( OT ) Commander: Prisoners at Abu Ghraib included kids
 

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."


Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:15:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Jim, wrote:
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."


Parts of Karpinski's transcript indicate that US soldiers were holding
8-9-10 and 11 year old children in that damned prison. One can only
imagine what kinds of abuse the children received.

I would imagine (assuming it's true) that those kids were treated
better than those soldiers were, who were on the receiving end of
bombs that other children deployed.


We'll stop capturing children when the enemy stops using them as pawns
in the battle.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."



Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

Karpinski is a name -- former prison head

Wodjakowski then the No. 2 Army general in Iraq

More from the article you obviously didn't read

Military officials have acknowledged that some juvenile prisoners had
been held at Abu Ghraib, a massive prison built by Saddam Hussein's
government outside Baghdad. But the transcript is the first documented
evidence of a child no older than 11 being held prisoner.

The transcript of the May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages
of documents about Iraq prisoner abuses the group made public Thursday
after getting them under the Freedom of Information Act.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."


Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

I'll pull a chucky.......Saloon??? what a credible
source.................NOT





Dave

"Jim," wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold a
prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army general
in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more prisoners,
even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied: "Not
inside the wire, you're not, sir."



Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

Karpinski is a name -- former prison head

Wodjakowski then the No. 2 Army general in Iraq

More from the article you obviously didn't read

Military officials have acknowledged that some juvenile prisoners had
been held at Abu Ghraib, a massive prison built by Saddam Hussein's
government outside Baghdad. But the transcript is the first documented
evidence of a child no older than 11 being held prisoner.

The transcript of the May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages of
documents about Iraq prisoner abuses the group made public Thursday after
getting them under the Freedom of Information Act.



Ahem.....
========================================
But first, the "Talking Points Memo." If you want a great example of spin,
listen up. Vice Admiral Albert Church (search) has released his
investigation of prisoner abuse by the American military. The headline in
"The Washington Post" is "Abuse Review Exonerates Policy: Low-level Leaders
and Confusion Blamed."
But the headline in "The New York Times" states: "Details of Afghan and Iraq
Abuse Are Cited in Pentagon Report." It is not until the middle of the
article that the "Times" gets around to the primary conclusion, "But the
inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not
directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no policy
that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

That is the headline of the report. And that was buried by "The New York
Times." The paper did this because for more than a year it has implied the
Bush administration and the military instituted and approved a policy of
abuse.

News headline, May 16, 2004: "Rumsfeld and Aide, Backed Harsh Tactics,
Article Says". Editorial headline, August 26, 2004: "Holding the Pentagon
Accountable for Abu Ghraib." News headline, January 17, 2005: "High-ranking
Officers May Face Prosecution in Iraqi Prisoner Abuse, Military Officials
Say."

Well, today, "The New York Times" "buried the lead" because the conclusion
of the Church report is the exact opposite of what the paper has been
reporting. It's as simple as that.

Now "Talking Points" has said right from the jump that all American abuse of
prisoners must be investigated and punished if proven. But we believe in the
presumption of innocence. Prove it. Don't imply something is true without
hard evidence.

"The New York Times" and other left leaning media don't like the war in
Iraq, despise President Bush. Thus the reporting these operations do is
designed to prop up their editorial viewpoint. That is spin! S-p-i-n.
Everybody got it?

==============================================

Go to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150117,00.html for full story and
workable links found in O'Rielly's comments posted above.

Yep, from Bill O'Rielly, FOX news..... ;-)

P.Fritz wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."


Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...


I'll pull a chucky.......Saloon??? what a credible
source.................NOT





Dave




From a previous post. -- Because you don't like the source, doesn't
make it a lie (except possibly in the case of Faux)

"The transcript of the May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages
of documents about Iraq prisoner abuses the group made public Thursday
after getting them under the Freedom of Information Act."

JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

Dave Hall wrote:


On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold a
prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army general
in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more prisoners,
even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied: "Not
inside the wire, you're not, sir."



Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

Karpinski is a name -- former prison head

Wodjakowski then the No. 2 Army general in Iraq

More from the article you obviously didn't read

Military officials have acknowledged that some juvenile prisoners had
been held at Abu Ghraib, a massive prison built by Saddam Hussein's
government outside Baghdad. But the transcript is the first documented
evidence of a child no older than 11 being held prisoner.

