Wednesday, October 26, 2005

More Media Bullshit

Long post, but EVERYONE should read it.

We noticed around the internet and even in our little corner of it, people of the leftist persuation are trumpeting the deaths of 2,000 American service men and women as a reason to beat up on the president again. While 2,000 deaths should give all rational people pause and each is a tragedy to their friends, families and loved ones, we can't help but be appalled at how the media uses the specter of dead soldiers to attempt to shape public opinion and shake public confidence.

A little perspective: During the US Civil War, 7,000 soldiers on both sides died at Gettysburg, half during Pickett's doomed charge. Almost 600,000 died during the course of the four year war. Was preserving the Union NOT worth the lives of any of these men?

World War II cost America almost a quarter of a million soldiers over 4 years. At the Battle of the Bulge, 10,276 Americans lost their lives in the course of a month. Would anyone today claim that Hitler and nazism was a scourge NOT worth stopping and those 10,276 died for nothing? At Iwo Jima, 6,821 Americans lost their lives. A few months later 18,900 Americans died invading Okinawa. Would anyone today claim Japanese militarism was NOT worth stopping and that millions of Chinese and Koreans deserved their fate?

At "Frozen Chosin" in Korea, casualties tallied 2,500 dead for a single battle over 3 weeks. At it's peak, the war in Vietnam claimed 2,000 American lives A MONTH on more than one occasion.

And now we have Iraq. 2,000 dead is a tragedy, but it's also a bullshit number. Go to icasualties.org at this link. If you click on the top tool bar labeled "Fatality Details" and use the filters to look up "non hostile" deaths, you'll get 493 records. This number includes traffic accidents, suicides, illnesses, etc. But since they died in Iraq, the media and leftists use this number to slam the president and give aid and comfort to our enemies. Do any of these people remember Somalia? Blackhawk down? 18 US Army rangers died in a raid and the political administration at the time left skid marks pulling all the troops out. Osama and al-Qaeda specifically used this incident to motivate their followers into believing the US would cut and run and the first sight of blood. End result? 2,986 civilians slaughtered at their desks, in their travels, or as first responders to the attacks of 9/11.

Everyone should mourn the deaths of these soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, but recall that in the past 4 years, they have completely destroyed two corrupt regimes that would enslave you and yours because of the god(s) you do (or don't) worship and freed 50 million people living under an umbrella of terror. 1,500 combat deaths over the course of two-and-a-half years should stand as a tribute to the professionalism of today's armed forces and advances in protecting those who protect our freedoms.

70 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I don't really care that the regimes in Irag were corrupt. Saddam's own people should have revolted against him and overturned his regime. Not the U.S. Military. Saddam did not attack us and few other countries actually support us in this war of attrition. We have more than enough issues right here at home that need to be addressed. Sending 160+ billion dollars and thousands of soldiers into Iraq is going to help us how here at home?

10/26/2005 12:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Media Bullshit, perhaps. But what about the pretenses that our armed forces were sent into Iraq under? Al Queada link? Not before the invasion. WMD? Excellent question, where are those pesky items?

Sacking Hussein was a good thing for the world, but isn't it a little disingenuous to dissect the number of lives lost when the bill of goods sold by the administration was false?

10/26/2005 12:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saddam sent money to the families of Palastinian suicide bombers. Saddam attempted to asasinate Pres. Georege H.W. Bush in Kuwait. Saddam used chemical weapons against his Kurdish citizens and in the Iran-Iraq War in the 80's.

How do you know Saddam had no links to Al-Queada? Let me guess, the Tribune and ABC News told you that the 9/11 commission says so.
Google Able Danger to find out what the 9/11 commission left out of their report.

The news media is not infalible. It's made up of people with prejudices, personal agendas, and incompetencies. Don't be a sheep, there is more info out there, find out for yourself.

10/26/2005 12:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

didn't attack us? remember the "no fly zone" established after the first Gulf War? Our planes were under daily attack while on patrol. Few countries support? 41 countries supported the invasion, either directly or in support services. That's more than in the first Gulf War. Lay off the bong pipe and educate yourself.

10/26/2005 01:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A quote from USMC Col Glen Burgess retd,regarding lessons learned in Viet Nam."Do not fear the enemy,for your enemy can only take your life.It is far better that you fear the media,for they will steal your HONOR."Truer today than it was then.Semper Fi!

10/26/2005 02:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glad that someone out there is providing clear and unfallible intel to the CPD. Yellowcake? Mobile Bio Labs? Imminent danger to the US? Iran? North Korea?

10/26/2005 02:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets go with the idea that somebody has to attack us in order to go to war.

First example is by far the best. We never would have fought the Brits in the Revolutionary War.

We never would have been involved in WWI since we weren't openly attacked. A pesky oceanliner was sank because we should have paid better attention and obeyed the Germans.

We only would have fought the Japanese in WWII leaving the Brits and French to Fight the Germans. (Sidenote to WWII. Didn't the Brits have a negotiated and signed treaty with the Germans in the late 30's saying they'd never attack the Brits? So much for diplomacy.)

The Korean Peninsula would be completely ruled by Donald Duck loving Kim Il Jung. (Imagine those pesky human rights violations he'd have now,) Nevermind thats its a proper thinking Socialist/Communist country.

Cuba would have nuked our tails years ago with Socialist made bombs.

Vietnam. Says it all when we give in and let feel good politics and popularity polls rule how wars are fought.

Grenada would have been the newest Socialist Republic complete with an outpost from Mother Russia.

