died either by natural or undetermined causes and a further 10 deaths were still being investigated.
emphasis added

independent.co.uk (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518258)

[IJ Reilly]

Did anybody else catch any of Rumsfeld's press conference today? I never thought I'd see this man looking uncertain, but he was certainly not his old completely self-confident self this time. What shocked me was his answer to a question about whether he'd read the report in full. He wouldn't even admit to having completely read the executive summary. Something is very wrong here, folks.

[Sayhey]

Did anybody else catch any of Rumsfeld's press conference today? I never thought I'd see this man looking uncertain, but he was certainly not his old completely self-confident self this time. What shocked me was his answer to a question about whether he'd read the report in full. He wouldn't even admit to having completely read the executive summary. Something is very wrong here, folks.

My guess is that somewhere along the line, very shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, a decision was made at very high levels to put a emphasis on the extraction of information. The methods used to get that information, including torture, may or may not have been discussed at those same high levels, but the original decision makers are getting very nervous.

[IJ Reilly]

My guess is that somewhere along the line, very shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, a decision was made at very high levels to put a emphasis on the extraction of information. The methods used to get that information, including torture, may or may not have been discussed at those same high levels, but the original decision makers are getting very nervous.

Who will rid me of this troublesome priest? It was a good thing for King Henry that he didn't have to concern himself with reelection. I wonder if King George isn't beginning to consider whether he is, after all, capable of error.

[Sayhey]

Who will rid me of this troublesome priest? It was a good thing for King Henry that he didn't have to concern himself with reelection. I wonder if King George isn't beginning to consider whether he is, after all, capable of error.

At least the murder of Beckett had the truth that he had become an opponent of Henry. A vile crime, but a well targeted one. As one commentator on Charlie Rose's show said, many of the people in this prison are only guilty of "driving while Iraqi."

[mactastic]

are you implying its happening everywhere else? That the entire Army is made up of "sexual sadists". Odds are more likely one or two strong personallity types were in command with a few weak willed individuals who either "joined in with the fun" or stood on the outside and pretended they saw nothing.

Sly, are you ready to admit this problem is more widespread than 'one or two strong personality types'? If you'd had your way the torture would continue and no investigation would take place.

[SlyHunter]

Sly, are you ready to admit this problem is more widespread than 'one or two strong personality types'? If you'd had your way the torture would continue and no investigation would take place.
Boy allot of people putting words in my mouth.
My way the folks responsible for torturing prisoners would be prosecuted under the law even if they are Americans. But to say its as bad as the tortures that went on under Saddam Hussein is like comparing the jonesboro masacers to the hollacaust.

[mactastic]

Those were YOUR words Sly. I didn't put any words in your mouth. And wern't you the one saying we need to punish the six guilty ones and move on? That would put you in the camp of allowing the additional cases we've heard of to continue.

And who gets to prosecute them? If Americans were abused, would you allow the abusers country to try them? Or would you insist that they be 'brought to justice' in the US?

[IJ Reilly]

At least the murder of Beckett had the truth that he had become an opponent of Henry. A vile crime, but a well targeted one. As one commentator on Charlie Rose's show said, many of the people in this prison are only guilty of "driving while Iraqi."

The point being of course (and I'm sure you got it), some directives are implicit, not explicit. Henry could not order his loyal subjects to murder Beckett, but he did make it very clear that he wouldn't miss him if he were gone. In looking up the chain of command in the Iraqi prisoner abuse situation, we need to be asking questions not so much about who gave what orders, because that will amount to scapegoating, but about who averted their eyes because they were getting the results they desired.

[Sayhey]

The point being of course (and I'm sure you got it), some directives are implicit, not explicit. Henry could not order his loyal subjects to murder Beckett, but he did make it very clear that he wouldn't miss him if he were gone. In looking up the chain of command in the Iraqi prisoner abuse situation, we need to be asking questions not so much about who gave what orders, because that will amount to scapegoating, but about who averted their eyes because they were getting the results they desired.

Yes, I got it, IJ. In continuing the analogy, can we count on our King George submitting to a public flogging? It might take that for the Arab world to take anything he says seriously again. I hope that it isn't just the King's fanatical knights who take the fall for this one.

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, I got it, IJ. In continuing the analogy, can we count on our King George submitting to a public flogging? It might take that for the Arab world to take anything he says seriously again. I hope that it isn't just the King's fanatical knights who take the fall for this one.

Doubtful on the first count, a likely effort to make others take the rap, on the second.

So I ask the electorate, "who will rid us of this incompetent President?"

[blackfox]

So I ask the electorate, "who will rid us of this incompetent President?"
Well, I hereby throw my hat in the ring...in the words of GWB "Bring it on" come November...although I do have some issues with Kerry, at this point I feel the US needs a change in the Oval Office, if only to show the rest of the world that perhaps the US is capable of repairing the damage done...an article of faith, if you will...

[IJ Reilly]

Well, I hereby throw my hat in the ring...in the words of GWB "Bring it on" come November...although I do have some issues with Kerry, at this point I feel the US needs a change in the Oval Office, if only to show the rest of the world that perhaps the US is capable of repairing the damage done...an article of faith, if you will...

Kerry isn't exactly the candidate of my dreams either, but I do agree, we need a President who can persuade the world that America's deeds will live up to American rhetoric and intentions. If Kerry is elected, he's going to have a real mess on his hands. I don't envy him cleaning up after the Bush administration's campaign of recklessness.

[numediaman]

I'm not one for the "Style" section -- but here is a good column from the WaPo concerning Abu Ghraib and the meaning behind the story.

People like Sly can not seem to conceive of the enormous damage this administration has caused to the reputation of the country. Yes, the pictures from Abu Ghraib are terrible -- but to really understand their significance you have to combine them with our position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, our unprovoked-preemptive war on Iraq, and our policies on international issues such as the environment and justice issues.

A Wretched New Picture Of America
Photos From Iraq Prison Show We Are Our Own Worst Enemy

By Philip Kennicott
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 5, 2004; Page C01

Among the corrosive lies a nation at war tells itself is that the glory -- the lofty goals announced beforehand, the victories, the liberation of the oppressed -- belongs to the country as a whole; but the failure -- the accidents, the uncounted civilian dead, the crimes and atrocities -- is always exceptional. Noble goals flow naturally from a noble people; the occasional act of barbarity is always the work of individuals, unaccountable, confusing and indigestible to the national conscience.

This kind of thinking was widely in evidence among military and political leaders after the emergence of pictures documenting American abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison. These photographs do not capture the soul of America, they argued. They are aberrant.

This belief, that the photographs are distortions, despite their authenticity, is indistinguishable from propaganda. Tyrants censor; democracies self-censor. Tyrants concoct propaganda in ministries of information; democracies produce it through habits of thought so ingrained that a basic lie of war -- only the good is our doing -- becomes self-propagating.

But now we have photos that have gone to the ends of the Earth, and painted brilliantly and indelibly, an image of America that could remain with us for years, perhaps decades. An Army investigative report reveals that we have stripped young men (whom we purported to liberate) of their clothing and their dignity; we have forced them to make pyramids of flesh, as if they were children; we have made them masturbate in front of their captors and cameras; forced them to simulate sexual acts; threatened prisoners with rape and sodomized at least one; beaten them; and turned dogs upon them.

There are now images of men in the Muslim world looking at these images. On the streets of Cairo, men pore over a newspaper. An icon appears on the front page: a hooded man, in a rug-like poncho, standing with his arms out like Christ, wires attached to the hands. He is faceless. This is now the image of the war. In this country, perhaps it will have some competition from the statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled. Everywhere else, everywhere America is hated (and that's a very large part of this globe), the hooded, wired, faceless man of Abu Ghraib is this war's new mascot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2040-2004May4?language=printer

[IJ Reilly]

I'd suggest everyone click the link and read this column in its entirety. It left me with a feeling of deep sadness, mixed with foreboding.

[numediaman]

On a lighter note:

[Stelliform]

"..... incompetent President?"

If you repeat something often enough, does it become true?

I know this is a favorite tactic from both sides, I just wish that the loyal legions would just get some new plays for their playbook.

[zimv20]

If you repeat something often enough, does it become true?

how do uninformed, aloof and incurious grab you?

[IJ Reilly]

If you repeat something often enough, does it become true?

No, it's true for a list of fully enumerated reasons.

[Backtothemac]

Ok, here is my take as someone that has served in the military. First, there are some things that are being called torture that are not. Sleep Deprivation is not torture. It is just what it is, an effective way to extrapolate information from a detainee to be used in such a way that will save lives. It is uncomfortable as hell, and borders on sadistic, but and I say that with a big B, we have to get information from these people.

Now, that being said, what happend at the prison was wrong, and the soldiers should be charged with assault, and locked up in the brig. They should have known better. Period. The higher ups, should all be dismissed. The General in charge of the prisons, should go, Rummy should go, and the buck should stop at Bush, and the people should decide if he goes.

I am a republican, and a hawk. A massive hawk, but, this war could have, and should have been better planed for post war occupation, and ESPECIALLY, the treatment of the prisoners. Unreal. Now, the actions that have involved death. The soldiers should be tried before a military court, and executed if found guilty. Send a message that murder of a prison of war is not acceptible. The guy that killed the guy for throwing rocks at him. They said it was excessive, but how do we know. Were they pebbles, or friggin rocks. A rock could have killed the soldier. Was it the first time, of the 50th time? We don't know, so I am not going to judge all of the men and women that are in uniform. THEY ARE NOT ALL GUILTY OF THIS CRIME. Now, that being said, those that are, should pay the highest penalty that can be paid.

[toontra]

Ok, here is my take as someone that has served in the military. First, there are some things that are being called torture that are not. Sleep Deprivation is not torture. It is just what it is, an effective way to extrapolate information from a detainee to be used in such a way that will save lives. It is uncomfortable as hell, and borders on sadistic, but and I say that with a big B, we have to get information from these people.

Now, that being said, what happend at the prison was wrong, and the soldiers should be charged with assault, and locked up in the brig. They should have known better. Period. The higher ups, should all be dismissed. The General in charge of the prisons, should go, Rummy should go, and the buck should stop at Bush, and the people should decide if he goes.

I am a republican, and a hawk. A massive hawk, but, this war could have, and should have been better planed for post war occupation, and ESPECIALLY, the treatment of the prisoners. Unreal. Now, the actions that have involved death. The soldiers should be tried before a military court, and executed if found guilty. Send a message that murder of a prison of war is not acceptible. The guy that killed the guy for throwing rocks at him. They said it was excessive, but how do we know. Were they pebbles, or friggin rocks. A rock could have killed the soldier. Was it the first time, of the 50th time? We don't know, so I am not going to judge all of the men and women that are in uniform. THEY ARE NOT ALL GUILTY OF THIS CRIME. Now, that being said, those that are, should pay the highest penalty that can be paid.

Well said, B2TM. I agree with all you say here. We disagree about most things, but I appreciate your ability to separate your political sympathies from your judgment of the issues. ;)

[zimv20]

Well said, B2TM. I agree with all you say here. We disagree about most things, but I appreciate your ability to separate your political sympathies from your judgment of the issues. ;)
what he said

[Backtothemac]

Thanks for noticing guys. It means a lot.

[skunk]

Thanks for noticing guys. It means a lot.
Trouble is, the only people we have to argue with now are FriedHockey and SlightHunter. :eek: :D

[Backtothemac]

Trouble is, the only people we have to argue with now are FriedHockey and SlightHunter. :eek: :D

LOL. Na, believe me, closer to the election, I will want to argue true policy, and facts. Not name calling that results in people hating people, and folks getting banned, we will argue, but I have learned from all of you how to look more at the center of issue for the truth rather than to the left or right for the spin.
:D

[zimv20]

LOL. Na, believe me, closer to the election, I will want to argue true policy, and facts.
nah, you should come back now

[Backtothemac]

nah, you should come back now
I am going to be around more and more. My wife and I just bought a house, so things have been very hectic here. I will post pics in their own thread soon.

[zimv20]

My wife and I just bought a house
that's great, congratulations

[numediaman]

Rush says that it's not torture, just a bunch of guys (and gals) blowing off steam.

CALLER: It was like a college fraternity prank that stacked up naked men --

LIMBAUGH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?

I'm sure a good time was had by all.

[IJ Reilly]

Rush says that it's not torture, just a bunch of guys (and gals) blowing off steam.

I'd call this incredible if I hadn't heard it from others of Limbaugh's ilk already. It's still deeply shameful for any American to talk like this, not to mention, embarrassing to the rest of us.