The transcript of the May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages of
documents about Iraq prisoner abuses the group made public Thursday after
getting them under the Freedom of Information Act.




Ahem.....
========================================
But first, the "Talking Points Memo." If you want a great example of spin,
listen up. Vice Admiral Albert Church (search) has released his
investigation of prisoner abuse by the American military. The headline in
"The Washington Post" is "Abuse Review Exonerates Policy: Low-level Leaders
and Confusion Blamed."
But the headline in "The New York Times" states: "Details of Afghan and Iraq
Abuse Are Cited in Pentagon Report." It is not until the middle of the
article that the "Times" gets around to the primary conclusion, "But the
inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not
directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no policy
that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

That is the headline of the report. And that was buried by "The New York
Times." The paper did this because for more than a year it has implied the
Bush administration and the military instituted and approved a policy of
abuse.

News headline, May 16, 2004: "Rumsfeld and Aide, Backed Harsh Tactics,
Article Says". Editorial headline, August 26, 2004: "Holding the Pentagon
Accountable for Abu Ghraib." News headline, January 17, 2005: "High-ranking
Officers May Face Prosecution in Iraqi Prisoner Abuse, Military Officials
Say."

Well, today, "The New York Times" "buried the lead" because the conclusion
of the Church report is the exact opposite of what the paper has been
reporting. It's as simple as that.

Now "Talking Points" has said right from the jump that all American abuse of
prisoners must be investigated and punished if proven. But we believe in the
presumption of innocence. Prove it. Don't imply something is true without
hard evidence.

"The New York Times" and other left leaning media don't like the war in
Iraq, despise President Bush. Thus the reporting these operations do is
designed to prop up their editorial viewpoint. That is spin! S-p-i-n.
Everybody got it?

==============================================

Go to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150117,00.html for full story and
workable links found in O'Rielly's comments posted above.

Yep, from Bill O'Rielly, FOX news..... ;-)



Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?

"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

Dave Hall wrote:


On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out
a written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army
report issued last September said investigators could not find any
copies of any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."



Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

Karpinski is a name -- former prison head

Wodjakowski then the No. 2 Army general in Iraq

More from the article you obviously didn't read

Military officials have acknowledged that some juvenile prisoners had
been held at Abu Ghraib, a massive prison built by Saddam Hussein's
government outside Baghdad. But the transcript is the first documented
evidence of a child no older than 11 being held prisoner.

The transcript of the May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages of
documents about Iraq prisoner abuses the group made public Thursday
after getting them under the Freedom of Information Act.




Ahem.....
========================================
But first, the "Talking Points Memo." If you want a great example of
spin, listen up. Vice Admiral Albert Church (search) has released his
investigation of prisoner abuse by the American military. The headline in
"The Washington Post" is "Abuse Review Exonerates Policy: Low-level
Leaders and Confusion Blamed."
But the headline in "The New York Times" states: "Details of Afghan and
Iraq Abuse Are Cited in Pentagon Report." It is not until the middle of
the article that the "Times" gets around to the primary conclusion, "But
the inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not
directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no
policy that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan,
Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

That is the headline of the report. And that was buried by "The New York
Times." The paper did this because for more than a year it has implied
the Bush administration and the military instituted and approved a policy
of abuse.

News headline, May 16, 2004: "Rumsfeld and Aide, Backed Harsh Tactics,
Article Says". Editorial headline, August 26, 2004: "Holding the Pentagon
Accountable for Abu Ghraib." News headline, January 17, 2005:
"High-ranking Officers May Face Prosecution in Iraqi Prisoner Abuse,
Military Officials Say."

Well, today, "The New York Times" "buried the lead" because the
conclusion of the Church report is the exact opposite of what the paper
has been reporting. It's as simple as that.

Now "Talking Points" has said right from the jump that all American abuse
of prisoners must be investigated and punished if proven. But we believe
in the presumption of innocence. Prove it. Don't imply something is true
without hard evidence.

"The New York Times" and other left leaning media don't like the war in
Iraq, despise President Bush. Thus the reporting these operations do is
designed to prop up their editorial viewpoint. That is spin! S-p-i-n.
Everybody got it?

==============================================

Go to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150117,00.html for full story
and workable links found in O'Rielly's comments posted above.

