NationStates Jolt Archive

Actually from 5/6/04, from Tony Snow's Blog (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119290,00.html)

About Abu Ghraib

A handful of liberal Democrats have developed a raging case of the ague over the kinky misdeeds of military police assigned to guard prisoners at the Abu Ghraib Prison outside Baghdad. You no doubt have seen the pictures of leering guards jeering at hooded and/or naked prisoners. The sick puppies responsible for the mess apparently snapped hundreds of pictures of their handiwork. In so doing, they embarrassed the administration and enraged military personnel who have withstood the rigors and dangers of duty in Iraq without ignoring the human rights rules laid out by the Geneva Convention.

Rep. Charlie Rangel has filed a bill to impeach Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for malfeasance in the affair, while a parade of politicos has called for Rumsfeld’s resignation. The list includes Sen. Tom Harkin, the Congressional Black Caucus, and Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry.

Yet, if anybody has a gripe with the defense secretary, it’s President Bush, who apparently was kept out of the loop on this scandal after learning in January that some guards “reportedly” had done awful and tacky things to their captives. After that initial warning, a lot of people made a bad situation worse by failing to pass bad news to their superiors.

Here’s a rough timeline: A soldier or soldiers informed lower-level officers last November that something was amiss at Abu Ghraib. Gen. Rene Sanchez, the general in charge of operations in Iraq, got word of the problem on Jan. 13. Donald Rumsfeld got a cursory briefing then, too. Sanchez launched an investigation the next day, and the next week he appointed General Antonio Taguba, asking Taguba to conduct a no-holds-barred inquiry.

Taguba got cracking. By early March, he had nailed the prison guards for misconduct; documented an appalling breakdown in leadership, training, discipline and professionalism; given military authorities the names of the guards involved; and recommended disciplinary proceedings against at least 18 people in supervisory positions, including the general in charge of military police, the colonel in charge of the prison, and the lieutenant colonel charged with overseeing the unit guilty of the crimes.

If anybody had been thinking, the Pentagon then and there would have issued a report about the scandal and documented the way in which Taguba addressed the matter swiftly and effectively. The general’s investigation was and is a success story. But the brass remained quiet. Taguba submitted a report on April 6 – five days after the slaughter of four Americans in Fallujah and at the beginning of major operations against anti-American killers throughout Iraq – but Gen. Sanchez didn’t authorize the report’s conclusions until April 30.

Meanwhile, CBS’ "60 Minutes" and Seymour Hersch of the New Yorker both got wind of the scandal – and CBS got some of the infamous photos. Top Pentagon officials, including Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, begged the news organizations to hold off until after the Battle of Fallujah, and the journalism outfits agreed. Again, the White House could have short-circuited the bad news by going swiftly to the press, and again, it did nothing because it apparently knew nothing.

Nobody had bothered to tell Donald Rumsfeld that CBS had pictures and therefore, nobody was in a position to tell the president the story was coming. Rumsfeld himself didn’t learn about CBS’s info-coup until the very day the pictures appeared on the air; the president found out only by watching "60 minutes."

In this way, a combination of bureaucratic tail-covering and public relations incompetence transformed a good story into a nightmare. The White House today should be crowing about the way the Army cracked down on its own bad actors. Instead, it will have to spend the next month fending off demagogic impeachment petitions, shrill and misleading press reports, and angry communications from every capital in the Arab world.

What a mess.

Just another example of the gross incompetence of the chain of command. *shakes head*

Indeed.

If Rummy knew of this, and did nothing about it until these pictures were released, then hes a guilty bastard, and should be fired.
Simple as that.

But Im wondering how much Bushy knew about this, and merely needs a scape-goat.
This IS an election year, remember.

This is very good for Kerry....and thus very good for America.

Just another example of the gross incompetence of the chain of command. *shakes head*

LOL...steph...I got news for you...the military chain of command being a few cards short of a full deck is nothing new..nor was it relegated to the Bush Administration...we call it FUBAR...I take it you either know or can find out what that means.

Just another example of the gross incompetence of the chain of command. *shakes head*

LOL...steph...I got news for you...the military chain of command being a few cards short of a full deck is nothing new..nor was it relegated to the Bush Administration...we call it FUBAR...I take it you either know or can find out what that means.fucked up beyond all recognition!!! where my cookie?

Just another example of the gross incompetence of the chain of command. *shakes head*

LOL...steph...I got news for you...the military chain of command being a few cards short of a full deck is nothing new..nor was it relegated to the Bush Administration...we call it FUBAR...I take it you either know or can find out what that means.

Yeah, I seen the RAMBO movies in the 80's too. :lol:

*nods*

Getting rid of rumsfeld would be a bad idea... you NEVER get rid of a secy of defense while you have troops getting shot at, unless you got another one ready to go right now... which there is not... if we got rid of rumsfeld today, the military would be directly under Bush, or directly under some general we'll probably like a lot less than rummy....

Not to mention the fact that if rummy gets fired, then suddenly the dems will be asking for everyoe to resign one at a time until there's no one left for november :P

*nods*

Getting rid of rumsfeld would be a bad idea... you NEVER get rid of a secy of defense while you have troops getting shot at, unless you got another one ready to go right now... which there is not... if we got rid of rumsfeld today, the military would be directly under Bush, or directly under some general we'll probably like a lot less than rummy....

Not to mention the fact that if rummy gets fired, then suddenly the dems will be asking for everyoe to resign one at a time until there's no one left for november :P

Considering the direction this war has been going..and the entire rest of the worlds feelings about this conflict...

Would that be so bad?

Not only is the war a bad idea...now were abusing prisoners of war...this is just not good.

Mmm... Paul Wolfowitz as Sec of Defence...

It's almost worth it...

*nods*

Getting rid of rumsfeld would be a bad idea... you NEVER get rid of a secy of defense while you have troops getting shot at, unless you got another one ready to go right now... which there is not... if we got rid of rumsfeld today, the military would be directly under Bush, or directly under some general we'll probably like a lot less than rummy....

Not to mention the fact that if rummy gets fired, then suddenly the dems will be asking for everyoe to resign one at a time until there's no one left for november :P

Considering the direction this war has been going..and the entire rest of the worlds feelings about this conflict...

Would that be so bad?

Not only is the war a bad idea...now were abusing prisoners of war...this is just not good.Personally, I'm more concerned about the people who want us to lose... they're the real anti-americans.

*nods*

Getting rid of rumsfeld would be a bad idea.

I agree, getting rid of the whole administration would be a better idea.. but I think for now Rummy is a start. It's not like he's the only person in the USA who could do this job and no doubt a better job at that.

I so can't wait for November. I will then be able to stop fighting this battle.

Get use to the idea now.. "Yes Sir, Mr President Kerry"

As I've stated in other threads. No president in history has ever come back to win an election when their numbers were so low as Bush's 6 months before an election. Bush is so over. Well, unless the neo-cons believe he is some how going to break all historical election norms. Which has never been done, so I seriously doubt it. This president is in serious trouble and that warms my heart!

I so can't wait for November. I will then be able to stop fighting this battle.


I'm so tempted to start a friendly wager over this.

*nods*

Getting rid of rumsfeld would be a bad idea.

I agree, getting rid of the whole administration would be a better idea.. but I think for now Rummy is a start. It's not like he's the only person in the USA who could do this job and no doubt a better job at that.

I so can't wait for November. I will then be able to stop fighting this battle.

Get use to the idea now.. "Yes Sir, Mr President Kerry"

As I've stated in other threads. No president in history has ever come back to win an election when their numbers were so low as Bush's 6 months before an election. Bush is so over. Well, unless the neo-cons believe he is some how going to break all historical election norms. Which has never been done, so I seriously doubt it. This president is in serious trouble and that warms my heart!ahh, to be liberal and optimistic for antibush... *sigh* :P

To claim that the White House, or members of the administration were unaware of what was happening in the military is to excuse neither.

The system of government in a democracy means that ultimately the military is accountable to the government, who are in turn accountable to the electorate.

Thus,

either the administration knew what was happening, and are therefore complicent in the actions that have occured, and remiss in not acting to prevent such actions before they were exposed via the media

or the administration in fact had no idea what was occuring. In this instance, of course, the military are basically "out of control", and not responsible to the government. If this is the case, then equally obviously the administration is basically incompotent ot careless, in a word "asleep at the wheel".

You pays your money and takes your pick. Bush and his cronies are either responsible for what has occured, or criminally negligent.

You pays your money and takes your pick. Bush and his cronies are either responsible for what has occured, or criminally negligent.

Could the same not be said for each and every military scandel? Like, say, Tailhook?

To claim that the White House, or members of the administration were unaware of what was happening in the military is to excuse neither.

The system of government in a democracy means that ultimately the military is accountable to the government, who are in turn accountable to the electorate.

Thus,

either the administration knew what was happening, and are therefore complicent in the actions that have occured, and remiss in not acting to prevent such actions before they were exposed via the media

or the administration in fact had no idea what was occuring. In this instance, of course, the military are basically "out of control", and not responsible to the government. If this is the case, then equally obviously the administration is basically incompotent ot careless, in a word "asleep at the wheel".

