May 17, 2005: Pentagon Spokesman Lies to Press
May 17, 2005: Pentagon Spokesman Lies to Press
During a 5/17 press conference, Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita was asked about the mistreatment of the Koran by guards and interrogators at Guantanamo Bay. DiRita replied:
[W]hen a specific, credible allegation of this nature were to be received, we would take it quite seriously. But we’ve not seen specific, credible allegations.
Now, we learn that there were at least five confirmed incidents of Koran mistreatment. We’ve also learned this from Brigadier General Jay Hood via the Washington Post:
[A] soldier was reassigned after one recent accidental mishandling of the Koran, and another soldier faced an unspecified disciplinary action for an incident some time ago.
This proves DiRita’s statement was completely false. Not only have there been credible allegations of Koran mistreatment but those allegations were substantiated and at least one individual was punished.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Am shocked; just shocked. Can you imagine a person of responsibility lying like that? Ha! Business as ususal with our “leaders”.
May 27th, 2005 at 9:34 amI’m sure they will weasel out on a technicality: “By ‘this nature’ we meant flushing the Koran down a toilet.”
May 27th, 2005 at 9:59 amJudd,
When somethig like this is exposed, what do you guys do with the information? Is this passed on to the press? Is a letter written or a phone call made to the offender in person?
I appreciate what yu guys do, and I tell all my friends and family to visit this site. Once it is out there though is anythig done with the information to push change?
Thank you.
May 27th, 2005 at 10:57 amSorry for all the typos!
May 27th, 2005 at 11:00 amHow do you flush a book down a toilet, anyway? It would have to be some toilet. Now DROPPING a book in a toilet, that’s possible- but that wouldn’t be “of this nature.”
May 27th, 2005 at 11:08 amI am so sick of the lying that is being done by this administration. They put a spin on everything, yet they are not held accountable.
May 27th, 2005 at 11:16 amWhen will we demand accountability for these actions?
How do you flush a book down a toilet, anyway?
A page at a time.
May 27th, 2005 at 11:33 am
Accountability just has to start with the press. Unless things like this get reported in the nation’s newspapers and on the TV national news, they are like the tree that falls in the forest with no one there to hear it – absolute silence.
May 27th, 2005 at 11:35 amI’m thinking they don’t have flushable toilets – just buckets. That’s why the Bush WH can deny “flushing”. Wake up, press!
May 27th, 2005 at 11:42 amThe Apology Scorecard is still unchanged:
- Newsweek: 1
May 27th, 2005 at 11:51 am- CBS News: 1
- Bush Team: 0
I wonder why no outrage about this:
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200505\FOR20050523b.html
Probably the same reason why there was no outrage about the 1.2 million folks killed by Saddam or the gays murdered in the Gulf states or crimes commited against women in the Islamic world. Simply, concern for human life, religious freedom and human rights only exists on the Left when it helps to score rhetorical points. Otherwise, they can’t muster the moral courage or convictions to do or say anything.
May 27th, 2005 at 12:21 pmEverybody points out, and complains, but nothing gets done. When is this country going to realize we have been abducted?
May 27th, 2005 at 12:34 pm“Probably the same reason why there was no outrage about the 1.2 million folks killed by Saddam or the gays murdered in the Gulf states or crimes commited against women in the Islamic world. Simply, concern for human life, religious freedom and human rights only exists on the Left when it helps to score rhetorical points. Otherwise, they can’t muster the moral courage or convictions to do or say anything”
I believe there has been little outrage over the Saudis destroying Bibles because the White House decided to turn this into a jihad against Newsweek rather than a fight against terrorism. Obviously the answer to terrorism is to cease support of its regimes… SAUDI ARABIA anyone? And you blame the left for our leaderships refusal to call the Saudis to task? Blame the perptrator my friend. It’s not Newsweek’s fault that we’re in bed with a monarchy in the Middle East.
May 27th, 2005 at 12:36 pmAnne,
A novel idea for you and others to consider: Why not offer the American people some solutions? Conspiracy theories, hatred of Bush and Republicans, nauseating sympathy for the enemies of our nation– these are not solutions. Come on, give us something, anything resembling a solution to the challenges confronting our society! Tell us how we confront a society and culture that has indoctrinated their children to hate and glorify the killing of infidels for the past 50 years. What do we do? That is the question unanswered by the Left. Let us know what you would do and we’ll finally have a real debate.
May 27th, 2005 at 12:44 pmTDB,
I actually agree that we should change our relationship with Saudi Arabia. We should have changed it during Clinton and Reagan and Carter and Nixon and Kennedy. Every administration over the past 50 years has stood silent as they exported their totalitarian ideology around the globe– and cultivated a terrorist mentality (along with Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc). How do we do this? That is the question. Do we decide its better to endure economic collapse and immediately cut ties with this nation? If so, sell that idea to the American public. Should we simply exert greater pressure and maintain our relationship? If so, what constitutes greater pressure? For the good of this nation, give us your plan for the short and long term.
