Yes Crabs I'm sure now that they've selected Negroponte that in fact tomorrow a new brutal dictator will be installed and the mass graves will be re-filled.
well, that's the guy's history.
He was ambassador to Honduras from 1981-85...
Washington, D.C. October 23, 1998 -- The CIA yesterday declassified its secret Inspector General's report on controversial CIA activities in Honduras during the 1980's. The report states officially for the first time:
"The Honduran military committed hundreds of human rights abuses since 1980, many of which were politically motivated and officially sanctioned" and were linked to "death squad activities." (p. 2)
"Reporting inadequacies" by the CIA station in Honduras "precluded CIA Headquarters from understanding the scope of human rights abuses in Honduras." (p. 3)
Some CIA notifications to Congress were "inaccurate." (p. 3)
The report indicates that the CIA knew contemporaneously about the abuses which were occurring, and did not report on them as it should have even though Honduras was the linchpin of U.S. Central America policy during the Reagan administration. Despite CIA knowledge of Honduran military abuses, more than $1 billion in U.S. taxpayers money flowed to the Honduran military throughout the 1980s.
Should nobody or body do anything because they sided with bad guys 20 years ago?
shakes head.
maybe you want to hire Hinkley to bodyguard Bush while you are at it.
So will Negroponte start killing mass graves in Iraq ?
his track record says that he will cover up human rights abuses if it is in the interest of the White House. He will install a dictator if it helps us...say...in a war against...say...Iran. He will USE Iraq not in the interest of Iraq and their freedom, but in the interest of whatever the White House wants. Now tell me how appointing someone like that in any way assures Iraq that we give a rat's ass about their "freedom"? Tell me how appointing someone with his track records illustrates any commitment to making the Middle East more peaceful?
John D. Negroponte, President Bush's nominee as the next ambassador to the United Nations? My ears perked up. I turned up the volume on the radio. I began listening more attentively. Yes, I had heard correctly. Bush was nominating Negroponte, the man who gave the CIA backed Honduran death squads open field when he was ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985.
My mind went back to May 1982 and I saw myself facing Negroponte in his office at the US Embassy in Tegucigalpa. I had gone to Honduras on a fact-finding delegation. We were looking for answers. Thirty-two women had fled the death squads of El Salvador after the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero in 1980 to take refuge in Honduras. One of them had been Romero's secretary. Some months after their arrival, these women were forcibly taken from their living quarters in Tegucigalpa, pushed into a van and disappeared. Our delegation was in Honduras to find out what had happened to these women.
John Negroponte listened to us as we exposed the facts. There had been eyewitnesses to the capture and we were well read on the documentation that previous delegations had gathered. Negroponte denied any knowledge of the whereabouts of these women. He insisted that the US Embassy did not interfere in the affairs of the Honduran government and it would be to our advantage to discuss the matter with the latter. Facts, however, reveal quite the contrary. During Negroponte's tenure, US military aid to Honduras grew from $4 million to $77.4 million; the US launched a covert war against Nicaragua and mined its harbors, and the US trained Honduran military to support the Contras.
John Negroponte worked closely with General Alvarez, Chief of the Armed Forces in Honduras, to enable the training of Honduran soldiers in psychological warfare, sabotage, and many types of human rights violations, including torture and kidnapping. Honduran and Salvadoran military were sent to the School of the Americas to receive training in counter-insurgency directed against people of their own country. The CIA created the infamous Honduran Intelligence Battalion 3-16 that was responsible for the murder of many Sandinistas. General Luis Alonso Discua Elvir, a graduate of the School of the Americas, was a founder and commander of Battalion 3-16. In 1982, the US negotiated access to airfields in Honduras and established a regional military training center for Central American forces, principally directed at improving fighting forces of the Salvadoran military.
In 1994, the Honduran Rights Commission outlined the torture and disappearance of at least 184 political opponents.
It also specifically accused John Negroponte of a number of human rights violations. Yet, back in his office that day in 1982, John Negroponte assured us that he had no idea what had happened to the women we were looking for. I had to wait 13 years to find out. In an interview with the Baltimore Sun in1996 Jack Binns, Negroponte's predecessor as US ambassador in Honduras, told how a group of Salvadorans, among whom were the women we had been looking for, were captured on April 22, 1981 and savagely tortured by the DNI, the Honduran Secret Police, before being placed in helicopters of the Salvadoran military. After take off from the airport in Tegucigalpa, the victims were thrown out of the helicopters. Binns told the Baltimore Sun that the North American authorities were well aware of what had happened and that it was a grave violation of human rights. But it was seen as part of Ronald Reagan's counterinsurgency policy.
