PDA

View Full Version : wash post op/ed all but calls bush a liar




zimv20
May 29, 2004, 12:36 AM
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61941-2004May27.html)


The Homicide Cases

Friday, May 28, 2004; Page A22

PRESIDENT BUSH'S persistence in describing the abuse of foreign prisoners as an isolated problem at one Iraqi prison is blatantly at odds with the facts seeping out from his administration. These include mounting reports of crimes at detention facilities across Iraq and Afghanistan and evidence that detention policies the president approved helped set the stage for torture and homicide. Yes, homicide: The most glaring omission from the president's account is that at least 37 people have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and that at least 10 of these cases are suspected criminal killings of detainees by U.S. interrogators or soldiers.

The deaths reveal much about the true nature of the still-emerging prisoner scandal. First, only a minority of them occurred at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad; nine of the 10 homicides acknowledged by the Pentagon occurred elsewhere. Second, the administration has done its best to cover up the killings: They have been reported only after news of them leaked to the media, and details about most of them are still undisclosed.

No one has been criminally charged in any of the cases, even though some date to December 2002. Investigations have been shoddy and secretive. And no senior officer or administration official has accepted responsibility or been held accountable for allowing unlawful killings to take place under his or her command. Had it not been for the leak of the photographs from Abu Ghraib, which record less serious crimes, it is probable that none of the deaths in Iraq would have become public knowledge.

Take the case of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, the former chief of Iraqi air defenses, who died Nov. 26 at a detention facility at Al Qaim, northwest of Baghdad. After his death the Pentagon released a statement reporting that "it appeared Mowhoush died of natural causes." That was a lie. In fact, according to an autopsy report, Gen. Mowhoush died of "asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression." According to documents first obtained by the Denver Post, two soldiers slid a sleeping bag over him and rolled him repeatedly from his back to his stomach; one then sat on his chest and covered his mouth. Only after the Denver Post's report last week did the Pentagon acknowledge the truth and say that a homicide investigation was underway.

Or take the case of two Afghan detainees who died at Bagram airbase in December 2002. In March 2003 the New York Times reported that their deaths had been ruled homicides; only then did the Pentagon say that an investigation was underway. But no further information became available about the case until this month, when the Times learned that the prisoners died while being interrogated by personnel from the same intelligence unit that later served at Abu Ghraib. After 17 months, no one has been charged or otherwise held responsible for the deaths, nor are Pentagon officials able to plausibly explain why there has been no conclusion to the investigation.

Nine of the 10 homicides acknowledged by the Pentagon occurred "either before or during interrogation sessions that may have led to the detainee's death," a senior official told a briefing last week. Those interrogations were conducted by various units; at least one was in the hands of the CIA. But all were operating under loosened rules for interrogations developed at the Pentagon after 2001, after Mr. Bush's decision that the Geneva Conventions would not apply to detainees in Afghanistan. Techniques approved for use, such as sensory deprivation and shackling, played a role in several of the homicides. For example, a detainee named Abdul Jaleel, held by Special Forces in Asad, Iraq, died on Jan. 11 after he was gagged and shackled by his hands to the top of his door cell.

It is horrifying to contemplate that U.S. interrogators have tortured and killed foreign prisoners and that their superiors have ignored or covered up their crimes -- and yet that is where the available facts point. Pentagon officials say they will pursue investigations vigorously and that those guilty of crimes will be brought to justice. It is essential to the preservation of this country's fundamental values that they do so. It is essential also to examine the consequences in the field of policy decisions made by the most senior officials in Washington. But the sorry record of the Bush administration -- and the president's own refusal to speak the truth about it -- suggests that justice will require vigorous and sustained intervention by outside parties, beginning with Congress.



Neserk
May 29, 2004, 01:02 AM
So why not just come out and say he is a liar? I do it all the time. Call a spade a spade, already!