You pays your money and takes your pick. Bush and his cronies are either responsible for what has occured, or criminally negligent.you still talk like this is some big chunk of the military doing this... it was a dozen idiots at a hot prison... It's shameful, yes, it's disgusting, yes, but why is it THAT big of a deal? Why are we so much more upset over this than the broadcasted butchering of Nick Berg?

They simply have no clue as for how to properly run a military prisons in sensitive areas.

*nods*

Getting rid of rumsfeld would be a bad idea... you NEVER get rid of a secy of defense while you have troops getting shot at, unless you got another one ready to go right now... which there is not... if we got rid of rumsfeld today, the military would be directly under Bush, or directly under some general we'll probably like a lot less than rummy....

Not to mention the fact that if rummy gets fired, then suddenly the dems will be asking for everyoe to resign one at a time until there's no one left for november :P

Considering the direction this war has been going..and the entire rest of the worlds feelings about this conflict...

Would that be so bad?

Not only is the war a bad idea...now were abusing prisoners of war...this is just not good.Personally, I'm more concerned about the people who want us to lose... they're the real anti-americans.

Who wants us to lose?

Al-Qeada?

No matter who wins this next election, that president will continue to make AQ's lives hell.

Iraq?

Well ya...they want us to lose and thats to be expected.

If a bunch of my friends from Michigan went to Utah, and started killing any Mormons we saw, and toppled the State government, and proclaimed that we were doing it "for your own good"....you'd want to give me a solid kick in the nuts wouldnt you?

I so can't wait for November. I will then be able to stop fighting this battle.


I'm so tempted to start a friendly wager over this.

I'll take that bet if she wont.

Im a lib too....(not quite as far left as Steph...)

*nods*

Getting rid of rumsfeld would be a bad idea... you NEVER get rid of a secy of defense while you have troops getting shot at, unless you got another one ready to go right now... which there is not... if we got rid of rumsfeld today, the military would be directly under Bush, or directly under some general we'll probably like a lot less than rummy....

Not to mention the fact that if rummy gets fired, then suddenly the dems will be asking for everyoe to resign one at a time until there's no one left for november :P

Considering the direction this war has been going..and the entire rest of the worlds feelings about this conflict...

Would that be so bad?

Not only is the war a bad idea...now were abusing prisoners of war...this is just not good.Personally, I'm more concerned about the people who want us to lose... they're the real anti-americans.

Who wants us to lose?

Al-Qeada?

No matter who wins this next election, that president will continue to make AQ's lives hell.

Iraq?

Well ya...they want us to lose and thats to be expected.

If a bunch of my friends from Michigan went to Utah, and started killing any Mormons we saw, and toppled the State government, and proclaimed that we were doing it "for your own good"....you'd want to give me a solid kick in the nuts wouldnt you?I fail to see the analogy...

*nods*

Getting rid of rumsfeld would be a bad idea... you NEVER get rid of a secy of defense while you have troops getting shot at, unless you got another one ready to go right now... which there is not... if we got rid of rumsfeld today, the military would be directly under Bush, or directly under some general we'll probably like a lot less than rummy....

Not to mention the fact that if rummy gets fired, then suddenly the dems will be asking for everyoe to resign one at a time until there's no one left for november :P

Considering the direction this war has been going..and the entire rest of the worlds feelings about this conflict...

Would that be so bad?

Not only is the war a bad idea...now were abusing prisoners of war...this is just not good.Personally, I'm more concerned about the people who want us to lose... they're the real anti-americans.

Who wants us to lose?

Al-Qeada?

No matter who wins this next election, that president will continue to make AQ's lives hell.

Iraq?

Well ya...they want us to lose and thats to be expected.

If a bunch of my friends from Michigan went to Utah, and started killing any Mormons we saw, and toppled the State government, and proclaimed that we were doing it "for your own good"....you'd want to give me a solid kick in the nuts wouldnt you?I fail to see the analogy...

US goes into Iraq....topples Saddam...starts trying install a democratic government...against the wishes of the people of Iraq....

You see now?

To claim that the White House, or members of the administration were unaware of what was happening in the military is to excuse neither.

The system of government in a democracy means that ultimately the military is accountable to the government, who are in turn accountable to the electorate.

Thus,

either the administration knew what was happening, and are therefore complicent in the actions that have occured, and remiss in not acting to prevent such actions before they were exposed via the media

or the administration in fact had no idea what was occuring. In this instance, of course, the military are basically "out of control", and not responsible to the government. If this is the case, then equally obviously the administration is basically incompotent ot careless, in a word "asleep at the wheel".

You pays your money and takes your pick. Bush and his cronies are either responsible for what has occured, or criminally negligent.you still talk like this is some big chunk of the military doing this... it was a dozen idiots at a hot prison... It's shameful, yes, it's disgusting, yes, but why is it THAT big of a deal? Why are we so much more upset over this than the broadcasted butchering of Nick Berg?

1. "A dozen idiots"...remains to be seen. I would not be guessing at how many were involved, or who was aware of what when. Lets have the thing investigated and then we will all know.

2. "That big a deal"...the systemic torture/abuse/mistreatment of prisoners, by forces supposedly commited to regime change in order to remove a torturing dictator? Yep, sounds like a big deal to me.

3. "Why are we so much more upset over this than the broadcasted butchering of Nick Berg"...I don't recall mentioning Nick Berg in my post at all. Please do not assume I have done so. Please do not assume that I was not disgusted by that incident. Please do not attempt to confuse the two issues. Please do not infer that one act in any way justifies the other (in either direction you care to anaylse them from).

I repeat, the administation are either complicit or negligent...which do you care to believe. Has to be one or the other.

*nods*

Getting rid of rumsfeld would be a bad idea.

I agree, getting rid of the whole administration would be a better idea.. but I think for now Rummy is a start. It's not like he's the only person in the USA who could do this job and no doubt a better job at that.

I so can't wait for November. I will then be able to stop fighting this battle.

Get use to the idea now.. "Yes Sir, Mr President Kerry"

As I've stated in other threads. No president in history has ever come back to win an election when their numbers were so low as Bush's 6 months before an election. Bush is so over. Well, unless the neo-cons believe he is some how going to break all historical election norms. Which has never been done, so I seriously doubt it. This president is in serious trouble and that warms my heart!ahh, to be liberal and optimistic for antibush... *sigh* :P

Actually has nothing to do with being a liberal Ray.. it's historical fact. Bush's numbers tell the story. He sits around the same place as Ford did before he was defeated. He's only slightly higher then his father was when he was defeated. His approval rating is some where 44-46%, that doesn't spell a win for the Bush camp. For the first time Kerry is @51% of likely voters even with Nader in the mix. The polls that came out today also believe Kerry would do a better job in Iraq. 55% of American believe Bush has messed this whole situation up. 55% of Americans think Bush has screwed up the economy. You can look at two months of job growth, or you can look at inflation.. sure maybe you might get a job, you just won't be able to afford to buy any thing.

Think of it like this.. The money so far spent on the war in Iraq could of been used to;

Hire 500,000 school teachers and pay them $45,000 a year for the next 10 years.

Could of funded government Cancer research for the next 40 years

Could of funded space travel to the moon for the next 13 years.

The list is long.

Also note that Kerry got another endorsement today. The American Police Union (4 years ago they backed Bush)

So, the question you must ask yourself is this, if Bush is so strong on defense and terrorism why is it that all the people who would be first responders (police and fire unions) are backing Kerry? I think that speaks volumes about how they feel about just how good a job Bush would do in defending any thing.

*nods*

Getting rid of rumsfeld would be a bad idea.

I agree, getting rid of the whole administration would be a better idea.. but I think for now Rummy is a start. It's not like he's the only person in the USA who could do this job and no doubt a better job at that.

I so can't wait for November. I will then be able to stop fighting this battle.

Get use to the idea now.. "Yes Sir, Mr President Kerry"

As I've stated in other threads. No president in history has ever come back to win an election when their numbers were so low as Bush's 6 months before an election. Bush is so over. Well, unless the neo-cons believe he is some how going to break all historical election norms. Which has never been done, so I seriously doubt it. This president is in serious trouble and that warms my heart!ahh, to be liberal and optimistic for antibush... *sigh* :P

Actually has nothing to do with being a liberal Ray.. it's historical fact. Bush's numbers tell the story. He sits around the same place as Ford did before he was defeated. He's only slightly higher then his father was when he was defeated. His approval rating is some where 44-46%, that doesn't spell a win for the Bush camp. For the first time Kerry is @51% of likely voters even with Nader in the mix. The polls that came out today also believe Kerry would do a better job in Iraq. 55% of American believe Bush has messed this whole situation up. 55% of Americans think Bush has screwed up the economy. You can look at two months of job growth, or you can look at inflation.. sure maybe you might get a job, you just won't be able to afford to buy any thing.

Think of it like this.. The money so far spent on the war in Iraq could of been used to;

Hire 500,000 school teachers and pay them $45,000 a year for the next 10 years.

Could of funded government Cancer research for the next 40 years

Could of funded space travel to the moon for the next 13 years.

The list is long.

Also note that Kerry got another endorsement today. The American Police Union (4 years ago they backed Bush)

So, the question you must ask yourself is this, if Bush is so strong on defense and terrorism why is it that all the people who would be first responders (police and fire unions) are backing Kerry? I think that speaks volumes about how they feel about just how good a job Bush would do in defending any thing.

Steph?