[poopyhead]

Often times I've wondered whether Rush has had a chemical light up his butt. This merely seems to prove it. If sodomizing and dehumanizing captives is fun, as Rush seems to imply, then I'm sure a good time was had by all. Otherwise, Rush is an imbecile who ought to think twice, or at least with a mind not clouded by "hillbilly heroin", before making such sadistic and disturbing remarks.

[zimv20]

link (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAW7ICDWTD.html)

looks like the photos have negatively affected US opinion about the iraq war:

May 6, 2004

Poll: More Now Say Removal of Saddam Not Worth Cost
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - More voters now say the removal of Saddam Hussein was not worth the cost financially or in casualties caused by the war in Iraq, according to a poll released Wednesday night.

The NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that 42 percent of registered voters say it was worth the cost to get rid of Saddam and 47 percent felt it was not worth it. An NBC-WSJ poll as recently as March found 50 percent of adults felt it was worth the cost to remove the Iraqi leader.

The poll appeared to show a drop in support since the last poll, but comparing results about registered voters with results measuring the attitudes of all adults should be viewed cautiously.

More than half, 55 percent, said they favor withdrawing U.S. troops within 18 months. The number willing to say troops should stay as long as necessary has fallen to 44 percent from 56 percent in January.

The poll comes at a time when allegations of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers have put the Bush administration on the defensive and have angered people in the Mideast and around the world.

The poll of 1,012 adults was taken Saturday through Monday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, slightly larger for registered voters.

[toontra]

Bush has now officially apologized for the torture in Iraqi jails - LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1210724,00.html)

[zimv20]

i certainly fell for that one

[mactastic]

So Rush is a torture apologist now? How anyone can defend that type of behavior is astounding. Fraternity pranks? How many Skull and Bones guys were sodomized as part of their initiation? Threatened with execution? Had a weapon discharged near them? Cuffed and beaten? Yeah that sounds like a regular fraternity to me. :rolleyes:

[krimson]

So now that the WMD, Al Quida link and the humanitarian reasons are more or less done with, what will Bushy use to justify the war now?

[zimv20]

So now that the WMD, Al Quida link and the humanitarian reasons are more or less done with, what will Bushy use to justify the war now?
"well, we can't just leave"

[krimson]

yes, but Bushy needs a new reason to repeat over and over and over and over and over.... that's all i'm saying.

[mactastic]

I'm guessing something along the lines of 'Well we can't let a bunch of thugs and assasains kick us out of there.'

or

'We can't give in to the demands of terrorists.'

or

'It's all John Kerry's fault! Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.' :D

[SlyHunter]

Bush has now officially apologized for the torture in Iraqi jails - LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1210724,00.html)
I heard a caller on Hannity with a good example. Does a teacher apologize for his students flunking his class? Does a Chief of police apoligize for every criminal in his jurisdiction? No, then why should Bush apologize for the criminals in his military who are going to be brought to justice? I'm still waiting for the apology for them Saudi's running into our buildings. I'm still waiting for the apology for them Iraqi's dismembering our troops and treating their corpses like dung.

[SlyHunter]

So now that the WMD, Al Quida link and the humanitarian reasons are more or less done with, what will Bushy use to justify the war now?
Stating a fact that is not a fact doesn't make it a fact.
1991 Saddam showed everyone his WMD's.
Now we can't find them.
The question is where are they? Not Bush's fault we didn't find them, its Saddams fault for not declaring them. If he destroyed them and then destroyed the evidence of that destruction that was stupid and he shouldn't of done it and its his own fault he had no proof of their destruction. If he gave it away to someone else, then we need to find it. And if he buried it we also need to find it. But they did exist.

Al Quieda did have camps in Saddams country. And we aren't talking about a Saddam-Al Quieda link we are talking a Saddam - Terrorist link. You are limiting by narrowing the field to just one terrorist organization, there are many more just as important. A big time provable link is Saddams checks to family members of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Bush doesn't have to justify the war, those who are against the war need to justify their existance.

[numediaman]

Stating a fact that is not a fact doesn't make it a fact.
1991 Saddam showed everyone his WMD's.
Now we can't find them.
The question is where are they? Not Bush's fault we didn't find them, its Saddams fault for not declaring them. If he destroyed them and then destroyed the evidence of that destruction that was stupid and he shouldn't of done it and its his own fault he had no proof of their destruction. If he gave it away to someone else, then we need to find it. And if he buried it we also need to find it. But they did exist.

Al Quieda did have camps in Saddams country. And we aren't talking about a Saddam-Al Quieda link we are talking a Saddam - Terrorist link. You are limiting by narrowing the field to just one terrorist organization, there are many more just as important. A big time provable link is Saddams checks to family members of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Bush doesn't have to justify the war, those who are against the war need to justify their existance.

You mean the UN inspectors didn't destroy any WMDs after 1991. This is a major revelation, Sly. You need to call the NY Times and let them know this. I guess this news report is a complete lie.

Prior to their departure, the inspection teams had destroyed or made unusable 48 long range missiles, 14 conventional missile warheads, 30 chemical warheads, "supergun" components, close to 40,000 chemical munitions, 690 tonnes of chemical weapons agents and the al-Hakam biological weapons plant.

And you've also discovered that Al Qaeda had camps in Iraq. Wow, better get on the phone again to the NY Times. You must have amazing sources!

Prior to your discovery the only camps reported were Ansar al-Islam, a small Kurdish Islamic group. But, no, Sly has better news sources. I say let's nominate Sly for a Pulitzer prize -- his reporting has scooped the AP, The Times, the Post, the BBC -- you name it, Sly has scooped 'em.

Oh, and by the way, after that last post you are definitely on the ignore list. Bye bye.

[mactastic]

I heard a caller on Hannity with a good example. Does a teacher apologize for his students flunking his class? Does a Chief of police apoligize for every criminal in his jurisdiction? No, then why should Bush apologize for the criminals in his military who are going to be brought to justice? I'm still waiting for the apology for them Saudi's running into our buildings. I'm still waiting for the apology for them Iraqi's dismembering our troops and treating their corpses like dung.

Does a police chief apologize for the misdeeds of his/her officers is a more appropriate analogy. And yes, they do.

Oh and BTW Sly, those wern't our troops. They were 'private contractors' or 'mercenaries'. Take you pick what you want to call them, but don't call them 'our troops'.

[mactastic]

Bush doesn't have to justify the war, those who are against the war need to justify their existance.

You are crossing the line Sly. Take this back. Now. :mad:

Anyone from the right want to try to reign in Sly here? Or are you all OK with what he's saying?

[SlyHunter]

You are crossing the line Sly. Take this back. Now. :mad:
ok maybe that is a little harsh for it can be extrapolated to mean much further than I originally intended it to mean.

Bush doesn't need to justify the war for the war has already been justified simply because Saddam did not honor his surrender agreement no more justification is needed even tho Bush and Powell went out of their way to do just that.

Those oppose to the war need to get a grip on what they are really oppose to. They need to understand the consequences of doing nothing. Like for example had Japan not attacked America these same folks could be saying there is not justification for attacking Germany. There would be no Jews left alive today and the French would all be speaking Deutsche.

[pseudobrit]

Does a police chief apologize for the misdeeds of his/her officers is a more appropriate analogy. And yes, they do.

**** always rolls uphill in a well-led, responsible organisation, be it a corporation, government, military, or my hockey team.

George W. Bush and his cronies have seeminlgy sworn some oath against apologies. I'd wager Rove has polled and done the psychological studies and come back with: "people see any kind of apology or humility as a weakness."

[mactastic]

And those for the war need to understand what the consequences of doing what we have done are.

Gone are the days where we could prevail upon another nation to halt aggressive actions against another nation. When the poop hits the fan and we go to Pakistan or India and tell them not to nuke each other, and they look at us and say 'It's a preemptive strike.' what then? What possible justification could you give them that wouldn't be a complete hipocrasy?

The next time there is a terrorist attack on America, will the world want to help us so much?

How much good would $200+ billion do our education system, or our national debt, or the crisis in our health care system?

IF Dubya didn't have to justify the war, why did he try so hard?

[toontra]

You are crossing the line Sly. Take this back. Now. :mad:

Anyone from the right want to try to reign in Sly here? Or are you all OK with what he's saying?

I've said it before (twice) and I'll say it again - SlyHunter is a troll. Responding to his posts will encourage him to carry on with his nonsense. I suggest you do as I have done and put him on your "ignore" list. End of problem.

[Backtothemac]

I have to say that I supported the war, and still do, because I wanted Saddam out more for humanitarian reasons, than the WMD's. I still believe they are out there. just think. 3.9 tons of vx would fit in your garrage. Find that in a country the size of California.

Anyway, that is besides the point. Anyone that would try to condone this behavior is a joke, and I cannot affiliate myself with them. I was listening to Rush today and heard him say this, and my station was changed to a wonderful 80's station. ;)

[poopyhead]

I heard a caller on Hannity with a good example. Does a teacher apologize for his students flunking his class? Does a Chief of police apoligize for every criminal in his jurisdiction? No, then why should Bush apologize for the criminals in his military who are going to be brought to justice? I'm still waiting for the apology for them Saudi's running into our buildings. I'm still waiting for the apology for them Iraqi's dismembering our troops and treating their corpses like dung.

bush, sad is it may be, is the representative of the US on the world stage. He speaks for, acts for, and represents the American people. As such, it is his duty to reflect and speak collectively and appropriately for the American people who at this time feel great regret and horror for the actions of their/our fellow american citizens.
Unfortunately Iraq has no executive to speak for the people of Iraq (he was along with the country taken captive) therefore there is no one to speak collectively for their singular acts of atrocity.
It is our duty as the most powerful, richest, and supposedly most humane nation in the world to rise above the fray and to act humanely, with compassion, and apologize for our misdeeds.

[krimson]

Stating a fact that is not a fact doesn't make it a fact.
1991 Saddam showed everyone his WMD's.
Now we can't find them.
The question is where are they? Not Bush's fault we didn't find them, its Saddams fault for not declaring them. If he destroyed them and then destroyed the evidence of that destruction that was stupid and he shouldn't of done it and its his own fault he had no proof of their destruction. If he gave it away to someone else, then we need to find it. And if he buried it we also need to find it. But they did exist.

Al Quieda did have camps in Saddams country. And we aren't talking about a Saddam-Al Quieda link we are talking a Saddam - Terrorist link. You are limiting by narrowing the field to just one terrorist organization, there are many more just as important. A big time provable link is Saddams checks to family members of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Bush doesn't have to justify the war, those who are against the war need to justify their existance.

Ah ha, see, I believe it to be a fact, and you cannot prove me otherwise, but similarly, I can't prove it. Nor did I actually say it was not a fact. Not only was his original reasoning "we know he has weapons", AND "we know where they are". The mere fact that having WMD's and the willingness to use that does not give the right to invade and topple another country. If having WMD's and using them were a reason, we would not be here.

And as for Saddam giving money to the Palestinian suicide bombers... we give financial aid to Isreal. Whom they are in conflict with. In your opinion, the palestinians are terrorists, in their minds, the isreali's are terrorists.

Besides, I mearly pointed out that as each excuse Bushy used to justify the war has become less effective or false, he has shifted to other reasons. But I am glad that you still believe in reasons that even the President doesn't use anymore.

Now, please stop taking what I had said before completely out of context. :)

[IJ Reilly]

But I am glad that you still believe in reasons that even the President doesn't use anymore.

I guess somebody forgot to go in for his last reprogramming.

[SlyHunter]

Ah ha, see, I believe it to be a fact, and you cannot prove me otherwise, but similarly, I can't prove it. Nor did I actually say it was not a fact. Not only was his original reasoning "we know he has weapons", AND "we know where they are". The mere fact that having WMD's and the willingness to use that does not give the right to invade and topple another country. If having WMD's and using them were a reason, we would not be here.

It does if he signed a peace agreement stating that it does.
He attacked Kuwaitt, we beat him, we didn't remove him from office in return he signed an agreement and he didn't follow that agreement. Penalty for not following that agreement is the resumption of war. He had 12 years and he didn't make use of them.

[SlyHunter]

And as for Saddam giving money to the Palestinian suicide bombers... we give financial aid to Isreal. Whom they are in conflict with. In your opinion, the palestinians are terrorists, in their minds, the isreali's are terrorists.

Besides, I mearly pointed out that as each excuse Bushy used to justify the war has become less effective or false, he has shifted to other reasons. But I am glad that you still believe in reasons that even the President doesn't use anymore.

Now, please stop taking what I had said before completely out of context. :)
Israel is our ally. Also I don't see a whole lot of Israelites strapping bombs to their wastes and blowing up movie theaters. Some reason you can't see the difference between helping an ally and rewarding the family members of suicide bombers.

