Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-24-2005, 03:44 PM   #1 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Amish-land, PA
Karl Rove's Speech condemning liberals

From CNN:

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A White House official said Friday the administration finds it "somewhat puzzling" that Democrats are demanding presidential adviser Karl Rove's apology or resignation for implying that liberals are soft on terrorism.

"I think Karl was very specific, very accurate, in who he was pointing out," communications director Dan Bartlett said. "It's touched a chord with these Democrats. I'm not sure why."

Congressional Republicans earlier joined the White House in standing solidly behind Rove, saying he shouldn't apologize and that he was outlining a philosophical divide between a president who sought to win the war on terrorism by taking the fight to the enemy and Democrats who questioned that approach.

The controversy, fought out in hearings, floor speeches and news conferences Thursday on Capitol Hill, was the latest of several highly contentious battles that have soured the already highly partisan atmosphere.

Earlier this week Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, apologized after being hit with a chorus of attacks from Republicans about comments in which he compared detainee treatment at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the actions of Nazis and other repressive regimes.

Rove, the architect behind President Bush's election victories, on Wednesday night told a gathering of the New York Conservative Party that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

He added that groups linked to the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.

Bartlett, appearing on morning news shows Friday, said that Rove was referring in his talk to Moveon.org, a liberal group that has been identified with movie producer Michael Moore.

"It's somewhat puzzling why all these Democrats ... who responded forcefully after 9-11, who voted to support President Bush's pursuit of the war on terror, are now rallying to the defense of Moveon.org, this liberal organization who put out a petition in the days after 9/11 and said that we ought not use military force in responding to 9/11," Bartlett said on NBC's "Today" show. "That is who Karl Rove cited in that speech ... There is no need to apologize."

Appearing on CBS's "The Early Show," Bartlett said that Rove was "just pointing out that MoveOn.org is a liberal organization that didn't defend or accept the way that we prosecuted the war in the days after" the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington.

Bartlett told interviewers that he didn't understand why Democrats "are throwing up such a huff."

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, in a letter to Rove co-signed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Democratic senators from Connecticut and New Jersey, called the presidential adviser's speech "a slap in the face to the unity that America achieved after September 11, 2001."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday there was no reason for Rove to apologize because he was "simply pointing out the different philosophies when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."

"Of course not," McClellan said when asked by reporters whether Bush would ask Rove to apologize.

Democrats said Rove, and his Republican allies, were now trying to change the subject when Democrats, and many Americans, are becoming increasingly critical of the course of the war in Iraq.

For Rove "to try to exploit 9/11 for political purposes once again just shows you how desperate they are," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who in recent days has been the target of Republican attacks for saying that the Iraq war was a "grotesque mistake."
Link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/....ap/index.html



What do you all think? Personally, I find it disgusting that this purveyor of evil would dare say such disgusting things condemning Democrats and Liberals for 'coddling terrorists' and being in support of terrorism. Apparently, we all should repent for our evil ways, or else we shall burn in Hell.

Notice me shaking in my boots. Woot.
__________________
"I've made only one mistake in my life. But I made it over and over and over. That was saying 'yes' when I meant 'no'. Forgive me."
TM875 is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 03:55 PM   #2 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
What's wrong with you? He's just illustrating the difference between liberals and conservatives. Don't expect any condemnation from the WH anytime soon.

Bush '04: Elevating the discourse.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 04:04 PM   #3 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night
It reeks of a bit of desperation as approval numbers fall almost daily for the administration for Rove to drag out that tired old bag of tricks. In the middle of all the things they should be concentrating on, did he really pull out frickin 9/12/2001? One trick pony, I guess.

At the very least, go get OBL before we have to listen to more of your bull about terror and your middle school posteuring about you being tougher than another grown man. The sabre rattling looses it's luster when another 30 men left families behind today in the name of our countries collective dick size.
__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.
chickentribs is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 04:51 PM   #4 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
I deplore this type of hubris and hyperbole whether it comes from Dean or Rove. Think about it for a moment. We are doing a better job here in an obscure politics forum in discussing our differences in politics than the political leadership of the dems and reps.

Like Gilda Radner would say in full character, "Never Mind."

Last edited by Elphaba; 06-24-2005 at 05:38 PM..
Elphaba is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 05:23 PM   #5 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night
Elphaba, I understand - it looks like Kerry photo op and a bit of grandstanding because Krove had a few drinks and got stupid. But after listening to McClellan everywhere and Rove continuing to run his mouth about not owing anybody an apology, I say back the motherfucker up, so he crawls back into his office and doesn't come out until '08, or let retire early.

He was elected to nothing, so shut him up. He didn't earn the right to speak on behalf of this country. He is a hired hand bashing our elected officials and making the US look weak and divided. Nobody who cares about this country should tolerate it Pubs, Dems, Ind, whoever.

I was just reading more of his blather from today... He embarasses all of us.
__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.
chickentribs is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 05:23 PM   #6 (permalink)
Gentlemen Farmer
 
j8ear's Avatar
 
Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey
Good for Rove and fuck moveon.org and their devisive vitriol, blantant lies, and disgusting corruption of reality.

They proposed exactly what Rove said. Dialogue, understading, and indictments. Mobilize the Compassion Industry they cried.

Typical.

Democrats don't even have the balls to own up to their own base, or their own points of view. Kill the messenger. We said that...we think that...but HOW DARE YOU tell people what we said or think. How dare you!!!! One of several reasons why they have become so irrelevant to the daily discourse.

It's funny how Rove is dismissed as desperate and a one trick pony. This a man who has has summarily embarrassed and marginalized those in the Democratic party for the shill hacks that they are. Loss after loss after loss...and to GWB too. Hilarious.

When Durbin, that bastian of hope and reason, is held accountable for his "desparation" then perhaps we can talk about Rove.

Frankly, and likely unbeknowst to those pathetic democrats, Rove has some master plan here, that ends up shaking some heat off of Bush and even further humilating the opposition.

It would fit his MO perfectly.

Like him or not he is a brilliant political strategist, who answers to no one. Especially not some whiny pathetic irrelevant democrats. Whah Whah Whah.

Stop whining about Rove (and everything else while your at it) and get on with life. Find someone who will expose the republicans for the shill hacks ~they~ are.

-bear
__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.
j8ear is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 05:30 PM   #7 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night
Quote:
Originally Posted by j8ear
Frankly, and likely unbeknowst to those pathetic democrats, Rove has some master plan here, that ends up shaking some heat off of Bush and even further humilating the opposition.

It would fit his MO perfectly.

Like him or not he is a brilliant political strategist, who answers to no one. Especially not some whiny pathetic irrelevant democrats. Whah Whah Whah.

Stop whining about Rove (and everything else while your at it) and get on with life. Find someone who will expose the republicans for the shill hacks ~they~ are.
-bear
Yeah, sounds like we're interested in what's best for the country. So illustrative, I tip my hat.
__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.
chickentribs is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 05:54 PM   #8 (permalink)
Banned
 
In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush, as Rene Zellwigger's line went in the movie, "Jerry McGuire", had us...(ALL Americans. of all political persuasion) from hello !

Bush also had similar backing from most of the leaders and residents in the western world. Rove's remarks are just more in a long line of mistakes that effected and reflected, the long decline that we are witnessing......
Quote:
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/feat...=44797&ntpid=4
Wineke: Rove's remarks only hurt Bush
00:00 am 6/24/05
Bill Wineke Wisconsin State Journal

President Bush's supporters often wonder why so many liberal Democrats seem to "hate" him.

Well, the following quote from Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser, might go a long way toward explaining why:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding to our attackers," Rove said at fundraiser for the Conservative Party of New York State.

Cute, Karl. But here's what really happened in the aftermath of 9/11:

Democrats, liberals, socialists, conservatives and moderates all rallied behind President Bush, offering him their full support and backing, endorsing his invasion of Afghanistan and applauding his leadership.

Bush, advised by this self- same Karl Rove, responded by shoving that support down the Democrats' throats, distorting their votes and, through his underlings, impugning their patriotism.

Rove is a brilliant politician. We will never find his fingerprints on the 2002 election campaign in Georgia, where Sen. Max Cleland, a man who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam and who supported Bush on war plans, was linked to Osama bin Laden and accused of being soft on terrorism.

But, Rove went further.

He quoted a speech by Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin last week in which Durbin quoted an FBI report on treatment of prisoners at America's Guantanamo Bay prison camp - a report that said prisoners were chained to the floor in fetal positions and left there to urinate and defecate on themselves and suggested that, had listeners not known this was an American camp, they might have thought he was describing a Nazi or Soviet penal facility.

