What I don't get is how people like Gephardt, Robertson, etc. EVER think they will have a snowballs chance to win and how they find so many people with money to give them, just so they can lose.
It's astounding.
I think that could go for a lot of the politicians.
You know what I wish? That people in this country would take an interest in politics, to some degree, like the people that post on this board and boards like this. It would be nice to see more people involved in the process. I think it would only make this country and it's leaders better. To many people just don't care. They really don't realize how much they could change things if they only got involved.
Wolvie, you ever see the "jaywalking" segment on the Leno Show?
Nope, I am in snooze land at that point.
Man there are some stupid people out there. They can tell you the name of Brittany Spear's latest album but not the name of the 16th President.
Doesn't suprise me. The is a game show similar to that called street smarts.
Any progress on the burglary?
Nope and I do not expect any. The crime was not that major (to the police) in this area it is a low priority. I will be surprised if they find anything.
I would wager that 80% of the population couldn't name 2 Democratic candidates running for President.
Sadly, many do not care. They just know they are voting Dem or Rep. It is like the retorical question that was asked here somewhere about Jesus and Hitler running for office. Many on both sides wouldn't care who it was, just vote for the party.
Well knowing which party they're in will generally give you a rough idea of what sort of agenda they will support. And in theory, even if I liked a Republican Senate candidate better, I might vote for a Democratic one anyway just to keep the scales of power in balance. In fact, I did do that. I like Norm Coleman, but I didn't vote for him because I didn't think it was a good idea for the Republicans to have control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. (For the record, I wouldn't trust the Democrats with control of all three either).
Amnesty: 'War on Terror' Has Made World Worse Wed May 28, 7:43 AM ET
By Gideon Long
LONDON (Reuters) - Washington's "war on terror" has made the world more dangerous by curbing human rights, undermining international law and shielding governments from scrutiny, Amnesty International said on Wednesday.
Releasing its annual report into global human rights abuses in 2002, the London-based watchdog made one of its fiercest attacks yet on the policies pursued by the United States and Britain in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.
If the war on terror was supposed to make the world safer, it has failed, and has given governments an excuse to abuse human rights in the name of state security, it said.
"What would have been unacceptable on September 10, 2001, is now becoming almost the norm," Amnesty's Secretary-General Irene Khan told a news conference, accusing Washington of adopting "a new doctrine of human rights a la carte."
"The United States continues to pick and choose which bits of its obligations under international law it will use, and when it will use them," she said, highlighting the detention without charge or trial of hundreds of prisoners in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and in a U.S. military camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"By putting these detainees into a legal black hole, the U.S. administration appeared to continue to support a world where arbitrary unchallengeable detention becomes acceptable."
Amnesty urged the world to do more to sort out Iraq (news - web sites)'s problems now the Gulf War (news - web sites) is over.
"There is a very real risk that Iraq will go the way of Afghanistan if no genuine effort is made to heed the call of the Iraqi people for law and order and full respect of human rights," Khan said.
"Afghanistan does not present a record of which the international community can be proud."
Amnesty's 311-page report was not concerned solely with the crises triggered by the attacks of September 11.
It said the intense media focus on Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 meant human rights abuses in Ivory Coast, Colombia, Burundi, Chechnya (news - web sites) and Nepal had gone largely unnoticed.
Amnesty said the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (news - web sites) remained "bleak, with continuing fighting and attacks on civilians."
"In Burundi, government forces carried out extrajudicial killings, 'disappearances', torture and other serious violations," it said.
Amnesty said the Colombian government had "exacerbated the spiraling cycle of political violence" by introducing new security measures.
It accused Israel of committing war crimes in the occupied territories and the Palestinians of committing crimes against humanity by targeting civilians in suicide bombings.
"At least 1,000 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli army (in 2002), most of them unlawfully," it said. "Palestinian armed groups killed more than 420 Israelis, at least 265 of them civilians..."
Khan said it was vital that the world "resist the manipulation of fear and challenge the narrow focus of the security agenda."
"The definition of security must be broadened to encompass the security of people, as well as states," she said.
Why vote to keep a "balance of power"? Why not vote for a neo-nazi senate? That "balance of power" leads to more problems than it is worth. Here in Minnesota we are in a special session because of the "balance of power". We are paying overtime to the government at a time when we are in the hole! If I were the Gov, I would have said "sorry, game over" to the legislators and balanced the budget myself instead of wasting time on these squabbling idiots. Maybe then they would realize they were elected to get a job done AND get it done ON TIME.
Because if 55% of the population controls the government, the other 45% can get screwed. I'd rather have them squabble and get nothing done than start putting through all kinds of things easily that really ought not to be done. If they blow some money in special session, big deal. It's not likely to be as much as they would have blown with unbridled power to spend however they like.
I like Norm Coleman, but I didn't vote for him because I didn't think it was a good idea for the Republicans to have control of the House, Senate, and Presidency.
Damn stupid reason to vote against him. You might as well stayed home.
If you vote for someone that supports your beliefs, why would they "start putting through all kinds of things easily that really ought not to be done"? Doesn't a vote for the opposite side hinder your cause and put you in the minority?
I generally support the Democrats, but I do worry what would happen if they had the power to do whatever they wanted without being effectively challenged. For that matter I worry about what would happen if I had the power to do whatever I wanted. I may think I'm doing the right thing, but I could be wrong. There may be sides to the argument I haven't considered. But if I don't need to listen to those arguments to get what I want, I very well might not and could easily end up making a mess. So while I'd rather see my side in the driver's seat, I wouldn't want them running completely unopposed. And I certainly don't want the other side to go unopposed.
Washington's "war on terror" has made the world more dangerous by curbing human rights, undermining international law and shielding governments from scrutiny, Amnesty International said on Wednesday.
Curbing human rights ? Ah yes, they refer to the prisioners in Gitmo some of which were just released. Then the author gors on to talk about Iraq and Afghanistan, this one is amazing to say the least and frankly IMO blows a hole in any credible argument he might have.
"There is a very real risk that Iraq will go the way of Afghanistan if no genuine effort is made to heed the call of the Iraqi people for law and order and full respect of human rights," Khan said.
"Afghanistan does not present a record of which the international community can be proud."
First off do they realize we are trying to rebuild countries ruled by despots for decades ? Do they grasp the enormity of it all ? It seems to me that thye expect overnight miracles in lawless and renegade lands that have been that way before you, I or the author was born. Is there legitimate criticism ? Sure. But the failure to admit the obvious or acknowledge any proress is telling.
Amnesty repeatedly over the years pointed out the attrocities in Iraq as they did in Afghanistan. So either A)they would like us to re-install those horrid rulers. Or B) might just have a political axe to grind. or C) Are too blinded by that political slant to perhaps admit that life might, just maybe perhaps be a bit better when it comes to human rights.
During the Iraq war they had a big headline that announced Iraq and America's war crimes. America's war crimes, trying to take out the T.V and radio staions, they failed to mention that they were being used to issue orders. They are a political group whose double standards are as blatant as the ones they accuse us of.
"First off do they realize we are trying to rebuild countries ruled by despots for decades ? Do they grasp the enormity of it all ?"
I'm not concerned if Amnesty International grasps it. Does the Bush administration grasp it? Are they committed to rebuilding countries they have just ravaged by war?
I've read in a couple places one of the first things they did was award a contract to Haliburton without a bidding process.Does that look good to anyone? The U.S. has a checkered history of meddling in that region, for its own purposes.
But I can't argue with their contention that the world more dangerous now. It certainly is. But, danger is unavoidable sometimes.
I'm certain that being one who has been in war torn areas, you know that the major biproduct of war is chaos.That's a vacuum that cries out to be filled.
What's Baghdad like today. Read an article linked to in Time magazine awhile back
There's a lot of groups vying for power in that region, now.
What happened when the Soviet Union fell apart. Remember Romania?
You don't think the Gorbachev knew the moment he pulled out of Yugoslavia and Romania, that the people would be at each others' throats?
You think all that's required is that the US whips a little democracy on 'em, and they'll just see the light?
What's Baghdad like today. Read an article linked to in Time magazine awhile back
You mean like the museum looting stories that turned out to be wildly overblown and overplayed?
I'm not trying to be fecicious, I realize that obviously the country needs alot and has alot of problems. The general looting has died down dramaitically, infastructure is being recreated etc. It's slow but it will happen. We tried not to destroy much of it but it's inevitable.