Panama would not only be a Socialist state but it would also have the largest GNP in the region from Government sponsored narcotic trafficking.

Serbs would have killed off all the muslims in eastern Europe.

Should I go on or do you already know everything you need to know from Mother Jones?

10/26/2005 02:21:00 PM  
Blogger Rue St. Michel said...

Very nicely sums up what the "unhinged" Left is all about - trumpeting the casualty list as a pathetic attempt at revitalizing '60s radicalism, degrading President Bush, and engaging in self-degradation by implying we are "getting what we deserve." Cindy Sheehan and her ilk are traitors and should be arrested for Treason (that'd be a nice Part 1 arrest). We are in a fight against Islam-O-fascism. Muslim extremists want to eradicate the West and install a Theocracy. They've been fighting the world since 635 BC. That's what they understand - the blade, blood and butchery. To cut and run now would just motivate terrorists to attack us further.
Interesting site that lays out all the thousands murdered by Muslims worldwide in the last few years - The Religion of Peace . Everything I need to know about Islam, I learned on 9/11. All I'm saying is -"Give War a Chance!"

10/26/2005 02:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where thos pesky weapons of mass destruction??

10/26/2005 02:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know Saddam as tied to Al Queda! I know I haven't found the proff, yet. Gimme 2,000 more of your children. I'm sure the Mission will be Accomplished by then!

10/26/2005 02:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeb Bush in 2008:

Keep the blood flowing in Iraq!

10/26/2005 02:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The 9/11 commission left out 28 pages of Al Queda (and Bush) ties to Saudi Arabia.

10/26/2005 02:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey 2:52,

Lets play what if again.

What if Saddam complied with the U.N. and let the weapons inspectors in and do their job?

Nothing would have happened because we wouldnt have gone over there.

Sounds pretty simple to me don't you think?

10/26/2005 02:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SCC, please to not compare this debacle to Gettysburg, Iwo Jima and Frozen Chosin. To do so brings shame on the later.

10/26/2005 03:00:00 PM  
Anonymous leftisthebest said...

M,

what makes you think that those on the left are not concerned about the 2000 deaths? That's the same ploy used by conservatives to discredit the left. Those on the left are concerned that more young people do not die.

When the news media profiles those killed in action what can you notice? Just about every single one is working or middle class. You can tell that from the story on their jobs, where they went to school and so forth. Rarely is there a politican's or rich kid among them.

An earlier post stated it was the media who promoted Al Queda as not being a direct threat to the U.S. What about former Secretary of State Colin Powell who stated the same thing.

Finally, my dear M,
to compare this invasion of Iraq to the War Between the States and World War II is well, not to insult you, but plain crazy. What those men died for is a far, far greater thing than this useless conflict.

10/26/2005 03:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2000? NOT BAD, CONSIDERING THE DEATH (HOMICIDES/MAN SLAUGHTER)RATE IN THE REST OF THE CITIES/NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE USA. IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE SAFER "OVER THERE" THAN HERE IN THE STATES.

10/26/2005 03:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saddam wasn't a "Islam-o-fascist". He was a secularist. Reagan/Bush used him to fight the "Islam-o-facsists" in Iran. Remember the Ayatollah? The US was supplying US satellite photography or Iranian troop movement to Saddam.

Ok, Saddam gassed the Kurds. Where did he get the gas from? He got it from the US. if you knew your history, you would know that the Kurds have an open movement to free their people and form an independant Kurdastan. That's great right? Wrong. Cause a free Kurdastan would be Norhern Iraq AND eastern Turkey. The Turks have slaughtered more Kurds that Saddam wished he could. There will never be a free Kurdastan, because the US backs Turkey. Turkey wil never give up 1/2 of their country. Turkey will continue to silently slaughter their Kurds. The US will never speak up on that, and the "LIBERAL" media will never report about that.

Ya'll need to starting reading and stop watching the FOX "news" ...haahahhahaha... sorry, couldn't even finish the sentence.....

10/26/2005 03:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Im glad I bought Halliburton stock in '01 for real cheap!

10/26/2005 03:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ask yourself a very simple question. What if one of those 2000 was your child?

And what if because of ineptitude of an administration an enemy force was allowed to grow and become more lethal?

And what if your child found himself in a situation that could kill him because of, if nothing else, very flawed intelligence? And what if he was sent without proper equipment?

And what if because the administration has over-taxed the military he will more than likely find himself back in the same place? And what if he was wounded and found it difficult to get proper treatment because the military medical system is also over-taxed with the 14,000 or so who, like your child, were wounded?

And what if because of a ballooning deficit his benefits are quietly being diminished?

And what if he came home a different person because of the death and destruction he witnessed like a third of the troops are experiencing when they come home?

Patriotism is not about blindly supporting something that is just not right. Patriotism is being part of the process and voicing dissent when appropriate.

It is not up to one ideology to determine when dissent is appropriate.

10/26/2005 03:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Lefty,

The right feels bad about this too. The fastest way to get our kids back is to get the Iraqis to Govern themselves. Cutting and running would only make the region more unstable.

One thing you fail to realize is that everyone in our military volunteered to serve our country. They weren't conscripted or drafted. Don't promote the Michael Moore misinformation campaign. There are a lot of kids in the military that have come from rich and political backgrounds. They just don't think its that big a deal for them. The difference is that they feel that this country is worth fighting for. That includes my son as well!

What in your opinion makes this conflict useless? The fact that 2 unstable human rights violating countries were freed from a brutal theocracy and a megalomaniacal dictator that dreamed of ruling the entire Mideast?