Have I told you that I love it when you talk like that?

US goes into Iraq....topples Saddam...starts trying install a democratic government...against the wishes of the people of Iraq....

You see now?Learn your history man, that actually DID happen in utah... What did we do? We realized that the survival of our people was more important than the survival of our seperation from the US.

We could have put up a decent fight against the US... I mean, a good 10,000 man militia was already formed, but we chose not to use it.

Anyway, yeah, I still don't really see how freeing an oppressed people from an evil and torturous government is analagous to the US forcibly absorbing a perfectly decent standalone society in their westward expansion...

In short, I support the war on terror and Iraq, and I am ashamed of the US' manifest destiny expansion of the 18th and 19th century.

I still don't see the comparison though.

*nods*

Getting rid of rumsfeld would be a bad idea.

I agree, getting rid of the whole administration would be a better idea.. but I think for now Rummy is a start. It's not like he's the only person in the USA who could do this job and no doubt a better job at that.

I so can't wait for November. I will then be able to stop fighting this battle.

Get use to the idea now.. "Yes Sir, Mr President Kerry"

As I've stated in other threads. No president in history has ever come back to win an election when their numbers were so low as Bush's 6 months before an election. Bush is so over. Well, unless the neo-cons believe he is some how going to break all historical election norms. Which has never been done, so I seriously doubt it. This president is in serious trouble and that warms my heart!ahh, to be liberal and optimistic for antibush... *sigh* :P

Actually has nothing to do with being a liberal Ray.. it's historical fact. Bush's numbers tell the story. He sits around the same place as Ford did before he was defeated. He's only slightly higher then his father was when he was defeated. His approval rating is some where 44-46%, that doesn't spell a win for the Bush camp. For the first time Kerry is @51% of likely voters even with Nader in the mix. The polls that came out today also believe Kerry would do a better job in Iraq. 55% of American believe Bush has messed this whole situation up. 55% of Americans think Bush has screwed up the economy. You can look at two months of job growth, or you can look at inflation.. sure maybe you might get a job, you just won't be able to afford to buy any thing.

Think of it like this.. The money so far spent on the war in Iraq could of been used to;

Hire 500,000 school teachers and pay them $45,000 a year for the next 10 years.

Could of funded government Cancer research for the next 40 years

Could of funded space travel to the moon for the next 13 years.

The list is long.

Also note that Kerry got another endorsement today. The American Police Union (4 years ago they backed Bush)

So, the question you must ask yourself is this, if Bush is so strong on defense and terrorism why is it that all the people who would be first responders (police and fire unions) are backing Kerry? I think that speaks volumes about how they feel about just how good a job Bush would do in defending any thing.

Steph?

Have I told you that I love it when you talk like that?

Aww thanks :)

I only go a little left of center when some one ticks me off.. other then that I'm usually quite rational.. :lol:

US goes into Iraq....topples Saddam...starts trying install a democratic government...against the wishes of the people of Iraq....

You see now?Learn your history man, that actually DID happen in utah... What did we do? We realized that the survival of our people was more important than the survival of our seperation from the US.

We could have put up a decent fight against the US... I mean, a good 10,000 man militia was already formed, but we chose not to use it.

Anyway, yeah, I still don't really see how freeing an oppressed people from an evil and torturous government is analagous to the US forcibly absorbing a perfectly decent standalone society in their westward expansion...

In short, I support the war on terror and Iraq, and I am ashamed of the US' manifest destiny expansion of the 18th and 19th century.

I still don't see the comparison though.

You recently called on Islamic leaders to condemn the use of terrorism.

One call only wonder whether you believe that Mormon leaders should condemn the use of torture/abuse of prisoners. in Iraq.

Well?

US goes into Iraq....topples Saddam...starts trying install a democratic government...against the wishes of the people of Iraq....

You see now?Learn your history man, that actually DID happen in utah... What did we do? We realized that the survival of our people was more important than the survival of our seperation from the US.

We could have put up a decent fight against the US... I mean, a good 10,000 man militia was already formed, but we chose not to use it.

Anyway, yeah, I still don't really see how freeing an oppressed people from an evil and torturous government is analagous to the US forcibly absorbing a perfectly decent standalone society in their westward expansion...

In short, I support the war on terror and Iraq, and I am ashamed of the US' manifest destiny expansion of the 18th and 19th century.

I still don't see the comparison though.

You recently called on Islamic leaders to condemn the use of terrorism.

One call only wonder whether you believe that Mormon leaders should condemn the use of torture/abuse of prisoners. in Iraq.

Well?We weren't responsible, we weren't commiting the acts, we weren't cheering at the pics.... why would you ask us to?

US goes into Iraq....topples Saddam...starts trying install a democratic government...against the wishes of the people of Iraq....

You see now?Learn your history man, that actually DID happen in utah... What did we do? We realized that the survival of our people was more important than the survival of our seperation from the US.

We could have put up a decent fight against the US... I mean, a good 10,000 man militia was already formed, but we chose not to use it.

Anyway, yeah, I still don't really see how freeing an oppressed people from an evil and torturous government is analagous to the US forcibly absorbing a perfectly decent standalone society in their westward expansion...

In short, I support the war on terror and Iraq, and I am ashamed of the US' manifest destiny expansion of the 18th and 19th century.

I still don't see the comparison though.

I think thats becuase your choosing not to understand it.

Saddam WAS indeed a sandy little butthole.
BUT..if we force a governmental system on those we "liberate", and then abuse POW's...those same people who suffered the SAME kind of treatment from the aforementioned sandy butthole....'

We are no better than he.

Meet the new boss....same as the old boss.

US goes into Iraq....topples Saddam...starts trying install a democratic government...against the wishes of the people of Iraq....

You see now?Learn your history man, that actually DID happen in utah... What did we do? We realized that the survival of our people was more important than the survival of our seperation from the US.

We could have put up a decent fight against the US... I mean, a good 10,000 man militia was already formed, but we chose not to use it.

Anyway, yeah, I still don't really see how freeing an oppressed people from an evil and torturous government is analagous to the US forcibly absorbing a perfectly decent standalone society in their westward expansion...

In short, I support the war on terror and Iraq, and I am ashamed of the US' manifest destiny expansion of the 18th and 19th century.

I still don't see the comparison though.

I think thats becuase your choosing not to understand it.

Saddam WAS indeed a sandy little butthole.
BUT..if we force a governmental system on those we "liberate", and then abuse POW's...those same people who suffered the SAME kind of treatment from the aforementioned sandy butthole....'

We are no better than he.

Meet the new boss....same as the old boss.Uhhh... ok, this is called "justification for regime change."

Mormon society: peaceful, moneyless, equality, one heart/one mind and all that... everyone there was a die-hard mormon, literally, and walked a thousand miles to get there, even after being run out of US cities.

Saddam's Society: Torturing, killing, funding for suicide bombers, threat to the world, could give WMD to terrorists very easily, not afraid to attack anyone... a truly evil man. Christians in their society had to meet in secret, for if they spoke out in public, they would be killed... let alone the jews...

Umm... can you tell me which one seems like it needed a regime change more? One was nothing more than imperialist/manifest destiny expansion or whatever, the other was a pre-emptive strike/liberation effort.... seems obviously different to me.

I so can't wait for November. I will then be able to stop fighting this battle.


I'm so tempted to start a friendly wager over this.

I'll take that bet if she wont.

Im a lib too....(not quite as far left as Steph...)

Actually, it's more from a line of reasoning I've been mulling over lately. Here goes.

Who are/were the three most hated (by the left) Republican presidents in modern history? I think we can all agree that they're Bush (the Younger), Reagan, and Nixon.

Let's look at Nixon and Reagan's elections.

Nixon lost to JFK, despite some irregularities in Illinois (shades of Florida?). However, when he ran again, he won in what could be considered a landslide. Both of Reagan's victories were pretty solidly weighed in his favor, especially his re-election against Mondale.

Okay, so what?

Well, I get the feeling that "the left" underestimated Nixon and Reagan. (Remember the NYT Reporter who couldn't fathom Nixon's victory because "nobody [she] knew voted for him"?) Isn't it possible that it's happening again? Isn't it possible that Bush has more support than people want to give him credit for?

I mean, what are the rabidly anti-Bush people going to do if he has even a reasonably solid victory? Like 52% to 48%? It needn't be a landslide, just not a razor-thin jobber like 2000. Will they accept that maybe, just maybe, America disagrees with them? Or will they come up with conspiracy theories until 2008?

And what would happen if it's a landslide? I shudder to think. I'm not saying it will happen, just that it seems to be assumed that it can't happen. Personally, I'll laugh my ass off if it does, if for nothing else than to see sputtering pundits on TV try to explain how they're still right, and to see what sorts of threads we'll get in this forum.

And before you discount it out of hand, just ask yourself: "Before the 2002 mid-term elections, when was the last time a sitting president's party gained seats in the House and Senate?"

US goes into Iraq....topples Saddam...starts trying install a democratic government...against the wishes of the people of Iraq....

You see now?Learn your history man, that actually DID happen in utah... What did we do? We realized that the survival of our people was more important than the survival of our seperation from the US.

We could have put up a decent fight against the US... I mean, a good 10,000 man militia was already formed, but we chose not to use it.