There's a lot of groups vying for power in that region, now.
Agreed and it's a big problem.
You think all that's required is that the US whips a little democracy on 'em, and they'll just see the light?
No way, not at all. I think I didn't state my point well enough. Having seen the things you speak of though I can tell you it's a daunting task. And I agree, I hope we are up to it because it will be a long process that requires patience on the American and Iraqi side. Starting over with little or damaged infastructure is like being dropped off in the desert with nothing and trying to create a society.
My point(s) were that the people will be better in the long run hopefully. There's no guarantees.
It's funny you mention Russia and I think it's a good example. They are still a long way from arriving and crime etc. has been a problem there as well. There's been enormus growing pains. And they still haven't arrived fully. And this was after no war. It takes years and years to change old habits and try new ideas and experiment. America didn't do it overnight either. We're talking in some cases centuries of imbedded theocratic rule. Are they better off ? I think so. I'd rather be hungry and free than enslaved and hungry. Freedom will allow a chance at quenching that hunger enslavement only brings more.
My point was that I realize there are mountainous tasks ahead and I hope we are comittied. We are still in the Balkans. I hope that signals our commitment or willingness to commit. However there can't be a doubt amongst rational people that they at least have a chance which is more than they had before, challenges and all. Yesterday there was a soccer match between the Marines and the Iraqi's, the Iraqi's won. The water and electrical are starting to flow again, religious ceremonies banned for 25 years are being held again. There doesn't seem to be an acknowledgement of that and granted on the other side perhaps not a realistic discussion of the task that lies ahead.
Twenty-one years ago, Saddam Hussein placed an execution order this man. His crime was supporting an outspoken Shia cleric. He has been hiding behind a trap door in his parents house ever since. He now feels it is safe enough to come out.
The drive from Amman does little to prepare the visitor for the spectacle that is Baghdad. Western Iraq is a near-Martian landscape from which a few shepherds improbably coax nourishment for their flocks. But at Ramadi the waters of the Euphrates bring forth an explosion of date palms and other greenery, and it suddenly becomes clear how the lush land between the rivers, "Mesopotamia," could have become the cradle of civilization. Modern Iraq, it is often noted, is the only Arab country with both water and oil. This wealth of resources was something neither U.N. sanctions nor Saddamite war-socialism could entirely erase. Baghdad has its slums. But it is also a city of wide boulevards, stately villas and well-tended gardens. Citizens spouting near-fluent English and holding degrees from European or American universities accost visitors with their hopes for the new Iraq. "Tell Mr. Bush . . ." they say. "I want to thank Mr. Bush and the Americans for helping liberate our country . . . and all countries that help the American people and stand with them for giving us the happiness . . . ."
One of the Baghdadis eager to tell his story is a former agent of Iraq's intelligence service, or Mukhabarat. He has effectively turned himself in to Mr. Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. He says that Saddam used money from illegal oil sales to buy off a U.N. weapons inspector, and names a well-known figure. He also offers details of plans to bribe two U.S. congressmen, though he is not sure that the money ever changed hands. He has no documents to back up his allegations, but his identity checks out. He tells me he worked in Iraq's U.S. embassy prior to the first Gulf War, where he found "Islam without Muslims." "Americans don't lie, they smile honestly," he elaborates. "I wasn't brave enough to say this a couple of weeks ago. Sometimes I wish I hadn't seen the U.S. The uneducated are not depressed." Another interesting character at the Chalabi compound is Col. Ted Seel, the Centcom liaison to the INC, who was assigned just as the war began. He had no prior acquaintance with Mr. Chalabi, but already he speaks like a convert. Although CIA reports kept insisting that the INC had no fighting force and no support in Iraq, "It was all total horseshit," says Col. Seel. He tells me how the INC's Free Iraqi Forces disarmed a town near Nassiriya during the war: "In one day they accomplished more than an American battalion could have in two weeks. Being able to communicate with the people is absolutely critical."
On the street, opinion of Iraq's would-be leaders is decidedly more skeptical--perhaps understandable in a country that has not learned to expect great things from politicians. "No to \[Shiite religious leader\] Hakim, no to Chalabi," is a common refrain. "I want America to stay here . . . kill Saddam and stay." Of all the preconceptions I had before my visit, the idea that Iraqis would demand a provisional government of their own at the earliest possible date was most wrong.
America has a surprising amount of trust among the Iraqi people to work with, but the coalition's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance does not inspire much confidence. It is, of course, far too early to declare reconstruction a failure, and the degree of disorder is grossly exaggerated in the press. But restoration of phones and electricity to the capital has been painfully slow, and misleading statements from coalition figures that things are nearly back to normal do not help their credibility. The most inexplicable oversight has been the coalition's failure to communicate with ordinary Iraqis--who remain confused about U.S. intentions--via radio or TV.
In other ways, the aftermath of the war may have been too well planned. ORHA has blocked attempts by entrepreneurs to provide Baghdad with things like air service and a cell-phone system, until various studies and contracts are completed. The reconstruction office is a bureaucratic beast, seemingly unable to respond to actual conditions on the ground. A decisive hand from new Iraq czar Paul Bremer, and a willingness to overrule subordinates when necessary, will be important. Everybody liked outgoing reconstruction chief Jay Garner, but agreed he was not a strong enough personality for a job that requires beating a coherent policy out of the Defense Department, the State Department and the British.
Before travelling to Baghdad, I had dinner with a Palestinian economist in Amman. I told him that conventional wisdom among antiwar Americans was that the U.S. had squandered a great reservoir of international sympathy by attacking Iraq. He laughed. What sympathy? Most of his acquaintances were happy about, or at best indifferent to, the blow America suffered on Sept. 11, 2001. Yet few of these people cried for Saddam either. Whatever their complaints about America, he said, they understand that Saddam was a monster.
The new conventional wisdom seems to be that Iraq itself is destined for chaos. This is equally off base. To visit Iraq is to see a land of opportunity, rich in resources and educated people who are, most importantly, well-disposed to our presence. But to take advantage of the opportunity to remake a country and perhaps a region, the U.S. will have to become at once a more dedicated and more nimble occupier. This could mean a competent American-led administration for the foreseeable future--most Iraqis certainly would not object. But if ORHA cannot rise to the occasion, Mr. Bremer could do a lot worse than speed moves toward a provisional government. Iraqis' distrust of local politicians will fade, and the veterans of the country's democratic opposition are ready and waiting.
Mr. Pollock is a senior editorial page writer at The Wall Street Journal.
Well it seems a lot of things are coming out now. Paul Wolfowitz has publically admitted now that the WMD thing wasn't really so much the prime reason for the war, but that it was propped up as being the main reason because they thought it would sound good to the press and the U.N. Rumsfield is admitting now that "huge stockpiles" may never be found because they might not have ever existed (the stockpiles that is, not WMD's in general). The intelligence community is starting to openly bristle now, both here and in the U.K. that they were used and that the information they provided was not used objectively, but rather reshaped to fit an agenda. And it's even coming out now that there's a huge rift between Rumsfield and Powell because Rumsfield is trying to dictate foreign policy by constantly badgering the State department with memos, or "Rummy's" as they've come to call them about what he thinks they should do.
PALESTINE, W.Va. - American POW Pfc. Jessica Lynch's parents said Thursday they are not permitted to discuss details of their daughter's capture and rescue in Iraq
Now doesn't that seem odd? Why should such a thing be classified at this point? Can there really be sensitive military information at this point or are they trying to hide something?
Some Iraqi hospital staffers said this month that the U.S. commandos who came to get Lynch refused a key and instead broke down doors and went in with guns drawn, and that they carried away the prisoner in the dead of night with helicopter and armored vehicle backup — even though there was no Iraqi military presence and the hospital staff didn't resist.
Personally I do think they're making a bit much of this. I rather doubt the soldiers were aware of the zero threat factor and I wouldn't expect them to act any differently under such circumstances. And even with the key thing, when you're on a raid where there might be deadly enemies, you don't wait for some foreigner to fumble around with a key.
Still, there's something strange going on with this whole thing.
It is pretty high drama to accuse two Congressmen of willingly talking to the Enemy about taking a bribe, let alone claiming a Bribe was in place with the inspectors.