When you got on this job didn't you feel the need to save the world or have a hand in bettering it? Facta Non Verba!

Please, for your own sake. Know what your talking abour before you feel the need to save us all from the evil moderates and conservatives.

10/26/2005 03:38:00 PM  
Anonymous flop-o-ganda said...

Bush swore to uphold the "honor and dignity" of the Office of the President. HAH!! How RICH!


To 03:10: PM - Your rationale is a particularly common, pathetic, oft-repeated device war mongers make for this bogus invasion/occupation:


"2000? NOT BAD, CONSIDERING THE DEATH (HOMICIDES/MAN SLAUGHTER)RATE IN THE REST OF THE CITIES/NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE USA. IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE SAFER "OVER THERE" THAN HERE IN THE STATES."

======

I know body counts of "the opponent" are out of vogue- but as tragic as losing 2,000 G.I.'s is- to calculate the real brutality of a conflict you need to consider ALL the dead- and the tally on their side is as it usually is against us- way higher (25,000 to over 100,000, depending on your methodology and if you accept estimates.) Anything else is fantasy. Count up and include the wounded and PTSS'ed and now the picture becomes truthful- war is hell, and it's infantile or cretinous to accept propaganda that paints a theatre of war as safer than any part of America.

10/26/2005 03:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

when the planes hit the wtc all you "democrats" were screaming for revenge and quick to blame bush for everything from global warming to katrina. Any of you chicken shit "democrats" can you explain why no more terroist attacks here. we lost over 2,000 non military people at wtc not a volunteer army that is paid to protect this country and protecting this country is what they are doing while you chicken shit democrats blame everyone but the democrats. you would give the country away in a heartbeat because you have no will.

10/26/2005 03:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

in two years time chicago has over 1000 terroists attacks murder for you home gamers in a city controlled by democrats what gives no screams for blame huh

10/26/2005 03:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Floppers,

Try this on for size.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/11Myths.htm#1

10/26/2005 03:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey look. Let's be real for once.

Bush has to make a decision. SCC mentioned freeing Iraq from Saddam was the goal. Ok, well, that's done. He's going to stand trial and that's it. Let's go home then.

But we aren't. Why? Freedom's bell has rang. Saints be praised. Pack up and move on to the next troubled counrty to solve their problems. But we are staying.

I wonder if _Bush_ knows why we are still there. Is he witing for god to whisper into his ear again? There is no clear answer. If its freedom, then it's done. Let go.

If it's for the oil and the Halliburton contracts, then fine too. I'll buy some stocks and bonds in HAL, Unicol, DutchShell Exxon Moble, Raytheon, all that shit. Let's lock and load and kill some goddamn Australians, or Iraqis or whoever. Let annex Iraq, build it up and suck it dry. Screw it, drop a neutron bomb and evaporate em all. Humans have lead wars of aggression for centuries. Babaylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Britian, Japan, the Soviet Union. What do you think they were doing? They were taking other people's shit. The US is the number one super power. We won the Cold War! It's our time! Let's start acting like it!!

If you're going to run a war of aggression let's do it right and take all their shit! Just let me know so I can get in on the ground floor.

It seems more like our troops are just hidding in the "Green Zone" and leting these terrorist-in-traning lob gernades on our heads. I see this as a waist of manpower.

The tax payers spend all this money on equipting and training soldiers and what are the most cause of death and injury? Road side bombs. If you listen to the peeps that manage to squeak through the "LIBERAL" media about recruitment woes, you will know that people don't want to join the military and fight for Bush in Iraq. The military lowered their requirments and they still cant meet them. The military increases the age allowance and they still can't meet the goals. The problem is management. Like in Vietnam, the troops aren't allowed to do what their stated purpose is: to kick ass!

Mr. Bush: take the leash off and those 2,000 dead will be worth it!

Bush has to quit spinning his wheels and make a move. Either get out of Dodge, or goto town!

10/26/2005 03:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Each year, the Rainforest is responsible for over three thousand deaths from accidents, attacks or illnesses. There are over seven hundred things in the Rainforest that cause cancer. Join the fight now and help stop the Rainforest before it's too late.

10/26/2005 04:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only branch of the service that hasn't met its recruiting goal in the last year is the Army. The standards have not been lowered as you so ignorantly state. The recruit must meet certain standards that have been in place since the late 1990's.

Maybe they're not getting common ignorami but honest to goodness intelligent people?

10/26/2005 04:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bottom line, Islam is at war with us (The United States). Doesn’t matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican they want us dead! We can fight them in our backyard or over in theirs. We have had embassies bombed, naval ships in port bombed, and Americans targeted and killed. Let’s not choose to turn the other cheek. What exactly does it take for some of you to develop a backbone? It’s bad enough that many in the world badmouth Americans but, when I see some of these pussies talking shit and demonstrating against what they know little about, it makes me sick! War sucks but sometimes it’s necessary. So get on board with the winning team or go Fuck Yourself!!

10/26/2005 04:24:00 PM  
Anonymous wuzzadem said...

WMDs, read the Duelffer(sp) report. We found over 2 dozen dual use chemical factories. The missles to deliver the chem weapons were also found. General Franks described it as if Saddam had a dis-assembled pistol on a table with the bullets next to it. All he had to do was to flip a switch and the chem and Bio weapons would flow.

There were ties to terrorists before we invaded. Remember Abu musab Zarqawi was injured in Afganistan and fled to Iraq in 2001. This was in the news. He had two years to establish a network within Iraq with the blessing of Saddam.