My point is that the Left, although not to blame exclusively for crimes commited by Mideast totalitarians, refuses to confront these totalitarians. No protests. No plan of action and no outrage. Yes, this would have been an issue that helped Democrats had they possessed moral authority on this issue…or any issue.
May 27th, 2005 at 12:58 pmOnce you Americans stop and realize that patriotism is not a religion you will realize your sins. Otherwise, wait until the day of Judgement and see if that stupid flag with the stars and bars protect you from the hellfire!!!
May 27th, 2005 at 1:44 pmProud NOT to be an American,
What exactly are our sins and what religion should we accept? Just curious.
May 27th, 2005 at 1:51 pmOk. Cannon, some ideas for a “real” debate. Stop lying about why we went to war and let’s assess where we are at, why we are there, and what we are trying to do. If we can have “real” information about what is going in Iraq, perhaps we can “really” discuss how to get us out. Our idea? Get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Our problem? What is the status of our occupation and does the administration even want to get out. If so, then why are we building 4 permanent bases (possibly more)? Where is 8.8 billion of our tax dollars flagged for reconstruction, because if you don’t want it in Iraq, I know of a few schools, sewer systems, and other infrastructure in THIS country that could use it. Here’s an idea. Stop blocking an investigation into where that money went, because that might allow us to recover it and use it.
More ideas? Social Security? Raise the exemption level from $90,000 to $140,000, which will solve the entire alleged “problem” without the need for a multi-trillion dollar ponzi privatization scheme. Stop claiming that the Treasury bills in the little file cabinet are worthless I.O.U.’s. You do realize that we are selling those same I.O.U.’s to China to support this war, right? Do you want China to call in our debt because we keep claiming our I.O.U.’s are worthless? Here is an idea: if the treasury bonds are worthless, I will happily buy them off of you for a few cents on the dollar, I don’t want you to have to take a total loss? No?
Environment? Re-fund the enforcement division of the EPA, so that companies will have some (small) reason to comply with Environmental Standards, which should be raised not lowered. You may recall when Bush came into office he gutted the enforcement division of the EPA, calling a halt to investigations already in progress against many of his, and Cheney’s, friendly energy buddies. Also, it might be a good idea to go back to the days where we had standards and enforced them. Might be a better idea not to have the energy industry, and that industry alone, draft our environmental standards. That would be a “real” debate, wouldn’t it? Stem Cells? Let’s stop claiming that stem cell research relates to embryos which will grow to be children. That is an intellectually dishonest argument. First of all, the line of stem cells recently granted federal funds (assuming no veto), are not strictly even embryos – and they are generated mainly by parents during in vitro attempts. Shouldn’t it be the decision of the parents whether the “extraâ€? cells should be used to advance research or simply tossed into the medical waste. Ok. What other “real” issues do you want? The economy? Stop taxing the middle and lower class to support taxes on the upper class – repeal the 2nd of Bush’s upper class tax cuts (which even he originally balked at before Rove’s mantra of “don’t waiver” finally corrupted the lone few reasonable presidential synapses left). Stop pandering the Credit Card industry and repeal that recent abusive Bankruptcy law, or, at least, hold corporations to the same (or even similar) standards – though, that might effect United’s ability to shaft their employees of their pensions – which shouldn’t have any industry-wide effect, right? Of course, the United employees should have known that negotiating for pensions by giving up current salary was not really an arm’s length negotiation. Not with Bush appointed judges waiting in the wings to avoid any “activismâ€? on the issue. Ok. Judges. Stop referring to all judges with whom you disagree as “activistâ€? judges and realize that the entire concept of privacy is a court supported concept. You can look, but “privacyâ€? does not exist anywhere in the Constitution or even the Bill of Rights – but then neither did rights for minorities and women. And, I think that most people do enjoy the concept (if not the actual fact of ) privacy. Please explain to me how a judge is being an “activistâ€? by upholding a Florida spousal-consent law, and not an “activistâ€? when interpreting the Constitution/Bill of Rights NOT to contain an inherent separation of church and state. Ok. Idea. Stop claiming that you are “strict constructionists,â€? when really you are only “strictlyâ€? self serving. The founding fathers were very clear about church and state, within the formal documents and certainly within their supporting documents and subsequent language. If we are to read the only the words themselves, then we should push the country back to the time of slavery, and get those uppity women back into the kitchens where they belong.
May 27th, 2005 at 2:08 pmAny more real debate?
MalteseSM….bravo.
May 27th, 2005 at 2:13 pmOK, you didn’t answer the question of what to do about a society/culture that has taught its children to negate themselves and their future to kill infidels (you and I) for the past 50 years. This is where terrorism comes from. Give me a solution to this and I’ll trust your leaders with this nation. Just one question to answer. A wish list that ignores this challenge will be rejected. It has been rejected. Come on now, just one solution to one problem. If you can do this, maybe I’ll trust you and your ideas on the other topics you’ve brought up.