Well one very senior British official already is under investigation and the proof looks pretty damming. Seems he got a boatload of money from Saddamn. He was one of the loudest anti-war voices in Britain. If true he's going to jail as he should. As for the other accusations made by this Iraqi I guess that the accusations made by other Iraqi's ie: the hospital rescue of PFC Lynch are taken at face value so who knows.
I do know that Congressmen's Bonior, McDermott went over there and did some nice P.R work for Saddamn. It was pure b.s IMO and I wouldn't defend those two assholes no matter what party they were from. There they were giving a P.R opportunity to Saddamn, a guy who'd raperd tortured and killed hundreds of thousands and they're over there doign p.r work for him. It was bad enough what Penn and Rather did, they're celeb's Those two were elected officials. I hope the voters remember their little sight seeing trip next election.
Nowhere in there did it say anything about a firefight at the hospital nor did it say that Lynch was shot.
It's a case of the press pimping the story for all it was worth. And it's also a case where some of the press is trying to make it less than it was as well. It later came out on most news sights said that Lynch wasn't shot but was treated for injuries. The news always quoted "anonymous" officials. Jayson Blair anyone ?
Perhaps they did say that, I don't know but either way I agree with you that the whole "key" thing doesn't add up. Also they said they were using blanks, Yea right we always use blanks in combat. As for kicking doors and yelling commands it's SOP, and you train that way hundreds of times over so you sure aren't going to do anything different when it's real. Also I agree that it doesn't add up that somehow the troops would have known this. The Fedayeen moved out only hours before hand. The whole thing started with a BBC story and it's so full of holes that it deserves just as much scrutiny as the press who hyped the Lynch story. Either way to go in at night in a slow moving "shithook" in enemy territory into the unkown with a small force to take a builidng it takes cohones. Had the Fedayeen not pulled out it would have been different, I'm glad they did.
As per the Lynch's "not being allowed to talk about it every story I've read since says they don't want to talk about it. SOme stuff would be classified but they are also trying to protect their daughter. We all saw what the Fedayeen are capable of. My guess is that they probably assaulted her in more ways than one. I'd do the same thing if I were her parents.
A P.R. opportunity? You just don't get it Rob. You just don't understand what it means to be an American. This isn't the Olympics where you root for your team to win just because they're your team. This is the real world. To be an American means to be free, but in order to maintain that freedom, each citizen has responsibilities. These duties do not involve supporting the government unquestioningly, but rather just the opposite. It's our duty to go in quest of the truth (hence freedom of the press), to question our government (hence freedom of speech), and to seek to make changes when they are necessary (hence the right to vote).
If our government is screwing things up in the world, that's *my* fault because as a free citizen in a free country it's *my* responsibility to help see to it that we elect leaders and enact policies that don't make things worse. And it's your responsibility too, as well as Bonior's and McDermott's and even Sean Penn's. Go back and read the things Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers wrote and you'll see these actions you refer to as treasonous are in fact very American things to do.
Anyway, here's what actually happened:
Bonior calls U.S. plan dangerous
Baghdad trip affirms his fear of retaliation October 3, 2002
BY CRAIG LINDER STATES NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- Hours after returning from Baghdad, Rep. David Bonior said the White House is placing the United States on a dangerous path to an unneeded war with Iraq.
Following his 3-day trip to Iraq with two other House members, the Mt. Clemens Democrat said he worries that an invasion aimed at ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could destabilize the entire Middle East and put Americans at an increased risk of terrorist attacks.
Bonior defended the trip he took with Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington and Mike Thompson of California, saying it gave the three Democrats an opportunity to warn Hussein's government that war was likely if Iraq did not allow unimpeded weapons inspections.
"We are concerned about the security of the United States of America and we wanted to emphasize deeply, strongly, forcefully to the Iraqi government how important it was for them to have unrestricted, unconditional, unfettered opportunities for the inspectors so we can avoid war," Bonior said.
The Bush administration assailed an agreement reached Tuesday between the United Nations and Iraq on resuming inspections, saying previous UN resolutions barring surprise visits to Hussein's presidential palaces are unacceptable. Bonior agreed, saying inspectors "need unfettered access, including into the palaces."
Bonior and McDermott said they were given free rein to tour the nation and speak with Iraqi citizens though independent interpreters, including many from Detroit's Chaldean community.
The congressmen said many Iraqis they spoke with voiced support for Hussein's government and blamed their nation's plight on the UN economic sanctions that followed the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Political opponents have criticized the lawmakers -- whom some have derisively dubbed the "Baghdad Three" -- for visiting Iraq and voicing concerns about military action, but Bonior said such trips are necessary before Congress decides whether to authorize Bush to use force against Hussein.
A United States-led invasion of Iraq could stoke anti-American feelings in the Middle East and put U.S. lives at risk by bolstering support for terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, the congressmen said.
"If you think we had it bad when 19 people took down four planes, imagine what you're going to have when you have stirred up the entire Arab world over what they view as being unfair," McDermott said
A P.R. opportunity? You just don't get it Rob. You just don't understand what it means to be an American.
Right, And you do, thanks for clearing it all up for me.
This isn't the Olympics where you root for your team to win just because they're your team.
No instead you go to Iraq and embolden Saddamn. You seem to forget this was BEFORE inspectors and was the exact kind of thing he was looking for. He counted on that kind of support and got it. He also questioned Bush's honesty in Iraq to the press. That's just fine if you want to do it here but over there? If you didn's see it as a p.r coup for Saddamn so be it, you're more naieve than I thought.
I'm sure the info he was getting from the Iraqi government was accurate, I mean it's not like they'd lie too is it ? Yes I'm sure they had all that free access and the citizens felt so free to talk, please. So from that they were making their plea.
This is the real world. To be an American means to be free, but in order to maintain that freedom, each citizen has responsibilities. These duties do not involve supporting the government unquestioningly, but rather just the opposite.
Do I never question the government ? Hmmm ? Gee that's news. Seems to me that's exactly what I was doing since Bonior & Mcdermott are,, hmmm, GOVERNMENT officials. Oh right, I forgot, silly me, I don't know what being an American is about. I shouldn't have criticized them, if YOU agree then it's verbotten and I'm due for a civics lesson. But if I disagree I guess I just don't know what it's like to be an American. I suppose someone tried to take their free speech away too.
It's our duty to go in quest of the truth (hence freedom of the press), to question our government (hence freedom of speech), and to seek to make changes when they are necessary (hence the right to vote).
Right and if you think truth is what they were getting from Bagdhad Bob and co. I've got a bridge to sell you to, it crosses the Tigirs and Euphrates.
The conservatives on this board are the last group that are unquestioning in their support of government. Often, they have a thinly veiled contempt for government and little use for the nation-state.
I find the Patriot Act to be utterly repugnant. I was bitching about it even before Congress passed it. It's already been used for issues not related to terrorism. Just like I posted on the WOT that it would be.
Not completly sure myself, but I'm thinking it's a post-Reagan variety. Conservatism is being redefined, you know. There's talk of decades of power. Think Bill Kristol.
Let me do some searching and I'll get back to you later. Gotta go now,
And how exactly does this do that? Because it makes it more likely we might hesitate to attack? Yet they specifically told him the U.S. was unlikely to hesitate.
You seem to forget this was BEFORE inspectors
Ummm, no it wasn't. There were inspectors there already. They were just debating what sort of access they would have to the palaces.
and was the exact kind of thing he was looking for. He counted on that kind of support and got it.
Meaning what? The better thing to do would be to just go ahead and dive into war without ever questioning it?
He also questioned Bush's honesty in Iraq to the press. That's just fine if you want to do it here but over there?
What difference does that make? We do have global communications these days. It's not like they wouldn't have heard about it anyway.
If you didn's see it as a p.r coup for Saddamn so be it, you're more naieve than I thought.
And you're still looking at it from the wrong angle. It would be folly to make your top priority to not do anything that might aid Saddam. The top priority should be to do what's best for this country and that includes gathering the best information you can. If that information leads to the conclusion that war is a bad idea for us, then we should heed that, even if it does benefit Saddam as well.
I'm sure the info he was getting from the Iraqi government was accurate
Where did the article say anything about information they were getting from the government. All it said was that they talked to some citizens who supported Hussein, and indeed a lot of them did. Probably not a majority, but there were groups that definitely benefitted from his rule. "A United States-led invasion of Iraq could stoke anti-American feelings in the Middle East and put U.S. lives at risk by bolstering support for terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, the congressmen said." That's not Iraqi misinformation, that's pretty much just common knowledge.