Yep, from Bill O'Rielly, FOX news..... ;-)

Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?

Don't change the subject. The GWB and his upper military brass were found
not guilty in the investigation.

JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...


Dave Hall wrote:



On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out
a written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army
report issued last September said investigators could not find any
copies of any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."



Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

Karpinski is a name -- former prison head

Wodjakowski then the No. 2 Army general in Iraq

More from the article you obviously didn't read

Military officials have acknowledged that some juvenile prisoners had
been held at Abu Ghraib, a massive prison built by Saddam Hussein's
government outside Baghdad. But the transcript is the first documented
evidence of a child no older than 11 being held prisoner.

The transcript of the May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages of
documents about Iraq prisoner abuses the group made public Thursday
after getting them under the Freedom of Information Act.




Ahem.....
========================================
But first, the "Talking Points Memo." If you want a great example of
spin, listen up. Vice Admiral Albert Church (search) has released his
investigation of prisoner abuse by the American military. The headline in
"The Washington Post" is "Abuse Review Exonerates Policy: Low-level
Leaders and Confusion Blamed."
But the headline in "The New York Times" states: "Details of Afghan and
Iraq Abuse Are Cited in Pentagon Report." It is not until the middle of
the article that the "Times" gets around to the primary conclusion, "But
the inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not
directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no
policy that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan,
Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

That is the headline of the report. And that was buried by "The New York
Times." The paper did this because for more than a year it has implied
the Bush administration and the military instituted and approved a policy
of abuse.

News headline, May 16, 2004: "Rumsfeld and Aide, Backed Harsh Tactics,
Article Says". Editorial headline, August 26, 2004: "Holding the Pentagon
Accountable for Abu Ghraib." News headline, January 17, 2005:
"High-ranking Officers May Face Prosecution in Iraqi Prisoner Abuse,
Military Officials Say."

Well, today, "The New York Times" "buried the lead" because the
conclusion of the Church report is the exact opposite of what the paper
has been reporting. It's as simple as that.

Now "Talking Points" has said right from the jump that all American abuse
of prisoners must be investigated and punished if proven. But we believe
in the presumption of innocence. Prove it. Don't imply something is true
without hard evidence.

"The New York Times" and other left leaning media don't like the war in
Iraq, despise President Bush. Thus the reporting these operations do is
designed to prop up their editorial viewpoint. That is spin! S-p-i-n.
Everybody got it?

============================================= =

Go to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150117,00.html for full story
and workable links found in O'Rielly's comments posted above.

Yep, from Bill O'Rielly, FOX news..... ;-)

Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


Don't change the subject. The GWB and his upper military brass were found
not guilty in the investigation.


I'll read that as cynicism. GWB and the administration is general is
never guilty of anything. In fact GWB made a comment to the effect that
he couldn't remember making a mistake as POTUS

JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

JimH wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...


Dave Hall wrote:



On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out
a written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army
report issued last September said investigators could not find any
copies of any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."



Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

Karpinski is a name -- former prison head

Wodjakowski then the No. 2 Army general in Iraq

More from the article you obviously didn't read

Military officials have acknowledged that some juvenile prisoners had
been held at Abu Ghraib, a massive prison built by Saddam Hussein's
government outside Baghdad. But the transcript is the first documented
evidence of a child no older than 11 being held prisoner.

The transcript of the May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages of
documents about Iraq prisoner abuses the group made public Thursday
after getting them under the Freedom of Information Act.




Ahem.....
========================================
But first, the "Talking Points Memo." If you want a great example of
spin, listen up. Vice Admiral Albert Church (search) has released his
investigation of prisoner abuse by the American military. The headline in
"The Washington Post" is "Abuse Review Exonerates Policy: Low-level
Leaders and Confusion Blamed."
But the headline in "The New York Times" states: "Details of Afghan and
Iraq Abuse Are Cited in Pentagon Report." It is not until the middle of
the article that the "Times" gets around to the primary conclusion, "But
the inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not
directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no
policy that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan,
Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

That is the headline of the report. And that was buried by "The New York
Times." The paper did this because for more than a year it has implied
the Bush administration and the military instituted and approved a policy
of abuse.