Ansar Al Islam in the north of Iraq was supported by Saddam.

Saddam protected Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas within Iraq from Isreal and The U.S.

In addition, what about the Sarin gas shell that was detonated about a year and a half ago. Two soldiers got sick from it. They are lucky to be alive. Where did the terrorists get it?

The Dutch Marines found a couple of pallets of mustard gas. Although it isnt warehouses full of WMD, but it proves he still had some.

Also there were numerous convoys going into Syria, maybe it was the WMDs.

The above is easily searched through Google. There is a lot more that we dont know about. An Example is, how much info do we give the media on a police shooting, not very much. We hold back quite a bit of info.


And finally read the resolution to invade Iraq, WMDs was one of numerous reasons to go in there. And of course, the policy in the Clinton White house towards Iraq was regime change. But we dont dare criticize saint bill.

10/26/2005 04:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Major General Smedley Butler USMC said...

IF HE TOILED FOR EMPIRE THEN- WHAT DO YOU THINK WE ARE NOW?

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.

Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881June 21, 1940), nicknamed "the fighting Quaker" and "Old Gimlet Eye," was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and, at the time of his death, the most decorated marine in U.S. history. Butler was a double-winner of the Medal of Honor, one of only 19 people to be so decorated. He was noted for his outspoken left-wing views and his book War is a Racket, one of the first works describing the military-industrial complex

An immensely popular figure in the United States at the time, Butler led the Bonus Army and came forward to the U.S. Congress in 1933 to report that a failed coup had been plotted by wealthy industrialists to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt with the help of General Butler. According to journalist John Spivak, Congress investigated the Business Plot (also known as the "White House Putsch") after Butler's testimony and confirmed his story

10/26/2005 04:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This country was founded by some of the smartest thinkers the world has ever seen. And they knew one thing: that a truly great country can go to war, and at the same time, act like it doesn't want to. You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it's made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft pussy protesters, we'd get taken down in a second.

10/26/2005 04:35:00 PM  
Anonymous wuzzadem said...

Let us use Leftys logic, Iraq didnt attack us therefore we should not attack Iraq. Ok...

Kosovo, Bosnia, and Serbia didnt attack us yet we attacked them.(democratic president)

Vietnam didnt attack us but between Kennedy (D) and Johnson(D) we sent in 500,000 troops.

In WW2, Germany didnt attack us, but FDR(D) sent the U.S. into Europe

WW1 Germany didnt attack us, yet Wilson (D) sent us in

Therefore it is OK for a demoRat to send troops in pre-emptively, but not a republican.

10/26/2005 04:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The trouble with the left is that they think there is nothing worth fighting for. Nothing at all. No war, no death penalty, no guns to defened yourself; just smile and try to understand a bully's motivation and then we can all sit around and sing "Kum-by-ah" and live happy in a liberal utopia.

10/26/2005 04:58:00 PM  
Anonymous P.N.A.C. said...

Conquest for Fun and Profit

“As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?” Project for a New American Century (PNAC), Statement of Principles.

Blair Korchinski

11/24/03: (Vive le Canada) The above statement seems innocuous enough on the surface. A group of concerned Americans who want to see their country do well. We all want our countries to do well...to prosper and be recognised for their assets. We even want other countries to do well because if they prosper so will we. There is nothing wrong with prosperity.

But there IS something wrong with this particular group of concerned Americans . They don’t care whether other countries do well. They would, in fact, prefer that other countries NOT do so well. The people at the Project for a New American Century feel very strongly that the USA should dominate the planet and that any country or group of countries that challenges them, militarily or economically, is a threat that needs to be taken care of.

So what is the Project for a New American Century? Basically it’s a right-wing think tank. What makes it different is its membership. On June 3, 1997, PNAC laid out its agenda. Twenty five people signed that document: Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, Gary Bauer, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis *censored*uyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalizad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel and Paul Wolfowitz.

Some of those names are better known than others, many of them hold senior positions in the Bush White House, but all are influential. Toss in the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank similar to the PNAC complete with similar connections and you have the makings of an empire. This is not really an empire in the traditional sense though. It appears to be, with the US acting in what those who control it see as the best interests of the country, just the latest version of the Roman Empire. That has little to do with the long-term plans of America’s neo-conservative leaders.

What are the policies of PNAC? Control of the world economy with an eye to ensuring the wealth of a very few already-wealthy Americans is the big one. Everything else flows from that. They see nothing wrong with pre-emptive war. They see nothing wrong with human rights violations. They see no reason why the world should look to the UN instead of the US for leadership. They want to be sure that they control outer space. They would also like to limit dissent, including controlling cyberspace. Nice goals.

The real trick to the Bush Administration, the Project for a New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute, and several smaller groups is the changes they are bringing about. Those changes have long-term implications that go far beyond partisan politics. When Robert Zoellick, a member of the PNAC, goes to trade forums in Cancun or Miami and, not getting his way, begins swinging bilateral deals, it has little to do with the American government. It is an attempt to weaken the power of all governments in regulating business. When the US illegally invades Iraq and then breaks international law by privatising state-owned enterprises, it has little to do with what is best for the US. It is an attempt to give privately owned business a political foot-hold in the Middle East. When conservative Canadians look at the policies and actions of the neo-conservatives running the US and suggest cozying up to them even further, we too become culpable in the attempts of a select few to run the world to their own advantage.