Yes I'm sure they had all that free access and the citizens felt so free to talk, please. So from that they were making their plea.
There are still people in Iraq that like Saddam and want him back. Granted they probably weren't given access to those who might have spoken out, but the conclusion wasn't wrong. Many Iraqis have no reason to welcome the Americans and indeed those people are proving to be problematic now.
Seems to me that's exactly what I was doing since Bonior & Mcdermott are,, hmmm, GOVERNMENT officials.
Semantics. Their view is not the one being employed by the government. But you are however insinuating that they did something horribly wrong by wanting to get information for themselves and not just accepting what the Bush administration told them. Which in retrospect seems pretty wise since it's now coming out that the reports Congress was given were far less reliable than they were led to believe.
Right and if you think truth is what they were getting from Bagdhad Bob and co.
That's irrelevant since you're not trying to claim they have faulty conclusions based on wrong information. Your claim was that they committed some kind of cardinal sin by even going over there at all and that's what I'm taking issue with. I say it was not only their right to go over there and check things out for themselves, it was their duty. How is Congress supposed to act as a check and balance for the administration if the administration is their only source of information? And yet you call it treasonous.
The conservatives on this board are the last group that are unquestioning in their support of government. Often, they have a thinly veiled contempt for government and little use for the nation-state.
Yes, so isn't it ironic how an issue like this seems to produce exactly the opposite effect, where not only are they not questioning the government regarding this war, but they assert that anyone who does is being a traitor.
Ummm, no it wasn't. There were inspectors there already. They were just debating what sort of access they would have to the palaces.
Ummm Yes it was. Go look. There were no inspectors there. They were in Bagdhahd (McDermott & Bonior) On Oct 2nd. The FIRST day of inspections in the last round started on Nov 27th.
Seems to me that's exactly what I was doing since Bonior & Mcdermott are,, hmmm, GOVERNMENT officials.
Semantics. Their view is not the one being employed by the government.
Allison, I know you are the one who said I didn't know what being an American was but I'll help you on this one. They are STILL Govt. There are always diiferent views within the government but they are part of it. If a D or R is against a spending bill are they still not part of the government ? Hello.
But you are however insinuating that they did something horribly wrong by wanting to get information for themselves and not just accepting what the Bush administration told them.
That was one of my biggest complaints about it was that the info they were basing it on was from Iraq. This business about meeting Iraqi people. Please.
Right and if you think truth is what they were getting from Bagdhad Bob and co.
That's irrelevant since you're not trying to claim they have faulty conclusions based on wrong information.
Yes I did, and the hell it's not relevant. Go back and read the posts that's why I brought up the info they were being fed from Saddamn. Ie: when I said "Right and if you think truth is what they were getting from Bagdhad Bob and co." Please go back and read. I took issue with it twice. If you can't read or just wish to tell me what I think let me know and it'll save time.
Your claim was that they committed some kind of cardinal sin by even going over there at all and that's what I'm taking issue with.
And you claim it was there duty somehow to go to Iraq and get the info instead of "rushing" to war, (ppfft)
I say it was not only their right to go over there and check things out for themselves, it was their duty. How is Congress supposed to act as a check and balance for the administration if the administration is their only source of information?
Wait a minute, one minute ago you were saying that there's info through "global communications" so it didn;t matter where they said it. And the next it' was there duty to go there to get the story for themselves. Which is it ? So Congress could have made no decision unless someone went there to eat Saddamn's p.r ? You seem to forget that these congressmen are privy to more info than just the press as well. They also get info from briefings done through law enforcement channels. If you can admit that what they got over there was an accurate picture of the climate in Iraq so be it. Hell CNN held back info on how bad they were. But do you think that was part of the tour ? "Over here on your left congressmen Bonior and McDermott, you'll get a lovely view of a mass grave, and if you look to the right you'll be able to see an actual gang rape of a prisioner. And just up ahead you'll get to meet a happy loyal Saddamm Hussein supporter. What's that Mr. Bonior ? Oh the men with their tongues ripped out ? Oh that was just an accident with a wood chipper, we've had a rash of those lately around here, hey, who's hungry ?"
There are still people in Iraq that like Saddam and want him back. Granted they probably weren't given access to those who might have spoken out, but the conclusion wasn't wrong.
Really ? the conclusion wasn't wrong ?No wonder you think it was a good idea. Guess you'd know that somehow.
Many Iraqis have no reason to welcome the Americans and indeed those people are proving to be problematic now.
Yea, all 300 baath party members. The rest just love uncle Saddamm.
And yet you call it treasonous.
Perhaps you'd know a bit more if instead of spending your time accusing others of not knowing what citizenship was about you actually would read the posts you're addressing. Where did I say that ? Please feel free to point that out. I said I found what they did undefensible and hoped voters would remember it. Please read the posts before you put words in my mouth. It's dishonest.
Thing is Allison I thought their actions were wrong. You don't. Good for you. I don't agree with everything Bush does either. I happen to on this issue as well as others but not all. It's just as much my right to take issue with government officials such as those 2 as it is Bush or whomever else might be in D.C or an elected official they're all part of what makes our government.
The Army rescued Lynch from people who were sheltering her, according to every recent report I have read.
Please feel free to share your sources.
The Army made a mountain out of a molehill because that's what they needed to do, to keep unquestioned support going for the war in IRAQ, meanwhile, back at the ranch, the WOT was left to the back burner.
Really ? How do you arrive at that conclusion. The number of ops increased during that time. In fact more troops have gone in since. We didn't take troops from there to use them in Iraq so where are you getting that from ?
It looks like the numbers are bearing out what I've been saying, that this war has caused world opinion of the U.S. to sink to new lows and that Muslims in particular are both wary of and angry with the U.S.
So much for Jethro's assertion that they "respect" us now.
You mean the Muslim run ogilarchy and monarchy's don't like us ? Damn. Can't we just be friends? These were the same countries that have a favorable view of Bin Laden. I'm really depressed they don't like us, such reasonable folks and all.
Asked about their confidence in world leaders to do the right thing, Palestinians ranked bin Laden first. He came in second in Jordan, Morocco and Pakistan.
Well damn, we ought to cater to attitudes like that. What can we do to change your opinion ? O.K we'll just go cleanse ourselves like the infidels we are.
They also said that approval ratings for the U.N tumbled in every country. Hmmm, I wonder why ?
A MASS grave containing the remains of 200 Kurdish children has been discovered in the northern Iraqi province of Kirkuk, the Kurdish newspaper Taakhi reported today.
"Citizens discovered on May 30 a communal grave close to Debs, in Kirkuk. But this is different from other mass graves discovered since the fall of Saddam Hussein's terrorist regime because it contains the remains of 200 child victims of the repression of the Kurdish uprising" in 1991, the paper said. "Even dolls were buried with the children," it said. Â Â
Dozens of mass graves have been uncovered all over Iraq since Saddam's ouster by invading US-led forces on April 9.
You mean the Muslim run ogilarchy and monarchy's don't like us ?
The polls were conducted amongst ordinary citizens. They're not referring to national policies. It's a poll of the actual people of these countries and it seems they don't like us.
These were the same countries that have a favorable view of Bin Laden.
Because they see him as a champion against us. Are you still not grasping the concept of why that's a problem?
I'm really depressed they don't like us, such reasonable folks and all.
The snotty attitude aside, the issue isn't whether they like us. The issue is whether they hate us. When we do things to make them hate us and make them feel threatened, it's only going to increase the threat of terrorism because that's the only weapon they have to use against us.
Well damn, we ought to cater to attitudes like that.
Try to follow this logic.
Terrorism = bad Bin Laden = Terrorism
After the Iraq War more people in some countries have faith in bin Laden to do the right thing.
After the Iraq War more people in some countries have faith in terrorism as the right thing.
The Iraq war has increased the desire for terrorism in some countries.
I think the jury is still out on the Iraq War. Is this survey a snapshot, or does it reflect the same resentment that has been there for years, nea, decades?
The Muslim population does not like the United States. They don't like U.S. power and influence in the region and they don't like Western customs. And they have a seething hatred for Israel. And the U.S. is joined at the hip with Israel.