News headline, May 16, 2004: "Rumsfeld and Aide, Backed Harsh Tactics,
Article Says". Editorial headline, August 26, 2004: "Holding the Pentagon
Accountable for Abu Ghraib." News headline, January 17, 2005:
"High-ranking Officers May Face Prosecution in Iraqi Prisoner Abuse,
Military Officials Say."

Well, today, "The New York Times" "buried the lead" because the
conclusion of the Church report is the exact opposite of what the paper
has been reporting. It's as simple as that.

Now "Talking Points" has said right from the jump that all American abuse
of prisoners must be investigated and punished if proven. But we believe
in the presumption of innocence. Prove it. Don't imply something is true
without hard evidence.

"The New York Times" and other left leaning media don't like the war in
Iraq, despise President Bush. Thus the reporting these operations do is
designed to prop up their editorial viewpoint. That is spin! S-p-i-n.
Everybody got it?

============================================= =

Go to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150117,00.html for full story
and workable links found in O'Rielly's comments posted above.

Yep, from Bill O'Rielly, FOX news..... ;-)

Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


Don't change the subject. The GWB and his upper military brass were found
not guilty in the investigation.


OK -- I'll pull a Clinton -- Define *"directly responsible"*

Harry Krause wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:15:25 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Jim, wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to
hold a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records.
The documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at
Abu Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA
worked out a written agreement on how to handle unreported
detainees. An Army report issued last September said investigators
could not find any copies of any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're
winning the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she
replied: "Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."



Parts of Karpinski's transcript indicate that US soldiers were
holding 8-9-10 and 11 year old children in that damned prison. One
can only imagine what kinds of abuse the children received.



I would imagine (assuming it's true) that those kids were treated
better than those soldiers were, who were on the receiving end of
bombs that other children deployed.



You might imagine that. I would imagine something totally different.
The record indicates that we had brutal, sadistic, sexual perverts in
charge of that prison, and the enlisted personnel weren't any better.
There's no reason to believe children were treated any differently than
adult prisoners.


More from the article (suggest you all read it before commenting)

"Another soldier said in January 2004 that troops poured water and
smeared mud on the detained 17-year-old son of an Iraqi general and
"broke" the general by letting him watch his son shiver in the cold."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:51:38 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an unnamed
Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Note that the Pentagon *has* acknowledged keeping "ghost detainees."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:08:44 -0500, P.Fritz wrote:

I'll pull a chucky.......Saloon??? what a credible
source.................NOT

How about the BBC?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4339511.stm

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:19:00 -0500, JimH wrote:


Don't change the subject. The GWB and his upper military brass were found
not guilty in the investigation.

In point of fact, an investigation couldn't have found them guilty. In
this country, only a trial can do that.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."

You need to talk to some folks who know Karpinski. I have, and they think she
was a pure dip**** that must have given a good blow job to get where she was.
Putting any stock in what she says is probably a mistake.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:51:38 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."


Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

I really believe they'll believe anything that is written as long as it puts
down the military or the administration.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:19:00 -0500, JimH wrote:


Don't change the subject. GWB and his upper military brass were found
not guilty in the investigation.

In point of fact, an investigation couldn't have found them guilty. In
this country, only a trial can do that.

You are correct. I should have said "The recent investigation of Abu
Ghraib by Vice Admiral Albert Church found that GWB and his senior military
brass had no involvement in or knowledge of the prisoner abuses, as have the
previous 8 investigations in this matter.."

This will probably be investigated till the Democrats get the results they
are looking for....that Rumsfeld and Bush were aware of the abuses and
turned the other cheek.

Unfortunately for them, they will be spinning their wheels. ;-)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:16:59 -0500, JimH wrote:


This will probably be investigated till the Democrats get the results they
are looking for....that Rumsfeld and Bush were aware of the abuses and
turned the other cheek.

Unfortunately for them, they will be spinning their wheels. ;-)

Time will tell. As we speak, Rumsfeld is being sued over the abuse. It
might be an interesting case to follow.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

JimH wrote:

Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?

*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:16:59 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:19:00 -0500, JimH wrote:


Don't change the subject. GWB and his upper military brass were found
not guilty in the investigation.

In point of fact, an investigation couldn't have found them guilty. In
this country, only a trial can do that.

You are correct. I should have said "The recent investigation of Abu
Ghraib by Vice Admiral Albert Church found that GWB and his senior military
brass had no involvement in or knowledge of the prisoner abuses, as have the
previous 8 investigations in this matter.."