Now in 2001, I'm seeing new ripples in this story.
Since President Bush made it known that he intended to nominate John Negroponte, other people have suddenly been "disappearing", so to speak. In an article published in the Los Angeles Times on March 25 Maggie Farley and Norman Kempster reported on the sudden deportation of several former Honduran death squad members from the United States. These men could have provided shattering testimony against Negroponte in the forthcoming Senate hearings. One of these recent deportees just happens to be General Luis Alonso Discua, founder of Battalion 3-16. In February, Washington revoked the visa of Discua who was Deputy Ambassador to the UN. Since then, Discua has gone public with details of US support of Battalion 3-16.
Given the history of John Negroponte in Central America, it is indeed horrifying to think that he should be chosen to represent our country at the United Nations, an organization founded to ensure that the human rights of all people receive the highest respect. How many of our Senators, I wonder, let alone the US public, know who John Negroponte really is?
We're eyeball to eyeball with the Chinese, talking tough to the Russians and not talking to North Korea at all. It's back to the Cold War.
Call me parochial, but what has me shivering after a brief but chilly visit to Washington is how the Bush administration is reviving the old U.S.-Soviet standoff in a part of the world where I spent my crazy youth as a correspondent: Central America. And if you loved how the Bushies tossed those alleged Russian spies out of the country, wait until you see what's for dessert. Warmed over Contras!
Or, to be more precise, a warmed-over Contra paymaster, John D. Negroponte, who has been nominated to be ambassador to the United Nations.
You remember the Contras--the CIA-funded guerrillas who waged a futile war to overthrow the revolutionary Sandinista government in Nicaragua, until the Nicaraguan people simply voted the Sandinistas out of power. Even those poor Central Americans, it turned out, know how democracy works. But more on the Contras later.
It is no longer news that most of the men (doesn't National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice know any women she can suggest for some of these jobs?) President Bush wants to put in key positions on his foreign policy team are Cold Warriors from the days of presidents Reagan and Bush the First. But some of the guys being hauled out of cold storage have worrisome histories that Congress needs to revisit before punching their tickets. We can start with Negroponte.
During his 37-year career with the State Department, Negroponte has held several sensitive embassy jobs in Asia (Vietnam, during the war, and the Philippines in the 1990s) and Latin America (Mexico, in the years leading up to the North American Free Trade Agreement, and Honduras, during the start of the Contra war against neighboring Nicaragua). It is Negroponte's tenure in Honduras, from 1981 to 1985, that the Senate needs to consider.
I traveled all over Central America in those days, knew Negroponte and members of his staff and have no illusions about anyone who was involved in those brush-fire wars. Some ugly things were done on both sides in the name of national security-- from assassinations to wholesale massacres. It was quite literally a bloody mess, and Negroponte was in it up to his elbows.
Just how deep we don't know because Negroponte's involvement in covert U.S. activities in Honduras has never been fully investigated by Congress, even when the Mexican government protested Negroponte's 1989 appointment to run the U.S. Embassy there. Former Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari wanted NAFTA so badly that he probably would have accepted any U.S. ambassador. Knowing that, Congress stamped Negroponte's passport after some token questions about Honduras.
Since then, however, much more has become public, largely because of an excellent, but insufficiently recognized, series of articles published by the Baltimore Sun in 1995. Through interviews with former Honduran soldiers and some of the people they kidnapped and tortured, the articles laid out in gruesome detail the activities of a CIA-funded death squad run by the Honduran military during the Contra war.
Those articles also made a credible case that Negroponte knew about the Honduran death squad, officially known as Battalion 316, and other covert operations taking place under his nose, and he ignored them. Worse, he may have lied to Congress about what he knew.
The Sun documents the fact that embassy staffers knew about human rights violations and duly reported them to their superiors in the embassy (including Negroponte) and Washington. Yet their annual human-rights reports to Congress did not reflect what they knew was going on all around them. In just one of the less egregious cases (no one was killed), the 1982 year-end report to Congress asserted there had been "no incident of official interference with the media" that year.