That's where it's at, Allison. You can't "make nice" enough to change that. So you deal with the threat. Because the threat IS the reality. The attitudes won't change. The only thing that might change that is if the US makes a big show of abandoning Israel.
Or do you think there is something that can be done?
If one of them wins, I'd wager you will say it was done dishonestly.
I won't say it. I'd be a hypocrite if I did. Too many Democrats say that about Dubya and I don't agree with them doing it.
What I don't get is how people like Gephardt, Robertson, etc. EVER think they will have a snowballs chance to win and how they find so many people with money to give them, just so they can lose.
It's astounding.
I think that could go for a lot of the politicians.
I would wager that 80% of the population couldn't name 2 Democratic candidates running for President.
You know what I wish? That people in this country would take an interest in politics, to some degree, like the people that post on this board and boards like this. It would be nice to see more people involved in the process. I think it would only make this country and it's leaders better. To many people just don't care. They really don't realize how much they could change things if they only got involved.
Wolvie, you ever see the "jaywalking" segment on the Leno Show?
Man there are some stupid people out there. They can tell you the name of Brittany Spear's latest album but not the name of the 16th President.
Any progress on the burglary?
Wolvie, you ever see the "jaywalking" segment on the Leno Show?
Nope, I am in snooze land at that point.
Man there are some stupid people out there. They can tell you the name of Brittany Spear's latest album but not the name of the 16th President.
Doesn't suprise me. The is a game show similar to that called street smarts.
Any progress on the burglary?
Nope and I do not expect any. The crime was not that major (to the police) in this area it is a low priority. I will be surprised if they find anything.
I would wager that 80% of the population couldn't name 2 Democratic candidates running for President.
Yeah, but how many people are even thinking about the 2004 election yet? Besides those running, that is.
I would wager that 80% of the population couldn't name 2 Democratic candidates running for President.
Sadly, many do not care. They just know they are voting Dem or Rep. It is like the retorical question that was asked here somewhere about Jesus and Hitler running for office. Many on both sides wouldn't care who it was, just vote for the party.
Well knowing which party they're in will generally give you a rough idea of what sort of agenda they will support. And in theory, even if I liked a Republican Senate candidate better, I might vote for a Democratic one anyway just to keep the scales of power in balance. In fact, I did do that. I like Norm Coleman, but I didn't vote for him because I didn't think it was a good idea for the Republicans to have control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. (For the record, I wouldn't trust the Democrats with control of all three either).
Amnesty: 'War on Terror' Has Made World Worse
Wed May 28, 7:43 AM ET
By Gideon Long
LONDON (Reuters) - Washington's "war on terror" has made the world more dangerous by curbing human rights, undermining international law and shielding governments from scrutiny, Amnesty International said on Wednesday.
Releasing its annual report into global human rights abuses in 2002, the London-based watchdog made one of its fiercest attacks yet on the policies pursued by the United States and Britain in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.
If the war on terror was supposed to make the world safer, it has failed, and has given governments an excuse to abuse human rights in the name of state security, it said.
"What would have been unacceptable on September 10, 2001, is now becoming almost the norm," Amnesty's Secretary-General Irene Khan told a news conference, accusing Washington of adopting "a new doctrine of human rights a la carte."
"The United States continues to pick and choose which bits of its obligations under international law it will use, and when it will use them," she said, highlighting the detention without charge or trial of hundreds of prisoners in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and in a U.S. military camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"By putting these detainees into a legal black hole, the U.S. administration appeared to continue to support a world where arbitrary unchallengeable detention becomes acceptable."
Amnesty urged the world to do more to sort out Iraq (news - web sites)'s problems now the Gulf War (news - web sites) is over.
"There is a very real risk that Iraq will go the way of Afghanistan if no genuine effort is made to heed the call of the Iraqi people for law and order and full respect of human rights," Khan said.
"Afghanistan does not present a record of which the international community can be proud."
Amnesty's 311-page report was not concerned solely with the crises triggered by the attacks of September 11.
It said the intense media focus on Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 meant human rights abuses in Ivory Coast, Colombia, Burundi, Chechnya (news - web sites) and Nepal had gone largely unnoticed.
Amnesty said the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (news - web sites) remained "bleak, with continuing fighting and attacks on civilians."
"In Burundi, government forces carried out extrajudicial killings, 'disappearances', torture and other serious violations," it said.
Amnesty said the Colombian government had "exacerbated the spiraling cycle of political violence" by introducing new security measures.
It accused Israel of committing war crimes in the occupied territories and the Palestinians of committing crimes against humanity by targeting civilians in suicide bombings.
"At least 1,000 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli army (in 2002), most of them unlawfully," it said. "Palestinian armed groups killed more than 420 Israelis, at least 265 of them civilians..."
Khan said it was vital that the world "resist the manipulation of fear and challenge the narrow focus of the security agenda."
"The definition of security must be broadened to encompass the security of people, as well as states," she said.
Allison:
Why vote to keep a "balance of power"? Why not vote for a neo-nazi senate? That "balance of power" leads to more problems than it is worth. Here in Minnesota we are in a special session because of the "balance of power". We are paying overtime to the government at a time when we are in the hole! If I were the Gov, I would have said "sorry, game over" to the legislators and balanced the budget myself instead of wasting time on these squabbling idiots. Maybe then they would realize they were elected to get a job done AND get it done ON TIME.
Why vote to keep a "balance of power"?
Because if 55% of the population controls the government, the other 45% can get screwed. I'd rather have them squabble and get nothing done than start putting through all kinds of things easily that really ought not to be done. If they blow some money in special session, big deal. It's not likely to be as much as they would have blown with unbridled power to spend however they like.
I like Norm Coleman, but I didn't vote for him because I didn't think it was a good idea for the Republicans to have control of the House, Senate, and Presidency.
Damn stupid reason to vote against him. You might as well stayed home.
Allison,
If you vote for someone that supports your beliefs, why would they "start putting through all kinds of things easily that really ought not to be done"? Doesn't a vote for the opposite side hinder your cause and put you in the minority?
I generally support the Democrats, but I do worry what would happen if they had the power to do whatever they wanted without being effectively challenged. For that matter I worry about what would happen if I had the power to do whatever I wanted. I may think I'm doing the right thing, but I could be wrong. There may be sides to the argument I haven't considered. But if I don't need to listen to those arguments to get what I want, I very well might not and could easily end up making a mess. So while I'd rather see my side in the driver's seat, I wouldn't want them running completely unopposed. And I certainly don't want the other side to go unopposed.
Alison
Curbing human rights ? Ah yes, they refer to the prisioners in Gitmo some of which were just released. Then the author gors on to talk about Iraq and Afghanistan, this one is amazing to say the least and frankly IMO blows a hole in any credible argument he might have.
First off do they realize we are trying to rebuild countries ruled by despots for decades ? Do they grasp the enormity of it all ? It seems to me that thye expect overnight miracles in lawless and renegade lands that have been that way before you, I or the author was born. Is there legitimate criticism ? Sure. But the failure to admit the obvious or acknowledge any proress is telling.
Amnesty repeatedly over the years pointed out the attrocities in Iraq as they did in Afghanistan. So either A)they would like us to re-install those horrid rulers. Or B) might just have a political axe to grind. or C) Are too blinded by that political slant to perhaps admit that life might, just maybe perhaps be a bit better when it comes to human rights.
During the Iraq war they had a big headline that announced Iraq and America's war crimes. America's war crimes, trying to take out the T.V and radio staions, they failed to mention that they were being used to issue orders. They are a political group whose double standards are as blatant as the ones they accuse us of.
"First off do they realize we are trying to rebuild countries ruled by despots for decades ? Do they grasp the enormity of it all ?"
I'm not concerned if Amnesty International grasps it. Does the Bush administration grasp it? Are they committed to rebuilding countries they have just ravaged by war?
I've read in a couple places one of the first things they did was award a contract to Haliburton without a bidding process.Does that look good to anyone? The U.S. has a checkered history of meddling in that region, for its own purposes.
But I can't argue with their contention that the world more dangerous now. It certainly is. But, danger is unavoidable sometimes.
Rick,
Were the countries not ravaged before the war ?
How is the world more dangerous now ? Please explain if you can.
I'm certain that being one who has been in war torn areas, you know that the major biproduct of war is chaos.That's a vacuum that cries out to be filled.