May 27th, 2005 at 2:16 pmI will be happy to answer the question. It is a serious problem. The main reason we became a target of the “50 years” of resentment is because of our malleable and self serving foreign policy in the region over the past (at least) 40 years. The reason we were attacked on 9/11 (according to the people who attacked us – read – not Iraq), was, in large part, because we had acquired a seemingly permanent physical presence in Saudi Arabia (read – military bases). Ultimately, our interest in the region over the past 40 years has been entirely economic. We want to control the oil. Ok. Here is a solution. Give them their oil and leave. Solution on our side of the lake: reduce our dependence on their oil. If we are dedicated to their “freedom,” let them run with it, without our control. There are tons of multinational companies and pseudo-governmental entities that are willing (and well qualified) to teach the Iraqi people and leaders how to run a democracy. Do that. Stop throwing more and more weapons into the area. Remember, we are the ones who sold Sadam much of his armament (to fight Iran). We even gave him some of the much touted chemical weapons. As for Bin Ladin, he worked for the CIA in Afghanistan, before we pulled out early and left them at the hands of the Soviets. That is where Bin Ladin – Al Q. terrorism – came from. That is where his hatred of us developed.
May 27th, 2005 at 2:45 pmSo, the answer to your question is simple. Stop pretending we care about freedom in the middle east, when all we have really cared about was protecting our oil interests. The people of the middle east can tell the difference in our actions. Give the oil back to the Iraqi people, get out of Iraq and give them their government, offer all the training and consultation they want to learn how to do it, and then… most importantly – get out. Fully, this time, get out. No more troops on the ground. We cannot pretend any longer. Make it clear, we will not maintain a physical presence in their land any longer, as a pretense to control their one commodity, and our one real interest. We will all the provide humanitarian aid and consulting their new government can handle.
The only way to overcome your “50 years” is to change our “40 years” of poor policy and self serving ideology. As with fascism, the more you attempt to control, the more you create hatred. Certainly, we are not internally fascist, but our foreign policy can be viewed as such, by people on the receiving end thereof. True freedom requires trust, doesn’t it?
Get out and trust them to do their own thing. What will they have to hate us for? History lingers, but fades… A change today becomes new history tomorrow.
Maltese, much of this was explained to CY in a previous post and I can tell you his response will be along the lines of: yeah, if you believe the state run media (i.e Al-Jazeera).
Too predictable.
May 27th, 2005 at 2:53 pmJay. Thanks for the update, I have arrived late to this debate. But, obviously, it felt good to get it out…
May 27th, 2005 at 2:59 pmYour post was succinct, cogent and truthful. Come again soon.
May 27th, 2005 at 3:07 pm’tis a lovely place.
Thanks.
May 27th, 2005 at 3:13 pmWell said Maltese. It is beyond comprehension how some people who appear to be articulate can be so mindnumbingly stupid. I think that many of these posters are paid shrills from the CIA who try to spread propoganda talking points on every left-leaning blog they can find. It is eerie how some of them repeat the same tired reasoning over and over. After reading hundereds of blogs and comments over the years this pattern has been repeated ad nausium. Maybe they are trying to waste our time responding to their BS? It makes you wonder….
May 27th, 2005 at 3:23 pmFreedog
Any body have Larry DiRita’s email…we should “call his bluff”
May 27th, 2005 at 3:42 pmWhy do people like Cannon Yonts fail to see the difference between atrocities committed by foreign governments and atrocities committed by our own? And that’s the whole difference I’m referring to: ‘foreign’ v. ‘our own’. Which set of atrocities should we rightly focus on?
May 27th, 2005 at 4:53 pmWord – Shep.
May 27th, 2005 at 5:05 pmTotalitarians do not teach hate because they feel injustice. Totalitarians teach and cultivate hate because it keeps them in power. Thats how totalitarianism works and is what the Left fails to address. As soon as these regimes stop selling hate and allow their people to look internally, they are lost. They know this. That is why teaching 1st graders that infidels should be killed, are the source of all their problems and that self-negation is better than developing their futures is the rule, not the exception. People who develop their futures don’t want or need totalitarian dictators.
Also, why were we in Saudi Arabia? Oh yeah, to protect them from Saddam. Hmmmm…interesting. With Saddam gone we are out of the Kingdom. Also, before Bush…when did we pretend to promote freedom and democracy in the region? We didn’t becuase liberal and conservative, democrat and republican thought it served our interest to prop up dictators. The mistake is not promoting basic freedom and human rights…the mistake was not doing this. What your telling me is that you don’t believe that Arabs are capable or smart enough or civilized enough to have individual freedom and human rights…That’s exactly what their totalitarian leaders say.
Your arguements are based on a faulty understanding of totalitarianism and a belief that those who hate enough to sacrifice their children to make a meagre political point can hate us more. Let me say clearly, those who would rather create suicide bombers than skilled, potent human beings cannot hate any more. Its like saying they are more pregnant. What you’ve offered is, at best, a description of symptoms that implies you’d prefer we trust in the good intentions of totalitarians (like Saddam). You have not addressed the disease. For this reason, what you offer is not only unacceptable for the US but for those suffering under totalitarianism as well.