Durbin later apologized for the analogy but Rove argued that Durbin's remarks were reflective of the liberal motives.

"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

Well, let me put this in fairly simple terms, Mr. Rove: What enrages people in the Arab world aren't Durbin's words but the facts behind them. Durbin didn't create the FBI report and Durbin didn't create the numerous other official reports stating clearly that on at least some occasions we have treated prisoners in an appalling manner.

Look, I know that President Bush's approval ratings are low right now and I know support for this war is waning. I know that suggesting those who oppose his policies are either cowards or traitors may have worked in the past.

But here's the problem: If the president really wants to maintain support for continuing the war - and, given what we've started in Iraq, I think it is necessary that we not leave that destroyed county at the mercy of terror - then he's going to need all the help he can get.

Karl Rove may bring red meat to tried and true conservatives who can be expected to support Bush, no matter how disastrous his decisions. But he's not going to win much support from liberals by slandering their motives and their courage.

Rove is a jerk and he might serve the president better by shutting up.
host is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 06:05 PM   #9 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Agreed, Host. I remember Le Monde's headline after 9/11... "We are all American's now." It is more than unfortunate that this administration has flushed good will of any kind down the toilet, whether here or abroad.
Elphaba is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 07:19 PM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
The liberal response to Rove's remarks, and the war on terror in general, shows that America now will never have a single front war. America will now always have to endure attacks from without and within. Much of America has seemingly lost the will to do what is necessary, and turns it's aggession against the very people trying to ensure the security of them and their children.

I have often debated with people about Hitler's greatest mistake in WWII (people seem to forget that there were many instances where he could have concievably won the war). Now I know his greatest mistake-not being born 50 years later. In the current climate, liberals would label Hilter a misunderstood leader bringing prosperity to his country, and FDR and Churchill would be denounced as evil warmongers bent on spreading Christian propaganda through a rapidly secularizing Germany.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 07:24 PM   #11 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, in a letter to Rove co-signed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Democratic senators from Connecticut and New Jersey, called the presidential adviser's speech "a slap in the face to the unity that America achieved after September 11, 2001."
This is the kind of dishonest pandering nonsense from the Dems that drives me nuts. You have Ted Kennedy calling Iraq a quagmire, asking Rumsfeld if he will resign, pretty please. You have Jimmy Carter calling the war immoral and illegal. The Democratically driven non-issues of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Dick Durbin with his Nazi references. Howard Dean and his vacuous hysterics. The Downing Street Memo Circus. All fine, fine examples of useful contributions to American unity. The Forces of Disunity complaining about a lack of unity! What a laugh! What a farce!

What this says to me is that the Dems STILL have no answers - zero. No interesting solutions to world events, no creative thinking. All they seem to offer is the same mindless, Pavlovian counter-criticism to whatever the Repubs say or do. Not one original thought out of the lot of them. Karl Rove is simply toying with the Democratic party by eliciting just the type of thoughtless, hypocritical responses such as those from Clinton and Shumer. It keeps the Dems from thinking, keeps them on the defensive, keeps them in an intellectual limbo, and ultimately, keeps them out of power. They are stuck in a self-defeating loop.
powerclown is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 07:28 PM   #12 (permalink)
Psycho
 
I love that the response after 9-11 was to go to war. With Iraq. The total disconnect between that country, and what happened on 9-11 didn''t matter then.

He's still pushing that non-connection as reality years later.




And it's still working.
boatin is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 07:31 PM   #13 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
The liberal response to Rove's remarks, and the war on terror in general, shows that America now will never have a single front war. America will now always have to endure attacks from without and within. Much of America has seemingly lost the will to do what is necessary, and turns it's aggession against the very people trying to ensure the security of them and their children.
Since this is virtually identical to the rhetoric of the right during the Vietnam war, can I assume that you think we should have kept fighting in that 'war'? Was it those pesky peace-niks that ruined it back then, too?

If you believe that, I'll at least have respect for you having consistent logic. Was it the protesters that lost us that war? I'm thinking history has already turned in a different verdict, but I'm curious about your take. Or if you think this situation is different.


edit: and your second paragraph seems like quite a stretch. But you're sure entitled to your opinion...
boatin is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 07:44 PM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boatin
Since this is virtually identical to the rhetoric of the right during the Vietnam war, can I assume that you think we should have kept fighting in that 'war'? Was it those pesky peace-niks that ruined it back then, too?

If you believe that, I'll at least have respect for you having consistent logic. Was it the protesters that lost us that war? I'm thinking history has already turned in a different verdict, but I'm curious about your take. Or if you think this situation is different.
I think that partially, it was protesters who undercut our efforts in the Vietnam war. The press coverage of that war seemed quite negative from the onset, and helped contribute to the horrible morale that was often found in Vietnam. Had there been the same anti-war movements in WWII or the Korean war, I feel America's involvement in those would have been much less successful. The constant protests and negative press doesn't allow the country to fight a war how it should be-quick and dirty.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 08:17 PM   #15 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TM875
Personally, I find it disgusting that this purveyor of evil would dare say such disgusting things condemning Democrats and Liberals for 'coddling terrorists' and being in support of terrorism.
Hey, if the Jackboot fits, wear it. What have the Democrats come up with since 911? Well, they've come up with "We need to understand why they hate us, and change so they will not hate us", we've seen "If we just sell out our friends and let the terrorists massacre our allies, they'll kill us last, and that's kind-of a victory, isn't it?", and biggest and best, we've seen them run a Presidential candidate who claimed "I have experience in betraying my country in time of war, so I'll make the best appeasement President yet!".

Do liberals support "Palestinian Rights"? If so, they support terrorism. Hell, look at PETA and ALF/ELF. They're the left's favorite terror group.

If Liberals don't want to be seen as condoning terrorism, they ought to do something revolutionary for them, like, say, STOP SUPPORTING TERRORISTS. It's kind of funny how that works...
moosenose is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 08:21 PM   #16 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boatin
Since this is virtually identical to the rhetoric of the right during the Vietnam war, can I assume that you think we should have kept fighting in that 'war'? Was it those pesky peace-niks that ruined it back then, too?
If you read General Giap's autobiography, you'll find that he draws EXACTLY that conclusion. He admits that the US had defeated both the insurgency and the North Vietnamese militarily, and the central facet of his strategy was to keep everybody bleeding until the Soviet controlled and financed anti-war movement in the US sapped the American will to fight. Of course, what did he know? It's not like he was the guy who developed the North Vietnamese military strategy!


/Oh wait...
moosenose is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 08:25 PM   #17 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
The liberal response to Rove's remarks, and the war on terror in general, shows that America now will never have a single front war. America will now always have to endure attacks from without and within.

>snip<

In the current climate, liberals would label Hilter a misunderstood leader bringing prosperity to his country, and FDR and Churchill would be denounced as evil warmongers bent on spreading Christian propaganda through a rapidly secularizing Germany.
You never know. Sooner or later, somebody will grow the balls required to enforce Article III § 3 of the US Constitution. Remember, it's still a capital offense.

As for Hitler, if he were in Germany today, he'd be considered a progressive, and the Liberals would claim him to be their best buddy, just like the far left loves Castro and Mugabe.
moosenose is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 08:29 PM   #18 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boatin
I love that the response after 9-11 was to go to war. With Iraq. The total disconnect between that country, and what happened on 9-11 didn''t matter then.
That's odd, I could have sworn we invaded Afghanistan first. I also could have sworn that Saddam, beyond a shadow of a doubt, supported and sheltered terrorists who had attacked US assets and interests (remember Leon Klinghoffer?). Were they the actual 911 hijackers? Nope, but they were still terrorists, Saddam still was training terrorists, and he was still funding suicide bombers. As such, he had to go.


If you have a termite nest in your house, you don't just kill the one termite that got lost and wandered to where you could see him. You kill ALL of the termites.
moosenose is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 09:16 PM   #19 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
I challenge anyone here to furnish us all with a quote where ANY ONE LIBERAL said we should be providing these people who killed 3000 americans, with therapy rather than justice.

Rove is a divisive hack who all too frequently slanders the unity that was briefly forged through the wrong committed that day. He just completely dishonored 1/3 of america.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 09:18 PM   #20 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Amish-land, PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
Hey, if the Jackboot fits, wear it. What have the Democrats come up with since 911? Well, they've come up with "We need to understand why they hate us, and change so they will not hate us"
Yes, exactly. THAT IS what needs to be done. Blowing them to hell won't work. Sanctioning them will not succeed. Only once you know your enemy, understand what they want, why they want it, and how they will attain it, will you be able to effectively fight and win a battle.