You walk into a movie theater and set off a bomb your a terrorist it is that freaken simple. See a freedom fighter, or a revolutionary targets military targets and sometimes kills civilians. Someone who goes into a movie theater and goes boom is a terrorist and so are the folks who support him.

And while the main reason was the failure to follow the surrender agreements there are other reasons too. Bush is being a politician I am not.

[mactastic]

And what of the 'collateral damage' done by firing a missile into a crowded street in an extra-judicial killing of an opposition leader? Is that not done in part to affect the behavior of the Palestinian people? To keep them out of the streets in the same way suicide bombers keep Israelis off their streets? You may not call it terrorism, but they do when they rally their troops. And it's one more excuse for jihad in their mind.

As we've seen all too clearly recently, the line between interrogation and torture is perilously thin. So is the line between military and civilian targets when you talk about urban warfare.

[Les Kern]

oh come on. like he couldnt come out against the cruelty right away.

Seems this happened in January and he KNEW it. Hubris.

[Les Kern]

It does if he signed a peace agreement stating that it does.
He attacked Kuwaitt, we beat him, we didn't remove him from office in return he signed an agreement and he didn't follow that agreement. Penalty for not following that agreement is the resumption of war. He had 12 years and he didn't make use of them.

You don't get any of this. No offense.

[zimv20]

The next time there is a terrorist attack on America, will the world want to help us so much?

wouldn't that simply be considered justifiable under the doctrine of pre-emption?

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by mactastic

The next time there is a terrorist attack on America, will the world want to help us so much?


wouldn't that simply be considered justifiable under the doctrine of pre-emption?
Like they gave us all that help from 9/11. The other governments only helps us if we pay them to. Sometimes I think the Libertarians are right in their isolationists attitudes.

[skunk]

Like they gave us all that help from 9/11. The other governments only helps us if we pay them to. Sometimes I think the Libertarians are right in their isolationists attitudes.
Think before you post. :mad:

[SlyHunter]

LIBERALS CALLING FOR RUMSFELD'S HEAD

Democrats are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. Kerry, of course, and super-leftist Nancy Pelosi. Hyper-partisan Charles Rangel is even calling for an impeachment. So, here's your question:

Democrats are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation because they believe such a resignation would :
(a) Improve our chances of accomplishing our goals of creating a free, and independent Iraq

(b) Improve Democrat's chances of defeating Bush in November.


If you answered (a) you are beyond all hope of help of any kind.

This started off with The Poodle demanding Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation over the Iraqi prison photos, and now it has spread to other Democrats. This is not about addressing the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, this is about crippling George Bush and doing everything possible to advance his misfortune.

The rhetoric here is out of control. I saw Ann Applebaum, a member of the Washington Post editorial board, say this morning that Donald Rumsfeld had made a decision to ignore the rules of the Geneva Convention and had also made a decision to "create a lawless prison system." Remember ... Applebaum will be voting for Kerry in November.

Rumsfeld goes before the Senate Armed Services Committee today, and you can expect fireworks. Democratic Senators John Corzine, Joe Biden and Tom Harkin are also on the list of Democrats saying Rumsfeld should be fired. What for? Was Donald Rumsfeld the one taking the Iraqi abuse pictures? Did he not take appropriate action once it was discovered? What possible reason would there be for him to quit? None...zippo. It's as preposterous to suggest that he resign as it would be to suggest any other member of the cabinet do so. It's apparently the new mantra of the left....when they don't like a Republican official in government....they demand his or her resignation! After all, somebody must be to blame! It can't just be a few bad apples in the ranks.

Let me tell you what this is not about. It is not about winning the war in Iraq. It is not about bringing terrorists to justice. It is not about protecting America from Islamic terrorism. It's all about defaming and damaging the credibility of George Bush and putting the Democrats back into the White House.

Bush has said he supports Rumsfeld, and he will remain in the cabinet. The Democrats are going to come unglued today. Get ready. What fun.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Force someone to resign because he's the leader of the leader of the leader of a bunch of idiots. But someone who stands in front of Congress and then again on a talk show 1971 announces "I committed war crimes, I burnt down civilian homes" etc etc and ignore it because he's not a republican, if he was a republican we would've never heard the end of it until he was drumed out of office.

[skunk]

Force someone to resign because he's the leader of the leader of the leader of a bunch of idiots. But someone who stands in front of Congress and then again on a talk show 1971 announces "I committed war crimes, I burnt down civilian homes" etc etc and ignore it because he's not a republican, if he was a republican we would've never heard the end of it until he was drumed out of office.
Well done, Sly, you're the first to make it to my ignore list. Byee!

[krimson]

Israel is our ally. Also I don't see a whole lot of Israelites strapping bombs to their wastes and blowing up movie theaters. Some reason you can't see the difference between helping an ally and rewarding the family members of suicide bombers.

You walk into a movie theater and set off a bomb your a terrorist it is that freaken simple. See a freedom fighter, or a revolutionary targets military targets and sometimes kills civilians. Someone who goes into a movie theater and goes boom is a terrorist and so are the folks who support him.

And while the main reason was the failure to follow the surrender agreements there are other reasons too. Bush is being a politician I am not.


Isrealites have our modern military weapons, they dont need to strap bombs to themselves, when they can press a button from yards away. Tanks, standing army and bulldozers also help with not having to blow yourself up. As far as I have seen, terrorism doesn't require that it be a suicide bomber going into a train, movie theater. One that uses the threat of violence, destruction of property for your own gain, is a terrorist.

Just as I can't seem to see the difference between helping an ally, and rewarding the family members of suicide bombers, you can't see the real definition of a terrorist. But ill try and use your definition, and say that the Palestinians are fighting for their freedom, and Saddam just happen to be their ally again Isreal who has been crushing them economically, politically and socially for years.

As for not following agreements, it's nice that any evidence that they did actually followed the agreements were destroyed by cruise missiles. It's also nice that our superior intel that said they had WMDs (and we know where they are) hasn't turned up these supposed WMD's, and yet the UN commission already stated that they didn't believe that they still had weapons. But of course who would believe those crazy UN people, when our intell says otherwise.

[krimson]

It does if he signed a peace agreement stating that it does.
He attacked Kuwaitt, we beat him, we didn't remove him from office in return he signed an agreement and he didn't follow that agreement. Penalty for not following that agreement is the resumption of war. He had 12 years and he didn't make use of them.

So where's the WMD's?
Like I said, there's still no proof that he broke the agreement. if that were the case, Bushy would still be using that as one of his reasons. Of course you obviously dont believe any of the new defectors and prisoners that said the WMD's were destroyed. That's fine if you dont believe those crazy iraqis, they aren't our allies anyways, not anymore at least.

[takao]

well now it is up to the president of the USA to clean up that things... the last reputation is fading away ...the newspapers here are tearing apart the iraq politics

2-3 of those soldiers which abused iraqy prisoners already worked as prison guards in the united states....which leads me to the conclusion that those abuses were ordered... because those soldiers knew how to treat prisoners correctly...

[numediaman]

Good ol' girl who enjoyed cruelty

By SHARON CHURCHER in Fort Ashby

May 7, 2004

POINTING crudely at the genitals of a naked, hooded Iraqi, the petite brunette with a cigarette hanging from her lips epitomised America's shame over revelations US soldiers routinely tortured inmates at Abu Ghraib jail near Baghdad.

Lynndie England, 21, a rail worker's daughter, comes from a trailer park in Fort Ashby, West Virginia, which locals proudly call "a backwoods world".

She faces a court martial, but at home she is toasted as a hero.

At the dingy Corner Club Saloon they think she has done nothing wrong.

"A lot of people here think they ought to just blow up the whole of Iraq," Colleen Kesner said.

"To the country boys here, if you're a different nationality, a different race, you're sub-human. That's the way girls like Lynndie are raised.

"Tormenting Iraqis, in her mind, would be no different from shooting a turkey. Every season here you're hunting something. Over there, they're hunting Iraqis."

In Fort Ashby, in the isolated Appalachian mountains 260km west of Washington, the poor, barely-educated and almost all-white population talk openly about an active Ku Klux Klan presence.

http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=1302907

I wonder if a certain person who likes to post here may investigate moving to Fort Ashby?

Apparently, the problem of torture can be blamed on feminists:


Rush Limbaugh: I think a lot of the American culture is being feminized. I think the reaction to the stupid torture is an example of the feminization of this country.


Ann Coulter, right-wing pundit and syndicated columnist:

I think the other point that no one is making about the abuse photos is just the disproportionate number of women involved, including a girl general running the entire operation.

I mean, this is lesson, you know, one million and 47 on why women shouldn't be in the military. In addition to not being able to carry even a medium-sized backpack, women are too vicious.


George Neumayr, managing editor of The American Spectator:

The image of that female guard, smoking away as she joins gleefully in the disgraceful melee like one of the guys, is a cultural outgrowth of a feminist culture which encourages female barbarians. GI Janes are kicking around patriarchal Muslims in Iraq? This is [Feminist Majority Foundation president] Eleanor Smeal's vision come to life. Had Thelma and Louise gone off to Iraq -- and sexually humiliated some of Saddam Hussein's soldiers as payback for abuse to Jessica Lynch a few cities back -- the radical feminists could make a sequel. ...

Feminists are good at creating a culture that produces "equal-opportunity abusers," Donnelly says. What happened at Abu Ghraib is also happening in feminist America, she adds, pointing to an Associated Press article from last month on a "disturbing trend around the country. Girls are turning to violence more often and with terrifying intensity." ...

Perhaps in the eyes of feminists this isn't a crisis but a potential social program and these girls deserve ROTC credits.

from mediamatters.org

[IJ Reilly]

A "girl general"? Turns out Al Franken is right: Ann Coulter is insane.

[IJ Reilly]

So much for the "isolated instance" theory.

Marines Were Investigated for Iraq Jail Abuse

The 2003 cases of eight reservists, including one in which an inmate died, prompted officials in the Corps to change how their prisons are run.

By Tony Perry and Esther Schrader
Times Staff Writers

May 7, 2004

FALLOUJA, Iraq — Before many of the notorious photos of Iraqi prisoners being abused by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison were taken, American military officials were investigating accusations of abuse by eight Marine reservists at a detention facility outside Nasiriya, including a case in which one prisoner died.

The Whitehorse detention case is among several dozen cases of potential abuse of prisoners by American personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan investigated by the military dating back to December 2002. Criminal charges have been filed in only a handful of the incidents so far, and some of the accused faced no punishment beyond demotion, discharge or sacrifice of pay, according to available reports and public records.

In addition to charges filed against six military police officers at Abu Ghraib, the Army discharged three soldiers in January for mistreating detainees at the Camp Bucca detention facility in southern Iraq. And the military is investigating the deaths of two Afghan men who died in U.S. custody at Bagram air base, Afghanistan, in December 2002, Army officials said.

The emerging details of detainee abuse dating to the early days of U.S.-led military actions against Afghanistan and Iraq suggest that defense officials had a trail of evidence of problems in the system long before the shocking Abu Ghraib abuses had occurred.

Human rights groups that have questioned U.S. detainee efforts for months expressed skepticism of Bush administration statements that top officials were unaware of the extent of abuses at Abu Ghraib until graphic, sexually oriented photographs documenting the mistreatment were revealed a week ago.

"We've been raising questions since the first detentions in the Afghanistan conflict," said Alistair Hodgett, a spokesman for Amnesty International, the London-based human rights group.

"These cases and these concerns have been well-known. It should not have taken graphic photographs to trigger a response from the Bush administration."

[...]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-cases7may07,1,7116200.story

[claytonbench]

No one has things like that coming.


They did have it comming because of things like this:

[moderator edit - Graphic photos should not be attached to posts. If you must, link to the photo offsite with ample warning as to its graphic nature. We try to keep this site PG-13 at worst.]

[numediaman]

EDIT: The moderator took down the picture clatonbench posted. His post included a picture of the killed contractor in Fallujah. His point was that the torture of Iraqis is justified because of the killing in Fallujah.)

One problem, this torture occurred before the four contractors were killed in Fallujah. So, what you are really saying is that the contractors had it coming, right? (By the way, use Safari, it has spell check.)

Torture is unacceptable under any circumstance -- with the possible exception of imminent danger (the ol' bomb is ticking scenario).

But claytonbench is not the first right winger to justify the torture. He may have got his facts wrong, but his sentiment is clear: "we like this". This is America under Bush.

[radhak]

They did have it comming because of things like this:

But who did things like that? The people who need to be punished should be the people who were involved, not somebody else already in prison. That is the whole point : are you an American who believes in justice, or are you a member of a lynch mob who believes in just killing?