It’s that “select few” that’s the real sticking point. Those who speak out against the policies of the Project for a New American Century, policies being instituted by Bush and his cabinet, are often accused of being anti-American even while the accusers skirt around the existence of such a group. That’s the real trick that supporters of the PNAC have to perform...getting their policies instituted while hiding the fact that what they doing is not in the best interests of most Americans and does not follow the ideas behind the Constitution of the United States of America.

10/26/2005 04:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10/26/2005 02:52:32 PM
10/26/2005 02:53:40 PM
10/26/2005 02:54:59 PM
10/26/2005 02:56:32 PM

All posted by the same person within 4 minutes. A common blog technique to make it look like the original post has lots of support.

10/26/2005 05:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Republicans are only against wars that they did not start.

10/26/2005 05:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10/26/2005 03:15:08 PM

You should have bought it before Clinton gave Halliburton a $67 billion no-bid contract for the first year of the Kosovo campaign.

10/26/2005 05:04:00 PM  
Anonymous JOHN DEAN said...

Worse than Watergate? A Potential Huge Scandal If WMDs Are Still Missing

In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war.

President Bush's Statements On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

10/26/2005 05:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Chalmers Johnson- Sorrows of Empire said...

"Four sorrows ... are certain to be visited on the United States.

Their cumulative effect guarantees that the U.S. will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787.

First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a spreading reliance on nuclear weapons among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut.

Second is a loss of democracy and Constitutional rights as the presidency eclipses Congress and is itself transformed from a co-equal 'executive branch' of government into a military junta.

Third is the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power, and the military legions.

Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens."

- Chalmers Johnson, Sorrows of Empire

10/26/2005 05:27:00 PM  
Anonymous PROPAGHANDI said...

02:07:04 PM

ONLY Y-O-U CAN PREVENT YOUR HONOR BEING "STOLEN"- THAT IS SIMPLY BY BEHAVING HONORABLY, "WARRIOR"! QUESTION WHAT YOU ARE SPOONFED; "LOYALTY TO TYRANNY IS TREASON TO MORALITY"! (OOH-RAH!)

A quote from USMC Col Glen Burgess retd,regarding lessons learned in Viet Nam."Do not fear the enemy,for your enemy can only take your life.It is far better that you fear the media,for they will steal your HONOR."Truer today than it was then.Semper Fi!

10/26/2005 05:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let get this right. Putin, T. Blair, the countries of France, Germany and Isreal all said that their intelligence agencies believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Sadam Hussiens's Iraq supoorted one of the first World Trade Center Bombers (1993) for both medical treatment and financially. One of Iraqs intelligence officers met w/ Al Queda operative in Europe rpior to 9/11. Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry in 1998-99 said that Iraq possesses WMD. The Democrat's in Congress voted for military action to be used by the US under Bush. We did not start the Terror Wars but WE HAD BEETER FINISH SO OUR LITTLE CHILDREN DON'T HAVE TO GO OFF A FIGHT IT ONE DAY. WE are there NOW, what would all you liberals want to do? Walk away? Just pull out? All you offer is hatred for America, the US Soldier and President Bush. How about that secret unit called ABLE DANGER? I DON'T HEAR YOU LIBERALS DEMANDING THAT THEIR ALLEGATIONS BE HEARD. The ones I fear the most in this country are not the terrorist but the Liberals, for if they get into power all our rights and protections will be gone and we will be force to believe in what they say w/o any free thinking. REMEMBER ABSOLUTE FREEDOM IS ANARCHY.

10/26/2005 06:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To all you little girls that never did anything but go through the weak ass CPD academy and got you little star that over nite made you the man. BLOW ME. I was there. I took a 1 year leave from the department t0 fight the good fight.
I was shot at, mortered, rocketed, Ied'ed. 14 of my buddies were killed over there. I saw my friend, with half an arm, a grown man, crying begging the Corpsmen for more morphine. I wake up at nite seeing the headless Haji's I killed a result of a 12 gauge blast. Was it worth it????
Damn right. Iraq's 1st election, 30 JAN 2005, I saw old men and women waiting 6-7 hours in lines miles long to vote. As We walked past they were crying and kissing my Marines thanking them. These people had never voted before and they were going to do it if it killed them (literally). Has any of you ever cried waiting to vote? Freedom has a taste the protected will never know. Sempre Fi God Bless the 2/24

10/26/2005 07:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To finish what I started. I saw these people first hand. Dont let this fight happen here. They WILL rape your wife, enslave your children and cutt off your head. This is not a joke.

10/26/2005 07:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The red states are calling me, upon retirement I plan on answering their call. The weak will not prevail.

10/26/2005 08:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a bit of advice for leftys and righties alike....DON'T JOIN THE ARMED FORCES UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARRED TO FIGHT AND RISK YOUR LIFE REGARDLESS OF YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS ON THE FIGHT AT HAND!!!!!! If everyone has forgotten, joining the military is VOLUNTARY, and once you join you have no say as to which battles you will fight. So stop enlisting for the free college education expecting to do nothing in return. Jion the CPD if you want to be a dog for free college!!!

10/26/2005 08:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fuckin a right

10/26/2005 08:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10/26/2005 08:26:08 PM
Spoken like he has had everything handed to him

10/26/2005 09:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 9:00:00 p.m.

must be one of those cowards that wanted the free tuition not thinking there would ever be a war!!! Typical liberal!!!

10/26/2005 09:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10/26/2005 09:09:46 PM

I never did it for the college money. I did it to protect my family and friends and even shit heads like you!

10/26/2005 09:20:00 PM  
Blogger SCC said...