At the beginning of the Iraq war, Hussein was a nominal threat to the US and the world. We took him out of power, we destroyed his government, we set up a new one. Why are we still there? At this point, I'd be all for releasing Sadaam, letting him try to go back and reconstruct. He has no power now. If the insurgents want to kill him, fine. If he truly is strong enough to form a new government, he knows that the entire world will be watching him so closely that he can't head to the bathroom without being seen.

Today, we are doing nothing but hurting ourselves. The Arab world hates us. The Asian world is not really fond of us, either. Has anyone ever attacked Sweeden? Seeing a mad rush to wage war on Canada? I don't think so. Understanding those that may oppose you and trying to diffuse hatred is the only way to avoid war and future death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
In the current climate, liberals would label Hilter a misunderstood leader bringing prosperity to his country, and FDR and Churchill would be denounced as evil warmongers bent on spreading Christian propaganda through a rapidly secularizing Germany.
Why was Hitler hated? Is it because he mobilized Germany's economy? Is it because he structured an amazingly well-trained military force? Is it because he rebuilt a nation from nothing to one of the strongest countries in the developed world? No, Hitler is looked at as evil and as a devil because HE KILLED PEOPLE IN MASS NUMBERS! Had he not allowed his mad drive for success to extend beyone Germany's boarders, and had aides that prevented him from committing mass genocide, the man might have been known as one of history's greatest leaders. Instead, he became hungry for recognition and control, invaded other nations, and killed a huge number of their inhabitants for a mis-placed ideological cause that eventually led to the destruction of everything that he built.

Sound familiar? The past leads to the future. Welcome to America.
__________________
"I've made only one mistake in my life. But I made it over and over and over. That was saying 'yes' when I meant 'no'. Forgive me."
TM875 is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 09:37 PM   #21 (permalink)
Insane
 
LewisCouch's Avatar
 
Location: Pacific NW
How about just doing your JOBS without all the hyperbole and bluster!! This constant bickering and back biting is not healthy for this country. Is this tendentious and juvenile behaviour by members of both parties meant to turn voters off? I'm beginning to believe the master plan is just to completely and utterly alienate the American voter. I for one have had my fill.
__________________
"The gift of liberty is like that of a horse, handsome, strong, and high-spirited. In some it arouses a wish to ride; in many others, on the contrary, it increases the desire to walk."

-- Massimo d'Azeglio
LewisCouch is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 09:51 PM   #22 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TM875
Why was Hitler hated? Is it because he mobilized Germany's economy? Is it because he structured an amazingly well-trained military force? Is it because he rebuilt a nation from nothing to one of the strongest countries in the developed world? No, Hitler is looked at as evil and as a devil because HE KILLED PEOPLE IN MASS NUMBERS! Had he not allowed his mad drive for success to extend beyone Germany's boarders, and had aides that prevented him from committing mass genocide, the man might have been known as one of history's greatest leaders. Instead, he became hungry for recognition and control, invaded other nations, and killed a huge number of their inhabitants for a mis-placed ideological cause that eventually led to the destruction of everything that he built.

Sound familiar? The past leads to the future. Welcome to America.
Amazing well put. Granted, as much as i hate shrub and his slithering worms that work for him, shrub isnt gassing millions of people. But your statement is excellent.
Mobo123 is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 09:59 PM   #23 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
That's odd, I could have sworn we invaded Afghanistan first. I also could have sworn that Saddam, beyond a shadow of a doubt, supported and sheltered terrorists who had attacked US assets and interests (remember Leon Klinghoffer?). Were they the actual 911 hijackers? Nope, but they were still terrorists, Saddam still was training terrorists, and he was still funding suicide bombers. As such, he had to go.


If you have a termite nest in your house, you don't just kill the one termite that got lost and wandered to where you could see him. You kill ALL of the termites.
moosenose !!!......nice to see you.....I've made this offer before. Stop posting your weakly documented "reasons" that it was just and necessary for the U.S. to invade Iraq, and I won't have to post a strongly documented rebuttal.

Abu Nidal?......Please !.....................the last time that I observed a conservative trot out that tired old bogey man was when Ollie North used him as an excuse to deflect accusations that he had illegally accepted the gift of a security fence around his private home,
Quote:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/comm...er_North.shtml
his Internet hoax says that under questioning from an unidentified senator, Col. Oliver North said he had a home security system installed because a terrorist had threatened him and his family. When asked who this terrorist was, Col. North said it was Osama bin Laden.

The facts: Oliver North testified about a home security system during a July 7, 1987 joint Senate-House hearing on the Iran-Contra investigation. The questioner was not a senator, but committee counsel John Nields. Col. North testified the security system was installed because threats were made on his life by terrorist Abu Nidal.
Quote:
http://www.janes.com/security/intern...0823_1_n.shtml
Abu Nidal murder trail leads directly to Iraqi regime 23 August 2002

By Mohammed Najib

It has now become very clear and much confirmed that the Iraqi regime headed by Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the assassination of the Palestinian terrorist Sabri al-Bana, known to the world as Abu Nidal.

A wide-ranging Jane’s investigation into the incident, gathering information from various official and non-official sources in Ramallah, Amman, Baghdad, London, Washington and Beirut, has confirmed the Iraqi regime’s involvement in the killing of Abu Nidal, whose death in a Baghdad apartment from gunshot wounds was announced last Friday (16 August).

So why has Saddam acted now? The best explanation is that the Iraqi dictator is now feeling the pressure from the ongoing US deliberations over a potential invasion to topple his regime. In any such adventure, the anti-Saddam elements within Iraq would most likely play an important role in turning the tide against Saddam. He has therefore moved to eradicate those dangerous elements, both as a pre-emptive measure to protect his position and as an example to other prospective internal enemies still at large.

Given Abu Nidal’s propensity to ‘go with the smart money’ to survive and his past treachery during the 1990-91 Gulf War (he sided with Kuwait), any suggestion of him plotting against the regime would have been enough to sign his death warrant.

Various Palestinian and Arab officials and sources contacted by Jane’s have confirmed the reports of Abu Nidal’s death in his Baghdad apartment under “mysterious circumstances”. It remains unclear, however, whether Iraqi agents killed him or whether he committed suicide. His body bore several gunshot wounds, according to Palestinian sources.

A senior Iraqi official said on 20 August that Abu Nidal, who had returned to Iraq several months earlier bearing a false Yemeni passport and was placed under house arrest, killed himself after Iraqi agents accused him of conspiring with anti-Iraqi forces, including Kuwait [and Saudi Arabia]. Iraqi intelligence had apparently confronted Abu Nidal with evidence of his involvement with foreign agents to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime, with an Iraqi senior official claiming that classified documents and plans concerning a US attack on Iraq were found in his house.......
Quote:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

(lower paragraph of second Powell quote on the page)
.............but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.................
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 05, 2002

.....Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week.......
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
..............."We're Taking Him Out"
His war on Iraq may be delayed, but Bush still vows to remove Saddam. Here's a look at White House plans
By DANIEL EISENBERG
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR

Posted Sunday, May. 05, 2002
Two months ago, a group of Republican and Democratic Senators went to the White House to meet with Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Adviser. Bush was not scheduled to attend but poked his head in anyway — and soon turned the discussion to Iraq. The President has strong feelings about Saddam Hussein (you might too if the man had tried to assassinate your father, which Saddam attempted to do when former President George Bush visited Kuwait in 1993) and did not try to hide them. He showed little interest in debating what to do about Saddam. Instead, he became notably animated, according to one person in the room, used a vulgar epithet to refer to Saddam and concluded with four words that left no one in doubt about Bush's intentions: "We're taking him out."

Dick Cheney carried the same message to Capitol Hill in late March. The Vice President dropped by a Senate Republican policy lunch soon after his 10-day tour of the Middle East — the one meant to drum up support for a U.S. military strike against Iraq. As everyone in the room well knew, his mission had been thrown off course by the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.<b> But Cheney hadn't lost focus. Before he spoke, he said no one should repeat what he said, and Senators and staff members promptly put down their pens and pencils.</b> Then he gave them some surprising news. The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq, he said. The only question was when....................