They don't call it a 'witch hunt' for nothing.

Btw, while news of the prisoner abuse came out only recently, it actually happened much before US people were attacked and mutilated in Iraq.

So what justifies what?

[krimson]

Tit for tat actions like this would not help at all. I can't believe that anyone would seriously support this. Had our prisoners been treated like that in 1991, we'd have bombed the hell out of the country, and had the UN pass resolutions condeming the actions, and such... Yet, this does make me wonder why we wouldn't join the International court thingy (yes, i forgot the exact name :) )

[claytonbench]

EDIT: The moderator took down the picture clatonbench posted. His post included a picture of the killed contractor in Fallujah. His point was that the torture of Iraqis is justified because of the killing in Fallujah.)

One problem, this torture occurred before the four contractors were killed in Fallujah. So, what you are really saying is that the contractors had it coming, right? (By the way, use Safari, it has spell check.)

Torture is unacceptable under any circumstance -- with the possible exception of imminent danger (the ol' bomb is ticking scenario).

But claytonbench is not the first right winger to justify the torture. He may have got his facts wrong, but his sentiment is clear: "we like this". This is America under Bush.

That picture was an example of things muslims do to people. if you would prefer i will go and attach many pictures from before the torture by americans took place. Please remember this is a WAR and war justifies doing whatever it takes to win. Also was it really neccesarry to stoop to personal attacks about my spelling, i do use safari.

[IJ Reilly]

But claytonbench is not the first right winger to justify the torture. He may have got his facts wrong, but his sentiment is clear: "we like this". This is America under Bush.

I've come to the same sad conclusion. The President may want to claim that these incidents "don't reflect the American heart," but we have to admit they reflect the hearts of many Americans. The irony, and hypocrisy, isn't lost on people in the Middle East.

[claytonbench]

Does anyone on this forum actually know what muslims believe? Please visit this site to get an experts view on the situation.

ProphetofDoom.net (http://www.prophetofdoom.net)

[zimv20]

That picture was an example of things muslims do to people.
no, it was a picture of what some individuals did to other individuals. i'd appreciate it if you took your racist garbage elsewhere.

[claytonbench]

no, it was a picture of what some individuals did to other individuals. i'd appreciate it if you took your racist garbage elsewhere.


No, you are wrong. That picture was an example of things muslims do to people. again: please goto www.prophetofdoom.net and read Craig Winn's books or at least browse his site.

[evil]

Does anyone on this forum actually know what muslims believe? Please visit this site to get an experts view on the situation.

ProphetofDoom.net (http://www.prophetofdoom.net)

if i want to know what muslims believe i most certainly will not be looking to a site called prophets of doom for answers.

[claytonbench]

if i want to know what muslims believe i most certainly will not be looking to a site called prophets of doom for answers.

Why not? it has direct excerpts from thw muslim bible and interviews with muslim leaders.

[IJ Reilly]

Craig Winn is a radical right-wing hate monger who's compared Mohammed to Hitler. Just so we know what we're dealing with here.

[D0ct0rteeth]

...remember this is a WAR and war justifies doing whatever it takes to win.

Thanks god this is just a high school football game or game of monopoly.. I was worried that this was a serious issue about the torture of human beings.

I posted in the other thread and it seems to have died off.. so I will post here. I truly understand the role of war in society bro.. I am typing this from behind a US Navy firewall... But tell me the truth.. WHY are we there? Its not humanitarian. Its not defense. CAN we win? This savage behavior will only re-inforce how our troops are viewed and cause more problems.

We have utterly destroyed the Iraqi coultry and believe that the arab nations have to "understand that we care, and know what is best for them" How racist. How shallow. None of the Abu Ghraib prison guards involved in the assaults appear to believe they were doing anything morally repugnant. Rather, they whine that they should have gotten better training, or claim to have been misused by intelligence agents.

Our President is whining, too.

“This is not America,” said George Bush on Wednesday, pleading the national case to the Arab world.*“America is a country of justice and law and freedom and treating people with respect.”


No, America is a country built on genocide, slavery and insatiable land-piracy, where even the lowest status white person is a king or queen compared to a “hajji” or “gook” or some other variety of “******.” This is the cultural well from which springs America’s ceaseless domestic and international wars, the fountainhead of aggression as a national trait. It is also the national characteristic that renders Americans unfit to “change the world” – Bush’s favorite refrain. The same racism that encourages Americans to believe they have a right to dominate the planet, prevents them from perceiving non-whites as human beings.

The abuse of Iraqi prisoners was inevitable. The plan to invade Iraq presupposed that its people are inferior and unworthy of thought or consideration…. They hate us because after we kill and destroy we ask stupid questions as if we were innocent.

We cannot succeed in Iraq because or definition of success is in and of itself unattainable and truly a huge failure.. intentionally changing the culture and ethics of a race of people is disgusting and impossible at the same time.. this whole thing is insane. We have no substantial long standing economic trade relationships with the middle east.. There are no close cultural relationships like england.. We only care about the middle east because of our dependancy for 40 million barrels of oil a day. And as long as we control Iraq and Israel we can have the muscle to enforce our childish and racist beliefs on them as if they are our slaves.

[Sayhey]

That picture was an example of things muslims do to people. if you would prefer i will go and attach many pictures from before the torture by americans took place. Please remember this is a WAR and war justifies doing whatever it takes to win. Also was it really neccesarry to stoop to personal attacks about my spelling, i do use safari.

An example of what "muslims do to people"? Shall we have a contests to see what atrocities have been committed in the name of each religion and see which one has the most extreme examples? Does the Inquisition and the Holocaust ring any bells for you? Stop with the outrageous slurs against an entire religion. The mutilation of the bodies of the four men in Fallujah is no more representative of Islam than the Oklahoma City bombing is of Christianity.

Just as importantly, war does not "justif[y] doing whatever it takes to win." After the Second World War we helped to punish Nazi war criminals precisely on the basis that war does not justify any kind of action. We helped to develop the standards of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners. Indeed, what has separated the US and many other democratic nations from the policies of the past is the striving to adhere to the rule of law. When we throw out those rules with a preemptive war and disregard for the Geneva Convention we undermine our own claim to any morality.

[zimv20]

Why not? it has direct excerpts from thw muslim bible and interviews with muslim leaders.
were you born w/ this much hate or was it learned?

[claytonbench]

Why anytime i bring up the FACT that the muslim religion in itself is a declaration of WAR on anyone not muslim do some people scream racism.If this is you definition of racism then declare me a racist, so what!

[D0ct0rteeth]

Why anytime i bring up the FACT that the muslim religion in itself is a declaration of WAR on anyone not muslim do some people scream racism.If this is you definition of racism then declare me a racist, so what!

I'll assume from your educated response that you are commenting on my post.

It is not YOU that I am saying is racist.. I am saying the war is RACIST. There is no reason to be there other than economic, and we beleive that it is a acceptable reason because they are an inferior culture. I don't care about your beliefs on Islam.. that is your choice to make.. I care about the results of this war and the worlds perception of my actions. I care about people being abused by my countrymen. Yes, there have been scores of Americans (and people from other nations) killed in heinous, disgusting manners... My intent isn't to lessen their deaths or sacrifices. Although actions like this make us look like a nation of fratboys. COMMON SENSE should tell you that you shouldn't shove a broom handle up someone's ass unless they ask you to!!

Beyond that, I don't think we want to get into the dicey proposition of "the Iraqis did this, so we're allowed to do that." First of all, we went into Iraq with the overarching intent of "liberating" the people from the tyrannical rule of Saddam. If that's the "hearts and minds" campaign we intend to stick to, we're not winning any converts by torturing the prisoners of war, much less revelling in that action. To say we're the democratic alternative to Saddam's despotism and then torture Iraqi captives in the same prison where Saddam's Ba'athists tortured Iraqi captives is the kind of hypocrisy that undermines the entire faulty venture.

Secondly, as the occupying force, we are held to extremely high standards. Occupiers who abuse their captives are usually rememberred throughout history as barbarians, which is an image the American military has had a hard time shaking in the international eye for decades. This isn't refuting that image whatsoever, and certainly won't help foster friendship among the allies we're counting on to help us maintain control in Iraq, much less to build support for us after against whomever we target next in our "war on terror."

[IJ Reilly]

Spewing hate is such a old game. It's a wonder that anyone is callow enough to think they just invented it.

[skunk]

We cannot succeed in Iraq because or definition of success is in and of itself unattainable and truly a huge failure.. intentionally changing the culture and ethics of a race of people is disgusting and impossible at the same time.. this whole thing is insane. We have no substantial long standing economic trade relationships with the middle east.. There are no close cultural relationships like england.. We only care about the middle east because of our dependancy for 40 million barrels of oil a day. And as long as we control Iraq and Israel we can have the muscle to enforce our childish and racist beliefs on them as if they are our slaves.
Good post, doc! :)

[skunk]

If this is you definition of racism then declare me a racist, so what!
You are a racist. :mad:

[SlyHunter]

So where's the WMD's?
Like I said, there's still no proof that he broke the agreement. if that were the case, Bushy would still be using that as one of his reasons. Of course you obviously dont believe any of the new defectors and prisoners that said the WMD's were destroyed. That's fine if you dont believe those crazy iraqis, they aren't our allies anyways, not anymore at least.
If the WMD's were destroyed then it was up to Saddam to prove they were destroyed that also was part of the surrender agreement. Saddam failled to honor it that was all that was necessary for a "resumption" of the Gulf War.

[SlyHunter]

Craig Winn is a radical right-wing hate monger who's compared Mohammed to Hitler. Just so we know what we're dealing with here.
And that makes him less reliable than that guy who posted that cartoon who wrote a report today comparing our army to the SS titled AN ARMY OF SCUM

Or, We're Looking For a Few Good Homosexual Rapists
http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/
or those who keep comparing Bush to Hitler?

[takao]

Please remember this is a WAR and war justifies doing whatever it takes to win.

you mean:
"The result justifies the deed." ("Exitus acta probat")
Ovid, Heorides (c. 10 BC)
-->
"We can learn even from our enemies."
Ovid


A good man would prefer to be defeated than to defeat injustice by evil means.
Sallust (86 BC - 34 BC), 'Jugurthine War,' 41 B.C.

[IJ Reilly]

No, he's not a racist, because Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. He's a bigot, and like all bigots, he justifies his bigotry by citing the opinions of other bigots. Like I said, it's a old game. So when George Bush talks about the "American heart," he's begging the question. The American heart is a complicated place, and it includes the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Craig Winn, and claytonbench.

[zimv20]

No, he's not a racist, because Islam isn't a race
i'm gonna stick w/ the racism, 'cuz i believe, in his mind, arab=muslim, and he's really on an anti-arab kick.

the "islam is a bellicose religion" thing merely serves as a convenient reason.

[krimson]

Does anyone on this forum actually know what muslims believe? Please visit this site to get an experts view on the situation.

ProphetofDoom.net (http://www.prophetofdoom.net)


One website doesn't represent an entire religion... Should we start using the Ayrian Nation website as a representation of how caucasian people think and believe...

i think not.

[evil]

One website doesn't represent an entire religion... Should we start using the Ayrian Nation website as a representation of how caucasian people think and believe...

i think not.

some people might think so!! :mad:

[krimson]

^
I knew you people were all racists.. ;)

If the WMD's were destroyed then it was up to Saddam to prove they were destroyed that also was part of the surrender agreement. Saddam failled to honor it that was all that was necessary for a "resumption" of the Gulf War.

he offered his proof, but Bushy just didn't believe him, yet the rest of the world who doesn't need our clout/financial aid did.. like I said, it's impossible to prove now that any evidence has been destroyed.

Convienient, yes?

[mactastic]

Why anytime i bring up the FACT that the muslim religion in itself is a declaration of WAR on anyone not muslim do some people scream racism.If this is you definition of racism then declare me a racist, so what!

What a load of manure! Islam is NOT a declaration of war on anyone 'not muslim'. Educate yourself before you embarrass yourself again.

You might even want to meet a few muslims. Just keep your racist filth to yourself.

[krimson]

uhhh... "muslim" doesn't denote race... so technically, he's not being racist... :)

[SlyHunter]

^
I knew you people were all racists.. ;)



he offered his proof, but Bushy just didn't believe him, yet the rest of the world who doesn't need our clout/financial aid did.. like I said, it's impossible to prove now that any evidence has been destroyed.

Convienient, yes?
correction he refused to offer proof.
Also it is impossible to destroy biologicals without leaving contamants as evidence behind. He wouldn't even provide the paper documentation where he passed down the order for the destruction that wouldn't of been enough for me but I'm sure it would've been enough for the UN.