Yet in June 1982, Negroponte had personally intervened with the Hondurans to free a prominent journalist, Oscar Reyes, who had been arrested and tortured by Battalion 316 for a week. The ambassador did so at the behest of his embassy's press spokesman, who warned Negroponte: "We cannot let this guy get hurt. . . . It would be a disaster for our policy."
The Sun series should be reread by every member of the Senate before Negroponte comes before them for confirmation later this spring. Better yet, the Foreign Affairs Committee should move beyond what one gutsy newspaper did and thoroughly review any and all still-classified documents that might shed light on just what Negroponte knew about Battalion 316 and the wider Contra war, and when he knew it.
Negroponte is, after all, the guy Bush wants in New York to lecture the Chinese and Cubans about human rights. We ought to be sure they won't have reason to laugh in his face when he does.
Frank Del Olmo Is an Associate Editor of The Los Angeles Times
LUV, you say that we don't hear about the "Good Ones", and that is bullshit man. Pat Tillman was a Good Guy, and he is being beatified right now, all across America, as are 700+ other "Good Ones", that died for the VALUES which GDubbya so often quotes. We went there to, according to HIM, instill OUR VALUES into Iraqi-Society, and teach them about "Fair Play", and "Honor", "Freedom" and the RIGHTS of ALL that go with those VALUES.
Now they see their brothers, sons and fathers being sexually-humiliated on TV, by OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS?
OH!!!!!!! No way man. I am surprised you cannot see past your Political Party on this one, as YOU are a Marine. You KNOW how tough it is for our soldiers to show other countries that we are not a threat to them, and now THIS? They have insulted ALL of us, and they should pay, severely.
Nothing else will satisfy this human tragedy that we have inflicted upon ourselves, and the Iraqi's, who are already on the brink of suspicion and outright rebellion at the way in which we are operating there, will settle for no less, will embolden them to hit back, HARD, and at this point, there may well be people in captivity who will DIE because of these people's monstrous acts against those prisoners.
Are you excusing them, in advance, for those who may die because of this? Damn Man...
Good Lord, can you read ? where oh where did I excuse their behavior ? Find it. Perhaps you were reading someone elses posts.
Here's what I said. "What these idiots did was simply make our job all the more hard. Like I said I'm sure they'll be dealt with appropriately. I think they ought to do hard time."
I even agreed with you in the military thread, I'm not defending nor will I defend these idiots nor have I heard anyone do so. Learn how to read or quit imbibing what you think I think, if you don't know. Ask. I hope those that are found guilty get the maximum penalty.
I've heard many on the left complaining that it was a mistake to disband their army. Now they complain when we use them. The general now running the show for the RG was a Saddamn opponent. The RG were crack troops. Many were loyal to Saddamn, many weren't. The ones we encountered were tough fighters. If it helps pacify the city of fallujah it's o.k. I,m still not sure where I stand on it though so for me the jury is still out.
John Loftus: There's a lot of reason to think (the source of the chemicals-20 tons) might be Iraq. We captured Iraqi members of al Qaeda, who've been trained in Iraq, planned for the mission in Iraq, and now they're in Jordan with nerve gas. That's not the kind of thing you buy in a grocery store. You have to have obtained it from someplace.
A 26-year-old American from Pennsylvania was beheaded to avenge the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers and the militants who killed him videotaped the crime and posted it on a Web site.
I saw the unedited video. It's sick. What happened in Abu Ghraib was wrong. What happened with this kid is horrid as well. Yet the outrage from the same folks who were so upset at the humiliation pics will either be silent or excercizes in moral realativism. Will we see folks in Egypt denouncing it? Don't hold your breath. These are the same group of retreads who killed Daniel Pearl before Iraq.
That's fucked up. Save yourselves listening to all the bullshit and scroll to the last 5 seconds. If it wasn't for the US confirmation, I would think that it looks to be a hoax by the way it was filmed.
I don't understand how anyone could do such a thing to another living being. I don't know how they justify it in their minds. It just shows how mentally ill these people are.
Yes, what was happening in the prisons in Iraq was sick and it disgusts me, but this is something entirely different.
The little frickin' cowards don't even have the balls to show their faces.
Actions like that only strengthen our resolve.