....................A front-page story in the New York Times on April 28 claimed that Bush had all but settled on a full-scale ground invasion of Iraq early next year with between 70,000 and 250,000 U.S. troops. But military and civilian officials insist that there is no finalized battle plan or timetable — and that Bush has not even been presented with a formal list of options. Instead, the Times story, with its vision of a large-scale troop deployment, seems to have been the latest volley in the bureaucratic war at home, leaked by uniformed officers who think some of their civilian overseers have been downplaying the size and difficulty of an attack...................

.................Still, planning for some kind of military action is clearly under way. Earlier this year, Bush signed a supersecret intelligence "finding" that authorized further action to prepare for Saddam's ouster. Mindful of widespread concern that a post-Saddam Iraq could quickly be torn apart by ethnic violence and regional meddling, the White House is increasing its efforts to devise a workable replacement government.........................

....................Invasion is not the only alternative being considered, but it is the most likely. Taking the Afghanistan campaign as their model, many proponents of action, including Senator John McCain, still believe that before the U.S. commits to a full-scale invasion, it's worth trying to overthrow Saddam in a proxy war with the help of a local opposition force much like the Northern Alliance, aided by American special forces and air power.......................

.............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week...................

.................f that sounds like another potential Somalia, it's easy to understand why the President, for all his tough talk, is not about to rush into anything. "Bush cannot embark on a mission that fails," says Geoffrey Kemp, a former member of President Reagan's National Security Council now at the Nixon Center in Washington. "Given what happened to his father and the hype in this Administration, it would be the end." And for Saddam, yet another new beginning.
Quote:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html

...........KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that..............
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061100723.html
Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan
Advisers to Blair Predicted Instability

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 12, 2005; Page A01

...........The Bush administration's failure to plan adequately for the postwar period has been well documented. The Pentagon, for example, ignored extensive State Department studies of how to achieve stability after an invasion, administer a postwar government and rebuild the country. And administration officials have acknowledged the mistake of dismantling the Iraqi army and canceling pensions to its veteran officers -- which many say hindered security, enhanced anti-U.S. feeling and aided what would later become a violent insurgency.

Testimony by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of Iraq policy, before a House subcommittee on Feb. 28, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, illustrated the optimistic view the administration had of postwar Iraq. He said containment of Hussein the previous 12 years had cost "slightly over $30 billion," adding, "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years." As of May, the Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress has approved $208 billion for the war in Iraq since 2003..............
I presented a well documented argument that details the complicity, support, and by the continuing relationship, (with no protest from the executive branch of the infamous gassing of the Kurds), the tacit approval of Saddam's regime by the Reagan and the Bush '41 administrations, until late 1990.
See:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=30

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=32

The argument that Saddam was supported by the U.S. for reasons having to do with a strategy of supporting Iraq to blunt the larger threat of Iran, rings hollow and empty when one counts the anti-tank missles delivered at the direction of U.S. to Iran during the same period, in direct contravention of the President's publicly stated prohibition of negotiating or supporting terrorist states, and Iran in particular, and in spite of vehement advice to desist by close advisors to President Reagan. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/...e/index_5.html A reader can also observe in the timeline at the above link that other military support was provided by the U.S. to Iran in it's war with Iraq at the same time that the policy of aiding Saddam was justified as a way to counter Iran!
Quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...4314%2C00.html
When US turned a blind eye to poison gas

America knew Baghdad was using chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988. So why, asks Dilip Hiro , has it taken 14 years to muster its outrage?

Sunday September 1, 2002
The Observer

When it comes to demonising Saddam Hussein, nothing captures the popular imagination in America better than the statement that 'he gassed his own people'. This is an allusion to the deployment of chemical weapons by Iraq's military in the Iraqi Kurdistan town of Halabja in March 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war, and then in the territory administered by the Tehran-backed Kurdish rebels after the ceasefire five months later.

As Iraq's use of poison gases in war and in peace was public knowledge, the question arises: what did the United States administration do about it then? Absolutely nothing. Indeed, so powerful was the grip of the pro-Baghdad lobby on the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan that it got the White House to foil the Senate's attempt to penalise Iraq for its violation of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons to which it was a signatory.....
Quote:
http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm
Our History with Iraq*

Chip Gagnon, Assistant Prof., Dept of Politics, Ithaca College
Visiting Research Fellow, Peace Studies Program, Cornell University

Talk given at Teach-in on Iraq, Cornell University, October 22, 2002
2pm Willard Straight Hall

...............Ronald Reagan takes office in Jan 1981.

1982:

Spring of 1982 marked the beginning of tilt toward Iraq by Reagan. This tilt was formalized in a secret National Security Decision Directive issued in June 1982. While the US was officially neutral, this NSDD declared that the US would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing its war against Iran.



Apparently without consulting Congress, Reagan also removed Iraq from the State Dept. list of terrorist sponors. This meant that Iraq was now eligible for US dual-use and military technology.

This shift marked the beginning of a very close relationship between the Reagan and Bush administrations and Saddam Hussein. The US over following years actively supported Iraq, supplying billions of dollars of credits, US military intelligence and advice, and ensuring that necessary weaponry got to Iraq.

1983:

The State Dept. once again reported that Iraq was continuing to support terrorist groups

- Iraq had also been using chemical weapons against Iranian troops since 1982; this use of chemical weapons increased in 1983. The State Dept. and the National Security Council were well aware of this.

- Overriding NSC concerns, the Secretaries of Commerce and State pressured the NSC to approve the sale to Iraq of Bell helicopters "for crop dusting" (these same helicopters were used to gas Iraqi Kurds in 1988).

In late 1983, Reagan secretly allowed Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, to transfer US weapons to Iraq; Reagan also asked the Italian prime minister to channel arms to Iraq

December 1983 was a particularly interesting month; it was the month that Donald Rumsfeld -- currently US Secretary of Defense and one of the most vocal proponents of attacking Iraq -- paid a visit to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad as Reagan's envoy.

Rumsfeld claims now that the meeting was about terrorism in Lebanon.

But State Dept. documents show that in fact, Rumsfeld was carrying a message from Reagan expressing his desire to have a closer and better relationship with Saddam Hussein.

Just a few months before Rumsfeld's visit, Iraq had used poison gas against Iranian troops. This fact was known to the US. Also known was that Iraq was building a chemical weapons infrastructure.

NBC and The New York Times have recently reported that Rumsfeld was a key player in the Reagan administration's strong support for Iraq, despite knowing of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. This relationship became so close that both Reagan and VP Bush personally delivered military advice to Saddam Hussein. [1]


1984

In March, the State Dept. reported that Iraq was using chemical weapons and nerve gas in the war against Iran; these facts were confirmed by European doctors who examined Iranian soldiers

The Washington Post (in an article in Dec.1986 by Bob Woodward) reported that in 1984 the CIA began secretly giving information to Iraqi intelligence to help them "calibrate" poison gas attacks against Iranian troops.

1985

The CIA established direct intelligence links with Baghdad, and began giving Iraq "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography" to help in the war.

This same year, the US House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on State Dept. supporters of terrorism list.

The Reagan administration -- in the person of Secretary of State George Schultz -- pressured the bill's sponsor to drop it the bill. The bill is dropped, and Iraq remains off the terrorist list.

Iraq labs send a letter to the Commerce Dept with details showing that Iraq was developing ballistic missiles.

Between 1985-1990 the Commerce Dept. approved the sale of many computers to Iraq's weapons lab. (The UN inspectors in 1991 found that: 40% of the equipment in Iraq's weapons lab were of US origin)

1985 is also a key year because the Reagan administration approved the export to Iraq of biological cultures that are precursors to bioweapons: anthrax, botulism, etc.; these cultures were "not attenuated or weakened, and were capable of reproduction."

There were over 70 shipments of such cultures between 1985-1988.

The Bush administration also authorized an additional 8 shipments of biological cultures that the Center for Disease Control classified as "having biological warfare significance."

This information comes from the Senate Banking Committee's report from 1994. The report stated that "these microorganisms exported by the US were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

Senator Riegle, who headed the committee, noted that: "They seemed to give him anything he wanted. It's right out of a science fiction movie as to why we would send this kind of stuff to anybody." [2]

1988

The Reagan administration's Commerce Dept. approved exports to Iraq's SCUD missile program; it was these exports that allowed the extension of the SCUDs' range so that in 1991 they were able to reach Israel and US bases in Saudi Arabia.

In March, the Financial Times of London reported that Saddam had recently used chemical weapons against Kurds in Halabja, using US helicopters bought in 1983.

Two months later, an Asst. Secretary of State pushed for more US-Iraq economic cooperation.