[pseudobrit]

IIRC, Iraq offered a few hundred pages of documentation re: the destruction of their WMDs and compliance with UN inspections.

Bush ignored it, called it full of lies, said there were things unaccounted for and said we knew they had active stockpiles and were fabricating more.

Now we know which side was lying.

[SlyHunter]

IIRC, Iraq offered a few hundred pages of documentation re: the destruction of their WMDs and compliance with UN inspections.

Bush ignored it, called it full of lies, said there were things unaccounted for and said we knew they had active stockpiles and were fabricating more.

Now we know which side was lying.
Didn't Bush, Powell, and the actual ones who did the work state they had a list of the WMD's they knew for a fact that he had (some of which we gave to him probably). And when compared to Saddam's discloser list some of those items weren't on it?

[mactastic]

Bush and Powell stated a lot of things that didn't turn out to be true. Why would you put much stock in a supposed list of items?

[SlyHunter]

Bush and Powell stated a lot of things that didn't turn out to be true. Why would you put much stock in a supposed list of items?
Because I don't believe they lie on purpose. I do believe they may report things as facts because they believed them to be facts only later to be proven not to be. I do not think they would blatantly lie. Everyone knows if a Republican lies and someone find out for certain they did, no matter how small the lie is every station in the universe is going to report on it. They ignore the Democrats while nit picking the Republicans. So I think that Bush and Powell and other republicans do their durndest to cover all the bases cross all the t's before they say or do anything. And then because their not perfect the press still get all over their backsides.

[mactastic]

Oh yeah, they went REAL easy on Clinton (a Democrat) when he lied, didn't they? Pretty much the media ignored that one huh?

Do you just make this stuff up as you go Sly, or are you buying these lines as they are fed to you by Boortz?

[SlyHunter]

Oh yeah, they went REAL easy on Clinton (a Democrat) when he lied, didn't they? Pretty much the media ignored that one huh?
It was a slow news month. And besides look at it from the press's point of view. It made them look fair and balance when they knew full well they were reporting on something most people including me really didn't care about.

[mactastic]

Hehe... you're kidding, right Sly? How about an *actual* answer? :eek:

[SlyHunter]

Try reading Mr. Goldberg's book entitled Bias -- A CBS Insider Exposes How The Media Distort The News published by Regnery in 2002. CBS News did not renew his contract after he wrote an Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal about the very same topic.

I also recommend Suppressed History, Obliterating Political Correct Orthodoxies by B. Forrest Clayton. Inside that book it has information such as

John Leo of U.S. News & World Report where he pointed out many examples of suppressed history. Mr. Leo points out that when "Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York told New York Post reporter Deborah Orin he would vote to override President Clinton's veto of partial-birth ban bill because partial birth abortians are too close to infanticide, the following newspapers suppressed the story: the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, the Boston Globe, and the New York Times. They ignored it and acted as if it never happened.

[numediaman]

UK forces taught torture methods

David Leigh
Saturday May 8, 2004
The Guardian

The sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison was not an invention of maverick guards, but part of a system of ill-treatment and degradation used by special forces soldiers that is now being disseminated among ordinary troops and contractors who do not know what they are doing, according to British military sources.

The techniques devised in the system, called R2I - resistance to interrogation - match the crude exploitation and abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad.

One former British special forces officer who returned last week from Iraq, said: "It was clear from discussions with US private contractors in Iraq that the prison guards were using R2I techniques, but they didn't know what they were doing."

He said British and US military intelligence soldiers were trained in these techniques, which were taught at the joint services interrogation centre in Ashford, Kent, now transferred to the former US base at Chicksands.

"There is a reservoir of knowledge about these interrogation techniques which is retained by former special forces soldiers who are being rehired as private contractors in Iraq. Contractors are bringing in their old friends".

Using sexual jibes and degradation, along with stripping naked, is one of the methods taught on both sides of the Atlantic under the slogan "prolong the shock of capture", he said.

Female guards were used to taunt male prisoners sexually and at British training sessions when female candidates were undergoing resistance training they would be subject to lesbian jibes.

"Most people just laugh that off during mock training exercises, but the whole experience is horrible. Two of my colleagues couldn't cope with the training at the time. One walked out saying 'I've had enough', and the other had a breakdown. It's exceedingly disturbing," said the former Special Boat Squadron officer, who asked that his identity be withheld for security reasons.

Many British and US special forces soldiers learn about the degradation techniques because they are subjected to them to help them resist if captured. They include soldiers from the SAS, SBS, most air pilots, paratroopers and members of pathfinder platoons.

A number of commercial firms which have been supplying interrogators to the US army in Iraq boast of hiring former US special forces soldiers, such as Navy Seals.

"The crucial difference from Iraq is that frontline soldiers who are made to experience R2I techniques themselves develop empathy. They realise the suffering they are causing. But people who haven't undergone this don't realise what they are doing to people. It's a shambles in Iraq".

The British former officer said the dissemination of R2I techniques inside Iraq was all the more dangerous because of the general mood among American troops.

"The feeling among US soldiers I've spoken to in the last week is also that 'the gloves are off'. Many of them still think they are dealing with people responsible for 9/11.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1212197,00.html

[mactastic]

Spot on it seems to me. It should be getting pretty clear to people that these were *not* isolated incidents, but rather actions taken with the knowledge of superiors. How superior they were remains to be seen.

[wdlove]

Oh yeah, they went REAL easy on Clinton (a Democrat) when he lied, didn't they? Pretty much the media ignored that one huh?

Do you just make this stuff up as you go Sly, or are you buying these lines as they are fed to you by Boortz?

With Clinton there was a criminal matter of lying under oath that couldn't be ignored. Otherwise the media takes anything form Democrats hook line and sinker. It is always published as the truth.

They investigate and question everything from Republicans.

With this Abu Graib Military Prison. Hopefully it will be investigated by professionals. They need to look at motive and opportunity as to why this happened. Such as who does it help and hurt most. The pictures certainly look staged.

[zimv20]

the media takes anything form Democrats hook line and sinker. It is always published as the truth.

They investigate and question everything from Republicans.

i'm very happy to read a study that comes to those conclusions. until then, i must conclude that your conclusions are skewed by your political beliefs.

[Sayhey]

Here are a few interesting quotes of the President that have been posted by a liberal blogger.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

-George W. Bush, 3/19/2003

I expect them to be treated, the POWs, I expect to be treated humanely, just like we're treating the prisoners that we have captured humanely. If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals.
-George W. Bush, 3/23/2003

As the vise tightens on the Iraqi regime, some of our enemies have chosen to fill their final days with acts of cowardice and murder. In combat, Saddam's thugs shield themselves with women and children. They have killed Iraqi citizens who welcome coalition troops, and they have forced other Iraqis into battle by threatening to torture or kill their families. They have executed prisoners of war, waged attacks under the white flag of truce, and concealed combat forces in civilian neighborhoods, schools, hospitals and mosques. In this war, the Iraqi regime is terrorizing its own citizens, doing everything possible to maximize Iraqi civilian casualties, and then to exploit the deaths they have caused for propaganda. These are war criminals, and they'll be treated as war criminals.

In stark contrast, the citizens of Iraq are coming to know what kind of people we have sent to liberate them.

-George W. Bush, 4/6/2003

Given the nature of this regime, we expect such war crimes. But we will not excuse them.

War criminals will be hunted relentlessly and judged severely.


-George W. Bush, 3/28/2003


link (http://www.xoverboard.com/blogarchive/week_2004_05_02.html#000653)

[Sayhey]

With this Abu Graib Military Prison. Hopefully it will be investigated by professionals. They need to look at motive and opportunity as to why this happened. Such as who does it help and hurt most. The pictures certainly look staged.

Of course these pictures were staged. They are souvenir pictures of prison guards who have no regard for the humanity of their captives. Do you think the prisoners volunteered for these photos? Do you think this was all "hijinks" or "hazing" with willing Iraqis? Do you honestly believe this is only news because it is under a Republican President's watch? Come on wdlove, get past what your political wishes are for November and understand what this is - torture.

[Neserk]

Otherwise the media takes anything form Democrats hook line and sinker. It is always published as the truth.

They investigate and question everything from Republicans.



What country do you live in? I recall being all but lynched a year ago for being against the war in Iraq. Looks like the media forgot to "investigate and quesiton everything from Republicans."

[SlyHunter]

i'm very happy to read a study that comes to those conclusions. until then, i must conclude that your conclusions are skewed by your political beliefs.
Any study that did conclude this you would discount as a right wing study so its a waste of effort for anyone to go searching for one. Don't go asking for a neutral one, my bet is what you consider neutral I and allot of other people would consider as leftist.

[SlyHunter]

Of course these pictures were staged. They are souvenir pictures of prison guards who have no regard for the humanity of their captives. Do you think the prisoners volunteered for these photos? Do you think this was all "hijinks" or "hazing" with willing Iraqis? Do you honestly believe this is only news because it is under a Republican President's watch? Come on wdlove, get past what your political wishes are for November and understand what this is - torture.
You are belittling the word torture.
What Saddam did to his prisoners was torture.
What the Nazi's did to theirs was torture.
What we did to ours was wrong but torture it wasn't.

[Neserk]

What we did to ours was wrong but torture it wasn't.

Define torture. It is psychological torture.

[Sayhey]

The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:

Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.

If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. AS far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand. emphasis added

Geneva Convention (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm)

I don't find this hard to understand, but evidently some our fellow citizens on the far right do.

[toontra]

I don't find this hard to understand, but evidently some our fellow citizens on the far right do.

Every "expert" I've heard interviewed on this subject, including UK Military Majors in charge of interrogation units, say these tactics qualify as torture. It is so unlikely that all these people are wrong that I am prepared to say it is torture, and that the onus should be on those who say it is not to try and prove their case.

But Sayhay, the really disturbing thing about this is that it isn't just "our fellow citizens on the far right" who doubt the wrongdoing. I, as I'm sure you, have heard several vox-pop interviews with ordinary US citizens who say "They hung our guys from a bridge so they deserve what they get". The logic (the torture happened months before this incident) and morality of this action seems to totally escape these people, and from the polls I've seen, they represent a huge and alarming number of US citizens.

I guess these are the same people who still think Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and had WMD. I mean, what the hell do you do with a country (many of) whose population appears to be so pig ignorant and racist. Are they being misinformed by their press and politicians, or is it the geography that leads to insularity of thought and xenophobia? Whatever the reason, I find all this deeply disturbing. It appears to me that Bush could be convicted by the Hague of international war crimes and could actually use this to his advantage in an election.

[Neserk]

The logic (the torture happened months before this incident) and morality of this action seems to totally escape these people, and from the polls I've seen, they represent a huge and alarming number of US citizens.



Never underestimate the stupidity of people in masses... that saying keeps me going sometimes. The above is an excellent example.

What is happening is people are trying to reconcile "support your troops" and "we are there to liberate" with what is happening/ has happened. They have to either accept the fact that some of those troops are as evil as Saddam and that what some are doing is *not* liberation or they have to justify what the troops did. The first may be more psychologically taxing. So they opt for the second.

[IJ Reilly]

I guess these are the same people who still think Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and had WMD. I mean, what the hell do you do with a country (many of) whose population appears to be so pig ignorant and racist. Are they being misinformed by their press and politicians, or is it the geography that leads to insularity of thought and xenophobia? Whatever the reason, I find all this deeply disturbing. It appears to me that Bush could be convicted by the Hague of international war crimes and could actually use this to his advantage in an election.

Sigh. As an American, I wish I could explain this phenomenon in less disparaging terms, but I'm afraid you have it generally right. Suffice to say, this American is deeply disappointed with his countrymen as a whole and as discouraged about the future of our nation as I have been in my entire lifetime. I will become even more dispirited if the electorate fails to send the Bush administration packing in November.

[numediaman]

Sigh. As an American, I wish I could explain this phenomenon in less disparaging terms, but I'm afraid you have it generally right. Suffice to say, this American is deeply disappointed with his countrymen as a whole and as discouraged about the future of our nation as I have been in my entire lifetime. I will become even more dispirited if the electorate fails to send the Bush administration packing in November.

Every society, I suppose, has its brown shirts -- people that will follow no matter what. Unfortunately, it appears we far more of them in the US right now.

I turned on the TV this morning to see if there was any breaking news. And there, on CNN, was Rep. Harold Ford (D) along with Rep. David Dreier (R). Rep. Dreier kept shouting down Ford arguing that as Americans we should shut up and obey the President and anything else will "hurt the war effort".

I'm sure that when the next batch of photos and videos are revealed that show more torture, the same people who are defending the President's behavior and policies will continue to do so.