Sayhey
May 29, 2004, 02:03 AM
zim, thanks for the post, although it sickens me as I read it. I hope other media will come to the same conclusion, but I'm afraid that many buy into the Rush Limbaugh view of the world that this is only harmless, frat house hijinks. Murder and Rape as fun and in our name, but it is nobody's fault. My god, I can't wait for November!

mactastic
May 29, 2004, 09:58 AM
Can you say spade? Isn't that a racist reference? :eek:

Good for the Post. And for all those who see the Abu Ghraib photos as the sum total of prisoner abuse, this is the tip of the iceberg. How would you be reacting if American soldiers had been detained and killed? Oh wait, you probably were outraged to hear that the Iraqis probably shot a prisoner taken during the initial push to Baghdad! Heck the Army's even conducting a war crimes investigation into the event. I guess American lives are worth more than Iraqi ones, huh?

skunk
May 29, 2004, 10:03 AM
I guess American lives are worth more than Iraqi ones, huh?
Or Afghani ones. Guantanamo Bay seems to have fallen off the scope lately.

numediaman
May 29, 2004, 02:38 PM
Can you say spade? Isn't that a racist reference? :eek:

Actually, no.

"to call a spade a spade" is NOT an ethnic slur.
It derives from an ancient Greek expression: _ta syka syka, te:n
skaphe:n de skaphe:n onomasein_ = "to call a fig a fig, a trough a
trough". This is first recorded in Aristophanes' play _The Clouds_
(423 B.C.), was used by Menander and Plutarch, and is still current
in modern Greek. There has been a slight shift in meaning: in
ancient times the phrase was often used pejoratively, to denote a
rude person who spoke his mind tactlessly; but it now, like the
English phrase, has an exclusively positive connotation. It is
possible that both the fig and the trough were originally sexual
symbols.

http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/miftocllspdspd.shtml

Also:

Call A Spade A Spade

Meaning :
Speak plainly, don't use euphemisms


Early Use:
This phrase has been traced as far back as ancient Greece. The playwright Menander (approx 342-292 b.c.) is quoted as saying: "I call a fig a fig, a spade a spade"
Some people attribute this saying to Aristophanes (approx 450-385 b.c.)

http://www.bookbrowse.com/wordplay/2004-01-07.cfm

skunk
May 29, 2004, 02:43 PM
Actually, no.

"to call a spade a spade" is NOT an ethnic slur.
It derives from an ancient Greek expression: _ta syka syka, te:n
skaphe:n de skaphe:n onomasein_ = "to call a fig a fig, a trough a
trough". This is first recorded in Aristophanes' play _The Clouds_
(423 B.C.), was used by Menander and Plutarch, and is still current
in modern Greek. There has been a slight shift in meaning: in
ancient times the phrase was often used pejoratively, to denote a
rude person who spoke his mind tactlessly; but it now, like the
English phrase, has an exclusively positive connotation. It is
possible that both the fig and the trough were originally sexual
symbols.

http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/miftocllspdspd.shtml

Also:

Call A Spade A Spade

Meaning :
Speak plainly, don't use euphemisms


Early Use:
This phrase has been traced as far back as ancient Greece. The playwright Menander (approx 342-292 b.c.) is quoted as saying: "I call a fig a fig, a spade a spade"
Some people attribute this saying to Aristophanes (approx 450-385 b.c.)

http://www.bookbrowse.com/wordplay/2004-01-07.cfm
TMI :D

numediaman
May 29, 2004, 04:39 PM
TMI :D

I was just jokin' around, of course. It's my dry Scotch humor. (Or is it humor derived from Scotch?)

skunk
May 29, 2004, 04:43 PM
I was just jokin' around, of course. It's my dry Scotch humor. (Or is it humor derived from Scotch?)
Must be the latter, otherwise it would be Scots or Scottish. :D

mactastic
May 31, 2004, 10:47 AM
Actually, no.


Thank goodness. :p

numediaman
May 31, 2004, 05:16 PM
From the WaPo:

From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity
Scholars Say Campaign Is Making History With Often-Misleading Attacks

By Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 31, 2004; Page A01

It was a typical week in the life of the Bush reelection machine.

Last Monday in Little Rock, Vice President Cheney said Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all" and said the senator from Massachusetts "promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office."

On Tuesday, President Bush's campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.

The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.

On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.

The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading. Kerry did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications.

Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising.

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html

About time one of the major papers called a spade a spade, so to speak.

Neserk
May 31, 2004, 05:18 PM
So do you think the Bush supporters will bother reading this or will they just take what Bush has to say at face value?