In September of that year, Reagan prevented the Senate from putting sanctions on Iraq for its violation of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons.

The US also voted against a UN Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons. [3]

1989

In March, the CIA director reported to Congress that Iraq was the largest chemical weapons producer in the world.

The State Dept reported that Iraq continued to develop chemical and biological weapons, as well as new missiles

The Bush administration that year approved dozens of export licenses for sophisticated dual-use equipment to Iraq's weapons ministry.

In October, international banks cut off all loans to Iraq. The Bush administration responded by issuing National Security Directive 26, which mandated closer links with Iraq, and included a $1 billion loan guarantee.

This loan guarantee freed up cash for Iraq to buy and develop WMDs.

This directive was suspended only on August 2, 1990, the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.

One US firm reportedly contacted the Commerce Dept. two times, concerned that its product could be used for nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Bush's Commerce Dept requested and received written guarantees from Iraq that the equipment was only for civilian use.

1990

Between July 18 and August 1 (the day before the invasion), the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology sales to Iraq's weapons ministry and to weapons labs that were known to have worked on biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

So when US ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam the US did not have an official position on disputes between Arab countries, is it any wonder that he thought the US would look the other way when he invaded Kuwait? After this close and very supportive relationship with the Republican administrations throughout the 1980s?



We all know about the Gulf War. But I want to bring in one more piece of history here, from after the Gulf War.

Dick Cheney, before becoming Vice President, was CEO of Halliburton Corp. from 1995 until August 2000, when he retired with a $34 million retirement package.

According to the Financial Times of London, Halliburton in that time period sold $23.8 million of oil industry equipment and services to Iraq, to help rebuild its war-damaged oil production infrastructure. For political reasons, Halliburton used subsidiaries to hide this. [4]

More recently, the Washington Post on June 23, 2001, reported that figure was actually $73 million.

The head of the subsidiary said he is certain Cheney knew about these sales.

Halliburton did more business with Saddam Hussein than any other US company.

Asked about this by journalists by ABC News in August 2000, Cheney lied and said "I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal." [5]

The US media never followed up on this. ..................

.............A story of men so obsessed with Iran that they made numerous incredibly bad judgements, consistently, time and time again, over the course of eight years.

What can we learn from that history?

I want to add to that history some things we are seeing now.

We're seeing more of this now in the ways in which the Administration is lying to us to try to convince us to go to war.

Back to 1990: Before the Gulf War, President Bush claimed that satellite photos showed 250,000 Iraqi troops massing on Iraq's border with Saudi Arabia, with 1500 tanks. The Christian Science Monitor reported on 9/6/02 that was not true. [6]

As the journalist who broke this story pointed out: "That Iraqi buildup was the whole justification for Bush sending in troops and it just didn't exist."

Now to the present again. George W. Bush in early September 2002, as part of his argument for the need to immediately attack Iraq, claimed that the International Atomic Energy Agency had issued a report in 1998 saying Iraq was 6 months from having nuclear weapons. The IAEA denied this, saying they had never issued any such report. The Bush White House then said that they had mispoken, and that the report was actually issued in 1991. Again, the IAEA denied this. [7]

A second such example of deception are Bush's claims of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

French intelligence agencies have been investigating these possible links for years (after an Algerian group carried out bombings in Paris in 1995). Again, the Financial Times reported earlier this month that this French investigation has produced zero evidence of any such link, not a trace. [8]

Finally, I will cite a report in the Houston Chronicle earlier this month, which reported that:

"A growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in [Bush's] own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.

These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses... They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the US that pre-emptive military action is necessary.

'Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books,' said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews. No one who was interviewed disagreed. ... [9]


So the history is one of lies, deception, and incredibly bad judgement that continues to this day.

Over the course of the 1980s, two Republican administrations, and individuals who are once again running US foreign policy, supplied Saddam Hussein with the means to wage brutal warfare against his neighbors and his own citizens; supplied him with the means to make nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, with the means to build missile technology. (All of these weapons, as well as the facilities, research and otherwise, were destroyed or dismantled before UNSCOM was pulled out of Iraq in 1998.)

Where was their concern about Saddam Hussein then? Why are Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney only now suddenly worried about Saddam Hussein, when as recently as a couple of years ago the company Cheney headed was doing deals with him?

Based on this history, there is absolutely no reason to take this administration's word on anything related to Iraq. .................
host is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 10:19 PM   #24 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
I think that partially, it was protesters who undercut our efforts in the Vietnam war. The press coverage of that war seemed quite negative from the onset, and helped contribute to the horrible morale that was often found in Vietnam. Had there been the same anti-war movements in WWII or the Korean war, I feel America's involvement in those would have been much less successful. The constant protests and negative press doesn't allow the country to fight a war how it should be-quick and dirty.
Hard to fight for democracy in other countries and question our own. No place better to start I guess than Ammendmant 1. War sucks. watching 1 out of 3 men die in your company in the case of Vietnam created bad morale. Being in a fight that you don't know what "won" means creates bad morale. I get calls from guys over there asking me what I know. Elections in December? 50,000 , 100,000 Iraqi's trained? What's it going to take?
They deserve to know.

The answer is obvious - we're going nowhere. Bush and Cheney think this is the new Saudia Arabia meanwhile Iran and Iraq are dry-humping in the back room. We have just put the largest reserve of oil in the world in the hand of Shiite Muslims. The crazy ones. That leash won't be coming off until they take our money and weapons and use them to kick us out. For example: 1979 Iran, 1987 Iraq, 1990 Afghanistan...

It's not that the Democrats don't have an answer, the answer just hasn't changed. Come home. We are nothing more than bodygaurds for al-Jaafari and the Shiite cleric while they create openly an Constitution based on Islamic Fundamentalism.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...iraq_bush_wa_1
Quote:
I do not want people who are religious to give up their religion. I want them to apply their religion in the proper way," al-Jaafari said at the Council on Foreign Relations. "The constitution should reflect the views of the majority. The majority are Muslim. This does not mean we deny the rights of others."
Quote:
But al-Jaafari seemed less committed to the concept of a free press when he was asked about the government's decision to ban the Al-Jazeera television network. The problem that Al-Jazeera has is not with the government, it is with the Iraqi people," al-Jaafari said, accusing the network of being soft on terrorists. "Any distortion of the truth is viewed by the Iraqi people as very negative, and they will not accept this."
Let freedom ring... sigh.
__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.
chickentribs is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 10:35 PM   #25 (permalink)
Pickles
 
ObieX's Avatar
 
Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)
I think to say that people shouldn't protest over a war.. any war.. is pretty pointless. People WILL protest over wars. They do not want to see their friends and family sent to fight, to die.. to kill.. they dont like getting shot at, and people in general dont like being drafted (vietnam). To expect someone not to protest in the face of being forced to kill and get killed is a little ridiculous. There will always be people like moveon.org who will show how people don't want to go to war, and offer alternatives. You shouldn't bash these people, but work with them, and move toward their approach, leaving the killing behind. It should be our main objective to move toward peace, not to further our little world police game, and continue with the death, and slaughter, oppression and hardship that are THE CAUSE OF TERRORISM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Especially in this situation, when we didn't even finish the first war.. and already launched a second one on a country that really wasn't a part of 9/11 at all.. what-so-ever.. people are gonna be a little pissed off. While Afghanistan may have been a "called for by all", "hey lets go kick their collective asses" type of deal, Iraq was, and still is nothing like that. Karl likes to lump Iraq in with the war on terror because that's what that whole region is like now. A giant clusterfuck of terrorism. It wasn't always like this. Granted it wasn't a picnic before, but you dont punch the hornet's nest then shove it in your crotch, expecting them to suck you off.
__________________
We Must Dissent.