EDIT: on another thread SlyHunter has advocated forced sterilization. In my opinion, there should be two rules -- one, this forum should be for Mac uses; and two, we respect each others views -- but we do not let people in who advocate violence. I believe both these lines have been crossed.

[Sayhey]

I mean, what the hell do you do with a country (many of) whose population appears to be so pig ignorant and racist. Are they being misinformed by their press and politicians, or is it the geography that leads to insularity of thought and xenophobia? Whatever the reason, I find all this deeply disturbing. It appears to me that Bush could be convicted by the Hague of international war crimes and could actually use this to his advantage in an election.

People in the US have a very strong instinct to "rally 'round the flag." It is indeed disturbing that more people are not aware of the lies of this administration, but the manipulation of people through patriotic symbols is very effective. I would expect that it is not something that is restricted to the US. The only effective response is to keep exposing the lies and not call those who don't yet realize the truth names. Save that for those who put out the lies.

[SlyHunter]

Every society, I suppose, has its brown shirts -- people that will follow no matter what. Unfortunately, it appears we far more of them in the US right now.

I turned on the TV this morning to see if there was any breaking news. And there, on CNN, was Rep. Harold Ford (D) along with Rep. David Dreier (R). Rep. Dreier kept shouting down Ford arguing that as Americans we should shut up and obey the President and anything else will "hurt the war effort".

I'm sure that when the next batch of photos and videos are revealed that show more torture, the same people who are defending the President's behavior and policies will continue to do so.

EDIT: on another thread SlyHunter has advocated forced sterilization. In my opinion, there should be two rules -- one, this forum should be for Mac uses; and two, we respect each others views -- but we do not let people in who advocate violence. I believe both these lines have been crossed.
I didn't watch that CNN interview. But I'm sure the guy probably said somethign to the measure that if everyone was behind the war effort that most likely those who are fighting against us wouldn't be. I bet after Bush wins the violence will be over fast for they will no longer have the hope that an appeaser will win the office.

Second I said forced sterilization is preferable to having kids starving in the streets. If you can't understand that sentence then I'm sorry. Kids starving in the streets is worse. People having kids that they can't afford or refuse to properly take care of is making a bad problem worse. We don't have a bottomless pit of funds to fix these irresponsible peoples problems.

[toontra]

Sayhey, I'm sorry if I used inflammatory language in my earlier post. I was writing early morning after having listened to several US citizens openly supporting the torture tactics and I was honestly shocked.

I have to admit to being deeply puzzled over this. I just don't se how being patriotic can be confused with blinding, unquestioning support for your leaders in the face of all the evidence available.

From my personal experience, xenophobia and ignorance are inextricably linked, and provide a rich vein for political manipulation. That's what I find most disturbing in all this.

[IJ Reilly]

The depressing fact remains, that somewhere around half of our population still believes that the Iraq adventure was worthwhile and is being properly managed, among other things which are clearly counterfactual. Yes, I know the numbers change plus or minus, depending on the news of the day, but I'm having a difficult time fathoming how even a third of Americans could believe these things, knowing what we know now. Something is terribly amiss in our country, and not just among the hard nut of party loyalists who'd believe whatever their leaders tell them.

[Neserk]

In my opinion, there should be two rules -- one, this forum should be for Mac uses;


Well, I'm not a Mac user except on rare occasions... that is just being silly...


and two, we respect each others views -- but we do not let people in who advocate violence. .

Is that respecting others views? Who decided which kind of violence is okay and which kind of violence is not okay?

If you have that much problems with him then add him to your ignore list.

[Neserk]

Kids starving in the streets is worse. People having kids that they can't afford or refuse to properly take care of is making a bad problem worse. We don't have a bottomless pit of funds to fix these irresponsible peoples problems.


This issue isn't that they can't afford them. It is that they aren't capable of raising them. And they have to pay child support. (I worked in foster care for almost 4 years, parents who have children in foster care pay child support!) Should they get "fixed"? Absolutely! Should it be forced on them? I can see both arguments from a moral stand point. But is it legal in this country? no.

[Neserk]

Sayhey, I'm sorry if I used inflammatory language in my earlier post. I was writing early morning after having listened to several US citizens openly supporting the torture tactics and I was honestly shocked.

I have to admit to being deeply puzzled over this. I just don't se how being patriotic can be confused with blinding, unquestioning support for your leaders in the face of all the evidence available.

From my personal experience, xenophobia and ignorance are inextricably linked, and provide a rich vein for political manipulation. That's what I find most disturbing in all this.

IMO, it is good that people are angry about this. Anger can be a very powerful force for change. And we should be angry about it! Angry enough to do something!

[numediaman]

Well, I'm not a Mac user except on rare occasions... that is just being silly...



Is that respecting others views? Who decided which kind of violence is okay and which kind of violence is not okay?

If you have that much problems with him then add him to your ignore list.

No, I'm putting the whole forum on ignore. There comes a time when it is no longer tolerable to sit by a watch as someone advocates forced sterilization, makes excuses for torture, and those who call them out are considered out of line.

[skunk]

In my opinion, there should be two rules -- one, this forum should be for Mac uses; and two, we respect each others views -- but we do not let people in who advocate violence. I believe both these lines have been crossed.
We should be honoured that not all those who post here have the excuse (or pleasure) of being Mac users: clearly they think that the standard of debate in this forum is beyond (computer) platform politics. With Neserk and 'Rat both being non-Mac users, we would be losing two worthwhile contributors at least.

Secondly, if people here advocate violence, we should seek to persuade them otherwise. If you need a break, ignore him: I have - for about a week - and I'm about ready to rejoin the fray. On some points, we will have to agree to disagree, but Sly has made good points once or twice, and he certainly works hard at it!

[takao]

IMO, it is good that people are angry about this. Anger can be a very powerful force for change. And we should be angry about it! Angry enough to do something!

exactly if somebody/somethings goes too far an angry response _is_ needed...(for example if the government goes to far with censorship of press etc.)
here in such situations Cicero is quoted very often with "Wehret den Anfängen" - "fight the beginnings"

people have to show up what a government is doing wrong...it's an elmentary part of democracy... remember the "demos" part in democracy is meant to be "the people"

i always vote whenever i can.. and if my opinion is ignored i do my best to change this..

i have enough of people who blindly follow their leaders in this "Führer befiehl, wir folgen dir !" fashion

[zimv20]

Never underestimate the stupidity of people in masses...
and i'd add never underestimate how much people hate themselves and direct that hate at whomever they feel makes their own lives miserable

iraqis are merely the target-du-jour

[Sayhey]

Sayhey, I'm sorry if I used inflammatory language in my earlier post. I was writing early morning after having listened to several US citizens openly supporting the torture tactics and I was honestly shocked.

I have to admit to being deeply puzzled over this. I just don't se how being patriotic can be confused with blinding, unquestioning support for your leaders in the face of all the evidence available.

From my personal experience, xenophobia and ignorance are inextricably linked, and provide a rich vein for political manipulation. That's what I find most disturbing in all this.

toontra, well said and I agree with everything you say in this post. All I can add is it is a very long fight and though it can be depressing at times when jingoism seems to hold sway, I believe it is a fight that can be won.

[Neserk]

and i'd add never underestimate how much people hate themselves and direct that hate at whomever they feel makes their own lives miserable

iraqis are merely the target-du-jour

Hey! I thought I was the resident psycho-analyzer here! :D

[IJ Reilly]

Hey! I thought I was the resident psycho-analyzer here! :D

Aren't we becoming a bit passive-aggressive now?

[Neserk]

Aren't we becoming a bit passive-aggressive now?


LOL.. that is me! Hey! stop it!

[zimv20]

it is a very long fight and though it can be depressing at times when jingoism seems to hold sway, I believe it is a fight that can be won.
yes! we must replace jingoism with apathy!! :-)

or, the new Fox show: When Morons Find a Cause

[Sayhey]

yes! we must replace jingoism with apathy!! :-)

or, the new Fox show: When Morons Find a Cause

Not exactly the goal I had in mind. Ok, touché zim, I get a little preachy at times - its the old anti-war "crusader" (dare I use that term?) jumping out of me. ;)

[zimv20]

Not exactly the goal I had in mind. Ok, touché zim, I get a little preachy at times
oh no -- it wasn't in any way about you. the "jingoism/apathy" comment was a scathing indictment of what i think of idiot americans. usually i'm down on that lot for being so apathetic about everything, forgetting that it's probably best not to poke that hornet's nest. instead of rising to the occasion, we get a tsunami of xenophobia.

[Sayhey]

oh no -- it wasn't in any way about you. the "jingoism/apathy" comment was a scathing indictment of what i think of idiot americans. usually i'm down on that lot for being so apathetic about everything, forgetting that it's probably best not to poke that hornet's nest. instead of rising to the occasion, we get a tsunami of xenophobia.

Ok, I guess it is only I come at it from a different perspective. I don't want apathy from Americans, and I believe it is not only possible but vitally important to rely on the intelligence of ordinary people. I grew up politically in the late '60s and early '70s. I saw millions of Americans step outside the jingoistic rhetoric of Nixon and others to stop an insane war in Vietnam. I've seen it at other times as well. In peace demonstrations of the '80s, anti-apartheid movements, and countless union fights I've seen ordinary Americans make a huge difference. Now before I really get on my soapbox, let me say I've also seen the xenophobia you talk about. All in all I still believe knowledge beats out jingoism in the long run. Its that old saying of Lincoln about fooling all of the people etc. ;)

[Neserk]

Ok, I guess it is only I come at it from a different perspective. I don't want apathy from Americans, and I believe it is not only possible but vitally important to rely on the intelligence of ordinary people. I grew up politically in the late '60s and early '70s. I saw millions of Americans step outside the jingoistic rhetoric of Nixon and others to stop an insane war in Vietnam. I've seen it at other times as well. In peace demonstrations of the '80s, anti-apartheid movements, and countless union fights I've seen ordinary Americans make a huge difference. Now before I really get on my soapbox, let me say I've also seen the xenophobia you talk about. All in all I still believe knowledge beats out jingoism in the long run. Its that old saying of Lincoln about fooling all of the people etc. ;)

I'm afraid to be optimistic...

[Voltron]

This issue isn't that they can't afford them. It is that they aren't capable of raising them. And they have to pay child support. (I worked in foster care for almost 4 years, parents who have children in foster care pay child support!) Should they get "fixed"? Absolutely! Should it be forced on them? I can see both arguments from a moral stand point. But is it legal in this country? no.
Actually I think there are those who are out on parole for on child sexual type crimes who have to take drugs as part of their parole which inhibites their sexual urges.

Surgical sterilization I'm not sure of the legality but for some maybe it should be legal. If we can execute criminals why can't we sterilize some. Only in extreme cases of course. Like in the case of people who refuse to stop having kids who most deffinitely shouldn't have kids to the point where judges are ready to immediately take their kids upon birth and give them up to adoption.

[Lyle]

Is that [banning people who advocate forced sterilization] respecting others views? Who decided which kind of violence is okay and which kind of violence is not okay?Interesting point. Not to drag this thead off-topic, but for those of us who are pro-life, abortion is most definitely a violent act that is advocated by a number of people in this forum.

[mactastic]

With Clinton there was a criminal matter of lying under oath that couldn't be ignored.

You're committing the same logical fallacy as the people who claim the torture was justifed because of what 'they' did to 'our guys'. Just as the torture they defend took place long before the mutilation of 'our guys', the media was on Clinton like flies on dung long before 'there was a criminal matter of lying under oath...'. There was no criminal matter or testimony under oath before the media began covering this story.

You and Sly's claims that the media are a mouthpiece for the Democratic party are clearly false. You latch onto a handful of scandals involving the GOP and forget the bloodthirsty feeding frenzy that was the latter portion of the Clinton administration.

Oh and who was that guy whose intern dissappeared and the entire country was focused on during the entire summer leading up to 9/11? And what party was he from?

[Lyle]

Secondly, if people here advocate violence, we should seek to persuade them otherwise. If you need a break, ignore him: I have - for about a week - and I'm about ready to rejoin the fray. On some points, we will have to agree to disagree, but Sly has made good points once or twice, and he certainly works hard at it!Looks like Big Brother has banned him.

[skunk]

Looks like Big Brother has banned him.
So I see! :eek: :rolleyes: :D

[toontra]

About time. This guy was single-handedly reducing serious debate here to a farcical knock-about. I understand the mods had a difficult time in finding specific reasons for a ban - trolling was certainly part of it, plus a few really very offensive comments.

I don't like having to use the "ignore" button - it kind of defeats part of the reason for subscribing to an open forum, but, man, this guy drove me to it.