What's Baghdad like today. Read an article linked to in Time magazine awhile back
There's a lot of groups vying for power in that region, now.
What happened when the Soviet Union fell apart. Remember Romania?
You don't think the Gorbachev knew the moment he pulled out of Yugoslavia and Romania, that the people would be at each others' throats?
You think all that's required is that the US whips a little democracy on 'em, and they'll just see the light?
Rick 5/28/03 4:26pm
You mean like the museum looting stories that turned out to be wildly overblown and overplayed?
I'm not trying to be fecicious, I realize that obviously the country needs alot and has alot of problems. The general looting has died down dramaitically, infastructure is being recreated etc. It's slow but it will happen. We tried not to destroy much of it but it's inevitable.
Agreed and it's a big problem.
No way, not at all. I think I didn't state my point well enough. Having seen the things you speak of though I can tell you it's a daunting task. And I agree, I hope we are up to it because it will be a long process that requires patience on the American and Iraqi side. Starting over with little or damaged infastructure is like being dropped off in the desert with nothing and trying to create a society.
My point(s) were that the people will be better in the long run hopefully. There's no guarantees.
It's funny you mention Russia and I think it's a good example. They are still a long way from arriving and crime etc. has been a problem there as well. There's been enormus growing pains. And they still haven't arrived fully. And this was after no war. It takes years and years to change old habits and try new ideas and experiment. America didn't do it overnight either. We're talking in some cases centuries of imbedded theocratic rule. Are they better off ? I think so. I'd rather be hungry and free than enslaved and hungry. Freedom will allow a chance at quenching that hunger enslavement only brings more.
My point was that I realize there are mountainous tasks ahead and I hope we are comittied. We are still in the Balkans. I hope that signals our commitment or willingness to commit. However there can't be a doubt amongst rational people that they at least have a chance which is more than they had before, challenges and all. Yesterday there was a soccer match between the Marines and the Iraqi's, the Iraqi's won. The water and electrical are starting to flow again, religious ceremonies banned for 25 years are being held again. There doesn't seem to be an acknowledgement of that and granted on the other side perhaps not a realistic discussion of the task that lies ahead.
What's Baghdad like today.
Ask this guy...
Twenty-one years ago, Saddam Hussein placed an execution order this man. His crime was supporting an outspoken Shia cleric. He has been hiding behind a trap door in his parents house ever since. He now feels it is safe enough to come out.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003562
The drive from Amman does little to prepare the visitor for the spectacle that is Baghdad. Western Iraq is a near-Martian landscape from which a few shepherds improbably coax nourishment for their flocks. But at Ramadi the waters of the Euphrates bring forth an explosion of date palms and other greenery, and it suddenly becomes clear how the lush land between the rivers, "Mesopotamia," could have become the cradle of civilization. Modern Iraq, it is often noted, is the only Arab country with both water and oil.
This wealth of resources was something neither U.N. sanctions nor Saddamite war-socialism could entirely erase. Baghdad has its slums. But it is also a city of wide boulevards, stately villas and well-tended gardens. Citizens spouting near-fluent English and holding degrees from European or American universities accost visitors with their hopes for the new Iraq. "Tell Mr. Bush . . ." they say. "I want to thank Mr. Bush and the Americans for helping liberate our country . . . and all countries that help the American people and stand with them for giving us the happiness . . . ."
One of the Baghdadis eager to tell his story is a former agent of Iraq's intelligence service, or Mukhabarat. He has effectively turned himself in to Mr. Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. He says that Saddam used money from illegal oil sales to buy off a U.N. weapons inspector, and names a well-known figure. He also offers details of plans to bribe two U.S. congressmen, though he is not sure that the money ever changed hands. He has no documents to back up his allegations, but his identity checks out. He tells me he worked in Iraq's U.S. embassy prior to the first Gulf War, where he found "Islam without Muslims." "Americans don't lie, they smile honestly," he elaborates. "I wasn't brave enough to say this a couple of weeks ago. Sometimes I wish I hadn't seen the U.S. The uneducated are not depressed."
Another interesting character at the Chalabi compound is Col. Ted Seel, the Centcom liaison to the INC, who was assigned just as the war began. He had no prior acquaintance with Mr. Chalabi, but already he speaks like a convert. Although CIA reports kept insisting that the INC had no fighting force and no support in Iraq, "It was all total horseshit," says Col. Seel. He tells me how the INC's Free Iraqi Forces disarmed a town near Nassiriya during the war: "In one day they accomplished more than an American battalion could have in two weeks. Being able to communicate with the people is absolutely critical."
On the street, opinion of Iraq's would-be leaders is decidedly more skeptical--perhaps understandable in a country that has not learned to expect great things from politicians. "No to \[Shiite religious leader\] Hakim, no to Chalabi," is a common refrain. "I want America to stay here . . . kill Saddam and stay." Of all the preconceptions I had before my visit, the idea that Iraqis would demand a provisional government of their own at the earliest possible date was most wrong.
America has a surprising amount of trust among the Iraqi people to work with, but the coalition's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance does not inspire much confidence. It is, of course, far too early to declare reconstruction a failure, and the degree of disorder is grossly exaggerated in the press. But restoration of phones and electricity to the capital has been painfully slow, and misleading statements from coalition figures that things are nearly back to normal do not help their credibility. The most inexplicable oversight has been the coalition's failure to communicate with ordinary Iraqis--who remain confused about U.S. intentions--via radio or TV.
In other ways, the aftermath of the war may have been too well planned. ORHA has blocked attempts by entrepreneurs to provide Baghdad with things like air service and a cell-phone system, until various studies and contracts are completed. The reconstruction office is a bureaucratic beast, seemingly unable to respond to actual conditions on the ground. A decisive hand from new Iraq czar Paul Bremer, and a willingness to overrule subordinates when necessary, will be important. Everybody liked outgoing reconstruction chief Jay Garner, but agreed he was not a strong enough personality for a job that requires beating a coherent policy out of the Defense Department, the State Department and the British.
Before travelling to Baghdad, I had dinner with a Palestinian economist in Amman. I told him that conventional wisdom among antiwar Americans was that the U.S. had squandered a great reservoir of international sympathy by attacking Iraq. He laughed. What sympathy? Most of his acquaintances were happy about, or at best indifferent to, the blow America suffered on Sept. 11, 2001. Yet few of these people cried for Saddam either. Whatever their complaints about America, he said, they understand that Saddam was a monster.
The new conventional wisdom seems to be that Iraq itself is destined for chaos. This is equally off base. To visit Iraq is to see a land of opportunity, rich in resources and educated people who are, most importantly, well-disposed to our presence. But to take advantage of the opportunity to remake a country and perhaps a region, the U.S. will have to become at once a more dedicated and more nimble occupier. This could mean a competent American-led administration for the foreseeable future--most Iraqis certainly would not object. But if ORHA cannot rise to the occasion, Mr. Bremer could do a lot worse than speed moves toward a provisional government. Iraqis' distrust of local politicians will fade, and the veterans of the country's democratic opposition are ready and waiting.
Mr. Pollock is a senior editorial page writer at The Wall Street Journal.
Well it seems a lot of things are coming out now. Paul Wolfowitz has publically admitted now that the WMD thing wasn't really so much the prime reason for the war, but that it was propped up as being the main reason because they thought it would sound good to the press and the U.N. Rumsfield is admitting now that "huge stockpiles" may never be found because they might not have ever existed (the stockpiles that is, not WMD's in general). The intelligence community is starting to openly bristle now, both here and in the U.K. that they were used and that the information they provided was not used objectively, but rather reshaped to fit an agenda. And it's even coming out now that there's a huge rift between Rumsfield and Powell because Rumsfield is trying to dictate foreign policy by constantly badgering the State department with memos, or "Rummy's" as they've come to call them about what he thinks they should do.
Read for yourself if you haven't already:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030530/ts_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc_2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,967548,00.html
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/5971691.htm
I suppose the Army should have paraded her in front of every news organization over there.
Two broken legs during a war while being captured by the enemy. Not quite enough for you not to find a fault...eh fold.
PALESTINE, W.Va. - American POW Pfc. Jessica Lynch's parents said Thursday they are not permitted to discuss details of their daughter's capture and rescue in Iraq
Now doesn't that seem odd? Why should such a thing be classified at this point? Can there really be sensitive military information at this point or are they trying to hide something?