Last edited by ObieX; 06-24-2005 at 10:37 PM..
ObieX is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 11:02 PM   #26 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
karl rove: what a guy.
what a perfect embodiment of conservative ideology--a kind of cynical fellow who is confused with a brilliant media strategist seemingly because the only thing his office sells with more vigor than the various idiocies of the bush administration is the illusion that karl rove is a brilliant media strategist (an administration can only go on so long and hey, a boy's got to live...)--a mediocre fellow not bothered by facts or history or coherent policy--the kind of guy who like military parades and great big flags and doesnt think that there is enough of either, really--the kind of guy whose politics benefit from war, need war, whose political position right now owes everything to a craven and at the least misleading marketing campaign centered on war. i am sure that pure rovethought was expressed in cheney's "vote kerry and you will die" stump speech.

rove is a guy in a position to move talking point by talking point through the main claims particular to the fantasyland that is conservative ideology--but the folk who support his politics, contrary to all reason, do not read his ridiculous speech and wonder to themselves "what the fuck am i doing?'--no, they rush to defend those talking points, they enjoy them... it does not matter what they are.

karl rove: the quintessential conservative. looking back to the good old days of red baiting and probably feeling more than a little sympathetic for those poor germans who felt after world war i that they too had been stabbed in the back by some fifth column...like them, "real americans"--cheap steak tough americans--folk like himself--- will one day not have to trifle with this pesky debate business, not be bothered with this democracy thing. instead, flags, loyalty, parades--if many many brown people far away have to die to generate more occasions for parades, more flag graphics on fox news, more reasons to produce unthinking partisan loyalty (read some of the posts above), then so be it--all that matters i guess is that america--the karl rove america--the one that has a profound and abiding problem with reality---the karl rove america marches forward.

facts be damned.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 11:25 PM   #27 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TM875
Why was Hitler hated? Is it because he mobilized Germany's economy? Is it because he structured an amazingly well-trained military force? Is it because he rebuilt a nation from nothing to one of the strongest countries in the developed world? No, Hitler is looked at as evil and as a devil because HE KILLED PEOPLE IN MASS NUMBERS! Had he not allowed his mad drive for success to extend beyone Germany's boarders, and had aides that prevented him from committing mass genocide, the man might have been known as one of history's greatest leaders. Instead, he became hungry for recognition and control, invaded other nations, and killed a huge number of their inhabitants for a mis-placed ideological cause that eventually led to the destruction of everything that he built.

Sound familiar? The past leads to the future. Welcome to America.
Umm, most people didn't know about the extent of the genocide being carried on in Germany during the war.

And yet another AMERIKKKA=NAZI GERMANY!!11!!! comparison, how original .
alansmithee is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 01:42 PM   #28 (permalink)
undead
 
Pacifier's Avatar
 
Location: Duisburg, Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
As for Hitler, if he were in Germany today, he'd be considered a progressive, and the Liberals would claim him to be their best buddy, just like the far left loves Castro and Mugabe.
you obviously have no clue about modern Germany.
and I consider your post pretty much offensive.
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein
Pacifier is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 03:36 PM   #29 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
I find Rove pathetic and extremely divisive and I find anyone that suppoerts these comments beyond contempt and feel sorry for them because they are full of petty hatred, and an overflated ego that someday will come crashing to Earth.

He said nothing that Limbaugh doesn't say every day.... the difference Limbaugh is entertainment and says what he says to get ratings and to make money. Rove said what he said just to show hate and to provoke hatred and anger because he knows the GOP is in serious trouble and believes that like the past spewing hatred and accusing Dems of everything will win votes.

I also find some of what the righties in this thread say nothing more than trolling and trying to start flame wars.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 03:41 PM   #30 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
i post the following edito from the ny times that outlines the ongoing development of the implications of the vast steaming brown mound that is rovethought--the attempt to bully npr/pbs into being another arm of the conservative media regime.

essentially, rove is a thug, the juluis streicher of bushworld--same strucutre of argument, different object. he would prefer to be portrayed as mastermind of a successful propaganda campaign in support of yet another radical nationalist movement sweeping in from the extreme right--but that changes nothing....


Quote:
The Armstrong Williams NewsHour
By FRANK RICH

HERE'S the difference between this year's battle over public broadcasting and the one that blew up in Newt Gingrich's face a decade ago: this one isn't really about the survival of public broadcasting. So don't be distracted by any premature obituaries for Big Bird. Far from being an endangered species, he's the ornithological equivalent of a red herring.

Let's not forget that Laura Bush has made a fetish of glomming onto popular "Sesame Street" characters in photo-ops. Polls consistently attest to the popular support for public broadcasting, while Congress is in a race to the bottom with Michael Jackson. Big Bird will once again smite the politicians - as long as he isn't caught consorting with lesbians.

That doesn't mean the right's new assault on public broadcasting is toothless, far from it. But this time the game is far more insidious and ingenious. The intent is not to kill off PBS and NPR but to castrate them by quietly annexing their news and public affairs operations to the larger state propaganda machine that the Bush White House has been steadily constructing at taxpayers' expense. If you liked the fake government news videos that ended up on local stations - or thrilled to the "journalism" of Armstrong Williams and other columnists who were covertly paid to promote administration policies - you'll love the brave new world this crowd envisions for public TV and radio.

There's only one obstacle standing in the way of the coup. Like Richard Nixon, another president who tried to subvert public broadcasting in his war to silence critical news media, our current president may be letting hubris get the best of him. His minions are giving any investigative reporters left in Washington a fresh incentive to follow the money.

That money is not the $100 million that the House still threatens to hack out of public broadcasting's various budgets. Like the theoretical demise of Big Bird, this funding tug-of-war is a smoke screen that deflects attention from the real story. Look instead at the seemingly paltry $14,170 that, as Stephen Labaton of The New York Times reported on June 16, found its way to a mysterious recipient in Indiana named Fred Mann. Mr. Labaton learned that in 2004 Kenneth Tomlinson, the Karl Rove pal who is chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, clandestinely paid this sum to Mr. Mann to monitor his PBS bête noire, Bill Moyers's "Now."

Now, why would Mr. Tomlinson pay for information that any half-sentient viewer could track with TiVo? Why would he hire someone in Indiana? Why would he keep this contract a secret from his own board? Why, when a reporter exposed his secret, would he try to cover it up by falsely maintaining in a letter to an inquiring member of the Senate, Byron Dorgan, that another CPB executive had "approved and signed" the Mann contract when he had signed it himself? If there's a news story that can be likened to the "third-rate burglary," the canary in the coal mine that invited greater scrutiny of the Nixon administration's darkest ambitions, this strange little sideshow could be it.

After Mr. Labaton's first report, Senator Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, called Mr. Tomlinson demanding to see the "product" Mr. Mann had provided for his $14,170 payday. Mr. Tomlinson sent the senator some 50 pages of "raw data." Sifting through those pages when we spoke by phone last week, Mr. Dorgan said it wasn't merely Mr. Moyers's show that was monitored but also the programs of Tavis Smiley and NPR's Diane Rehm.

Their guests were rated either L for liberal or C for conservative, and "anti-administration" was affixed to any segment raising questions about the Bush presidency. Thus was the conservative Republican Senator Chuck Hagel given the same L as Bill Clinton simply because he expressed doubts about Iraq in a discussion mainly devoted to praising Ronald Reagan. Three of The Washington Post's star beat reporters (none of whom covers the White House or politics or writes opinion pieces) were similarly singled out simply for doing their job as journalists by asking questions about administration policies.

"It's pretty scary stuff to judge media, particularly public media, by whether it's pro or anti the president," Senator Dorgan said. "It's unbelievable."

Not from this gang. Mr. Mann was hardly chosen by chance to assemble what smells like the rough draft of a blacklist. He long worked for a right-wing outfit called the National Journalism Center, whose director, M. Stanton Evans, is writing his own Ann Coulteresque book to ameliorate the reputation of Joe McCarthy. What we don't know is whether the 50 pages handed over to Senator Dorgan is all there is to it, or how many other "monitors" may be out there compiling potential blacklists or Nixonian enemies lists on the taxpayers' dime.

We do know that it's standard practice for this administration to purge and punish dissenters and opponents - whether it's those in the Pentagon who criticized Donald Rumsfeld's low troop allotments for Iraq or lobbying firms on K Street that don't hire Tom DeLay cronies. We also know that Mr. Mann's highly ideological pedigree is typical of CPB hires during the Tomlinson reign.

Eric Boehlert of Salon discovered that one of the two public ombudsmen Mr. Tomlinson recruited in April to monitor the news broadcasts at PBS and NPR for objectivity, William Schulz, is a former writer for the radio broadcaster Fulton Lewis Jr., a notorious Joe McCarthy loyalist and slime artist. The Times reported that to provide "insights" into Conrad Burns, a Republican senator who supported public-broadcasting legislation that Mr. Tomlinson opposed, $10,000 was shelled out to Brian Darling, the G.O.P. operative who wrote the memo instructing Republicans to milk Terri Schiavo as "a great political issue."

Then, on Thursday, a Rove dream came true: Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, ascended to the CPB presidency. In her last job, as an assistant secretary of state, Ms. Harrison publicly praised the department's production of faux-news segments - she called them "good news" segments - promoting American success in Afghanistan and Iraq. As The Times reported in March, one of those fake news videos ended up being broadcast as real news on the Fox affiliate in Memphis.