If we left now, those are the sons of bitches that would be in power in Iraq. They'd be beheading their opposition within days. We can't allow that.
The sad part is that these same pieces of cowardly shit seen on the video would and have done the same thing without the pictures or prision abuse happening. Daniel Pearl was executed in the same brutal fashion and that was before we ever set foot in Iraq. That is what people need to understand. That's what we face, regardless of where we are, what we do, short of converting and letting the jihaidiots completely take over the mideast and letting the Jews be exterminated they will continue to do everything possible to kill us.
We're not in the wrong in taking action. Should we leave Iraq or the M.E alltogehter the assholes who cut off a screaming young mans head will take over completely. They have the fanatics and power to do so in Arab countries easily swayed by the media , the Madrass' and the Imams who run them as well as the shieks and Ahyatollahs. I think it's time some people relaize that. Like it or not we're at war, no it's not conventional but the term conventional war is farce, every war is different. We need to look at the big picture and have a unified front. And no this doesn't mean you can't criticize or be called unpatriotic if you disagree, there's a way to do so and still do what's best for your soldiers and your nation. People ought to take lessons from men like Joe Lieberman. I have great respect for him, I disagree with alot of his domestic policy but he "get's it". He sees the big picture.
On the other end of the spectrum is Teddy Kennedy, someone ought ot tell Ted to shut the hell up and retire, he can enjoy his retirement in Hyannis marinating what's left of his liver instead of giving Al Jazerra sound bites. Criticsicm is one thing, saying that we are essentially no worse than Saddamn is ludicrous. I'm trying to picture someone standing up in congress saying that we replaced the nazi's and became them. It wasn't true then even when attrocities occurred in WW2 and it's not true now
"We need to look at the big picture and have a unified front. And no this doesn't mean you can't criticize or be called unpatriotic if you disagree, there's a way to do so and still do what's best for your soldiers and your nation."
Well, could you let us on the other side know the right way, Rob.
So we don't get out of line.
There answer is: the line moves. In the end, Democrats were going to get branded with those charges at some point in this election so we might as well get it done early. That's because we had the audacity to run a candidate when the nation was "at war" and in the kind of war that is ill defined and has no clear end.
"People ought to take lessons from men like Joe Lieberman. I have great respect for him, I disagree with alot of his domestic policy but he "get's it". He sees the big picture."
He's got your respect anyway. Earning it gave him no shot at the nomination.
I guess we're just a nation of terrorists with a dictator leader.
that's what calling people "those people" can get you.
right now, there are people in the middle east seeing the torture Americans are doing and referring to them as "those people" and when they do, they are including you and me.
"those people" implies an entire race or religion, not a handful of criminals.
You're jumping the gun, you can't say that was his intended meaning, only he can.
If I say "those dogs next door bark all night and are cruel" does it mean that I am referencing every dog in the world? No. Just those I mentioned. And unless it is clarified otherwise, you have no right to manipulate a comment like that and twist it into your desired meaning. He clarified his statement to what he actually meant.
for all I know, he altered his statement when called on it.
For all you know? That's being a bit presumptuous. What right do you have to validate someone else's statements. If you actually think that he clarified his statement as back peddling or "altering" then how can anyone buy into anything you say the first time around.
Luv2Fly 5/3/04 7:46pm
Worked so well for the previous 12 years didn't it?
Rich T 5/3/04 7:51pm
Stellar!
well, that's the guy's history.
He was ambassador to Honduras from 1981-85...
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/19981023.htm
And the UN is corrupt, your point ? Should nobody or body do anything because they sided with bad guys 20 years ago ?
So will Negroponte start filling mass graves in Iraq ?
I'm outta here for tonight, later Crabs.
shakes head.
maybe you want to hire Hinkley to bodyguard Bush while you are at it.
his track record says that he will cover up human rights abuses if it is in the interest of the White House. He will install a dictator if it helps us...say...in a war against...say...Iran. He will USE Iraq not in the interest of Iraq and their freedom, but in the interest of whatever the White House wants. Now tell me how appointing someone like that in any way assures Iraq that we give a rat's ass about their "freedom"? Tell me how appointing someone with his track records illustrates any commitment to making the Middle East more peaceful?
Take a good long look at this guy's track record.
Good Lord, can you read ? where oh where did I excuse their behavior ? Find it. Perhaps you were reading someone elses posts.