Anyway, yeah, I still don't really see how freeing an oppressed people from an evil and torturous government is analagous to the US forcibly absorbing a perfectly decent standalone society in their westward expansion...

In short, I support the war on terror and Iraq, and I am ashamed of the US' manifest destiny expansion of the 18th and 19th century.

I still don't see the comparison though.

You recently called on Islamic leaders to condemn the use of terrorism.

One call only wonder whether you believe that Mormon leaders should condemn the use of torture/abuse of prisoners. in Iraq.

Well?We weren't responsible, we weren't commiting the acts, we weren't cheering at the pics.... why would you ask us to?

Many Islamic leaders were not Coimmiting the acts, responsible for them, or cheering at the pics either, and yet you demanded a general statement.

Should Mormon church leaders condemn something that they see as morally wrong (mistreatment/abuse of prisoners) or not???? (I am assuming that they would see it as immoral - please advise if this is an incorrect assumption).

*nods*

Getting rid of rumsfeld would be a bad idea... you NEVER get rid of a secy of defense while you have troops getting shot at, unless you got another one ready to go right now... which there is not... if we got rid of rumsfeld today, the military would be directly under Bush, or directly under some general we'll probably like a lot less than rummy....

Not to mention the fact that if rummy gets fired, then suddenly the dems will be asking for everyoe to resign one at a time until there's no one left for november :P

Considering the direction this war has been going..and the entire rest of the worlds feelings about this conflict...

Would that be so bad?

Not only is the war a bad idea...now were abusing prisoners of war...this is just not good.Personally, I'm more concerned about the people who want us to lose... they're the real anti-americans.
No, the real anti-Americans want you to be stuck in that mess for as long as possible. So keep doing whatever you're doing. If y'all need more toilet plungers, photo film and body bags -- just holler. The Chinese would be happy to supply y'all's 'Raqi needs for a very reasonable price :twisted:

US goes into Iraq....topples Saddam...starts trying install a democratic government...against the wishes of the people of Iraq....

You see now?Learn your history man, that actually DID happen in utah... What did we do? We realized that the survival of our people was more important than the survival of our seperation from the US.

We could have put up a decent fight against the US... I mean, a good 10,000 man militia was already formed, but we chose not to use it.

Anyway, yeah, I still don't really see how freeing an oppressed people from an evil and torturous government is analagous to the US forcibly absorbing a perfectly decent standalone society in their westward expansion...

In short, I support the war on terror and Iraq, and I am ashamed of the US' manifest destiny expansion of the 18th and 19th century.

I still don't see the comparison though.

You recently called on Islamic leaders to condemn the use of terrorism.

One call only wonder whether you believe that Mormon leaders should condemn the use of torture/abuse of prisoners. in Iraq.

Well?We weren't responsible, we weren't commiting the acts, we weren't cheering at the pics.... why would you ask us to?

Many Islamic leaders were not Coimmiting the acts, responsible for them, or cheering at the pics either, and yet you demanded a general statement.

Should Mormon church leaders condemn something that they see as morally wrong (mistreatment/abuse of prisoners) or not???? (I am assuming that they would see it as immoral - please advise if this is an incorrect assumption).Muslims are the ones committing the terrorism... that's why I ask for muslims to condemn it.

If it were mormons doing the torturing, we would ask for their leader's condemnation... if it was americans doing the torturing, we would ask for their leaders to condemn the acts... oh, look, we did, and they did... that's nice.

I so can't wait for November. I will then be able to stop fighting this battle.


I'm so tempted to start a friendly wager over this.

I'll take that bet if she wont.

Im a lib too....(not quite as far left as Steph...)

Actually, it's more from a line of reasoning I've been mulling over lately. Here goes.

Who are/were the three most hated (by the left) Republican presidents in modern history? I think we can all agree that they're Bush (the Younger), Reagan, and Nixon.

Let's look at Nixon and Reagan's elections.

Nixon lost to JFK, despite some irregularities in Illinois (shades of Florida?). However, when he ran again, he won in what could be considered a landslide. Both of Reagan's victories were pretty solidly weighed in his favor, especially his re-election against Mondale"

One problem with your theory .vs mine Hack, you're going by emotional response of how the left felt about said presidents. I'm going on historical fact and stats. No president in history has ever come back to win with numbers as low as Bush has 6 months before the election. All the presidents you mention never went under 50% in job approval ratings.

I truly believe that (assuming Bush starts going on the offense for this election sometime really soon) he will win the election, as soon as america realizes that we are at war, and who we are at war with, why we are really at war, and how long the war will take, and what needs to be done, and who needs to lead us through it... I guarantee you that John Kerry is not the answer... and soon america will realize it as well, that John kerry is nothing more than an empty antibush, with no real plans at all.

One problem with your theory .vs mine Hack, you're going by emotional response of how the left felt about said presidents. I'm going on historical fact and stats. No president in history has ever come back to win with numbers as low as Bush has 6 months before the election. All the presidents you mention never went under 50% in job approval ratings.

You're forgetting '02. That hadn't been done in modern history either.

I truly believe that (assuming Bush starts going on the offense for this election sometime really soon) he will win the election, as soon as america realizes that we are at war, and who we are at war with, why we are really at war, and how long the war will take, and what needs to be done, and who needs to lead us through it... I guarantee you that John Kerry is not the answer... and soon america will realize it as well, that John kerry is nothing more than an empty antibush, with no real plans at all.

Ray, you know very little about politics. I base this on your post history over a long period of time. I have seen many conservatives who do know about politics, I'm afraid you're not one of them. You're going on pure emotion rather then understanding how the actual process works. You do it all the time.

Hmmm... actually, for once I'm with no opinion on this. On the one hand, these prisoners are scum, and deserve all the pain they can be brought. On the other hand, it does show that there is a distinct lack of respect for the rules of war by the American military. So, I'll just say they're all evil.

Saddam's Society: Torturing, killing, funding for suicide bombers, threat to the world, could give WMD to terrorists very easily, not afraid to attack anyone... a truly evil man.

Torturing....killing.....yes all of that.

As for the funding of suicide bombers.....Im assuming you mean Palestinians?

and as for giving WMD's to terrorists.....uhh...thats funny...we cant find any..and even Bush has admitted he was wrong about that one.

threat to the world?

not really.

Was a bastard......oh yes. No questions about that...but justification for this war, even after the removal of said bastard is WHAT?

Hmmm... actually, for once I'm with no opinion on this. On the one hand, these prisoners are scum, and deserve all the pain they can be brought. On the other hand, it does show that there is a distinct lack of respect for the rules of war by the American military. So, I'll just say they're all evil.

The problem is, most of the tortured were released without charge. They were average Iraqi citizens driven by poverty to steal etc. If they were torturing Al Queda, perhaps people wouldn't care.

One problem with your theory .vs mine Hack, you're going by emotional response of how the left felt about said presidents. I'm going on historical fact and stats. No president in history has ever come back to win with numbers as low as Bush has 6 months before the election. All the presidents you mention never went under 50% in job approval ratings.

You're forgetting '02. That hadn't been done in modern history either.

Well, that's because there had not been election tampering so obvious in modern history. I still maintain to this day why Katherine Harris was never charged and sent to jail for it still amazes me. Still.. what are the odds of that happening again? Not to mention.. the election isn't about Kerry, it's about Bush. Any time there is a sitting president the election is a referendum on the president, not on the challenger. Given his numbers, it's not looking good for Bush.

Hmmm... actually, for once I'm with no opinion on this. On the one hand, these prisoners are scum, and deserve all the pain they can be brought. On the other hand, it does show that there is a distinct lack of respect for the rules of war by the American military. So, I'll just say they're all evil.

The problem is, most of the tortured were released without charge. They were average Iraqi citizens driven by poverty to steal etc. If they were torturing Al Queda, perhaps people wouldn't care.

Eh. They were still thieves... (yes, I, personally, don't see a difference. It's sad, but oh well.)

That being said, I had thought that the people being tortured were Baathist Insurgents.

Well, that's because there had not been election tampering so obvious in modern history. I still maintain to this day why Katherine Harris was never charged and sent to jail for it still amazes me. Still.. what are the odds of that happening again? Not to mention.. the election isn't about Kerry, it's about Bush. Any time there is a sitting president the election is a referendum on the president, not on the challenger. Given his numbers, it's not looking good for Bush.

Um. Katherine Harris had nothing to do with 02. Also, there was plenty of hijinks going on in earlier elections. Again, take a look at the JFK/Nixon election. The irregularities in Illinois alone were possibly great enought to swing the election to Nixon. There's a reason Illinois had a reputation for corruption. When the voter rolls are fleshed out with dead people, you can't expect things to be on the up-and-up.

And, again, my question was "What if?"

Well, that's because there had not been election tampering so obvious in modern history. I still maintain to this day why Katherine Harris was never charged and sent to jail for it still amazes me. Still.. what are the odds of that happening again? Not to mention.. the election isn't about Kerry, it's about Bush. Any time there is a sitting president the election is a referendum on the president, not on the challenger. Given his numbers, it's not looking good for Bush.

Um. Katherine Harris had nothing to do with 02. Also, there was plenty of hijinks going on in earlier elections. Again, take a look at the JFK/Nixon election. The irregularities in Illinois alone were possibly great enought to swing the election to Nixon. There's a reason Illinois had a reputation for corruption. When the voter rolls are fleshed out with dead people, you can't expect things to be on the up-and-up.