This will probably be investigated till the Democrats get the results they
are looking for....that Rumsfeld and Bush were aware of the abuses and
turned the other cheek.

Unfortunately for them, they will be spinning their wheels. ;-)


The Dems will try to hire Harry and Jimcomma.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


JimH wrote:


Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."

''''''Then why hasn't the Commander in Chief explained why he
failed to defend the country on 9-11-2001?'''''''


he is krause

your leader,, commander in chief is defending your country you fool,, you
criticize him all day long like a bad American that you are,, bad parent,,
bad husband,, bad son,,, bad liar,,,


krause you fool,, can you imagine if your Commander in Chief wasn't
defending you now??? lol,,, krause you fool,,,, ask the little darling what
to do krause,,,,













"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


JimH wrote:


Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but
perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God.
Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They
can't.


Hmmm. Is the Commander in Chief responsible for the defense of the
country? He is? Then why hasn't the Commander in Chief explained why he
failed to defend the country on 9-11-2001?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


JimH wrote:


Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."

Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



JimH wrote:


Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?
And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held
responsible.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



JimH wrote:


Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?
And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held
responsible.

Why would they have allowed you to do it?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:



On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




JimH wrote:


Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?

And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held
responsible.


Why would they have allowed you to do it?
They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just
as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the
abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know
what was happening.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:33:18 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:05:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:35:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:



On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:16:36 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




JimH wrote:


Should not commanders *KNOW* what their troops are doing?


*That* is a stupid question, Jimcomma. I know you're not stupid, but perhaps you
know little of command.

A commander is responsible for everything in his unit. They are not God. Whether
or not they *should* know everything their troops do is immaterial. They can't.

Did your parents know everything you did as a kid? Were you able to get away
with anything?

Your first line says it all

"A commander is responsible for everything in his unit."


Read the rest. Maybe you'll learn something. Answer the questions. After all,
your parents were also responsible for you. Remember?

And if I were to damage someones property, or such they would be held
responsible.


Why would they have allowed you to do it?
They wouldn't have permitted it -- but they would be responsible -- just
as commanders are responsible for their troops. And given the time the
abuse went on, I find it very hard to believe the commanders didn't know
what was happening.

If they wouldn't have permitted it, how could you possibly have done it, given
that they must have surely *KNOWN* what their child was doing?

As to responsibility, your parents may have been fiscally responsible when you
damaged someone's property, at least up to the deductible on their insurance.
But, were they punished when *you* got caught playing 'doctor' with little,
ten-year-old Mary Sue?

A week or so ago, a child (14?) shot a school bus driver. Surely the parents,
much closer to their kids than a commander to *his* kids, must have know the
child had a gun. Therefore, the parents should be sent to prison for allowing
the shooting to occur. Actually, the policies of the parents, allowing the child
to watch TV, probably encouraged the child to commit the shooting.

Your logic is nicely anti-administration and anti-military, but it is also
nicely twisted.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:02:30 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:50 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/...re2/print.html

Extract

On another subject, Karpinski said she had seen written orders to hold
a prisoner that the CIA had captured without keeping records. The
documents released by the ACLU quote an unnamed Army officer at Abu
Ghraib as saying military intelligence officers and the CIA worked out a
written agreement on how to handle unreported detainees. An Army report
issued last September said investigators could not find any copies of
any such written agreement.

Karpinski said Maj. Gen. Walter Wodjakowski, then the No. 2 Army
general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more
prisoners, even if they were innocent.

"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians. We're winning
the war," Karpinski said Wodjakowski told her. She said she replied:
"Not inside the wire, you're not, sir."



Hmmm..... A hearsay account claiming to have seen unverified military
documents on prisoners kept allegedly without records, quoting an
unnamed Army officer.

Yep, This sure smells credible...

Dave

Karpinski is a name -- former prison head

Wodjakowski then the No. 2 Army general in Iraq

More from the article you obviously didn't read

Military officials have acknowledged that some juvenile prisoners had
been held at Abu Ghraib, a massive prison built by Saddam Hussein's
government outside Baghdad. But the transcript is the first documented
evidence of a child no older than 11 being held prisoner.

The transcript of the May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages
of documents about Iraq prisoner abuses the group made public Thursday
after getting them under the Freedom of Information Act.