To John Dean (obviously another leftisthebest/shady pen name)
10/26/2005 05:14:17 PM

Nice list of quotes there from Bush. Here's some other you may have forgotten:

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 (Clinton Secretary of State)

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

You want more? We can pull up about 100 to 200 more examples within 10 minutes, including quotes from the Hildebeast, Jeffords, and 30 from John Kerry alone. Why is you Dems are all for deterence until it comes to actually deterring anything?

10/26/2005 09:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well leftisbest.... respond to that one... as soon as you pull your head out of your ass!!!!!

10/26/2005 09:44:00 PM  
Blogger SCC said...

To leftisthebest
10/26/2005 03:08:10 PM

We certainly wish you'd stick to one name when posting in this forum. It makes your arguments so much easier to track and would disspell the illusion that you have any sort of support for your position.

The left cares about the 2,000 dead only insofar as it can use it to embarrass America, the President and the military. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.

Not everyone of them is poor or middle class. Many, especially among the Special Forces that have born an especially heavy burden in these wars, are college graduates. The fact remains though, THAT THEY ARE ALL VOLUNTEERS. And the reenlistment rates among active duty units are in the high 90 percent (97% in some units).

Colin Powell stated that al-Qaeda wasn't threat in the sense that it couldn't invade, couldn't hold territory, couldn't occupy cities. Nice twisting of his words though.

And your dismissal of what these men and women fought and died for is insulting to us and to their memories. Firstly, it betrays your first statement that you on the left care about the service people. Second, it denies their accomplishments in freeing 50 million people to the very basics of what you take for granted in this country and third, the very survival of our nation is at stake, similar to what happened during the Civil War. In the 1860s, this country was on the verge of tearing itself apart over state's rights and slavery. We for one are damn glad the Union persevered and won. Today, everything we stand for is under attack from people that would literally cut off your head for not practicing their faith.

Anyway, off to refute more of your arguments as we see fit.

10/26/2005 09:51:00 PM  
Blogger SCC said...

Another refutation-

Anonymous said...

Republicans are only against wars that they did not start.

10/26/2005 05:03:39 PM

****************************

Another leftist talking point, but maybe not by "lefty." Republicans aren't against wars that they don't start. Republicans are against wars that don't serve the national interest.

What's that you say? We shouldn't act "unilaterally" in the "national interest?" NEWSFLASH - all nations act in their own national interest. Always have, since the beginning of time. Whether for treasure, territory or food, everyone acts in their own self interest, but only America gets blamed by the left for doing so.

Unless its Clinton in office.

10/26/2005 10:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lots of vitriol!!! Strangely enough, everyone here makes a somewhat compelling argument. I have no problem with the invasion of Iraq but it was under the assumption of WMD. Now that we've found none,no problem. Let's just say we've fucked up, made a mistake, received bad intelligence. Don't turn it into something it isn't. Our stated goal wasn't the spread of democracy in the Mid-East, unless I missed something. It is an excellent by-product of a well intentioned but failed mission. Call it what it is. Isn't it a little like executing a search warrant for guns and drugs, finding none while destroyng the house, and then claiming that you were only trying to help the home owner find his remote? Pretzel logic.

10/26/2005 10:05:00 PM  
Blogger Shadi said...

Hey SCC-

"Shady" here- I've been trying to minimize attention from certain knuckleheaded "elements" with the personal stupidity here- so for the record the following posts were mine (so as to not improperly assign them to Lefty, who AGAIN has no connection to me whatsoever)-

flop-o-ganda
Major General Smedley Butler USMC
P.N.A.C.
JOHN DEAN
Chalmers Johnson
PROPAGHANDI

No bull- now let me catch up with the content of yours & others replies... great thread even though our two sides are so far apart- I give the utmost respect those of you that fought over there- I wish I knew the truth or could buy your side of the story, maybe someday we'll know better how all this shakes out... but I put absolutely no stock in anything these neo-cons say or do- they are craven traitorous manipulative liars in my book and need to be investigated thoroughly... soon.

10/26/2005 10:39:00 PM  
Anonymous leftisthebest said...

To SCC,

I think you owe me an apology. You accuse me of posting several anti-Bush triades under an fake name(s). IT WAS NOT ME! All those rather lengthy posts, obviously from some other blogsites, were done by someone else.

As I stated yesterday in another thread, my knowledge of the computers is somewhat limited so I wouldn't even know how to do it. Cut and paste, I guess...I don't know.

SCC, I bet with your computer you could check the address of those rants and see they do not come from the two computers (work, home) I type my rants.

I sign all my posts attacking YOUR president and the corrupt members of his administration. The fact my anti-Iraq invasion views are in total opposition to probably 90 per cent of the job, and another five per cent who could care less either way.

10/27/2005 12:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Let get this right. Putin, T. Blair, the countries of France, Germany and Isreal all said that their intelligence agencies believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Sadam Hussiens's

----

I really enjoy how you had attibute FRANCE to the fixed intel. I thought Repubs don't call them by name anymore. (Freedom Fries??)

As for Tony "The Running Dog" Blair, if you are stil believeing that he had seperate intel, you are beyond reproach. Otherwise please see:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=

The intel was fixed. When Amb. Willson did the patriotic thing and challenged it, the Bushiveks outed his wife, a CIA NOC. That is why Fitz is investigating your peeps. That's why they are going down.

BUSH LIED! TROOPS DIED!

-----

And just because troops died there doesn't justify the LIE. That is called Circular Reasoning.