Here's what I said. "What these idiots did was simply make our job all the more hard. Like I said I'm sure they'll be dealt with appropriately. I think they ought to do hard time."
I even agreed with you in the military thread, I'm not defending nor will I defend these idiots nor have I heard anyone do so. Learn how to read or quit imbibing what you think I think, if you don't know. Ask. I hope those that are found guilty get the maximum penalty.
they may be professional soldiers just with a new boss.
uh....wasn't that one of the things Bush & Co said they were liberating Iraq from?
Bill,
I've heard many on the left complaining that it was a mistake to disband their army. Now they complain when we use them. The general now running the show for the RG was a Saddamn opponent. The RG were crack troops. Many were loyal to Saddamn, many weren't. The ones we encountered were tough fighters. If it helps pacify the city of fallujah it's o.k. I,m still not sure where I stand on it though so for me the jury is still out.
John Loftus: There's a lot of reason to think (the source of the chemicals-20 tons) might be Iraq. We captured Iraqi members of al Qaeda, who've been trained in Iraq, planned for the mission in Iraq, and now they're in Jordan with nerve gas. That's not the kind of thing you buy in a grocery store. You have to have obtained it from someplace.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20040506.shtml
A 26-year-old American from Pennsylvania was beheaded to avenge the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers and the militants who killed him videotaped the crime and posted it on a Web site.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119615,00.html
This shows how idiotic these guys are. They would have got a lot more mileage out of playing the victim.
Video shows beheading of American captive in Iraq
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/11/iraq.main/index.html
Berg is heard screaming as his throat is cut. One of the captors then holds up his severed head.
I saw the unedited video. It's sick.
What happened in Abu Ghraib was wrong. What happened with this kid is horrid as well. Yet the outrage from the same folks who were so upset at the humiliation pics will either be silent or excercizes in moral realativism. Will we see folks in Egypt denouncing it? Don't hold your breath. These are the same group of retreads who killed Daniel Pearl before Iraq.
Luv2Fly 5/11/04 4:16pm
Where did you see the video?
Rich T 5/11/04 5:07pm
The link I had is out. I'll see if I can find it.
They would have got a lot more mileage out of playing the victim.
Exactly! Think of how pissed off America would be if they just kept caning him instead.
This is an unedited version of the Nick Berg beheading.
America needs to see they type of enemy we are up against.
http://inhonor.net/videos/uped/fl_video.php?f_num=_54800_
You may have to try several times to get through. The server is getting hammered.
That's fucked up. Save yourselves listening to all the bullshit and scroll to the last 5 seconds. If it wasn't for the US confirmation, I would think that it looks to be a hoax by the way it was filmed.
Clue Master 5/11/04 9:58pm
Very fucked up indeed. This is the resolve and savagery of the enemy we face.
I can't watch it.
I don't understand how anyone could do such a thing to another living being. I don't know how they justify it in their minds. It just shows how mentally ill these people are.
Yes, what was happening in the prisons in Iraq was sick and it disgusts me, but this is something entirely different.
The little frickin' cowards don't even have the balls to show their faces.
Actions like that only strengthen our resolve.
If we left now, those are the sons of bitches that would be in power in Iraq. They'd be beheading their opposition within days. We can't allow that.
"I can't watch it."
The perpetrators are proud of what they did. The more people who seek it out, the more satisfaction they get.
The perpetrators are proud of what they did.
Only a psychopath would be proud of that.
They're just really brutal, barbaric people.
The sad part is that these same pieces of cowardly shit seen on the video would and have done the same thing without the pictures or prision abuse happening. Daniel Pearl was executed in the same brutal fashion and that was before we ever set foot in Iraq. That is what people need to understand. That's what we face, regardless of where we are, what we do, short of converting and letting the jihaidiots completely take over the mideast and letting the Jews be exterminated they will continue to do everything possible to kill us.
We're not in the wrong in taking action. Should we leave Iraq or the M.E alltogehter the assholes who cut off a screaming young mans head will take over completely. They have the fanatics and power to do so in Arab countries easily swayed by the media , the Madrass' and the Imams who run them as well as the shieks and Ahyatollahs. I think it's time some people relaize that. Like it or not we're at war, no it's not conventional but the term conventional war is farce, every war is different. We need to look at the big picture and have a unified front. And no this doesn't mean you can't criticize or be called unpatriotic if you disagree, there's a way to do so and still do what's best for your soldiers and your nation. People ought to take lessons from men like Joe Lieberman. I have great respect for him, I disagree with alot of his domestic policy but he "get's it". He sees the big picture.