Do you believe that child participants in a war should be treated any
differently than their adult counterparts?

Dave

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:34:47 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:16:59 -0500, JimH wrote:


This will probably be investigated till the Democrats get the results they
are looking for....that Rumsfeld and Bush were aware of the abuses and
turned the other cheek.

Unfortunately for them, they will be spinning their wheels. ;-)

Time will tell. As we speak, Rumsfeld is being sued over the abuse. It
might be an interesting case to follow.

What's interesting is that some here feel more concern over the
treatment of enemy combatants, and the rights of enemy prisoners than
they are for our own soldiers.

I find it bordering on insanity, that at a time of war, there are
people looking to sue our leaders for the conduct of the war, and are
also seeking to criminally prosecute some of our soldiers for "murder"
when they are actively fighting an enemy. I mean, it's the job of
soldiers to kill the enemy. Duh!

It's like living in an episode of the Twilight Zone..........

Dave

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:44:21 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


What's interesting is that some here feel more concern over the treatment
of enemy combatants, and the rights of enemy prisoners than they are for
our own soldiers.

Dave, you are making the assumption that all detainees are
enemy combatants. They are not. Many are innocent citizens who were in
the wrong place at the wrong time. Even the government admits to this,
and has started to release many of those detainees.


I find it bordering on insanity, that at a time of war, there are people
looking to sue our leaders for the conduct of the war, and are also
seeking to criminally prosecute some of our soldiers for "murder" when
they are actively fighting an enemy. I mean, it's the job of soldiers to
kill the enemy. Duh!

Kill the enemy, yes, torture, rape, and murder, no. I am quite
sympathetic to the soldier in the field, who has to make an instant
decision. I would generally give that soldier the benefit of any doubt,
but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about
soldiers, in a relatively secure facility, abusing those placed in their
charge.

In case you haven't noticed, this bungling administration has made a
problem for itself. What to do with all those detainees in Guantanamo?
They don't have the evidence to charge them with any crime, so the plan is
to ship them off to countries that don't care about any rule of law. Just
lovely, they are hoping to sweep their incompetence under the rug.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4340921.stm


It's like living in an episode of the Twilight Zone..........

You might consider, how we treat our captives, reflects on us. Are we
civilized, or barbarians?

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:32:44 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

Do you believe that child participants in a war should be treated any
differently than their adult counterparts?

I would expect, all detainees to be treated according to the law. Guilty
until proven innocent just doesn't work here.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:21:57 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:32:44 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

Do you believe that child participants in a war should be treated any
differently than their adult counterparts?

I would expect, all detainees to be treated according to the law. Guilty
until proven innocent just doesn't work here.

This is a war. The people who are taken prisoner should be lucky they
weren't shot dead instead.

Dave

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:20:21 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:44:21 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


What's interesting is that some here feel more concern over the treatment
of enemy combatants, and the rights of enemy prisoners than they are for
our own soldiers.

Dave, you are making the assumption that all detainees are
enemy combatants. They are not. Many are innocent citizens who were in
the wrong place at the wrong time. Even the government admits to this,
and has started to release many of those detainees.

Based on what factual reports? Sure, in the act of waging war, a few
innocents are likely to be taken in error. But normally this is a
small minority of cases. If you have any facts that indicate
otherwise, please provide them.


I find it bordering on insanity, that at a time of war, there are people
looking to sue our leaders for the conduct of the war, and are also
seeking to criminally prosecute some of our soldiers for "murder" when
they are actively fighting an enemy. I mean, it's the job of soldiers to
kill the enemy. Duh!

Kill the enemy, yes, torture, rape, and murder, no.

So killing is less objectionable to torture?

Besides, where are the facts to back up that any prisoners were truly
"tortured" (Which means acts that go beyond simple humiliation),
raped, or "murdered" (Wait, I though it was ok to kill the enemy?).


I am quite
sympathetic to the soldier in the field, who has to make an instant
decision. I would generally give that soldier the benefit of any doubt,
but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about
soldiers, in a relatively secure facility, abusing those placed in their
charge.

Since all we have are biased reports trying to serve their respective
agendas, I'd say we really know very little factual information on
what actually happened.