Finally, if all we wanted was Iraqi oil…we could have gotten it at a deep, deep discount. Saddam would have loved to have been our bitch…he aspired to be our bitch. To say we went into Iraq for oil is pure ignorance and propaganda. If that were our goal, there is smarter ways to do so…without sacrificing one American life.
May 27th, 2005 at 6:20 pmSo, cannon mounts, are you loving thy enemy so hard because you have no desire for power?
May 27th, 2005 at 7:12 pmHeh Cannon,
“Finally, if all we wanted was Iraqi oil…we could have gotten it at a deep, deep discount. Saddam would have loved to have been our bitch…he aspired to be our bitch.”
That’s a rather naive yet fairly common rapist’s defense. Replace “oil” with “sex” and “Saddam” with “the victim” and see if it sounds familiar. Nice try anyway.
Cheers
May 27th, 2005 at 8:32 pmCY – The Bush mafia don’t want to BUY cheap oil, they want to SELL expensive oil. Steal it, own it, sell it. Not to mention control its flow.
And you think the rabid right currently running this country does NOT preach hate??
May 27th, 2005 at 8:47 pmfranc and other sychophants,
Most Iraqis (70-80%)– you know the ones whom you and the Left didn’t care for as they were murdered, raped and tortured by Saddam — might disagree. Certainly, the Shiites, Marsh Arabs and Kurds would have a few problems with your belief they should have continued under totalitarian rule…Oops, they don’t matter cause they don’t help your pathetic political identity (you know, the one rejected by American voters each election). Anyhow, why not just propose returning Saddam to power? If the US was wrong, wouldn’t this be the correct course of action? Come on now, have your party advocate the return of Saddam — the “legitimate” ruler of Iraq. My guess is none of you have the intellectual courage for that, although it is certainly a logical progression of your thought process.
Shep,
“CY – The Bush mafia don’t want to BUY cheap oil, they want to SELL expensive oil. Steal it, own it, sell it. Not to mention control its flow.”
Yes, we should put Saddam back in power –the “legitimate” owner of Iraq’s oil. Great idea! He was so efficient at sharing the resources of Iraq with Iraqis. Its only fair, is it not?
“And you think the rabid right currently running this country does NOT preach hate?? ”
So far they haven’t decided that the lives of their children are best spent strapping bombs to themselves. They don’t kill the fellow ideolgues to protest the shredding of the Bible and persecution of Christians throughout the Arab world. They don’t advocate nuking Mecca (as Immans have blessed nuking a US city). They don’t tell their followers to murder or imprison gays. They don’t kill a couple hundred folks because of a beauty pagent or a few hundred thousand (Sudan, Uganda, etc).
May 27th, 2005 at 10:31 pmOK, if the progressives and those running this site want to place an ad calling for returning Saddam to power, I will help with the funding. Honestly, if we were wrong to remove Saddam– why would we not be right in returning the status quo? To demand anything less would be hypocrisy.
May 27th, 2005 at 10:39 pm“To demand anything less would be hypocrisy.” – CY
To rant self-righteously about undoing history is simple-minded posturing (at best). Platitudes and rhetorical questions — the right wing method of persuasion. Sadly, it fools most of the people most of the time, including its protaganists. But not forever, thank god.
May 27th, 2005 at 10:57 pmShep,
If it were not right to remove Saddam, why not put him back in power? Its called a logical progression. If the war was illigitimate, then Saddam is the legitimate leader of Iraq…and should be reinstalled. Anything less would be a concession that the war in Iraq has validity or that you lack intellectual integrity regarding your convictions…or that you actually have no conviction– only the empty rage of a political identity. Which is it? Was Saddam the legitimate ruler or not?
May 27th, 2005 at 11:05 pmIs Saddam still the legitimate ruler or not?
May 27th, 2005 at 11:06 pmWhenever I see that Larry DiRita is making a statement, I have learned to assume he’s telling lies. It’s what he does best.
May 27th, 2005 at 11:33 pm“Whenever I see that Larry DiRita is making a statement, I have learned to assume he’s telling lies. It’s what he does best. ”
Wow! This is the depth of debate? This is the intellect that can push America forward? Character assumptions and catchy zingers that are both mediocre in style and substance. Come now, at least strive to do better than some poor schmuk writing propaganda for a state-run media outlet. That’s not the best that so-called progressives offer, is it? Why not answer the question?
Is Saddam still the legitimate ruler or not?
May 27th, 2005 at 11:49 pmSaddam WAS the legitimate ruler, yes. Do you disagree with that? Now, if you are saying nobody who is not elected can ever be legitimate, then you are making up your own rules. Fine, but Saddam WAS accepted as the legitmate ruler of Iraq by the other nations of the world, including, need I remind you, the good ol’ US of A, who armed him, etc.