Savage Henry
May 31, 2004, 05:28 PM
So do you think the Bush supporters will bother reading this or will they just take what Bush has to say at face value?

Pardon the well worn geek expression but, Don't understimate the powers of the dark side! Not all Bush supporters are necessarily stoopid.

This side of the pond we just hope those particular supporters find better things to do come voting day! ;)

Neserk
May 31, 2004, 05:45 PM
Not all Bush supporters are necessarily stoopid.



I guess it depends on if we are talk past tense or present tense :p I wouldn't use "stupid" but I have problems understanding how anyone could support Bush considering what is going on right now.

skunk
May 31, 2004, 06:40 PM
I guess it depends on if we are talk past tense or present tense :p I wouldn't use "stupid" but I have problems understanding how anyone could support Bush considering what is going on right now.
You've heard it here. Some people actually approve of his actions. :confused: :eek: :(

screener
May 31, 2004, 09:46 PM
I find that many people find it hard to admit making a mistake.

IJ Reilly
Jun 1, 2004, 01:16 AM
So do you think the Bush supporters will bother reading this or will they just take what Bush has to say at face value?

Why do that when you can just blame it all on the liberal media? I mean, if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have to hear about any of this stuff.

Neserk
Jun 1, 2004, 02:45 PM
Why do that when you can just blame it all on the liberal media? I mean, if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have to hear about any of this stuff.

Very good point.

numediaman
Jun 1, 2004, 03:07 PM
Another interesting column by Slyhunter's favorite columnist (not):

Dooh Nibor Economics
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: June 1, 2004

. . . It has long been clear that the Bush administration's claim that it can simultaneously pursue war, large tax cuts and a "compassionate" agenda doesn't add up. Now we have direct confirmation that the White House is engaged in bait and switch, that it intends to pursue a not at all compassionate agenda after this year's election.

That agenda is to impose Dooh Nibor economics — Robin Hood in reverse. The end result of current policies will be a large-scale transfer of income from the middle class to the very affluent, in which about 80 percent of the population will lose and the bulk of the gains will go to people with incomes of more than $200,000 per year . . .

. . . This year, the average tax reduction per family due to Bush-era cuts was $1,448. But this average reflects huge cuts for a few affluent families, with most families receiving much less (which helps explain why most people, according to polls, don't believe their taxes have been cut). In fact, the 257,000 taxpayers with incomes of more than $1 million received a bigger combined tax cut than the 85 million taxpayers who make up the bottom 60 percent of the population.

Still, won't most families gain something? No — because the tax cuts must eventually be offset with spending cuts . . .

. . . Does Mr. Bush understand that the end result of his policies will be to make most Americans worse off, while enriching the already affluent? Who knows? But the ideologues and political operatives behind his agenda know exactly what they're doing.

Of course, voters would never support this agenda if they understood it. That's why dishonesty — as illustrated by the administration's consistent reliance on phony accounting, and now by the business with the budget cut memo — is such a central feature of the White House political strategy.

Right now, it seems that the 2004 election will be a referendum on Mr. Bush's calamitous foreign policy. But something else is at stake: whether he and his party can lock in the unassailable political position they need to proceed with their pro-rich, anti-middle-class economic strategy. And no, I'm not engaging in class warfare. They are.*

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/01/opinion/01KRUG.html

IJ Reilly
Jun 1, 2004, 05:21 PM
While I generally agree with Krugman's diagnoses, I have to say I don't agree with much enthusiasm. His proofs, like all proofs in this kind of debate, are slippery, and for every statistic of the kind he quotes, another contrary statistic can be shot back. The net effect of all this statistical noodling is zero -- the arguments tend to cancel each other out.

I probably don't need to provide any examples, but here's one: How many of the "85 million taxpayers who make up the bottom 60 percent of the population" pay any federal income taxes at all? I sure don't know, but given the nature of big incomes (fact: they are big), you don't have to give upper-income people much of a tax cut at all before you can start quoting statistics like this.

I'm yearning to hear someone talk about tax policy holistically, not in the piecemeal bracket-nudging terminology we hear all the time these days. In fact this just makes the game of feathering the nest of the already well-feathered much easier for their birds of a feather in Congress.