On the other end of the spectrum is Teddy Kennedy, someone ought ot tell Ted to shut the hell up and retire, he can enjoy his retirement in Hyannis marinating what's left of his liver instead of giving Al Jazerra sound bites. Criticsicm is one thing, saying that we are essentially no worse than Saddamn is ludicrous. I'm trying to picture someone standing up in congress saying that we replaced the nazi's and became them. It wasn't true then even when attrocities occurred in WW2 and it's not true now
"We need to look at the big picture and have a unified front. And no this doesn't mean you can't criticize or be called unpatriotic if you disagree, there's a way to do so and still do what's best for your soldiers and your nation."
Well, could you let us on the other side know the right way, Rob.
So we don't get out of line.
There answer is: the line moves. In the end, Democrats were going to get branded with those charges at some point in this election so we might as well get it done early. That's because we had the audacity to run a candidate when the nation was "at war" and in the kind of war that is ill defined and has no clear end.
"People ought to take lessons from men like Joe Lieberman. I have great respect for him, I disagree with alot of his domestic policy but he "get's it". He sees the big picture."
He's got your respect anyway. Earning it gave him no shot at the nomination.
are you a part of "those people" who tortured prisoners in Iraq?
Well, could you let us on the other side know the right way, Rob.
Rick, don't you think it is ludicrous to say we're the same as Saddam?
Fat lotta good your respect did for him. He got trounced.
By Democrats.
why is it ludicrous?
are you a part of "those people" who tortured prisoners in Iraq?
No. I'm disgusted with what those soldiers did and they do not represent me.
Are you part of "those people" that cut the head off of a man and video taped it?
why is it ludicrous?
I'm not talking to you anymore.
You disgust me.
and yet you use the term "those people" about who may well feel the same way about your inferring they are represented by a small group of criminals.
I didn't say it wasn't ludicrous, I only asked if you could explain why that is.
it's interesting that you can dismiss it without being able to actually explain what you claim is so obvious.
you need to make that clear, because "those people" can include a lot of people.
in this case, those who actually did is a very small number of people.
you need to make that clear, because "those people" can include a lot of people.
Come on Crabby, don't play that game.
I know you're not that F'ing stupid.
Or am I wrong?
I guess we're just a nation of terrorists with a dictator leader.
Yep, we're just like "Them".
that's what calling people "those people" can get you.
right now, there are people in the middle east seeing the torture Americans are doing and referring to them as "those people" and when they do, they are including you and me.
I wasn't talking about Iraqi's or Muslims or anyone else when I made that comment.
I was talking about the masked cowards that cut the head off of a man.
You are being so manipulative and dishonest.
throwing around the term "those people" is what is manipulative and dishonest.
How the hell is that manipulative or dishonest?
Like I said, I know you're not that stupid. You just feel like playing games with your politically correct crap.
Come on Crabby, don't play that game.
I know you're not that F'ing stupid.
Or am I wrong?
You are wrong this time, JT. Oh and crabs is always dishonest when he isn't being stupid.
"those people" implies an entire race or religion, not a handful of criminals. It's not very precise language and is easily read as a racist comment.
"those people" implies an entire race or religion, not a handful of criminals.
You're jumping the gun, you can't say that was his intended meaning, only he can.
If I say "those dogs next door bark all night and are cruel" does it mean that I am referencing every dog in the world? No. Just those I mentioned. And unless it is clarified otherwise, you have no right to manipulate a comment like that and twist it into your desired meaning. He clarified his statement to what he actually meant.
which is exactly why it's misleading.
for all I know, he altered his statement when called on it.
for all I know, he altered his statement when called on it.
For all you know? That's being a bit presumptuous. What right do you have to validate someone else's statements. If you actually think that he clarified his statement as back peddling or "altering" then how can anyone buy into anything you say the first time around.
such is the result of saying something as ambiguous and misleading as the phrase "those people"
you know all about making ambiguous and misleading statements, crabs. ever thought of going into politics?