Now, is he still the legitmate ruler? No, I don’t think I’d go that far. Whether the invasion was legal or not (and it most definitely was not — do you disagree with that?), he was deposed, so a new set of realities is in place. Admitting that our invasion was illegal does not logically lead to reinstating Saddam, unless you persist in being simple-minded just to score points (which you so obviously do, based on all the above, even if you might happen agree with this particicular contention).
We need to reinstate Saddam either to admit to our horrid mistake nor to do what’s best for Iraq now, under this new Bush-created reality. Let’s deal with the facts, CY, not just rhetorical ploys.
May 28th, 2005 at 3:00 amWhoops. That last paragraph should have started …
We DON’T need to reinstate Saddam ….
Bit of a difference, heh?
May 28th, 2005 at 3:24 amWe don’t want to push america forward. It’s on the wrong road. You are the new radical sycophants., and “sycophant” is a word whose meaning you are not familiar with, it’s one of many words you misuse. We are the new conservatives, standing athwart history, yelling “Stop!” and willing to do anything to ensure that radical sycophants such as yourself, are stopped, once and for all, this time. I don’t happen to be at work, so I won’t wish you a nice weekend. Have a nice stroke, and die once, because an idjit like you will never wake up and die right.
May 28th, 2005 at 4:48 am“Also, why were we in Saudi Arabia? Oh yeah, to protect them from Saddam.”
“Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.
But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html
“Iraq has reopened its border crossing with Saudi Arabia for the first time since it was shut after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. ” oct 31. 2002
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2382751.stm
That, along with other lies (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=120) explained our first attack on Iraq, which then enabled us to put bases in Saudi Arabia, which was Al Qaeda’s primary complaint. More than anything, that caused 9-11.
Which leads me to now ask “why are we in Iraq?” The fact that the citizens of the most powerful democracy in the world literally can’t explain why we are at war is staggering. While humanitarian causes are an easy sell (think of all the Polish and Austrians “liberated” way back when), it is naive to think that states behave that way.
A good way to tell a just war from an unjust- “Would I be willing to sacrifice myself or my children for this?”
May 28th, 2005 at 7:36 am“Admitting that our invasion was illegal does not logically lead to reinstating Saddam”
OK, so everyone’s good with the hypocrisy that Saddam should not be reinstated as the legitimate ruler of Iraq– since the invasion was illigitimate? I don’t agree it was illigitimate since he violated terms of thye cease fire numerous times (unless international law should not be enforced). On this point, I join Democrats like Lieberman and Kerry (before he tried to cuddle with Leftist who assured his defeat in the general election).
At any rate, I wish all of you good luck in convincing the electorate that you should be in a position of power. Sure, I personally don’t see how insulting those who disagree with you, aligning with our nations enemies and making villians of those who protect us will help in this regard– but perhaps the public will learn to value this political identity more than their children or intellectual integrity. Maybe oneday, I can work with you folks again like I did during the Clinton era. Those were fun, exciting days where things seemed much clearer and the choices less existential.
Best wishes.
May 28th, 2005 at 9:20 amWhat do we ‘do’ about a totalitarian culture like radical Islam?
We do what we, as a culture, had been doing up until the Bushevikii came in: we hold out an example to them: a just, free, prosperous society. We welcome Islamic immigrants, let them build their mosques and practice their religion, let them make money, let them see the people on the street greet them with friendship and good feeling, show them the wonders and dselights of a secular society, and allow them to return to their homelands, either for visits or permanently–or just give them Internet connections. If the stern macho patriarchs feel themselves immune, their wives and children are far less so. We increase the numbers of Islamic adherents who may love Allah but also love L.A., who pray and fast but also remember their friends in America.
That’s how we win against a culture. With our virtues.
But the Right says fight them with the weapons they understand: brutality, hysteria, cultural supremacism, and righteous anger.
In the short term that can stop people, topple regimes, shift political power–or would if we didn’t fuck it up in the process.
But we’ve thrown away all our advantages culturally. Where we were the America of mosques and malls and iPods and pizza delivery, now we’re the America of Gitmo and Abu Ghreib and Fallujah and ordinary young Americans in body armor killing people and using the term ‘hajji’ as a term of bigoted derision.
During all the periods of tension, what always emerged was that, however folks in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Islamic world felt about our government, ordinary Americans were held in genuine affection.
Now, thanks to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, people are beginning to learn to hate ordinary Americans.
“War” is a terrible thing in reality–and the most dangerous and stupid of metaphors. If we are to have a ‘cultural war’, what the Right just doesn’t get is that the only weapons that really work are the ones the other side doesn’t understand.
May 28th, 2005 at 9:40 amDoes this sound familiar
From the Britanica: Definition for Fasciism
Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state’s authority, and harsh suppression of dissent.
Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and ’30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems.
Is there anyone out there that thought Saddam was a good thing? Let’s hear from you.
The problem with blog arguments are the absolutes. Against the war? You must love Saddam! Against the war? You must be against the troops! Stop listening to Fox and Rush and start actually wanting what’s best for our democracy.