-----

All Bush had to do was plant some bio-chem and all of this would not have been a big deal. Jeb could get it 2008. and shit maybe Neal Bush could have it 2016. Then the twins could be the first female co-presidents!! YA!

40 more years! 40 more years! 40 more years!

10/27/2005 08:33:00 AM  
Blogger SCC said...

Point out the accusation, and we'll apologize, but from here, we don't see one. We pointed out the "John Dean" one, we pointed one one under your name, and we responded to an anonymous one by starting out the response with

Another leftist talking point, but maybe not by "lefty."

You even admit to posting under:
flop-o-ganda
Major General Smedley Butler USMC
P.N.A.C.
JOHN DEAN
Chalmers Johnson
PROPAGHANDI

So please, point out the accusation and quote us so we can apologize, otherwise it ain't happening.

10/27/2005 08:46:00 AM  
Blogger SCC said...

To the Anonymous poster just above this post at 10/27/2005 08:33:00 AM

So, since Bush DIDN'T fly in a bio weapons lab and PLANT evidence of WMD, that makes everything else said a lie? Talk about your CIRCULAR reasoning. Are you saying you would have believed everything if Bush had just planted some evidence? Dude, you aren't just smoking the pipe, you are drinking the bong water.

To date, France remains the country who's intelligence agency ADMITTED to planting forged documents in an attempt to divert and derail the war.

And please, study the King's English. FIXED doesn't mean "fixed" as you are purporting it to be, i.e. manipulated. FIXED in the context of the Downing Street Memo means that Washington was trying to justify it's policy. That all it's ducks were in a row. Don't belive us? Read the ENTIRE memo and check out this paragraph farther down from the one you quote:

"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

Why would the Brits say this unless they believed saddam had WMD? Ohhh, another conspiracy? More circular reasoning? Lose the tin-foil had dude, the CIA mind control waves are just too powerful for you.

10/27/2005 09:00:00 AM  
Anonymous leftisthebest said...

To SCC,

You accussed ME of posting under those aliases and Shady has admited it was he who posted under all of those.

At the 0924 post you started your post with

"To John Dean (obviously another leftisthebest/shady pen name)
10/26/2005 05:14:17 PM

At the 0951 post you start out:

"We certainly wish you'd stick to one name when posting in this forum. It makes your arguments so much easier to track and would disspell the illusion that you have any sort of support for your position."

I have only posted under the name "leftisthebest," and occasionally under "anonymous." All posts related to YOUR president, or other social causes in general, have ALWAYS been posted under "leftisthebest." The few anonymous posts have been minor in nature, but none attacking any individual or group.

As I stated earlier, I believe (maybe incorrectly) you could check computer addresses and see that those other posts did not come from computers at home or work.

10/27/2005 10:51:00 AM  
Blogger SCC said...

What we intended was "/" = "or" as in "leftisthebest OR shady" since you both seem to post under numerous aliases and make basically the same arguments (i.e. Bush = bad president and Republicans = evil.)

Since we can't apologize for your misreading our intent, we won't. But we will apologize for not being clearer in our statement.

10/27/2005 01:57:00 PM  
Blogger Rue St. Michel said...

05:27 poster - My full reply is too long for this thread. For those interested, please go here.

First, I cannot support Chalmers Johnson's views because he is a UC Berkley hippy - that caveat speaks volumes about what kind of intellectual crackpot he is. He's a "naom chomsky meets lyndon larouche" type ... America, Bad - Socialism, Good. His writings rail against Bush, Cheney and the CIA but where is the outrage against our own Border Invasion, the billions we spend on illegal immigration and on the criminals who victimize our own citizens? Johnson writes all about how much the Bushs, the CIA and Abu Graib are evil. Another "useful idiot" that gets book smart and tries to force feed his comintern agenda with a spoonful of sugar.
The '4 Sorrows' you list are laughable and, I know now why nobody reads this guy. Only someone with self-loathing & delusions of persecution could put that together.

10/27/2005 03:16:00 PM  
Anonymous leftisthebest said...

SCC,

This will be the last time I post on this particulat argument. For the THIRD TIME, I do not post under any other alias than this monikor.

Yes, I have posted a few anonymous posts but those were of a minor content BUT and read this part my friend, I have only posted as "leftisthebest: for any topic related to the Bush administration or any social-type topic.

What would be the point to attacking YOUR president under a different name? I think anyone who visits here regularly knows myself and O'GRADY (whom I have never met) are the only anti-Bush police on the site.

Why post a third name? So there are three anti-Bush folks? Show me the other name I used to attack YOUR president. You can't because it doesn't exist.

Finally, I still like ya SCC despite your blind alliance to the second worst president in my lifetime. Here's the olive branch.

10/27/2005 04:42:00 PM  
Blogger Shadi said...

One more try (sigh...)

Cheney, Libby Blocked Papers To Senate Intelligence Panel

By Murray Waas, special to National Journal
Thursday, Oct. 27, 2005

Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources...

...The new information that Cheney and Libby blocked information to the Senate Intelligence Committee further underscores the central role played by the vice president's office in trying to blunt criticism that the Bush administration exaggerated intelligence data to make the case to go to war.

Read the rest at :
NationalJournal.Com

© National Journal Group Inc.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. SecondCityCop nor Blogger.Com has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is SecondCityCop or Blogger.Com endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) (* originally posted at 5:17 PM...)

10/27/2005 08:41:00 PM  
Blogger Shadi said...