In case you haven't noticed, this bungling administration has made a
problem for itself. What to do with all those detainees in Guantanamo?
They don't have the evidence to charge them with any crime, so the plan is
to ship them off to countries that don't care about any rule of law. Just
lovely, they are hoping to sweep their incompetence under the rug.

How is the shipping of criminal detainees back to their countries of
origin, an example of "bungling"?




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4340921.stm


It's like living in an episode of the Twilight Zone..........

You might consider, how we treat our captives, reflects on us. Are we
civilized, or barbarians?

We're not the ones cutting off people's heads and dragging the bodies
through the streets and hanging them up for all to see.

And you have to consider that what was reported on what we "allegedly"
did, was exaggerated for propaganda purposes. So far there is little
hard evidence that anyone other than a few renegade officers did
anything inappropriate considering the nature of this war, and the
tactics needed to gain valuable information.

Physical torture is probably not something to be proud of. But
psychological "conditioning" is perfectly ok in my book, if it leads
to gaining information which either helps us achieve our objective or
prevents our troops from being killed.

Dave

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:35:18 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:21:57 -0500, thunder
wrote:


On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:32:44 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


Do you believe that child participants in a war should be treated any
differently than their adult counterparts?

I would expect, all detainees to be treated according to the law. Guilty
until proven innocent just doesn't work here.


This is a war. The people who are taken prisoner should be lucky they
weren't shot dead instead.

Dave



*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short order,
and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.


You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:35:18 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:21:57 -0500, thunder
wrote:


On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:32:44 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


Do you believe that child participants in a war should be treated any
differently than their adult counterparts?

I would expect, all detainees to be treated according to the law.
Guilty
until proven innocent just doesn't work here.


This is a war. The people who are taken prisoner should be lucky they
weren't shot dead instead.

Dave



*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short order,
and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.


You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.

Do you think it would make Krause happy if we said we were just doing what
the Syrian's have done in Lebanon? We occupied Iraq to prevent a Civil War
and we are putting people sympathetic to us in the new government we formed.

*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short order,
and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.


Dave Hall wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.


What's wrong with the above statements? Minus the invective (which you
certainly indulge in yourself) it is 100% accurate.

We invaded Iraq.

What were the reasons? WMDs? Fallacious from the git-go. Involvement
with the Sept 11th attack? Cooperation with Al-Queda? Equally
fallacious. The UN resolutions about disarming? Iraq offered proof that
they *had* disarmed, which turned out to be correct, but rejected by the
Bush Administration with *no* attempt at diplomacy... nor was there any
serious attempt at getting UN backing to "enforce" this resolution.

Them's the facts.

We defeated Iraq's armed forces, deposed it's gov't, and are still
occupying the country. There was a *lot* of advice given the Bushies
about what the aftermath of the invasion would be like, all of it
ignored, all of it depressingly accurate... in fact Rumsfeld was even
disengenuous enough to insist (self-contradictorily in the way
ubiquitous among Bushies) that the advice was wrong and he never got it
anyway... and that our Commander-In-Chief insisted almost 2 years and
1200 deaths ago that 'major combat operations are over"...

Them's the facts.

DSK

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:45:32 -0500, DSK wrote:

*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short order,
and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.


Dave Hall wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.


What's wrong with the above statements? Minus the invective (which you
certainly indulge in yourself) it is 100% accurate.

We invaded Iraq.

What were the reasons? WMDs? Fallacious from the git-go. Involvement
with the Sept 11th attack? Cooperation with Al-Queda? Equally
fallacious. The UN resolutions about disarming? Iraq offered proof that
they *had* disarmed, which turned out to be correct, but rejected by the
Bush Administration with *no* attempt at diplomacy... nor was there any
serious attempt at getting UN backing to "enforce" this resolution.

Them's the facts.

No, they're not. The fact that WMD were not YET found does not mean
that they were never there. No one ever said that Iraq was directly
involved in 9/11. But they do have contacts with terrorists. The fact
that Iraq disregarded UN resolutions (which they signed to end the
Gulf war) put them in default, and subjected them to a resolution of
that war.

Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.

Those are the facts.


We defeated Iraq's armed forces, deposed it's gov't, and are still
occupying the country. There was a *lot* of advice given the Bushies
about what the aftermath of the invasion would be like, all of it
ignored, all of it depressingly accurate... in fact Rumsfeld was even
disengenuous enough to insist (self-contradictorily in the way
ubiquitous among Bushies) that the advice was wrong and he never got it
anyway... and that our Commander-In-Chief insisted almost 2 years and
1200 deaths ago that 'major combat operations are over"...