May 28th, 2005 at 9:58 amI think it’s about time to remind Mr. Yonts that the stated reason for invading Iraq was to destroy hte WMD NOT topple Saddam. This idea came up when they couldn’t find any WMD which came as no surprise seeing as how the lying cabal in the White house knew all the time no such existed. And as for Saddam’s violation of the cease fire a number of times please explain to me why we have not invaded Isreal seeing they have defied and violated any number of cease fire agreements along with numerous UN resolutions. And just when are you going down to the recruting office Mr. Yont? America needs you!
May 28th, 2005 at 11:24 am“If you are saying nobody who is not elected can ever be legitimate…”, you are absolutely right. Bush is attributed at least one stolen election, and perpetuated fraud in another. Sorry, no legitimacy there. Would they, who misshaped, distorted, and formed false intelligence around lies to bring us into war, be willing to sacrifice themselves or their children for this? Of course not! But they are more than willing to sacrifice my children, and those of other middle class and poor, especially the poor, to this action which the world is beginning to recognize as a farce.
May 28th, 2005 at 11:47 am“Stop listening to Fox an Rush”. This administration and repub party are so very quick to blame their problems on the “liberal press” MSM, but don’t tell you they are owned by Rupert Murdoch, Clear Channel Communications, etc. etc., which are as far to the right as they can get. Liberal press my ass. If the press were liberal, they would be asking the hard questions and “pressing” for real answers, not the propaganda and runaround we get over and over by the bushies and posters like CY, Slapshot, and Tony. Bush admitted as much himself saying it was the job of someone in his position to keep repeating things until they were beleived as truth. To propogate the PROPAGANDA.
Another thing. electronic balloting. Widely used in the 2004 election. The CEO’s of the three companies providing EB machines have been revealed to be Bush rangers or pioneers or whatever they call them, who gave large sums of monies to the re-election campaign of Bush. How convenient it must be to have a system which can be manipulted, deleted or changed, which also has no backup. Comal county TX. 3 repubs each handily won their election by 18,881 votes respectively. Oh, but that’s just coincidence. After a questionable election in Georgia, the hard drive of an EB machine was dissected by a university there where they discovered a file called “ROB GEORGIA”
Bush. Legitimacy? Repubs. Legitimacy?
PROVE IT!!!
The argument that leftist=hypocrite since they don’t want to see Saddam returned is a logical fallacy. The fallacy is that any good result of an action validates that action. Likewise, if a nuclear holocaust killed everyone in Mexico, would you chide us as hypocits with “well, do you want to bring back cancer to Mexico?”
Likewise, would you have supported, say, Turkey invading the US during the 1840s to liberate our slaves?
Is it possible that our leaders lied to us to go into a war? If a democrat had done the same, is there any doubt that the right would be livid?
May 28th, 2005 at 12:55 pmCY – You’re running away now? Too bad. If you do come back, it’d be good if you could address some of the many as-yet-unanswered questions and counterpoints sent your way by many of us here, rather than simply repeat your talking points. Uh, their talking points I mean.
I love your stated ‘respect for int’l law’ in support of the Bush invasion! Yikes, if that notion rolling around in your brain a bit doesn’t jolt you back to your senses, nothing will.
May 28th, 2005 at 2:50 pmShow me some points to address besides I’m an extremist or right-winger or sychophant of Rush or other nonesense and I’ll consider. Also, I won’t defend the administration on every social, economic and character issue. That’s not my job and I have a certain discomfort defending what I don’t agree with in the first place. Moreover, I’ve decided its counter productive to spend time in an imaginary debate with those who are incapable of any compromise and/or that have nothing to offer that I couldn’t find on CounterPunch or other anti-American, Leftist sites. My goal is to better develop my own beliefs and convictions and understanding, not to contunally bang my head against the wall of someone’s political identity. These folks are politically irrelevant and deservedly so (along with groups like the KKK orChristian Identity on the right) and I have no desire to provide them with a sense of relevance by considering/responding to their loony, hate driven, repulsive worldview. What your political cause (if it is a cause rather than a way to pass time or mere identity) needs is not to demonstrate intolerance to those who share another view other than your own– while sharing many other views in common. That’s how you become irrelevant, at best, and a side-show in the great American circus, at worst. My guess is that many zealots and ideologues among progressives push 10 folks to the other side for every one person they “convert”.
May 28th, 2005 at 5:53 pmCY – if you’re still here, and you want to continue this dialog a bit more, i’d like to take some time to write a response to your emails. you seem like a genuinely inquiring and open person and i appreciate that in ‘the other side’. it’s a trait we all could use a lot more of these days. but here’s the thing: i have to go out of town for a few days. if you respond and tell me you’ll check back in 4-5 days, i’ll give you a more thoughtful summary response to continue our dialog for a while, see if we can find some common understanding if not agreement. you up for that?
if you don’t want to wait that longt, or just feel done with this discussion, that’s cool, i completely understand. best of luck in any case.