I hope we can entice back some of the disillusioned members (eg numediaman) who were driven away.

Congrats to the mods for this - opinions are opinions, but rules are rules (as Rummy would say!) :D

[Voltron]

Oh and who was that guy whose intern dissappeared and the entire country was focused on during the entire summer leading up to 9/11? And what party was he from?
Do you mean Conduit? The guy who some say may have hired Hells Angels to kill his pregnant mistress before his wife came to visit? I believe 9/11 kind of distracted everyone from that.

[Sayhey]

Do you mean Conduit? The guy who some say may have hired Hells Angels to kill his pregnant mistress before his wife came to visit? I believe 9/11 kind of distracted everyone from that.

It's Gary Condit. There were all kinds of rumors, but no real evidence of his involvement in his intern's death. It was a feeding frenzy on the part of the media that needed more scandal to sell papers. If every Congressman who had an affair with a young intern were subject to such coverage we wouldn't have half of Congress still serving.

[IJ Reilly]

It's Gary Condit.If every Congressman who had an affair with a young intern were subject to such coverage we wouldn't have half of Congress still serving.

Now, there's an idea with merit...

Someone recently posted links to a story about a Republican member of Congress who had an aide drop dead right in his office some time back. Oddly, I'd never heard even a whisper about this before, let alone the extended wailing and gnashing of teeth the Condit affair received in the national media, or any of the wacky conspiracy theories about Condit some people seem to accept even today. Funny how this business works.

[Rower_CPU]

Voltron is the new account for SlyHunter.

[IJ Reilly]

Voltron is the new account for SlyHunter.

Thanks. I've never put anyone on my ignore list before they even posted, but there's a first time for everything!

[Sayhey]

Thanks. I've never put anyone on my ignore list before they even posted, but there's a first time for everything!

Now how does that work? One gets banned and then turns around and gets a new screen name and account. What does it mean to be banned then? Anyway, Voltron gets added to my ignore list.

[Rower_CPU]

Banning disables people from using a particular email address and screen name to login. They can, however, register a new account with a different email address.

In extreme cases we will ban an IP address/range if someone continues to re-register and be problematic.

[Sayhey]

Banning disables people from using a particular email address and screen name to login. They can, however, register a new account with a different email address.

In extreme cases we will ban an IP address/range if someone continues to re-register and be problematic.

Thanks, Rower. I'm not advocating banning anyone, but this guy gets my ignore list - a step I do advocate in this case for others to consider. I appreciate the heads up on the identity of Voltron.

[Frohickey]

It's Gary Condit. There were all kinds of rumors, but no real evidence of his involvement in his intern's death. It was a feeding frenzy on the part of the media that needed more scandal to sell papers. If every Congressman who had an affair with a young intern were subject to such coverage we wouldn't have half of Congress still serving.

You say that as if its a bad thing. ;)

[Sayhey]

You say that as if its a bad thing. ;)

Don't get me wrong there are at least 50% of the Congress I'd like to see replaced! :D

Let's start with DeLay. I think, however, they should be thrown out on the basis of their failed policies not their sexual trysts.

[Frohickey]

Don't get me wrong there are at least 50% of the Congress I'd like to see replaced! :D

Let's start with DeLay. I think, however, they should be thrown out on the basis of their failed policies not their sexual trysts.

I dunno. If a guy can renege on the promise to remain faithful, even to just your wife, how do you think the guy would do when its the promise of protecting the US Constitution, from all enemies foreign or domestic?

[Sayhey]

I dunno. If a guy can renege on the promise to remain faithful, even to just your wife, how do you think the guy would do when its the promise of protecting the US Constitution, from all enemies foreign or domestic?

I expect to see you leading the charge to remove Henry Hyde and Dan Burton from office. On my part, I don't look for sainthood in my politicians. If they aren't corrupt individuals and liars concerning public matters, have some competence in legislative and oversight affairs, and support policies I can agree with - that is good enough for me.

[Frohickey]

I expect to see you leading the charge to remove Henry Hyde and Dan Burton from office. On my part, I don't look for sainthood in my politicians. If they aren't corrupt individuals and liars concerning public matters, have some competence in legislative and oversight affairs, and support policies I can agree with - that is good enough for me.

I'm not looking for sainthood either. But is it sainthood to expect they wouldn't cheat on their wife/husband?

[IJ Reilly]

I expect to see you leading the charge to remove Henry Hyde and Dan Burton from office. On my part, I don't look for sainthood in my politicians. If they aren't corrupt individuals and liars concerning public matters, have some competence in legislative and oversight affairs, and support policies I can agree with - that is good enough for me.

Odd how some like to rely on personal character issues as predictions of how people will behave as a public servants, and then they proceed to overlook how those individuals actually conduct themselves as public servants. It's as though the forecast is more valid than the actual event. Now that's weird science.

[mactastic]

I dunno. If a guy can renege on the promise to remain faithful, even to just your wife, how do you think the guy would do when its the promise of protecting the US Constitution, from all enemies foreign or domestic?

How about a guy who would renege on his promise to support the so-called 'states rights'? Would you rather have someone who cheats on a spouse, or one who cheats on his constitutents?

[Sayhey]

I'm not looking for sainthood either. But is it sainthood to expect they wouldn't cheat on their wife/husband?

Here you go Frohickey

Cegelis for Congress (http://www.cegelisforcongress.org/)
Carr for Congress (http://www.carrforcongress.us/)

I expect to see you working for them and putting your money where your mouth is. Otherwise get off your high horse and forget your sanctimonious pronouncements on what is a personal matter.

[Sayhey]

Now, there's an idea with merit...

Someone recently posted links to a story about a Republican member of Congress who had an aide drop dead right in his office some time back. Oddly, I'd never heard even a whisper about this before, let alone the extended wailing and gnashing of teeth the Condit affair received in the national media, or any of the wacky conspiracy theories about Condit some people seem to accept even today. Funny how this business works.

I didn't post the link, but you are talking about Joe Scarborough (of MSNBC fame) and his intern Lori Klausutis.

[Sayhey]

For those who haven't read it yet here is a link to Seymour Hersh's follow up article on the torture at Abu Ghraib. It includes graphic pictures of the use of military dogs on helpless prisoners.

Chain of Command (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact2)

[Voltron]

I'm not looking for sainthood either. But is it sainthood to expect they wouldn't cheat on their wife/husband?
In the case of the Clintons I would not be surprised that they were in an open marriage and did not advertise that fact because it would be political suicide. In such a case I wouldn't blame them. The odds of someone in an open marriage, multiple wife/husband, line marriage of winning an election is equal to one who was openly gay.

[Neserk]

I'm not looking for sainthood either. But is it sainthood to expect they wouldn't cheat on their wife/husband?

When 70% of men and 40% of women do it? Yup.

[Neserk]

Voltron is the new account for SlyHunter.

thought so...

[skunk]

For those who haven't read it yet here is a link to Seymour Hersh's follow up article on the torture at Abu Ghraib.
Thanks for the link, Sayhey. (We can't call you SH, can we? :rolleyes: )

This is one of those situations where if our governments win, we all lose. It's like living after a coup d'êtat. And watching a train wreck. I almost want Bush to win in November so I can watch the dénouement, and make sure they're all dead. This lot are so wilfully blind and convinced by their own dishonest rhetoric, that one more term - without the incentive of further re-election - will be enough to see them finally discredit themselves and their philosophy to the point of no return. Unfortunately many thousands will die in the process. This is a heavy price to pay, but I would hate to see the kind of fascist realism promoted by this administration left with any chance of rehabilitating itself. It's a poison, and needs to be recognized as such.

[toontra]

For those who haven't read it yet here is a link to Seymour Hersh's follow up article on the torture at Abu Ghraib. It includes graphic pictures of the use of military dogs on helpless prisoners.

Chain of Command (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact2)

Seymour Hersch was on BBC Newsnight last night. It was one of the most enlightening interviews I've heard for a long time. He is absolutely adamant that the torture was widespread, starting with Afghanistan and then carried over in Iraq, and was not only condoned but instigated, not by the military, by the WH.

Most revealing of all is his assessment that the current administration have repeatedly and consistently ignored any and all advice which isn't consistent with it's political objectives, including from the military. "It's as if they were stone deaf to anything they didn't want to hear".

Sound familiar? No much wonder torture, abuse and a total shambles prevailed (and continues) in post-war Iraq. They didn't want to know and didn't care, so long as their primary objective was achieved. This is the most damning critique of Bush I've yet heard, and it is backed up by so much that has already happened that it has the ring of authenticity for me.

If this is indeed the case, no doubt the trials of the grunts in the pics will bring all this out into the open. I can't see any way they will be the fall guys. My guess is that Bush is hoping this can be stalled until, say, December!

[skunk]

Seymour Hersch was on BBC Newsnight last night. It was one of the most enlightening interviews I've heard for a long time. He is absolutely adamant that the torture was widespread, starting with Afghanistan and then carried over in Iraq, and was not only condoned but instigated, not by the military, by the WH.
I saw that too. Brilliant.

[Voltron]

Pentagon critics are treating a leaked Red Cross assessment--first reported in The Wall Street Journal last Friday--as proof that detainee abuse was widespread in Iraq and that the military was unresponsive to complaints. After reading the report, we think the real story is the increasing politicization of this venerable humanitarian group.

We say this with regret, because it would be a real shame if the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) became just another left-wing advocacy group along the lines of Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. This would ruin its long-held status as trusted and neutral guardian of the Geneva Conventions around the world, but that's the path it is now on.

Or, for that matter, if the ICRC had not already picked an unprecedented public fight with the U.S. over the Guantanamo detainees. The Red Cross was upset from the start that the Bush Administration didn't grant the detainees "prisoner of war" status, never mind that their terrorist nature is clearly a break from the kind of war rules under which the Red Cross has typically operated. For example, none of the detainees met such Geneva Convention criteria as fighting in uniform and belonging to a military organization with an identifiable command structure that is itself committed to upholding the laws of war.

The Pentagon did pledge to grant the Gitmo detainees many POW privileges, if not formal POW status. And the ICRC was allowed to inspect the facility. But it kicked up a major fuss anyway.

We wonder how many Americans on the right or left would have been sympathetic to this ICRC complaint if they understood that POWs are required to give only name, rank and ID number. Or that the Geneva Conventions forbid even positive reinforcements such as better rations to coax information from POWs.

In other words, had Donald Rumsfeld agreed to ICRC terms at Gitmo, we wouldn't have been able to interrogate these men in hopes of thwarting the next 9/11. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11 who was arrested in Pakistan and is being held in an undisclosed location under non-POW rules, would also be off limits to serious interrogation.

The ICRC's leaked report shows that the organization has committed itself to similarly extreme positions with regard to Iraq. Contrary to much of the spin, the report acknowledges that "ill-treatment during interrogation was not systematic" for most prisoners, and that "abusive behavior by guards . . . was usually quickly reprimanded."

The Abu Ghraib offenders should be punished under normal military standards, but the uproar over their behavior shouldn't be used to undermine the U.S. ability to gather intelligence legitimately under international law. Yet both the fact and timing of the ICRC report's release seem to have been designed to achieve precisely that purpose: hit the Pentagon at a politically vulnerable time in the hope that it concedes.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005080

[poopyhead]

The ICRC's leaked report shows that the organization has committed itself to similarly extreme positions with regard to Iraq. Contrary to much of the spin, the report acknowledges that "ill-treatment during interrogation was not systematic" for most prisoners, and that "abusive behavior by guards . . . was usually quickly reprimanded."

me thinks that this is a play on words to doop hopeful rt wingers

there is a big difference between
ill treatment not being systematic
"ill treatment during interrogation not being systematic"
and
"ill treatment during interrogation not being systematic for most prisoners"

the last two statements in no way suggest that prisoners were not widely mistreated

[skunk]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005080
What is the point of this singularly uninformed piece of second-hand rant? Haven't you got an opinion?

[mactastic]

You keep saying 'left-wing'. I do not think it means what you think it means. :D

Besides, that's a totally biased right-wing site. You can't simultaneously claim 'theleftwing' is putting out propoganda, then turn around and post right-wing propoganda.

[Frohickey]

Here you go Frohickey

Cegelis for Congress (http://www.cegelisforcongress.org/)
Carr for Congress (http://www.carrforcongress.us/)

I expect to see you working for them and putting your money where your mouth is. Otherwise get off your high horse and forget your sanctimonious pronouncements on what is a personal matter.