Some Iraqi hospital staffers said this month that the U.S. commandos who came to get Lynch refused a key and instead broke down doors and went in with guns drawn, and that they carried away the prisoner in the dead of night with helicopter and armored vehicle backup — even though there was no Iraqi military presence and the hospital staff didn't resist.
Personally I do think they're making a bit much of this. I rather doubt the soldiers were aware of the zero threat factor and I wouldn't expect them to act any differently under such circumstances. And even with the key thing, when you're on a raid where there might be deadly enemies, you don't wait for some foreigner to fumble around with a key.
Still, there's something strange going on with this whole thing.
Bill,
Well one very senior British official already is under investigation and the proof looks pretty damming. Seems he got a boatload of money from Saddamn. He was one of the loudest anti-war voices in Britain. If true he's going to jail as he should. As for the other accusations made by this Iraqi I guess that the accusations made by other Iraqi's ie: the hospital rescue of PFC Lynch are taken at face value so who knows.
I do know that Congressmen's Bonior, McDermott went over there and did some nice P.R work for Saddamn. It was pure b.s IMO and I wouldn't defend those two assholes no matter what party they were from. There they were giving a P.R opportunity to Saddamn, a guy who'd raperd tortured and killed hundreds of thousands and they're over there doign p.r work for him. It was bad enough what Penn and Rather did, they're celeb's Those two were elected officials. I hope the voters remember their little sight seeing trip next election.
Allison Wonderland 5/31/03 8:29am
Alison,
I posted the CENTCOM briefing transcript a while back.
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/Transcripts/20030405.htm
Nowhere in there did it say anything about a firefight at the hospital nor did it say that Lynch was shot.
It's a case of the press pimping the story for all it was worth. And it's also a case where some of the press is trying to make it less than it was as well. It later came out on most news sights said that Lynch wasn't shot but was treated for injuries. The news always quoted "anonymous" officials. Jayson Blair anyone ?
Perhaps they did say that, I don't know but either way I agree with you that the whole "key" thing doesn't add up. Also they said they were using blanks, Yea right we always use blanks in combat. As for kicking doors and yelling commands it's SOP, and you train that way hundreds of times over so you sure aren't going to do anything different when it's real. Also I agree that it doesn't add up that somehow the troops would have known this. The Fedayeen moved out only hours before hand. The whole thing started with a BBC story and it's so full of holes that it deserves just as much scrutiny as the press who hyped the Lynch story. Either way to go in at night in a slow moving "shithook" in enemy territory into the unkown with a small force to take a builidng it takes cohones. Had the Fedayeen not pulled out it would have been different, I'm glad they did.
As per the Lynch's "not being allowed to talk about it every story I've read since says they don't want to talk about it. SOme stuff would be classified but they are also trying to protect their daughter. We all saw what the Fedayeen are capable of. My guess is that they probably assaulted her in more ways than one. I'd do the same thing if I were her parents.
A P.R. opportunity? You just don't get it Rob. You just don't understand what it means to be an American. This isn't the Olympics where you root for your team to win just because they're your team. This is the real world. To be an American means to be free, but in order to maintain that freedom, each citizen has responsibilities. These duties do not involve supporting the government unquestioningly, but rather just the opposite. It's our duty to go in quest of the truth (hence freedom of the press), to question our government (hence freedom of speech), and to seek to make changes when they are necessary (hence the right to vote).
If our government is screwing things up in the world, that's *my* fault because as a free citizen in a free country it's *my* responsibility to help see to it that we elect leaders and enact policies that don't make things worse. And it's your responsibility too, as well as Bonior's and McDermott's and even Sean Penn's. Go back and read the things Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers wrote and you'll see these actions you refer to as treasonous are in fact very American things to do.
Anyway, here's what actually happened:
Bonior calls U.S. plan dangerous
Baghdad trip affirms his fear of retaliation
October 3, 2002
BY CRAIG LINDER
STATES NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- Hours after returning from Baghdad, Rep. David Bonior said the White House is placing the United States on a dangerous path to an unneeded war with Iraq.
Following his 3-day trip to Iraq with two other House members, the Mt. Clemens Democrat said he worries that an invasion aimed at ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could destabilize the entire Middle East and put Americans at an increased risk of terrorist attacks.
Bonior defended the trip he took with Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington and Mike Thompson of California, saying it gave the three Democrats an opportunity to warn Hussein's government that war was likely if Iraq did not allow unimpeded weapons inspections.
"We are concerned about the security of the United States of America and we wanted to emphasize deeply, strongly, forcefully to the Iraqi government how important it was for them to have unrestricted, unconditional, unfettered opportunities for the inspectors so we can avoid war," Bonior said.
The Bush administration assailed an agreement reached Tuesday between the United Nations and Iraq on resuming inspections, saying previous UN resolutions barring surprise visits to Hussein's presidential palaces are unacceptable. Bonior agreed, saying inspectors "need unfettered access, including into the palaces."
Bonior and McDermott said they were given free rein to tour the nation and speak with Iraqi citizens though independent interpreters, including many from Detroit's Chaldean community.
The congressmen said many Iraqis they spoke with voiced support for Hussein's government and blamed their nation's plight on the UN economic sanctions that followed the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Political opponents have criticized the lawmakers -- whom some have derisively dubbed the "Baghdad Three" -- for visiting Iraq and voicing concerns about military action, but Bonior said such trips are necessary before Congress decides whether to authorize Bush to use force against Hussein.
A United States-led invasion of Iraq could stoke anti-American feelings in the Middle East and put U.S. lives at risk by bolstering support for terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, the congressmen said.
"If you think we had it bad when 19 people took down four planes, imagine what you're going to have when you have stirred up the entire Arab world over what they view as being unfair," McDermott said
Right, And you do, thanks for clearing it all up for me.
No instead you go to Iraq and embolden Saddamn. You seem to forget this was BEFORE inspectors and was the exact kind of thing he was looking for. He counted on that kind of support and got it. He also questioned Bush's honesty in Iraq to the press. That's just fine if you want to do it here but over there? If you didn's see it as a p.r coup for Saddamn so be it, you're more naieve than I thought.
I'm sure the info he was getting from the Iraqi government was accurate, I mean it's not like they'd lie too is it ? Yes I'm sure they had all that free access and the citizens felt so free to talk, please. So from that they were making their plea.
Do I never question the government ? Hmmm ? Gee that's news. Seems to me that's exactly what I was doing since Bonior & Mcdermott are,, hmmm, GOVERNMENT officials. Oh right, I forgot, silly me, I don't know what being an American is about. I shouldn't have criticized them, if YOU agree then it's verbotten and I'm due for a civics lesson. But if I disagree I guess I just don't know what it's like to be an American. I suppose someone tried to take their free speech away too.
Right and if you think truth is what they were getting from Bagdhad Bob and co. I've got a bridge to sell you to, it crosses the Tigirs and Euphrates.
Allison:
The conservatives on this board are the last group that are unquestioning in their support of government. Often, they have a thinly veiled contempt for government and little use for the nation-state.
Rick 5/31/03 3:42pm
I agree. I'm a conservative and I constantly question the Government and my contempt for much of what the Government does is not remotely veiled.
Rest my case.
Rick 5/31/03 5:00pm
As an example...
I find the Patriot Act to be utterly repugnant. I was bitching about it even before Congress passed it. It's already been used for issues not related to terrorism. Just like I posted on the WOT that it would be.
So, a Neo-con would say:
You want to fight the WOT, but you're not willing to do what it takes.
Rick 5/31/03 5:19pm
What is a Neo-con?
Not completly sure myself, but I'm thinking it's a post-Reagan variety. Conservatism is being redefined, you know. There's talk of decades of power. Think Bill Kristol.
Let me do some searching and I'll get back to you later. Gotta go now,
Rick 5/31/03 5:27pm
So...
You post a term that you admit to not knowing what it means?
Not something that I would personally do.
But each to their own.
Indeed.
But now that I know that you'll scrutinize me in such a manner, I'll bear it in mind.
Rick 5/31/03 5:59pm
You should scrutinize yourself in such a manner.
No instead you go to Iraq and embolden Saddamn
And how exactly does this do that? Because it makes it more likely we might hesitate to attack? Yet they specifically told him the U.S. was unlikely to hesitate.