Mr. Tomlinson has maintained that his goal at CPB is to strengthen public broadcasting by restoring "balance" and stamping out "liberal bias." But Mr. Moyers left "Now" six months ago. Mr. Tomlinson's real, not-so-hidden agenda is to enforce a conservative bias or, more specifically, a Bush bias. To this end, he has not only turned CPB into a full-service employment program for apparatchiks but also helped initiate "The Journal Editorial Report," the only public broadcasting show ever devoted to a single newspaper's editorial page, that of the zealously pro-Bush Wall Street Journal. Unlike Mr. Moyers's "Now" - which routinely balanced its host's liberalism with conservative guests like Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, Paul Gigot and Cal Thomas - The Journal's program does not include liberals of comparable stature.

THIS is all in keeping with Mr. Tomlinson's long career as a professional propagandist. During the Reagan administration he ran Voice of America. Then he moved on to edit Reader's Digest, where, according to Peter Canning's 1996 history of the magazine, "American Dreamers," he was rumored to be "a kind of 'Manchurian Candidate' " because of the ensuing spike in pro-C.I.A. spin in Digest articles. Today Mr. Tomlinson is chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the federal body that supervises all nonmilitary international United States propaganda outlets, Voice of America included. That the administration's foremost propagandist would also be chairman of the board of CPB, the very organization meant to shield public broadcasting from government interference, is astonishing. But perhaps no more so than a White House press secretary month after month turning for softball questions to "Jeff Gannon," a fake reporter for a fake news organization ultimately unmasked as a G.O.P. activist's propaganda site.

As the public broadcasting debate plays out, there will be the usual talk about how to wean it from federal subsidy and the usual complaints (which I share) about the redundancy, commerciality and declining quality of some PBS programming in a cable universe. But once Big Bird, like that White House Thanksgiving turkey, is again ritualistically saved from the chopping block and the Senate restores more of the House's budget cuts, the most crucial test of the damage will be what survives of public broadcasting's irreplaceable journalistic offerings.

Will monitors start harassing Jim Lehrer's "NewsHour," which Mr. Tomlinson trashed at a March 2004 State Department conference as a "tired and slowed down" also-ran to Shepard Smith's rat-a-tat-tat newscast at Fox News? Will "Frontline" still be taking on the tough investigations that network news no longer touches? Will the reportage on NPR be fearless or the victim of a subtle or not-so-subtle chilling effect instilled by Mr. Tomlinson and his powerful allies in high places?

Forget the pledge drive. What's most likely to save the independent voice of public broadcasting from these thugs is a rising chorus of Deep Throats.
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/op...26rich.html?hp
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 06-25-2005 at 03:45 PM..
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 04:17 PM   #31 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
I think that partially, it was protesters who undercut our efforts in the Vietnam war. The press coverage of that war seemed quite negative from the onset, and helped contribute to the horrible morale that was often found in Vietnam. Had there been the same anti-war movements in WWII or the Korean war, I feel America's involvement in those would have been much less successful. The constant protests and negative press doesn't allow the country to fight a war how it should be-quick and dirty.

I'll grant you that not everyone lining up behind a particular effort (whether it's war, or a particular social security plan) makes things harder to accomplish. It's also the very backbone of the way our country works. I think that the challenges it brings are far outweighed by the benefits.

And, lord knows, I don't want to start a Vietnam thread jack, but...


The Vietnamese people fought an insurrection against the Chinese for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. I struggle to put my mind around that. 100 years... 1000 years....

The great US military leaders of the time, thought we could win that war?? I'm guessing discord at home had an impact on US. But approximately zero impact on the actual events on the ground. They would have worn us down with perfect unanimity at home. The American attention span just can't compete. Couldn't then, couldn't now.

We knew (know) nothing about that culture and what makes it tick. I find parallels with the war du jour.
boatin is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 04:27 PM   #32 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I also find some of what the righties in this thread say nothing more than trolling and trying to start flame wars.
Host, I just wanted to tip my hat to you before my demise.
You've always made valuable contributions in my book.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 05:02 PM   #33 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
moosenose !!!......nice to see you.....I've made this offer before. Stop posting your weakly documented "reasons" that it was just and necessary for the U.S. to invade Iraq, and I won't have to post a strongly documented rebuttal.

Abu Nidal?......Please !.....................the last time that I observed a conservative trot out that tired old bogey man was when Ollie North used him as an excuse to deflect accusations that he had illegally accepted the gift of a security fence around his private home,
Strongly documented rebuttal? Heh. I'm sure you will "correct" me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't one of your links back up my assertation that Saddam was indeed sheltering Abu Nidal until he finally killed him? The fact that Saddam was sheltering Abu Nidal at all is indisputably casus belli, and it is far from Saddam's only transgression. Your link suggests one alleged reason why Nidal was killed, other published reports say he was killed because he began plotting against Saddam.

As for Saddam not being responsible for 911, well, maybe he shouldn't have been so quick to try to "cash in"... http://www.webmutants.com/strategypa...the_towers.jpg

Saddam was not a nice man. Your defense and support of his rule is duly noted. "Aid and comfort", "aid and comfort", my "friend"...

Quote:
A reader can also observe in the timeline at the above link that other military support was provided by the U.S. to Iran in it's war with Iraq at the same time that the policy of aiding Saddam was justified as a way to counter Iran!
So playing two sides against each other to neutralize both is no longer a valid strategy?

I'll avoid quoting Tacitus for you...
moosenose is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 05:37 PM   #34 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boatin
I'll grant you that not everyone lining up behind a particular effort (whether it's war, or a particular social security plan) makes things harder to accomplish. It's also the very backbone of the way our country works. I think that the challenges it brings are far outweighed by the benefits.

The great US military leaders of the time, thought we could win that war?? I'm guessing discord at home had an impact on US. But approximately zero impact on the actual events on the ground. They would have worn us down with perfect unanimity at home. The American attention span just can't compete. Couldn't then, couldn't now.

We knew (know) nothing about that culture and what makes it tick. I find parallels with the war du jour.
Well, according to General Giap, the US HAD defeated the insurgency and the North Vietnamese militarily. That's why it became so vital for their "fifth column" to come through and win the war for them. You say we knew nothing of their culture. Well, the Romans knew very little about Carthage's culture, but still managed to defeat them.

You say that the communist controlled and financed anti-war movement in the US had very little effect "on the ground". That is not supported by the facts. The South was eventually overrun not by insurgents, but by formed, regular units of the North Vietnamese Army. US air and artillery assets alone would have been enough to defeat such a force, using the ARVN merely to protect those assets. Why didn't they? Because they had been pulled out of the country as a result of the anti-war movement.


You say that dissent is how our country works. That's not QUITE the whole truth historically. Historically, there has been debate going back and forth until a majority comes together and decides on a course of action. At that point, often the minority has historically put aside their differences with the majority to form a united front. For example, long-time isolationists put aside their isolationist rhetoric to work towards allied victory, regardless of the fact that they really didn't want to be in the war. This did not always happen. On at least one occasion, a US Senator actively supported "the enemy" on the floor of the Senate, prompting the President at the time to say ""Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." He carried through on it, too.

The lunatic-fringe far left has only recently (in a historical sense) moved from hiding their treason (and getting "the gas" when caught, after due process of law) to trumpeting their treason as being a series of patriotic acts. Will our nation survive? I don't know.
moosenose is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 05:47 PM   #35 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObieX
There will always be people like moveon.org who will show how people don't want to go to war, and offer alternatives.
Yes, and there will always be child molesters, rapists, et cetera, too. That does not mean we should support them any more than we should support moveon.org in their sedition.

Quote:
You shouldn't bash these people, but work with them, and move toward their approach, leaving the killing behind.
I'm sorry, but pushing a policy of appeasement and capitulation to an enemy that routinely calls for the extermination of all Americans has never been attractive to a great many Americans. It's funny how that works.

Quote:
It should be our main objective to move toward peace, not to further our little world police game, and continue with the death, and slaughter, oppression and hardship that are THE CAUSE OF TERRORISM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
It would probably help then if we had our government simply nuke the entirety of our land mass. We'd hate to have to inconvenience the terrorists by making them actually achieve their goals. It would be far better for us to do it for them, right?
moosenose is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 05:48 PM   #36 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Dick Durbin, number 2 Senatorial Democrat recently made the following comments in regards to Guantanamo Bay:
Quote:
"You would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." (He later apologized)
What Rove said doesn't even register on the meter compared to what Durbin said, to my way of thinking. Comparing Guantanamo to the Treblinka Death Camps of the Holocaust is light-years more offensive than what Rove said about the Liberals. This lunatic makes Rove look like a boy scout.
powerclown is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 05:57 PM   #37 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacifier
you obviously have no clue about modern Germany.
and I consider your post pretty much offensive.