One is in Illinios, and the other is in Indiana. Both are not in my neck of the woods. A bit too far to commute in order to help them. Besides, there are plenty of deserving candidates here in the People's Republic of Kalifornia. :eek: :p

[Sayhey]

One is in Illinios, and the other is in Indiana. Both are not in my neck of the woods. A bit too far to commute in order to help them. Besides, there are plenty of deserving candidates here in the People's Republic of Kalifornia. :eek: :p

In fact they are the Democratic candidates who are running against Burton and Hyde. If you don't want to contribute and work for them - fine by be, but don't get on your high horse about politicians who cheat on their wives.

[Frohickey]

In fact they are the Democratic candidates who are running against Burton and Hyde. If you don't want to contribute and work for them - fine by be, but don't get on your high horse about politicians who cheat on their wives.

I don't have a high horse. I still don't like politicians who cheat on their wives. Doesn't matter if they have a 'R' or a 'D' after their name.

I do have a tall SUV though. :D :p

[takao]

news:
the german magazin "der spiegel" has a report on their homepage about iraqy prisoner tortured over a period of _five days_ till he died:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,299964,00.html (german)

they will show the report on tv at sunday evening in the "spiegel tv reportage" 22:45 CET

reason of death according to US army doctors: "died in sleep","no autopsy"

knife wounds on chest, wounds on the back,wounds on wrists and feet,
autopsy wounds on chest,abdomen

i guess i have to watch that sunday

[Sayhey]

JAG officers blame the civilian leadership at the Pentagon for ignoring their advice on the treatment of prisoners.

As the military's uniformed lawyers, JAG officers are in charge of instructing military commanders on how to adhere to domestic and international rules regarding the treatment of detainees.

"If we — 'we' being the uniformed lawyers — had been listened to, and what we said put into practice, then these abuses would not have occurred," said Rear Admiral Don Guter (ret.), the Navy Judge Advocate General from 2000 to 2002.

Specifically, JAG officers say they have been marginalized by Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, and William Haynes II, the Pentagon's general counsel, whom President Bush has nominated for a judgeship on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/JAG_detainees_040515-1.html)

[Les Kern]

You keep saying 'left-wing'. I do not think it means what you think it means. :D

Besides, that's a totally biased right-wing site. You can't simultaneously claim 'theleftwing' is putting out propoganda, then turn around and post right-wing propoganda.

Being an ex-republican, I was cured years ago, and I honestly think self-professed righties are insane. Okay, maybe not insane, just too lazy to look for the facts because it's easier to spout mindless rhetoric, and they buy the sound bites constructed by unrelenting idiots like Rush and Hannity. There was a study recently that identified some psychotic behaviour and abuse early in life that led them to see the world in black and white, like their "Let's invade!" mentality, are not bothered at all by pre-emptive war and the destruction of our inalienable rights, and (among many other things) call me unpatriotic because I DARE question the people who work for ME. They just DON'T GET IT.
But back on topic..... It was Rumsfeld. (I took some quotes from a friend here)
So Rumsfeld is shocked and appalled by the abuses in Iraqi prisons? THIS (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact) article by Seymour Hersch painstakingly documents the reality that Rumsfeld and his aides systematically, willfully, and with great zeal created the protocols that inevitably assured that such violations of the Geneva Conventions would occur. They even utilized a book on Muslim sexuality and it's connection to shame to design the sexually oriented techniques used to humiliate and pry information from prisoners. The perverse sexual treament of the prisoners wasn't a result of a few twisted GIs but rather part of a carefully planned strategy approved by Rumsfelds deputies. Shocked and appalled by a few "rogue soldiers" you say Mr. R? I think not. A CIA official said this of Rumsfeld and his deputies vis a vis their declarations of surprise: "They think they can ************ anyone."
Expect a full scale, Sunday morning news show offensive to destroy Mr. Hersch in the immediate future.

Mr. Rumsfeld, your bed in hell is ready.

[skunk]

So Rumsfeld is shocked and appalled by the abuses in Iraqi prisons? [URL=http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=70218&goto=newpost]
The link doesn't work for me. :(

[Sayhey]

The link doesn't work for me. :(

I think he is trying to link to the New Yorker article by Hersh.

The Grey Zone (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact)

[Les Kern]

Oops. Try THIS (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact) one!

It's amazing that the FIRST thing we heard when the story broke was "This in no way gives the true impression of Americans and America.", and it turns out to be quite humiliatingly untrue.
We met the enemy, and they are us.
And who knew about it a year ago? The Bush administration. Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz. Cheney. Perle.
And it may come to pass that the very tactics used were ENCOURAGED by them?
Beautiful.
And don't get me started on Chalabi.
Read the Stanford study done many years ago on just who is capable of commiting torture. Fascinating reading.

[Les Kern]

I believe we are truly at a crossroads in American history. Events of the next few months will determine if we are a pariah around the world for decades to come or (at a minimum) until Bush is out of office. After starting a war under the cover of frightening misrepresentations, the Bush administration now has been shown to have been using torture to humiliate and intimidate prisoners. They've tried to blame it on pitiful low level GIs but the evidence mounts that upper level military and civilian officials were in on the creation of the interogation protocols from the beginning. If it turns out that Rumsfeld and his deputies were indeed part of the planning process for abuse things willl get ugly, and deservedly so. After viewing unreleased images from the Iraqi prison GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, a former military prosecutor, said that rather than the work of rogue guards "It seems to have been planned." A detailed article in the next issue of Newsweek states that:
"Indeed, the single most iconic image to come out of the abuse scandal?that of a hooded man standing naked on a box, arms outspread, with wires dangling from his fingers, toes and penis?may do a lot to undercut the administration's case that this was the work of a few criminal MPs. That's because the practice shown in that photo is an arcane torture method known only to veterans of the interrogation trade. "Was that something that [an MP] dreamed up by herself? Think again," says Darius Rejali, an expert on the use of torture by democracies. "That's a standard torture. It's called 'the Vietnam.' But it's not common knowledge. Ordinary American soldiers did this, but someone taught them."

Decide for yourself if a few GIs from West Virginia, trained as clerks, dreamed up the cruely sophisticated techniques of abuse or if they were given explicit guidance by superiors by reading the article," Roots of Torture" in it's entirety H E R E . (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4989422)

[Les Kern]

I agree with professor -- we've seen those pictures, they were covered. And I think the soldiers and intelligence agents involved, at all levels, should have MORE than just losing their jobs as punishment -- they need to serve time. Fox News is notoriously right-wing, and they make a lot of money doing that because it appeals to a lot of people.

I agree, but that's what the government WANTS you to zero in on. It goes higher, and the more time focused on a "few bad apples", the less time we focus on the real problem. Remember when Rumsfeld, during the hearings on 911, what simply AGHAST at those pictures. Pure crap. He knew about them for quite some time. And all the while "Just a few folks" were involved. Hogwash. Controlling the news is PARAMOUNT to the right, and they have done well, but the castle is crumbling. AP announced they have "had it" with the Bush administration, and will step up analysis. Even ClearChannel is "allowing" moderate and left broadcasts. Unfortunately Sinclair broadcasting, that bastion of non-partisan news reporting (that's a JOKE folks!), will eventually get a bed in hell. And Mike Moore's new film Farenheit 911, on recent test screenings, made folks "on the fence" jump into the wonderful world of the evil leaders we have. (Oh, and it turns out that the White House tried to block it!)
Hey, did anyone here know that the Fox news division reports to.... the ENTERTAINMENT division? How screwed up is that? I read and watch the news, then search for the truth elsewhere. Try listening to Randi Rhodes on Air America. Love her or hate her, I defy anyone to prove ANYTHING she says is not factual. And she reports to US.
Sorry for this poorly written post.... there's just SO much info out there.

[Les Kern]

With Clinton there was a criminal matter of lying under oath that couldn't be ignored. Otherwise the media takes anything form Democrats hook line and sinker. It is always published as the truth.

They investigate and question everything from Republicans.

With this Abu Graib Military Prison. Hopefully it will be investigated by professionals. They need to look at motive and opportunity as to why this happened. Such as who does it help and hurt most. The pictures certainly look staged.

What world do you actually live in? I have seen a lot of your posts, and frankly hardly any of them show a depth of understanding. No wait, it isn't just that: Its more that you make statements but have not taken the time to really look at what you say. Take for instance Clinton. Why was he impeached on a civil matter? Could it have something to do with a GOP-controlled congress, and the 70 million dollar investigation of a blow job? It actually started with Whitewater, TravelGate, even the death of Vince Foster. They found NOTHING but kept trying. And nobody died when Clinton lied. Kosovo was done with a true coalition, and not a single soldier was lost. Bush lied, Rumsfeld lied, Cheney lied, and dammit I can prove it. But will they get impeached or censured? Not with the GOP congress.
"STAGED" pictures? Even our buddies in the White House aren't saying that. Where is your proof? You have just a "feeling"? PPBBBBTT! As for the reporting the truth comment, nobody but NOBODY lies like the Bush administration. Nobody. Maybe it appears that the left's comments are reported as the truth because they are just that... the truth.
I hope you have your epiphany soon, because living a lie based on the inability or unwillingness to find the truth is a waste of a life. I'm sure you're a decent guy (or girl), but please spend SOME time searching for what is real and what is not.
I can get banned for this, but so what. I waste too much time here anyway. I love Vaclav Havel's quote "Embrace the company of those seeking the truth, and run from those who have found it."

[Voltron]

Try listening to Randi Rhodes on Air America. Love her or hate her, I defy anyone to prove ANYTHING she says is not factual. And she reports to US.
Sorry for this poorly written post.... there's just SO much info out there.
If she is so great why can't she sell enough commercial time so they can pay her people?

[Voltron]

more so called"opinionated drivel"

But we must not forget that those photographs became public because an American soldier took his job seriously and exposed the barbarous acts of his colleagues. Army Spec. Joseph Darby, 24, an Army Reservist and member of the 372nd Military Police Co., is the hero of this scandal, a soldier who understood that soldiers must not act in this way.

He slipped a note under his commander's door, describing the mistreatment of the prisoners. He was acting on an honor code of conscience, which couldn't have been easy to do. But he did what every good soldier must do: Speak truth to dishonor.

This is a different army. Many are reservists who joined up as much for the pay as for devotion to duty, honor, country, or even in the expectation of active duty. Jobs in the military are increasingly "outsourced" and many civilians act as guards, cooks or dishwashers. This has the advantage of freeing the warrior for fighting, but the disadvantage of diluting discipline and cohesion.

It's not so difficult to speculate how the photographs at Abu Ghraib might have been handled if this were not an election year. Would so many Democrats have jumped on the bandwagon to scapegoat Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as a way of getting at George W. Bush? The president gives every appearance of understanding this.

John Kerry as flawed military hero running for president recalls another flawed hero running for president. George B. McClellan ought to have been everything the Democrats could have asked for as their candidate in 1864.

In the summer of 1864, the nation had grown weary of war; the thrill of saving the Union was fading and Abraham Lincoln's attempt to convert the war to save the Union to the war to end slavery was getting only mixed reviews. Lincoln feared for the Union, and imagined his presidency doomed. But McClellan, for all his heroics, his medals and his reputation as "the young Napoleon," could gain no traction in a dirty, negative campaign.

McClellan supporters referred to Lincoln as an "ignoramus" and a "butcher"; the Republicans ran as the party of patriotism, accusing the Democrats of disloyalty. But then Lincoln loosed Sherman on the Georgia breadbasket, burning and looting from Atlanta to the sea while Phil Sheridan drove down the Valley of Virginia with similar ruthlessness. Weariness with war soon gave way to renewed confidence, Lincoln was rescued, and the Republicans won with 55 percent of the vote.

If my Southern friends will forgive me, dare we look for analogies?


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/suzannefields/sf20040517.shtml

What is the difference between me quoting someone who I think has a valid opinion or simply stating one of my own? They write better than I do with bigger words.

[skunk]

more so called"opinionated drivel"

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/suzannefields/sf20040517.shtml

What is the difference between me quoting someone who I think has a valid opinion or simply stating one of my own? They write better than I do with bigger words.
Comparing Bush to Lincoln, eh? Nice.

[Les Kern]

If she is so great why can't she sell enough commercial time so they can pay her people?

She was number one for 7 years in South Florida, even beating Limbaugh in every catagory. Air America is new, and will need time to grow. THink ClearChannel and Sinclair or even Fox will syndicate her? At one time she was TOLD by ClearChannel she was NOT welcome, even though she had the numbers that would make them a LOT of money. Check out the history of Rhodes, and get your facts straight before you make statements like that. When the right controls the media (Sinclair Broadcasting TOLD their reporters that they WILL NOT write stories or investigate anything that puts Bush in a bad light) anything and everything MUST be discarded.
Ask the questions, sure, then go look up the answers.
I hope you find enlightenment someday.