May 29th, 2005 at 2:42 am- shep
How kind of CY. He has come here to “help” us. What noblesse oblige he demonstrates. He sounds so reasonable, doesn’t he, in a condescending sort of way? CY has probably “quoted” Orwell. And taken his advice to heart.
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf?” Or: “We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us?”
But Orwell never said that CY. That was Col. Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson). A fictional character in a fictional play made into a fictional movie by the same name, A Few Good Men, written and produced by two non-fictional card carrying liberals, Aaron Sorkin (West Wing) and Rob Reiner (Meathead). And clearly, CY missed the point these liberals were making. Or he is a very confused man. Probably a little of both. What Orwell wrote in his essay on Rudyard Kipling (1942), “[Kipling] sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilised, are there to guard and feed them.” And in his ‘Notes on Nationalism’ (1945) he wrote: “Those who “abjure” violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.”
May 29th, 2005 at 10:31 amSomehow CY has twisted this in his own mind into a justification for a holy war, a crusade. Nevermind the fact that Saddam’s Iraq was probably the most secular Arab state on the planet at that time. Nevermind the fact that he was a threat to no one, not even his neighbors. We need rough men with guns on walls to protect us from authoritarian fascists right here at home. We can worry about the true threats to our national security as well. Saddam’s Iraq was neither. You will never convince anyone here that going into Iraq was necessary. you will never convince anyone here that Bush made a mistake. He knew exactly what he was doing and he should pay for that. In a court of law. He is a war criminal. So is Saddam, if that makes you feel any better, but we do not have legal jurisdiction over him, except insofar as we have put a puppet regime in charge in Iraq. CY, it is too damn expensive to go running around being the world’s policeman. Intelligent foreign policy is much more cost effective, in terms of dollars and deaths. You, Sir, are an idiot if you think you can ever justify this Iraqi adventure on any grounds that any sane person would take seriously. We cannot just leave, as Powell tried to warn this idiot, Bush. “You break it you own it.” Well, he broke it, and we are going to have to own it, pay for it and fix it. And hopefully, he will have to pay for it as well, as a lesson to the next imperial idiot we are unfortunate enough, but most likely enough, to elect.
The problem with you is your mindset, CY. It’s stuck in a groove, like a broken record. You skip right back to the same place over and over. I’d tell you to read Orwell’s essay, Shooting an Elephant, but I think you would fail to see the point in what he wrote. You are just not capable of comprehending the meta-context of your own dilemma. you will always continue to shoot the elephant.
May 29th, 2005 at 10:41 amAnd just to show you how wrong you are about what others think, and to dissaude you from trying to make generalizations about “political identities” and disabuse you of the notion that you have any idea what the left thinks (which friggin’ part? We are not so monolithic like the right, which will be your downfall) we should have rolled into Baghdad back during the first Gulf War. We were there for Chrissake! You don’t pay for the same real estate twice! We should have supported the Kurdish uprising, which we instigated, and then wussed out to just let them hang, to twist in the wind and get massacred. Because anybody from that Bush family is a self-serving coward I wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire. You support that family, anyone in it, you are pretty stupid and deserve what you get. You are actually lower than scum in my book, and I am obviously no pacifist. Kerry wasn’t much maybe, hell of a lot better than Bush on any score. I didn’t have to hold my nose to vote for him. would do it again
May 29th, 2005 at 11:51 amI call Bullshit on this. Bush I didn’t want to gamble on losing his re-election, which he did anyway, because it’s the economy stupid. Had he been re-elected we would have been right back in Iraq, because it has never been about anything other than oil. Our men’s lives mean nothing to these crooks, but if he had been a man, instead of a giant fucking pussy like his kid, we would have rolled into baghdad and done what is right, and gotten the oil to boot, but because these pigs play politics, money and oil with people’s lives, we will end up losing it all at a very great cost in death and dollars. Yeah, i’m a proud and vicious, gun-toting, ass-kicking liberal, leftist progressive that actually supports the crap that both of the pansey assed Bush clowns tout as a cover for their pernicious, cynical greed. Pappy Bush tries a little revisionist spin in his self-serving crap ass book which you probably own. You are gullible and ignorant CY. Plain and simple.
The United States originally hoped that Saddam would be overthrown in an internal coup, and used CIA assets in Iraq to organize a revolt. When a popular rebellion against Saddam began in southern Iraq, the United States did not support it due to the fact that the coalition refused to aid in an invasion (and also due to various policy changes within the United States). As a result, not only was the rebellion brutally subdued, but the main CIA operative who was tasked with organizing the revolt was disavowed and accused of “disobeying orders to not organize a revolt”.