And, again, my question was "What if?"

oooooh another American political reference I didn't pick up on The Simpsons :?

Well, that's because there had not been election tampering so obvious in modern history. I still maintain to this day why Katherine Harris was never charged and sent to jail for it still amazes me. Still.. what are the odds of that happening again? Not to mention.. the election isn't about Kerry, it's about Bush. Any time there is a sitting president the election is a referendum on the president, not on the challenger. Given his numbers, it's not looking good for Bush.

Um. Katherine Harris had nothing to do with 02. Also, there was plenty of hijinks going on in earlier elections. Again, take a look at the JFK/Nixon election. The irregularities in Illinois alone were possibly great enought to swing the election to Nixon. There's a reason Illinois had a reputation for corruption. When the voter rolls are fleshed out with dead people, you can't expect things to be on the up-and-up.

And, again, my question was "What if?"

Oh sorry Hack, I thought you were talking about the race for the presidency in 2000, given that is what I was talking about.. Don't forget in 2002, 9/11 was still very fresh in people's minds.. Bush's numbers were running historically high. The country was feeling very patriotic and "standing behind their commander and chief" There was huge support. Times have changed. The war has turned unpopular, the economy is in the tank.. Bush's policies are even pissing off some of his base. No one can win if they can't carry all of their base and pick up independent voters. That's the way election work in the States.

However, I'll take your bet... what shall we bet for?

*nods*

Getting rid of rumsfeld would be a bad idea... you NEVER get rid of a secy of defense while you have troops getting shot at, unless you got another one ready to go right now... which there is not... if we got rid of rumsfeld today, the military would be directly under Bush, or directly under some general we'll probably like a lot less than rummy....

Not to mention the fact that if rummy gets fired, then suddenly the dems will be asking for everyoe to resign one at a time until there's no one left for november :P
That sounds like a great idea!!! :lol:

My take on the blog story, is that if CBS hadn't broken the story, the public might NEVER of heard about this at all?

From the get go, this administration has not done anything in a straightforward and honest manner. It appears that everything they touch just wilts and dies.

The US has gone full circle from Iran-Contra to counterintelligence to Iraq. The results are less than spectacular and hopefully the bad actors will be hauled off the stage.

the economy is in the tank..

I disagree, but I'm not going to go there.

However, I'll take your bet... what shall we bet for?

Hm. Good question. I'd say we've got a couple months to figure it out, heh. :twisted:

To claim that the White House, or members of the administration were unaware of what was happening in the military is to excuse neither.

The system of government in a democracy means that ultimately the military is accountable to the government, who are in turn accountable to the electorate.

Thus,

either the administration knew what was happening, and are therefore complicent in the actions that have occured, and remiss in not acting to prevent such actions before they were exposed via the media

or the administration in fact had no idea what was occuring. In this instance, of course, the military are basically "out of control", and not responsible to the government. If this is the case, then equally obviously the administration is basically incompotent ot careless, in a word "asleep at the wheel".

You pays your money and takes your pick. Bush and his cronies are either responsible for what has occured, or criminally negligent.you still talk like this is some big chunk of the military doing this... it was a dozen idiots at a hot prison... It's shameful, yes, it's disgusting, yes, but why is it THAT big of a deal? Why are we so much more upset over this than the broadcasted butchering of Nick Berg?

1. "A dozen idiots"...remains to be seen. I would not be guessing at how many were involved, or who was aware of what when. Lets have the thing investigated and then we will all know.

2. "That big a deal"...the systemic torture/abuse/mistreatment of prisoners, by forces supposedly commited to regime change in order to remove a torturing dictator? Yep, sounds like a big deal to me.

3. "Why are we so much more upset over this than the broadcasted butchering of Nick Berg"...I don't recall mentioning Nick Berg in my post at all. Please do not assume I have done so. Please do not assume that I was not disgusted by that incident. Please do not attempt to confuse the two issues. Please do not infer that one act in any way justifies the other (in either direction you care to anaylse them from).

I repeat, the administation are either complicit or negligent...which do you care to believe. Has to be one or the other.

Life is rarely that black and white Smeagol..neither situation applies. The Administration did not know of it until notified by a military investigation. An Administration thousands of miles away can not be held responsible for actions on the ground by at present is less then .005% of the total US presence there....Just be honest Smeagol.you want your pound of political flesh..and you won't be satisfied til you get one of those evil bushites.

This is the reality of the situation...we have an ill-equipped Reservist 800th Military Police Brigade responsible for the internal security of at least two major prisons in Iraq...Now..for those who don't realize it..a. Brigade comprises literally thousands of people...now...that doesn't include any of the other 120,000 US troops in theatre spread out between the Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy....not to mention 45,000 British troops, and 20,000 internationals..

Now..in the 800th....we have a downturn in discipline...caused by any number of factors.....war will do that..for all that say we should be above this...what..when did we Americans obtain halos?..Our boys are over there in that hot, miserable hell-hole, far from home, many of them either reservist or National Guard units with men who had no idea they were going to be activated and sent overseas to a combat zone for over a year, then told they couldn't go home when their rotation time comes up.

In a situation where Intelligence agencies require intel from suspected terrorists, baathist thugs, or foreign fighters..men will take the law into their own hands.....

Gods help me I've seen all this before..over 30 yrs ago...armchair politicians and generals who never spend a day in-country believing they have it right, with high philosophies or righteous attitudes that somehow men can't fall from the impossibly high pedestal the world puts on US servicemembers...

The same could be said of my generation of military personnel..we had atrocities...we had deaths in prison..hell..the CIA had Operation Phoenix which was the extermination of VietCong sympathizers, political and military leaders...I'd say they've improved a lot if all they are doing is a few deaths...if this had been a CIA op in my day they probably wouldn't have bothered with softening them up prior to the interrogation. They would have got what they wanted and then promptly shot them. So using today's standards every American soldier in-country was a murderous thug accordingly...it was a load of crap then...it's a load of crap now.

What you people are pissed off is that you civilians didn't find out about it. Well frankly it was being handled in-house...over 30 investigations have gone on so far and NONE of them have implicated any Administration official or high ranking officer either condoning, suggesting, or alluding to illegal acts perpetrated by a few pathetic souls who are being disciplined accordingly according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

But y'all want your pound of political flesh...not because it's the right thing but because you personally hate Bush and all his administration.

People change in wartime folks..some go bad...some die slowly from the inside..some go mad..and some drink til they forget the nitemares..or some go into denial....I've got friends who are all these things, and I'm even guilty of a couple...

But don't worry...I'm sure you'll not be satisfied with whatever decisions the court-martial hands out..so you'll still be able to cry for the firing of rumsfeld....this includes you Tuminiaa and Smeagol..by far the two most vocal critics of this war.

Edit:For the record lest some read my above post and think i'm attempting to friggin apologize for those who have committed any kind of abuse/mistreatment/torture..I'm not...I think every mother's son of them should be court-martialed and senteneced to life in the brig, that includes any "alleged" higher ups that apparently they can't tell us who gave the orders

the economy is in the tank..

I disagree, but I'm not going to go there.

However, I'll take your bet... what shall we bet for?

Hm. Good question. I'd say we've got a couple months to figure it out, heh. :twisted:

Hack, take a look at your inflation rate..

Yes, we do have a couple of months to figure that out indeed! :twisted:

But y'all want your pound of political flesh...not because it's the right thing but because you personally hate Bush and all his administration.

Your half right Salishe.
I do want my pound of flesh, but not simply becuase its going to be from the Bush adminstration.

I would be equally hungry for that same pound if it were a Liberal, or Democratic administration.

If Rummy, as the case is, is indeed guilty of having firsthand knowledge od these actions, and failing to do anthing about them, then he is guilty of not doing his job.
This violates the Geneva convention right?

US goes into Iraq....topples Saddam...starts trying install a democratic government...against the wishes of the people of Iraq....

You see now?Learn your history man, that actually DID happen in utah... What did we do? We realized that the survival of our people was more important than the survival of our seperation from the US.

We could have put up a decent fight against the US... I mean, a good 10,000 man militia was already formed, but we chose not to use it.

Anyway, yeah, I still don't really see how freeing an oppressed people from an evil and torturous government is analagous to the US forcibly absorbing a perfectly decent standalone society in their westward expansion...

In short, I support the war on terror and Iraq, and I am ashamed of the US' manifest destiny expansion of the 18th and 19th century.

I still don't see the comparison though.

You recently called on Islamic leaders to condemn the use of terrorism.

One call only wonder whether you believe that Mormon leaders should condemn the use of torture/abuse of prisoners. in Iraq.

Well?We weren't responsible, we weren't commiting the acts, we weren't cheering at the pics.... why would you ask us to?

Many Islamic leaders were not Coimmiting the acts, responsible for them, or cheering at the pics either, and yet you demanded a general statement.

Should Mormon church leaders condemn something that they see as morally wrong (mistreatment/abuse of prisoners) or not???? (I am assuming that they would see it as immoral - please advise if this is an incorrect assumption).Muslims are the ones committing the terrorism... that's why I ask for muslims to condemn it.