"The Epic Crime That Dares Not Speak Its Name" by John Pilger

10/27/05 "ICH " - A Royal Air Force officer is about to be tried before a military court for refusing to return to Iraq because the war is illegal. Malcolm Kendall-Smith is the first British officer to face criminal charges for challenging the legality of the invasion and occupation. He is not a conscientious objector; he has completed two tours in Iraq. When he came home the last time, he studied the reasons given for attacking Iraq and concluded he was breaking the law. His position is supported by international lawyers all over the world, not least by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, who said in September last year: "The US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN Charter."

The question of legality deeply concerns the British military brass, who sought Tony Blair's assurance on the eve of the invasion, got it and, as they now know, were lied to. They are right to worry; Britain is a signatory to the treaty that set up the International Criminal Court, which draws its codes from the Geneva Conventions and the 1945 Nuremberg Charter. The latter is clear: "To initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, counts one and two, "Conspiracy to wage aggressive war and waging aggressive war", refer to "the common plan or conspiracy". These are defined in the indictment as "the planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements and assurances". A wealth of evidence is now available that George Bush, Blair and their advisers did just that. The leaked minutes from the infamous Downing Street meeting in July 2002 alone reveal that Blair and his war cabinet knew that it was illegal. The attack that followed, mounted against a defenceless country offering no threat to the US or Britain, has a precedent in Hitler's invasion of Sudetenland; the lies told to justify both are eerily similar. (...click for entire piece...)

10/27/2005 08:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Cheech Marin said...

So let me get this straight. Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rove, and Libby equate to Adolph Hitler in a partially fabricated, lightly researched article in a magazine known for its extreme leftist views?

Here's a clue for you. If you want to get people to change their minds, try to get references from several reputable sources outside of the Washington Post and NY Times. You leftists continually cite sources that are heavy on out of context quotes and shoddy research.

I've had enough of the bongwater journalism with the leftisits trying to get me to see something that really isn't there.

10/27/2005 10:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah yes John Pilger, the bastion of unbiased reporting and reputable resources. Lets see what John is about shall we.

"As the West prepares for an assault on Iraq, John Pilger argues that 'war on terror' is a smokescreen created by the ultimate terrorist ... America itself"

"John Pilger has brought together some of the greatest practitioners of the craft, those "who push back screens, peer behind facades, lift rocks... the men and women whose disrespect for authoritarianism has allowed them to alert their readers to vital hidden truths"

But wait theres more.....

"Let’s look at a few examples of the way the world is presented and the way it really is. The occupation of Iraq is presented as "a mess": a blundering, incompetent American military up against Islamic fanatics. In truth, the occupation is a systematic, murderous assault on a civilian population by a corrupt American officer class, given licence by its superiors in Washington. Last May, the US Marines used battle tanks and helicopter gunships to attack the slums of Fallujah. They admitted killing 600 people, a figure far greater than the total number of civilians killed by the "insurgents" during the past year. The generals were candid; this futile slaughter was an act of revenge for the killing of three American mercenaries. Sixty years earlier, the SS Das Reich division killed 600 French civilians at Oradour-sur-Glane as revenge for the kidnapping of a German officer by the resistance. Is there a difference?"

Ah yes John Pilger, a man chasing the truth.

10/27/2005 10:27:00 PM  
Blogger Shadi said...

Well, HERE'S T-H-E MAN chasing the TRUTH... Tune in at 1 pm our time...

press_advisory_1028.pdf

*******MEDIA ADVISORY*******

SPECIAL COUNSEL PATRICK J. FITZGERALD TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE


Washington, D.C. -- U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald will
hold a press conference at 2:00 P.M. EDT today, Friday October 28, 2005, regarding the
status of the Special Counsel's criminal investigations.
WHO: Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald
FBI Special Agent-in-Charge John C. Eckenrode
WHAT: Release of public information and press conference
WHERE: Department of Justice

7th Floor Conference Center

950 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

I WONDER WHAT IT COULD BE ABOUT ? ? ?
(...Libby indicted, extention on Rove... tick-tock-tick-tock...)

Patty Fit'z DOJ OSC Web Page

10/28/2005 09:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Scooter" was indicted on 5 counts, mostly related to not cooperating with the investigation.

Seems like he is falling on the sword, since the investigation is grinding to a halt.

Bush II and Cheney are safe and they will reward "Scooter" with a pardon and a high paying job with Bush I at the Carlisle Group.

10/28/2005 04:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Personally,I don't believe our invasion/occupation of Iraq will succeed for the following reasons;The majority of Iraqis see Americans as infadel/invaders in their country.Most people in Iraq associate the misery they've suffered with the first Gulf War and the U.S. led U.N. embargo that left many Iraqis starving or dying.Now having said that,I know that was not our government's intention,and that the Iraqi people suffered because of the corruption of Saddam's dictatorship government,But most Iraqis don't see it that way.Also I don't believe a Democratic system will flourish in Iraq.Democracy as we know it is alien to them.This is a entirely diffrent culture. The Holy Koran is the only universally accepted word of law in this part of the world.In time,after being exposed to democracy and capitalisum maybe change will eventually come,But it will always be in conflict with their religion and culture.The best we can hope for when our troops withdraw is a loose federation of three states;Sunnis,Shites and the Kurds in the north all living under a uneasy truse with the theat of secession and/or civil war.The only thing our invasion/occupation has done is destabilze this region for decades to come.But then again, maybe that was this administration's intent all along.

10/29/2005 03:18:00 AM  

<< Home

Newer Posts.......................... ..........................Older Posts