Them's the facts.

Those are distortions. At the core is factual information. The
conclusions based on them are disingenuous.

No one said that this war would be easy or short. The fact that it's
still going on is not an indication of failure. We spent more time
rebuilding Germany and Japan after WWII.

THOSE are the facts.


Dave

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:53:00 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:

DSK wrote:
*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short
order, and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and
passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.



Dave Hall wrote:

You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.


What's wrong with the above statements? Minus the invective (which you
certainly indulge in yourself) it is 100% accurate.

We invaded Iraq.

What were the reasons? WMDs? Fallacious from the git-go. Involvement
with the Sept 11th attack? Cooperation with Al-Queda? Equally
fallacious. The UN resolutions about disarming? Iraq offered proof that
they *had* disarmed, which turned out to be correct, but rejected by the
Bush Administration with *no* attempt at diplomacy... nor was there any
serious attempt at getting UN backing to "enforce" this resolution.

Them's the facts.

We defeated Iraq's armed forces, deposed it's gov't, and are still
occupying the country. There was a *lot* of advice given the Bushies
about what the aftermath of the invasion would be like, all of it
ignored, all of it depressingly accurate... in fact Rumsfeld was even
disengenuous enough to insist (self-contradictorily in the way
ubiquitous among Bushies) that the advice was wrong and he never got it
anyway... and that our Commander-In-Chief insisted almost 2 years and
1200 deaths ago that 'major combat operations are over"...

Them's the facts.

DSK



According to Bert Robbins, we invaded Iraq to prevent a civil war there.
That's apparently the latest excuse.

That's not why we went there. But it's part of the reason why we're
still there.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:45:32 -0500, DSK wrote:


*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short order,
and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.

Dave Hall wrote:

You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.


What's wrong with the above statements? Minus the invective (which you
certainly indulge in yourself) it is 100% accurate.

We invaded Iraq.

What were the reasons? WMDs? Fallacious from the git-go. Involvement
with the Sept 11th attack? Cooperation with Al-Queda? Equally
fallacious. The UN resolutions about disarming? Iraq offered proof that
they *had* disarmed, which turned out to be correct, but rejected by the
Bush Administration with *no* attempt at diplomacy... nor was there any
serious attempt at getting UN backing to "enforce" this resolution.

Them's the facts.

per the neo-con textbook


No, they're not. The fact that WMD were not YET found does not mean
that they were never there.

We know they were there because we sold them to them. the fact that
they were deteriorated beyond use is immaterial (I'm talking Chemical
weapons)

No one ever said that Iraq was directly
involved in 9/11. But they do have contacts with terrorists.

And there's a picture of Chaney shaking hands with Saddam -- so
following your logic, WE had contact with terrorists also

The fact
that Iraq disregarded UN resolutions (which they signed to end the
Gulf war) put them in default, and subjected them to a resolution of
that war.

In which case the UN should be fighting the war.

Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.

Umm -- The inspectors were back. The US advised them to leave prior to
the bombing.

Those are the facts.
Per the neo-con textbook


We defeated Iraq's armed forces, deposed it's gov't, and are still
occupying the country. There was a *lot* of advice given the Bushies
about what the aftermath of the invasion would be like, all of it
ignored, all of it depressingly accurate... in fact Rumsfeld was even
disengenuous enough to insist (self-contradictorily in the way
ubiquitous among Bushies) that the advice was wrong and he never got it
anyway... and that our Commander-In-Chief insisted almost 2 years and
1200 deaths ago that 'major combat operations are over"...

Them's the facts.

Per the neo-con textbook


Those are distortions. At the core is factual information. The
conclusions based on them are disingenuous.

No one said that this war would be easy or short.

"We will be greeted with cheers and flowers" Rummy said he had plenty
of troops. The "election" was delayed a year to try to settle things down.

The fact that it's
still going on is not an indication of failure. We spent more time
rebuilding Germany and Japan after WWII.

Rebuilding is about as far away from fighting insurgents as I can imagine.

THOSE are the facts as recorded by history!

THOSE are the facts.


Dave