If it were mormons doing the torturing, we would ask for their leader's condemnation... if it was americans doing the torturing, we would ask for their leaders to condemn the acts... oh, look, we did, and they did... that's nice.
Try this one on for size from Yassir Arafat:

Arafat referred to the attacks in the United States repeatedly as "blind terrorism."

"It must be clear that this blind terrorism is not justified because it targets the holy right of man to life without being part in any political conflict," he said.

"Allow me to announce our condemnation of the horrible crime which hit New York and Washington and led to the loss of thousands of innocent citizens. We announce that we put all our humble means under the Seville of all the nations of the world in order to protect this world from the threat of blind terrorism, which threatens the international community."

Also the following:

Islamic Statements Against Terrorism in the Wake of the September 11 Mass Murders:

http://islam.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.unc.edu/%7Ekurzman/terror.htm

But y'all want your pound of political flesh...not because it's the right thing but because you personally hate Bush and all his administration.

Your half right Salishe.
I do want my pound of flesh, but not simply becuase its going to be from the Bush adminstration.

I would be equally hungry for that same pound if it were a Liberal, or Democratic administration.

If Rummy, as the case is, is indeed guilty of having firsthand knowledge od these actions, and failing to do anthing about them, then he is guilty of not doing his job.
This violates the Geneva convention right?

What is this bout an investigation that been ongoing don't you understand clearly?...Allegations were made in January...Takuba went there, began an investigation...began obtaining evidence, arrests were made in March, filed a report with his military Chain of Command appropriate to his station..which was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs..what is so incorrect bout this?..

As far as the Geneva Convention goes..tell you what..I personally would follow it until the very second my enemy forgoes it...after that...all bets are off as far as I'm concerned...I'm not concerned with the moral high ground...at this point I...like any good NCO or SNCO there is concerned with getting that young E-1 back home to his mother or wife and not in a body bag....those pictures should never have been made public if their exposure directly causes the death of one US servicemember.

US goes into Iraq....topples Saddam...starts trying install a democratic government...against the wishes of the people of Iraq....

You see now?Learn your history man, that actually DID happen in utah... What did we do? We realized that the survival of our people was more important than the survival of our seperation from the US.

We could have put up a decent fight against the US... I mean, a good 10,000 man militia was already formed, but we chose not to use it.

Anyway, yeah, I still don't really see how freeing an oppressed people from an evil and torturous government is analagous to the US forcibly absorbing a perfectly decent standalone society in their westward expansion...

In short, I support the war on terror and Iraq, and I am ashamed of the US' manifest destiny expansion of the 18th and 19th century.

I still don't see the comparison though.

You recently called on Islamic leaders to condemn the use of terrorism.

One call only wonder whether you believe that Mormon leaders should condemn the use of torture/abuse of prisoners. in Iraq.

Well?We weren't responsible, we weren't commiting the acts, we weren't cheering at the pics.... why would you ask us to?

Many Islamic leaders were not Coimmiting the acts, responsible for them, or cheering at the pics either, and yet you demanded a general statement.

Should Mormon church leaders condemn something that they see as morally wrong (mistreatment/abuse of prisoners) or not???? (I am assuming that they would see it as immoral - please advise if this is an incorrect assumption).Muslims are the ones committing the terrorism... that's why I ask for muslims to condemn it.

If it were mormons doing the torturing, we would ask for their leader's condemnation... if it was americans doing the torturing, we would ask for their leaders to condemn the acts... oh, look, we did, and they did... that's nice.
Try this one on for size from Yassir Arafat:

Arafat referred to the attacks in the United States repeatedly as "blind terrorism."

"It must be clear that this blind terrorism is not justified because it targets the holy right of man to life without being part in any political conflict," he said.

"Allow me to announce our condemnation of the horrible crime which hit New York and Washington and led to the loss of thousands of innocent citizens. We announce that we put all our humble means under the Seville of all the nations of the world in order to protect this world from the threat of blind terrorism, which threatens the international community."

Also the following:

Islamic Statements Against Terrorism in the Wake of the September 11 Mass Murders:

http://islam.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.unc.edu/%7Ekurzman/terror.htm

I'm sorry...accepting such a statement from Arafat is like asking whether or not I accept the statement from the wolf that eating little red riding hood was a mistake...This man was almost single-handedly responsible for bringing Arab terrorism to the world stage for over 30 yrs...anything that comes out of his mouth is hypocrisy.

[quote] But y'all want your pound of political flesh...not because it's the right thing but because you personally hate Bush and all his administration.

Your half right Salishe.
I do want my pound of flesh, but not simply becuase its going to be from the Bush adminstration.

I would be equally hungry for that same pound if it were a Liberal, or Democratic administration.

If Rummy, as the case is, is indeed guilty of having firsthand knowledge od these actions, and failing to do anthing about them, then he is guilty of not doing his job.
This violates the Geneva convention right?

What is this bout an investigation that been ongoing don't you understand clearly?...Allegations were made in January...Takuba went there, began an investigation...began obtaining evidence, arrests were made in March, filed a report with his military Chain of Command appropriate to his station..which was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs..what is so incorrect bout this?..

As far as the Geneva Convention goes..tell you what..I personally would follow it until the very second my enemy forgoes it...after that...all bets are off as far as I'm concerned...I'm not concerned with the moral high ground...at this point I...like any good NCO or SNCO there is concerned with getting that young E-1 back home to his mother or wife and not in a body bag....those pictures should never have been made public if their exposure directly causes the death of one US servicemember.
The foremost consideration here Salishe, is that there should be NO US soldiers coming home from Iraq in body bags. Why? Simple fact that the US should not have invaded Iraq under false pretenses.

When this story first broke, you were in denial. Now it appears that you will blindly defend the misguided actions of all concerned in this horrible treatment of Iraqi citizens (many of them innocent of any crimes).

Then to suggest that the US is above the Geneva Conventions, flies in the face of your fall back position that the US was in Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqis from that terrible tyrant Saddam Hussein. All the excuses for invading Iraq have disappeared.

Lies upon lies have led to an untenable situation. There is more yet to come out of this I am sure. I quite imagine that many will want to know how contractors got involved in this situation with the prisoners and under whose orders were they performing their immoral acts?


"I'm not concerned with the moral high ground"

I can see why you made that statement. You won't be able to find any as long as you back this whole Iraq fiasco.

[quote] But y'all want your pound of political flesh...not because it's the right thing but because you personally hate Bush and all his administration.

Your half right Salishe.
I do want my pound of flesh, but not simply becuase its going to be from the Bush adminstration.

I would be equally hungry for that same pound if it were a Liberal, or Democratic administration.

If Rummy, as the case is, is indeed guilty of having firsthand knowledge od these actions, and failing to do anthing about them, then he is guilty of not doing his job.
This violates the Geneva convention right?

What is this bout an investigation that been ongoing don't you understand clearly?...Allegations were made in January...Takuba went there, began an investigation...began obtaining evidence, arrests were made in March, filed a report with his military Chain of Command appropriate to his station..which was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs..what is so incorrect bout this?..

As far as the Geneva Convention goes..tell you what..I personally would follow it until the very second my enemy forgoes it...after that...all bets are off as far as I'm concerned...I'm not concerned with the moral high ground...at this point I...like any good NCO or SNCO there is concerned with getting that young E-1 back home to his mother or wife and not in a body bag....those pictures should never have been made public if their exposure directly causes the death of one US servicemember.
The foremost consideration here Salishe, is that there should be NO US soldiers coming home from Iraq in body bags. Why? Simple fact that the US should not have invaded Iraq under false pretenses.

When this story first broke, you were in denial. Now it appears that you will blindly defend the misguided actions of all concerned in this horrible treatment of Iraqi citizens (many of them innocent of any crimes).

Then to suggest that the US is above the Geneva Conventions, flies in the face of your fall back position that the US was in Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqis from that terrible tyrant Saddam Hussein. All the excuses for invading Iraq have disappeared.

Lies upon lies have led to an untenable situation. There is more yet to come out of this I am sure. I quite imagine that many will want to know how contractors got involved in this situation with the prisoners and under whose orders were they performing their immoral acts?


"I'm not concerned with the moral high ground"

I can see why you made that statement. You won't be able to find any as long as you back this whole Iraq fiasco.

you were really good at picking out only those parts of ALL of my post including my last one to support your position..let me attempt to unravel this....(1)I was not in denial..I was skeptical and awaited more proof, (2) I've never defended any of those who tortured prisoners..I however do back the use of passive interrogation techniques approved for use in Iraq, now our opionions differ on whether or not such techniques constituted torture, in my opinion they dont..apparenly in yours they do. (3) The Army has conducted it's investigations (over 30 of them), made the current arrests and there may be more before this is all over, the beauty of the our system...we do not reward those who torture...Saddam's boys would have gotten a medal...(4) As for the Geneva Convention..it didn't save 4 Contractors in Fallajuh...it didn't save Andrew Berg...it doesn't save troops from individuals who do not adhere to the Geneva Conventions..why on earth should I follow the Geneva Conventions if my enemy chooses not to?

The Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with liberating Iraq...2/3 of that nation is relatively peaceful with the trouble arising from three factions (1)An Iranian backed iman who wants to forcefully install a theocracy, and (2) foreign interventionists...namely Al-Queda and a host of Arab fighters from mainly Syria, and (3) former Sunnis/Baathist members of the former regime....once we resolve the security issues with these elements the remaining portion can get on with it's life.