In their cowritten 1998 book, “A World Transformed” George Bush the Elder and Brent Scowcroft discussed regime change in Iraq:
Trying to eliminate Saddam [in 1991], extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guidelines about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in ‘mission creep’, and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs… Would have have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles… Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different – and perhaps barren – outcome.”. (quoted in Losing America, pg 154)
May 29th, 2005 at 12:50 pmThe United States originally hoped that Saddam would be overthrown in an internal coup, and used CIA assets in Iraq to organize a revolt. When a popular rebellion against Saddam began in southern Iraq, the United States did not support it due to the fact that the coalition refused to aid in an invasion (and also due to various policy changes within the United States). As a result, not only was the rebellion brutally subdued, but the main CIA operative who was tasked with organizing the revolt was disavowed and accused of “disobeying orders to not organize a revolt”.
In their cowritten 1998 book, “A World Transformed” George Bush the Elder and Brent Scowcroft discussed regime change in Iraq:
Trying to eliminate Saddam [in 1991], extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guidelines about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in ‘mission creep’, and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs… Would have have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles… Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different – and perhaps barren – outcome.”. (quoted in Losing America, pg 154)
I call bullshit on poppy Bush’s revisionist spin. He would have been right back in there after the his re-election.
May 29th, 2005 at 12:55 pmCrooks, oil, money, politics pappy didn’t want to blow his re-election, he did anyway because it’s the economy stupid. Should have been done right the first time, but lives and freddom and liberty are never what it is about with them. You are on the wrong side if that’s what it is about to you, CY.
Quick History lesson for you, CY. Kuwait used to be part of Iraq. Saddam had a legitimate claim to it, not that he was ever likely to get it. Poppy Bush didn’t have the cajones to even roll Saddam out of Kuwait. Maggie Thatcher had to put the lead in that linp dick’s pencil. You have no idea how funny you are to me, thinking you are supporting “tough leaders” like the Bushistas. Cowardly wussies one and all.
May 29th, 2005 at 1:20 pmThis is the way Kuwaitis tell it now… Iraqis have a different slant on it. After WWI, three guesses who decided who owned what. (Hint: It wasn’t any of the Arabs.)
After being allied with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War (largely due to the desire for Iraqi protection from Shiite Iran), Kuwait was invaded and annexed by Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) in August 1990. Hussein’s primary justifications included a charge that Kuwaiti territory was in fact an Iraqi province, and that annexation was retaliation for “economic warfare” Kuwait had waged through slant drilling into Iraq’s oil supplies. The monarchy was deposed after annexation, and an Iraqi governor installed.
This is the part where Maggie, more of a man than any Bush, tells Poppy to grow a pair.
Though initially ambiguous toward a potential annexation of Kuwait by Iraq, US President George H. W. Bush ultimately condemned Hussein’s actions, and moved to drive out Iraqi forces. Authorized by the UN Security Council, an American-led coalition of 34 nations fought the Persian Gulf War to reinstate the Kuwaiti Emir. After six weeks of fighting in the early 1990, Iraq was forced to withdraw its troops from Kuwait; during retreat, the Iraqi Armed Forces practiced a scorched earth policy by setting fire to Kuwaiti oil wells, fires which were once the subject of a now-disproven ecological doomsday scenario advocated by Carl Sagan. The fires took over nine months to fully extinguish, and the cost of repairs to oil infrastructure exceeded 5 billion US $. Certain buildings and infrastructural facilities (including Kuwait International Airport) were also severly damaged during the war . Kuwait now remains under the governance of the Emir (see Amir Jabir al-Ahmad al-Jabir Al Sabah) as an independent state and is of strategic importance from both military (proximity to Iraq) and economic (oil reserves) perspectives.
May 29th, 2005 at 1:40 pmShep,
I invite you and others to contact me at dan@pathbuilding.com if you’d like to discuss things. I must concentrate on programming some software and fishing for awhile.
May 29th, 2005 at 10:41 pmWell that explains it. A programmer. George Boole thought he had invented a scientific process and method for decision making. No wonder Cannon Yonts thinks the way he does. Yes, No, and, or… boolean algebra and binary logic. Sounds like Bush’s idea of heaven. never a shade of grey.
May 30th, 2005 at 4:04 amWell, SJS, you’ve nailed it hard.
CY – I guess I’ll drop this conversation after all. Doing it via private email wasn’t too appealing anyway. Maybe some other time, huh?
June 3rd, 2005 at 3:28 amcrestor
Take your time to check the pages about hoodia prescriptions
July 4th, 2005 at 8:47 amschwermetall
You are invited to visit some relevant information dedicated to sportsbooking
October 16th, 2005 at 5:36 pmBuy acyclovir
Great! I like it!
November 15th, 2005 at 9:46 ameverlastingly craggy!horseman sorrows proportioned airstrips,- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
November 21st, 2005 at 10:35 pmlending tree
December 2nd, 2005 at 8:25 amcelexa
bijections offensiveness respecting!eked.flyable legibly!naproxen http://www.drugs-order.com/naproxen.html
December 10th, 2005 at 7:48 amreassuring outlining specie admonishing consumer,sharecroppers evident
December 28th, 2005 at 9:33 pmHi, please visit my site too. Thank you.
March 6th, 2006 at 4:28 amGreat Blog keep it up man.
May 23rd, 2006 at 3:28 pm