You seem to forget this was BEFORE inspectors
Ummm, no it wasn't. There were inspectors there already. They were just debating what sort of access they would have to the palaces.
and was the exact kind of thing he was looking for. He counted on that kind of support and got it.
Meaning what? The better thing to do would be to just go ahead and dive into war without ever questioning it?
He also questioned Bush's honesty in Iraq to the press. That's just fine if you want to do it here but over there?
What difference does that make? We do have global communications these days. It's not like they wouldn't have heard about it anyway.
If you didn's see it as a p.r coup for Saddamn so be it, you're more naieve than I thought.
And you're still looking at it from the wrong angle. It would be folly to make your top priority to not do anything that might aid Saddam. The top priority should be to do what's best for this country and that includes gathering the best information you can. If that information leads to the conclusion that war is a bad idea for us, then we should heed that, even if it does benefit Saddam as well.
I'm sure the info he was getting from the Iraqi government was accurate
Where did the article say anything about information they were getting from the government. All it said was that they talked to some citizens who supported Hussein, and indeed a lot of them did. Probably not a majority, but there were groups that definitely benefitted from his rule. "A United States-led invasion of Iraq could stoke anti-American feelings in the Middle East and put U.S. lives at risk by bolstering support for terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, the congressmen said." That's not Iraqi misinformation, that's pretty much just common knowledge.
Yes I'm sure they had all that free access and the citizens felt so free to talk, please. So from that they were making their plea.
There are still people in Iraq that like Saddam and want him back. Granted they probably weren't given access to those who might have spoken out, but the conclusion wasn't wrong. Many Iraqis have no reason to welcome the Americans and indeed those people are proving to be problematic now.
Seems to me that's exactly what I was doing since Bonior & Mcdermott are,, hmmm, GOVERNMENT officials.
Semantics. Their view is not the one being employed by the government. But you are however insinuating that they did something horribly wrong by wanting to get information for themselves and not just accepting what the Bush administration told them. Which in retrospect seems pretty wise since it's now coming out that the reports Congress was given were far less reliable than they were led to believe.
Right and if you think truth is what they were getting from Bagdhad Bob and co.
That's irrelevant since you're not trying to claim they have faulty conclusions based on wrong information. Your claim was that they committed some kind of cardinal sin by even going over there at all and that's what I'm taking issue with. I say it was not only their right to go over there and check things out for themselves, it was their duty. How is Congress supposed to act as a check and balance for the administration if the administration is their only source of information? And yet you call it treasonous.
The conservatives on this board are the last group that are unquestioning in their support of government. Often, they have a thinly veiled contempt for government and little use for the nation-state.
Yes, so isn't it ironic how an issue like this seems to produce exactly the opposite effect, where not only are they not questioning the government regarding this war, but they assert that anyone who does is being a traitor.
Alison,
You seem to forget this was BEFORE inspectors
Ummm Yes it was. Go look. There were no inspectors there. They were in Bagdhahd (McDermott & Bonior) On Oct 2nd. The FIRST day of inspections in the last round started on Nov 27th.
Seems to me that's exactly what I was doing since Bonior & Mcdermott are,, hmmm, GOVERNMENT officials.
Allison, I know you are the one who said I didn't know what being an American was but I'll help you on this one. They are STILL Govt. There are always diiferent views within the government but they are part of it. If a D or R is against a spending bill are they still not part of the government ? Hello.
That was one of my biggest complaints about it was that the info they were basing it on was from Iraq. This business about meeting Iraqi people. Please.
Right and if you think truth is what they were getting from Bagdhad Bob and co.
Yes I did, and the hell it's not relevant. Go back and read the posts that's why I brought up the info they were being fed from Saddamn. Ie: when I said "Right and if you think truth is what they were getting from Bagdhad Bob and co." Please go back and read.
I took issue with it twice. If you can't read or just wish to tell me what I think let me know and it'll save time.
And you claim it was there duty somehow to go to Iraq and get the info instead of "rushing" to war, (ppfft)
Wait a minute, one minute ago you were saying that there's info through "global communications" so it didn;t matter where they said it. And the next it' was there duty to go there to get the story for themselves. Which is it ? So Congress could have made no decision unless someone went there to eat Saddamn's p.r ? You seem to forget that these congressmen are privy to more info than just the press as well. They also get info from briefings done through law enforcement channels. If you can admit that what they got over there was an accurate picture of the climate in Iraq so be it. Hell CNN held back info on how bad they were. But do you think that was part of the tour ?
"Over here on your left congressmen Bonior and McDermott, you'll get a lovely view of a mass grave, and if you look to the right you'll be able to see an actual gang rape of a prisioner. And just up ahead you'll get to meet a happy loyal Saddamm Hussein supporter. What's that Mr. Bonior ? Oh the men with their tongues ripped out ? Oh that was just an accident with a wood chipper, we've had a rash of those lately around here, hey, who's hungry ?"
Really ? the conclusion wasn't wrong ?No wonder you think it was a good idea. Guess you'd know that somehow.
Yea, all 300 baath party members. The rest just love uncle Saddamm.
Perhaps you'd know a bit more if instead of spending your time accusing others of not knowing what citizenship was about you actually would read the posts you're addressing. Where did I say that ? Please feel free to point that out. I said I found what they did undefensible and hoped voters would remember it. Please read the posts before you put words in my mouth. It's dishonest.
Thing is Allison I thought their actions were wrong. You don't. Good for you. I don't agree with everything Bush does either. I happen to on this issue as well as others but not all. It's just as much my right to take issue with government officials such as those 2 as it is Bush or whomever else might be in D.C or an elected official they're all part of what makes our government.
Bill,
Please feel free to share your sources.
Really ? How do you arrive at that conclusion. The number of ops increased during that time. In fact more troops have gone in since. We didn't take troops from there to use them in Iraq so where are you getting that from ?
It looks like the numbers are bearing out what I've been saying, that this war has caused world opinion of the U.S. to sink to new lows and that Muslims in particular are both wary of and angry with the U.S.
So much for Jethro's assertion that they "respect" us now.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=2&u=/ap/20030603/ap_on_re_us/world_attitudes_2
http://www.expatica.com/germany.asp?pad=197,212,&item_id=31546
You mean the Muslim run ogilarchy and monarchy's don't like us ? Damn. Can't we just be friends? These were the same countries that have a favorable view of Bin Laden. I'm really depressed they don't like us, such reasonable folks and all.
Well damn, we ought to cater to attitudes like that. What can we do to change your opinion ? O.K we'll just go cleanse ourselves like the infidels we are.
They also said that approval ratings for the U.N tumbled in every country. Hmmm, I wonder why ?
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6539723%255E25777,00.html
Hope our approval ratings with the Palestinians improve, I so want to be liked.
Is Tony Blair the leader of the Free World?
Is Blair the brains and Bush the muscle?
You mean the Muslim run ogilarchy and monarchy's don't like us ?
The polls were conducted amongst ordinary citizens. They're not referring to national policies. It's a poll of the actual people of these countries and it seems they don't like us.
These were the same countries that have a favorable view of Bin Laden.
Because they see him as a champion against us. Are you still not grasping the concept of why that's a problem?
I'm really depressed they don't like us, such reasonable folks and all.
The snotty attitude aside, the issue isn't whether they like us. The issue is whether they hate us. When we do things to make them hate us and make them feel threatened, it's only going to increase the threat of terrorism because that's the only weapon they have to use against us.
Well damn, we ought to cater to attitudes like that.
Try to follow this logic.
Terrorism = bad
Bin Laden = Terrorism
After the Iraq War more people in some countries have faith in bin Laden to do the right thing.
After the Iraq War more people in some countries have faith in terrorism as the right thing.
The Iraq war has increased the desire for terrorism in some countries.
The Iraq war was a bad thing.
I think the jury is still out on the Iraq War. Is this survey a snapshot, or does it reflect the same resentment that has been there for years, nea, decades?
The Muslim population does not like the United States. They don't like U.S. power and influence in the region and they don't like Western customs. And they have a seething hatred for Israel. And the U.S. is joined at the hip with Israel.
That's where it's at, Allison. You can't "make nice" enough to change that. So you deal with the threat. Because the threat IS the reality. The attitudes won't change. The only thing that might change that is if the US makes a big show of abandoning Israel.
Or do you think there is something that can be done?
We can't do anything right in their eyes.
Never is a solution presented.
Just the same old "The US is evil".