I'm sorry, I'm talking about AMERICAN "progressives", not German "progressives". Hitler did indeed push forward a wide variety of "progressive" ideals, such as social security, universal health care, gun control, et cetera. That's where the "Socialist" in "National Socialist German Worker's Party" comes from, after all. Of course, he only pushed it for people of "acceptable racial purity"...
moosenose is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 06:17 PM   #38 (permalink)
Insane
 
Bodyhammer86's Avatar
 
Location: Mattoon, Il
If Dick Durbin wants torture, he should look at the Iraqi "insurgents" for advice on that:
Quote:
Iraqis Found in Torture House Tell of Brutality of Insurgents

Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Reprints


By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: June 19, 2005
KARABILA, Iraq, Sunday, June 19 - Marines on an operation to eliminate insurgents that began Friday broke through the outside wall of a building in this small rural village to find a torture center equipped with electric wires, a noose, handcuffs, a 574-page jihad manual - and four beaten and shackled Iraqis.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image

Johan Spanner/Polaris, for The New York Times
A marine outside room in a house where Iraqi hostages were held and tortured by insurgents in Karabila.




Forum: The Transition in Iraq

Enlarge This Image

Johan Spanner/Polaris, for The New York Times
The remains of a car lay in front of a house used as bomb factory, next to a house where insurgents tortured hostages in Karabila, in western Iraq.
The American military has found torture houses after invading towns heavily populated by insurgents - like Falluja, where the anti-insurgent assault last fall uncovered almost 20 such sites. But rarely have they come across victims who have lived to tell the tale.

The men said they told the marines, from Company K, Third Marines, Second Division, that they had been tortured with shocks and flogged with a strip of rubber for more than two weeks, unseen behind the windows of black glass. One of them, Ahmed Isa Fathil, 19, a former member of the new Iraqi Army, said he had been held and tortured there for 22 days. All the while, he said, his face was almost entirely taped over and his hands were cuffed.

In an interview with an embedded reporter just hours after he was freed, he said he had never seen the faces of his captors, who occasionally whispered at him, "We will kill you." He said they did not question him, and he did not know what they wanted. Nor did he ever expect to be released.

"They kill somebody every day," said Mr. Fathil, whose hands were so swollen he could not open a can of Coke offered to him by a marine. "They've killed a lot of people."

From the house on Saturday, there could be heard sounds of fighting from the large-scale offensive to eliminate strongholds of insurgents, many of whom stream across Iraq's porous border with Syria. [Page 10.]

As the marines walked through the house - a squat one-story building of sand-colored brick - the broken black window glass crunched under their boots. Light poured in, revealing walls and ceiling shredded by shrapnel from the blast they had set off to break in through a wall. Latex gloves were strewn on the floor. A kerosene lantern lay on its side, shattered.

The manual recovered - a fat, well-thumbed Arabic paperback - listed itself as the 2005 First Edition of "The Principles of Jihadist Philosophy," by Abdel Rahman al-Ali. Its chapters included "How to Select the Best Hostage," and "The Legitimacy of Cutting the Infidels' Heads."

Also recovered were several fake passports, a black hood, the painkiller Percoset, handcuffs and an explosives how-to-guide. Three cars loaded with explosives were parked in a garage outside the house. The marines blew them up.

This is Mr. Fathil's account of his ordeal.

He was having a lunch of lettuce and cucumbers in the kitchen of his home in the small desert village of Rabot with his mother and brother. An Opel sedan pulled up. Two men in masks carrying machine guns got out, seized him, and, leaving his mother sobbing, put him in the trunk of their car.

The drove to the house here. They taped his face, put cotton in his ears, and began to beat him.

The only possible explanation for the seizure he could think of was his time in the new Iraqi Army. Unemployed and illiterate, Mr. Fathil signed up after the American occupation began.

But nine months ago, when continuing working meant risking the wrath of the Jihadists, he quit. In all, 10 friends from his unit have been killed, he said. So have his uncle and his uncle's son, though neither ever worked as soldiers.

The men tended to talk in whispers, he said, telling him five times a day, in low voices in his ear, to pray, and offering him sand, instead of water, to wash himself. Just once, he asked if he could see his mother, and one of them said to him, "You won't leave until you are dead."

Mr. Fathil did not know there were other hostages. He found out only after the captors left and he was able to remove the tape from his eyes.

The routine in the house was regular. Because of the windows, it was always dark inside. Mr. Fathil said he was fed once a day, and allowed to use a bathroom as necessary in the back of the house.

When marines burst in, one of the captives was lying under a stairwell, badly beaten. At first, they thought he was dead.

The others were emaciated and battered. Mr. Fathil had fared the best. The other three were taken by medical helicopter to Balad, a base near Baghdad with a hospital.

But he still had been hurt badly. Marks from beatings criss-crossed his back, and deep pocks, apparently from electric shock burns, were gouged in his skin.

The shocks, he said, felt "like my soul is being ripped out of my body." But when he would start to scream, and his body would pull up from the shock, they would begin to beat him, he said.

Mr. Fathil has been at the Marine base south of Qaim since his release, on Saturday around noon. His mother still does not know he is alive.

When she was mentioned, he bowed and lowered his head, and began to cry softly, wiping his face with the jumpsuit given him by the marines.

He asked a reporter for help to move to another town, because it was too dangerous for his family to remain in their house. He begged not to have a photograph taken, even of the scars on his back. The captors took pictures of that, he said.

His town has always been a good place, he said, but the militants have made it hell.

"These few are destroying it," he said, his face streaked with tears. "Everybody they take, they kill. It's on a daily basis pretty much."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/in...rssnyt&emc=rss
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Dick.
__________________
Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/
Bodyhammer86 is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 06:31 PM   #39 (permalink)
Pickles
 
ObieX's Avatar
 
Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
Yes, and there will always be child molesters, rapists, et cetera, too. That does not mean we should support them any more than we should support moveon.org in their sedition.
With this you also support war, and murder. I mean, what exactly are you saying here? You'd rather get rid of people who prefer peace and stick with those who prefer war? I don't get it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
I'm sorry, but pushing a policy of appeasement and capitulation to an enemy that routinely calls for the extermination of all Americans has never been attractive to a great many Americans. It's funny how that works.
They think its better to look into why they routinely call for the extermination of all Americans and working out the problem instead of removing the brains of these individuals by way of bullets. You know.. peacemaking.. that kinda stuff Jesus always talked about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by moosenose
It would probably help then if we had our government simply nuke the entirety of our land mass. We'd hate to have to inconvenience the terrorists by making them actually achieve their goals. It would be far better for us to do it for them, right?
Right.
__________________
We Must Dissent.
ObieX is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 09:43 PM   #40 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObieX
With this you also support war, and murder. I mean, what exactly are you saying here? You'd rather get rid of people who prefer peace and stick with those who prefer war? I don't get it.
War and murder are two different things. I do not, and have never, supported dealing with people who have sworn to kill all Americans by trying to change myself and other Americans so that we are no longer offensive to them. I will NOT allow my wife to be forced to wear the Burqua. If people wish to harm me and mine (and by this, I include all decent Americans) then I will respond appropriately, even if that means putting a 62 grain slug through their skulls.

Quote:
They think its better to look into why they routinely call for the extermination of all Americans and working out the problem instead of removing the brains of these individuals by way of bullets. You know.. peacemaking.. that kinda stuff Jesus always talked about.
I am not a Christian, but have read some of the things said about "that Hippy Bastard from Nazareth". He got what he deserved, and received Due Process of Law. People who support him are supporting a convicted felon. Of course, given the Roman Catholic's outlook on practicing symbolic cannibalism every Sunday, that's no big surprise. Anyway, back to your statements. If somebody is trying to kill you, the appropriate response is to kill them first, NOT to ask them questions about what YOU can do to change so that they will not want to kill you any more. As for peacemaking...."We will create a desert, and call it peace". You can feel free to try your strategy the next time you are about to get ass-raped by some pervert, if you like. I'll continue to carry a gun instead. Which of us will be safer? I'd bet on me.
moosenose is offline  
 

Tags
condemning, karl, liberals, rove, speech

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:28 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360