As for that moral high ground...I'd rather have my boys come home safe

As for the point bout not being in Iraq period...get past it..we're there, deal with it.

[quote=BackwoodsSquatches][quote] But y'all want your pound of political flesh...not because it's the right thing but because you personally hate Bush and all his administration.

Your half right Salishe.
I do want my pound of flesh, but not simply becuase its going to be from the Bush adminstration.

I would be equally hungry for that same pound if it were a Liberal, or Democratic administration.

If Rummy, as the case is, is indeed guilty of having firsthand knowledge od these actions, and failing to do anthing about them, then he is guilty of not doing his job.
This violates the Geneva convention right?

What is this bout an investigation that been ongoing don't you understand clearly?...Allegations were made in January...Takuba went there, began an investigation...began obtaining evidence, arrests were made in March, filed a report with his military Chain of Command appropriate to his station..which was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs..what is so incorrect bout this?..

As far as the Geneva Convention goes..tell you what..I personally would follow it until the very second my enemy forgoes it...after that...all bets are off as far as I'm concerned...I'm not concerned with the moral high ground...at this point I...like any good NCO or SNCO there is concerned with getting that young E-1 back home to his mother or wife and not in a body bag....those pictures should never have been made public if their exposure directly causes the death of one US servicemember.
The foremost consideration here Salishe, is that there should be NO US soldiers coming home from Iraq in body bags. Why? Simple fact that the US should not have invaded Iraq under false pretenses.

When this story first broke, you were in denial. Now it appears that you will blindly defend the misguided actions of all concerned in this horrible treatment of Iraqi citizens (many of them innocent of any crimes).

Then to suggest that the US is above the Geneva Conventions, flies in the face of your fall back position that the US was in Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqis from that terrible tyrant Saddam Hussein. All the excuses for invading Iraq have disappeared.

Lies upon lies have led to an untenable situation. There is more yet to come out of this I am sure. I quite imagine that many will want to know how contractors got involved in this situation with the prisoners and under whose orders were they performing their immoral acts?


"I'm not concerned with the moral high ground"

I can see why you made that statement. You won't be able to find any as long as you back this whole Iraq fiasco.

you were really good at picking out only those parts of ALL of my post including my last one to support your position..let me attempt to unravel this....(1)I was not in denial..I was skeptical and awaited more proof,

Indeed you were in denial as well as skeptacle.

(2) I've never defended any of those who tortured prisoners..I however do back the use of passive interrogation techniques approved for use in Iraq, now our opionions differ on whether or not such techniques constituted torture, in my opinion they dont..apparenly in yours they do.
You continue to defend the tactics being used by saying that you don't support the Geneva Conventions, and that what was being done to the prisoners was not as bad as what was done by Saddam.

(3) The Army has conducted it's investigations (over 30 of them), made the current arrests and there may be more before this is all over, the beauty of the our system...we do not reward those who torture...Saddam's boys would have gotten a medal...
You keep on throwing this back on Saddam. Right now the whole military is back pedalling even to the point of suggesting that this was just a few soldiers who were acting on their own accord. Forget Saddam, he is locked away, then concentrate on the fact that US soldiers are commiting the same type of atrocities and go from there.

or the Geneva Convention..it didn't save 4 Contractors in Fallajuh...it didn't save Andrew Berg...it doesn't save troops from individuals who do not adhere to the Geneva Conventions..why on earth should I follow the Geneva Conventions if my enemy chooses not to?
By not following the Geneva Conventions, you are no better than the guy you have removed from power. Now please tell me again, why is the US in Iraq???

The Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with liberating Iraq
Nothing? You mean everything?

f that nation is relatively peaceful with the trouble arising from three factions (1)An Iranian backed iman who wants to forcefully install a theocracy, and (2) foreign interventionists...namely Al-Queda and a host of Arab fighters from mainly Syria, and (3) former Sunnis/Baathist members of the former regime....
Iraq was relatively peaceful before the US invasion, then all hell broke loose? Who opened the door for all of these loose cannons running around in Iraq? The US of course, and now it is a costly exercise in futility?

esolve the security issues with these elements the remaining portion can get on with it's life.
There are more security issues than ever before. The lid has been removed from the can of worms, and it appears that all attempts to improve the situation meets with more logistical problems.

As for that moral high ground...I'd rather have my boys come home safe
Yeah I can remember a comment you made upon the death of the 4 contractors, something to the effect of leveling the whole country in retaliation. Your math sucks.

And in regards to your "boys", it is sad that Bush felt that some of their lives were expendable in the first place.

As for the point bout not being in Iraq period...get past it..we're there, deal with it.
Oh I am realistic enough to understand that you are "there", I just wonder when you will start to question "why".

Hack, take a look at your inflation rate..

What? 3%?

Hack, take a look at your inflation rate..

What? 3%?

Political pundits are saying that it will raise quite a bit by summer, keep your eye on it.

Hack, take a look at your inflation rate..

What? 3%?

Political pundits are saying that it will raise quite a bit by summer, keep your eye on it.

Pfft. And Federal Reserve Economists are saying they're not concerned. I trust them more than pundits.

Hack, take a look at your inflation rate..

What? 3%?

Political pundits are saying that it will raise quite a bit by summer, keep your eye on it.

Pfft. And Federal Reserve Economists are saying they're not concerned. I trust them more than pundits.

Yes, you can also except interest rates to rise dramatically before Sept. too.

Hack, take a look at your inflation rate..

What? 3%?

Political pundits are saying that it will raise quite a bit by summer, keep your eye on it.

Pfft. And Federal Reserve Economists are saying they're not concerned. I trust them more than pundits.

Yes, you can also except interest rates to rise dramatically before Sept. too.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

My car payment's locked in at 0.9%, my credit cards are largely fixed as well, and I don't carry balances anyway. The only thing that'll affect is the rate on my savings account. And that will be a Good Thing.

[quote=BackwoodsSquatches][quote] But y'all want your pound of political flesh...not because it's the right thing but because you personally hate Bush and all his administration.

Your half right Salishe.
I do want my pound of flesh, but not simply becuase its going to be from the Bush adminstration.

I would be equally hungry for that same pound if it were a Liberal, or Democratic administration.

If Rummy, as the case is, is indeed guilty of having firsthand knowledge od these actions, and failing to do anthing about them, then he is guilty of not doing his job.
This violates the Geneva convention right?

What is this bout an investigation that been ongoing don't you understand clearly?...Allegations were made in January...Takuba went there, began an investigation...began obtaining evidence, arrests were made in March, filed a report with his military Chain of Command appropriate to his station..which was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs..what is so incorrect bout this?..

As far as the Geneva Convention goes..tell you what..I personally would follow it until the very second my enemy forgoes it...after that...all bets are off as far as I'm concerned...I'm not concerned with the moral high ground...at this point I...like any good NCO or SNCO there is concerned with getting that young E-1 back home to his mother or wife and not in a body bag....those pictures should never have been made public if their exposure directly causes the death of one US servicemember.
The foremost consideration here Salishe, is that there should be NO US soldiers coming home from Iraq in body bags. Why? Simple fact that the US should not have invaded Iraq under false pretenses.

When this story first broke, you were in denial. Now it appears that you will blindly defend the misguided actions of all concerned in this horrible treatment of Iraqi citizens (many of them innocent of any crimes).

Then to suggest that the US is above the Geneva Conventions, flies in the face of your fall back position that the US was in Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqis from that terrible tyrant Saddam Hussein. All the excuses for invading Iraq have disappeared.

Lies upon lies have led to an untenable situation. There is more yet to come out of this I am sure. I quite imagine that many will want to know how contractors got involved in this situation with the prisoners and under whose orders were they performing their immoral acts?


"I'm not concerned with the moral high ground"

I can see why you made that statement. You won't be able to find any as long as you back this whole Iraq fiasco.

you were really good at picking out only those parts of ALL of my post including my last one to support your position..let me attempt to unravel this....(1)I was not in denial..I was skeptical and awaited more proof,

Indeed you were in denial as well as skeptacle. I beg to differ, I was skeptical, I know perfectly well our soldiers are just as human as anyone else and just as capable of making the same mistakes

(2) I've never defended any of those who tortured prisoners..I however do back the use of passive interrogation techniques approved for use in Iraq, now our opionions differ on whether or not such techniques constituted torture, in my opinion they dont..apparenly in yours they do.
You continue to defend the tactics being used by saying that you don't support the Geneva Conventions, and that what was being done to the prisoners was not as bad as what was done by Saddam.No the tactics being used are considered worldwide by not just the US but other nations as well, passive interrogations are even in line with many police depts

(3) The Army has conducted it's investigations (over 30 of them), made the current arrests and there may be more before this is all over, the beauty of the our system...we do not reward those who torture...Saddam's boys would have gotten a medal...
You keep on throwing this back on Saddam. Right now the whole military is back pedalling even to the point of suggesting that this was just a few soldiers who were acting on their own accord. Forget Saddam, he is locked away, then concentrate on the fact that US soldiers are commiting the same type of atrocities and go from there.There were only a few soldiers, fewer then 20 unless you have proof otherwise, and they did act on their own accord unless you have proof of actual orders to the contrary, oh...that's right you don't have such proof

or the Geneva Convention..it didn't save 4 Contractors in Fallajuh...it didn't save Andrew Berg...it doesn't save troops from individuals who do not adhere to the Geneva Conventions..why on earth should I follow the Geneva Conventions if my enemy chooses not to?
By not following the Geneva Conventions, you are no better than the guy you have removed from power. Now please tell me again, why is the US in Iraq???How does following the Geneva Conventions or not following the Geneva Conventions help reconstruct a country or track down terrorists?..and to somehow use that as a standard to somehow say because we don't follow the Geneva Conventions we are the same as that psychotic meglomaniac..somehow I don't think you'll find 300,000 Iraqis buried in mass graves whose only crime was in opposing Saddam

The Geneva Conventions have nothing to do with liberating Iraq
Nothing? You mean everything?No i meant nothing mean nothing.

f that nation is relatively peaceful with the trouble arising from three factions (1)An Iranian backed iman who wants to forcefully install a theocracy, and (2) foreign interventionists...namely Al-Queda and a host of Arab fighters from mainly Syria, and (3) former Sunnis/Baathist members of the former regime....
Iraq was relatively peaceful before the US invasion, then all hell broke loose? Who opened the door for all of these loose cannons running around in Iraq? The US of course, and now it is a costly exercise in futility?
[b]I think the mass graves and the oppressed Shiites and Kurds will disagree that Iraq was relatively peaceful
esolve the security issues with these elements the remaining portion can get on with it's life.
There are more security issues than ever before. The lid has been removed from the can of worms, and it appears that all attempts to improve the situation meets with more logistical problems.

As for that moral high ground...I'd rather have my boys come home safe
Yeah I can remember a comment you made upon the death of the 4 contractors, something to the effect of leveling the whole country in retaliation. Your math sucks. Actually I said the Sunni Triangle, not the whole country, and I was justifiably angry over the so much butchering of those men, as was any right-thinking person, well...all except Tuminiaa I think he actually got off on it.

And in regards to your "boys", it is sad that Bush felt that some of their lives were expendable in the first place.

As for the point bout not being in Iraq period...get past it..we're there, deal with it.
Oh I am realistic enough to understand that you are "there", I just wonder when you will start to question "why".I see no reason why I should question it...the Kurds are fine, Saddam is gone, the Shiites can worship without retaliation..schools are getting fixed, their oil will soon start to make them the capital necessary for true improvements, they have a written Constitution...and they aren't following Iran into theocracy unless of course we appease Sadr like many want us to, why should I question the good work being done?

To claim that the White House, or members of the administration were unaware of what was happening in the military is to excuse neither.

The system of government in a democracy means that ultimately the military is accountable to the government, who are in turn accountable to the electorate.

Thus,

either the administration knew what was happening, and are therefore complicent in the actions that have occured, and remiss in not acting to prevent such actions before they were exposed via the media

or the administration in fact had no idea what was occuring. In this instance, of course, the military are basically "out of control", and not responsible to the government. If this is the case, then equally obviously the administration is basically incompotent ot careless, in a word "asleep at the wheel".

You pays your money and takes your pick. Bush and his cronies are either responsible for what has occured, or criminally negligent.you still talk like this is some big chunk of the military doing this... it was a dozen idiots at a hot prison... It's shameful, yes, it's disgusting, yes, but why is it THAT big of a deal? Why are we so much more upset over this than the broadcasted butchering of Nick Berg?

1. "A dozen idiots"...remains to be seen. I would not be guessing at how many were involved, or who was aware of what when. Lets have the thing investigated and then we will all know.

2. "That big a deal"...the systemic torture/abuse/mistreatment of prisoners, by forces supposedly commited to regime change in order to remove a torturing dictator? Yep, sounds like a big deal to me.

3. "Why are we so much more upset over this than the broadcasted butchering of Nick Berg"...I don't recall mentioning Nick Berg in my post at all. Please do not assume I have done so. Please do not assume that I was not disgusted by that incident. Please do not attempt to confuse the two issues. Please do not infer that one act in any way justifies the other (in either direction you care to anaylse them from).

I repeat, the administation are either complicit or negligent...which do you care to believe. Has to be one or the other.

Life is rarely that black and white Smeagol..neither situation applies. The Administration did not know of it until notified by a military investigation. An Administration thousands of miles away can not be held responsible for actions on the ground by at present is less then .005% of the total US presence there....Just be honest Smeagol.you want your pound of political flesh..and you won't be satisfied til you get one of those evil bushites.

This is the reality of the situation...we have an ill-equipped Reservist 800th Military Police Brigade responsible for the internal security of at least two major prisons in Iraq...Now..for those who don't realize it..a. Brigade comprises literally thousands of people...now...that doesn't include any of the other 120,000 US troops in theatre spread out between the Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy....not to mention 45,000 British troops, and 20,000 internationals..

Now..in the 800th....we have a downturn in discipline...caused by any number of factors.....war will do that..for all that say we should be above this...what..when did we Americans obtain halos?..Our boys are over there in that hot, miserable hell-hole, far from home, many of them either reservist or National Guard units with men who had no idea they were going to be activated and sent overseas to a combat zone for over a year, then told they couldn't go home when their rotation time comes up.

In a situation where Intelligence agencies require intel from suspected terrorists, baathist thugs, or foreign fighters..men will take the law into their own hands.....

Gods help me I've seen all this before..over 30 yrs ago...armchair politicians and generals who never spend a day in-country believing they have it right, with high philosophies or righteous attitudes that somehow men can't fall from the impossibly high pedestal the world puts on US servicemembers...

The same could be said of my generation of military personnel..we had atrocities...we had deaths in prison..hell..the CIA had Operation Phoenix which was the extermination of VietCong sympathizers, political and military leaders...I'd say they've improved a lot if all they are doing is a few deaths...if this had been a CIA op in my day they probably wouldn't have bothered with softening them up prior to the interrogation. They would have got what they wanted and then promptly shot them. So using today's standards every American soldier in-country was a murderous thug accordingly...it was a load of crap then...it's a load of crap now.

What you people are pissed off is that you civilians didn't find out about it. Well frankly it was being handled in-house...over 30 investigations have gone on so far and NONE of them have implicated any Administration official or high ranking officer either condoning, suggesting, or alluding to illegal acts perpetrated by a few pathetic souls who are being disciplined accordingly according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

But y'all want your pound of political flesh...not because it's the right thing but because you personally hate Bush and all his administration.

People change in wartime folks..some go bad...some die slowly from the inside..some go mad..and some drink til they forget the nitemares..or some go into denial....I've got friends who are all these things, and I'm even guilty of a couple...

But don't worry...I'm sure you'll not be satisfied with whatever decisions the court-martial hands out..so you'll still be able to cry for the firing of rumsfeld....this includes you Tuminiaa and Smeagol..by far the two most vocal critics of this war.

Edit:For the record lest some read my above post and think i'm attempting to friggin apologize for those who have committed any kind of abuse/mistreatment/torture..I'm not...I think every mother's son of them should be court-martialed and senteneced to life in the brig, that includes any "alleged" higher ups that apparently they can't tell us who gave the orders

You have raised a number of issues, which I will address in turn. So as to be fairer than some, I will quote your exact words, and not claim you made statements that you have not.

"Life is rarely that black and white Smeagol..neither situation applies. The Administration did not know " - Criminally negligent. Thanks for your choice. As I said, they either knew or did not - yes, that is pretty damn black or white isn't it. Sometimes things are.

"This is the reality of the situation...we have an ill-equipped Reservist 800th Military Police Brigade responsible for the internal security ...we have a downturn in discipline...caused by any number of factors.....war will do that....when did we Americans obtain halos?....men will take the law into their own hands.... somehow men can't fall from the impossibly high pedestal the world puts on US servicemembers..." So exactly who is responsible for equipping a brigade ...maintaining discipline...upholding standards? HMMM? Anybody? That same "logic" could be used to justify any war crime, Malmedy for example. Or does the logic not apply if the US are victims?

"my generation of military personnel..we had atrocities...we had deaths in prison.. So using today's standards every American soldier in-country was a murderous thug accordingly...it was a load of crap then...it's a load of crap now"....Previous atrocities/war crimes cannot be used as justification for present day ones. I have never stated that all soldiers in-country are equally guilty. This spurious tactic of claiming a statement from someone which they never made and then refuting it is becoming monontonous. Kindly stop it. What I stated, in fact, was that someone should be responsible for the actions of the military. Do you believe that this is not the case? If so, we can debate that, being something that I actually said.

"
What you people are pissed off is that you civilians didn't find out about it. Well frankly it was being handled in-house"....Yes, its called democracy. It means that the military is answeable to the government, and that the government is answerable to the people. Got a problem with that?

"But don't worry...I'm sure you'll not be satisfied with whatever decisions the court-martial hands out..so you'll still be able to cry for the firing of rumsfeld....this includes you Tuminiaa and Smeagol..by far the two most vocal critics of this war." - yes I have been a vocal critic of the war from the start. Does this somehow invalidate my arguments in this instance? I remember arguing that the case for the "imminent threat" of "weapons of mass destruction" looked shaky...I really wouldn't have thought that such a stance would have decreased my credibility. If you believe so, I would be amused to read the logic behind such a conclusion.