Who Is Lying About Iraq?

[Gringao]

It did, didn't it ?

Then, when it was caught lying, it changed it's story.

They found an "underbriefed ambassador" and then, when his answers didn't match what was going on in the field, said the US lied? Jesus, that's rich.

If we used them against the enemy, I have no problem with that. It's legal, it's effective, it's been part of war for decades. If it doesn't fit the unwritten left-wing zeitgeist, too bad.

 

[Peregrinator]

Oh yeah, next to the possible charges it's peanuts. As to why Fitzgerald is keeping mum on the Plame status...I think he's trying to make something pertaining to his original raison d'etre to stick.

Yeah, I sadly expect you're right. It's too bad that sp's feel like they have to justify themselves. He could just go in, find the facts, prosecute what was prosecutable, and leave. He said he wanted to go home during the press conference. Maybe he should. On the other hand, there's a part of me that's hoping he'll find something truly amazing, whatever that might be. Scadenfreude on my part maybe, or just boredom. So far this has been like watching a 1-1 tie for seven innings with a couple of pitchers who aren't great but just good enough to keep the mediocre hitters from scoring. I want some fireworks.

 

[miles]

Have we figured out who lied yet?

Col. Korn.

 

[miles]

Sometimes I wonder why Bush and his little flock don't all ship out to North Korea. You could all worship the government and torture each other to your hearts content.

As the Red Cross etc. have reported, America systematically tortures and abuses POWs. It does this both in Iraq and also in concentration camps scattered around the world.
/QUOTE]

Redwave isn't dead after all. What a load of tripe.

We all know if the Red Cross said so, it's got to be true.

 

[Gringao]

Redwave isn't dead after all. What a load of tripe.

We all know if the Red Cross said so, it's got to be true.

I'd like to compare the Red Cross's reports on Abu Ghraib before and after the US intervention. Think Borscht can come up with that one?

 

[miles]

I'd like to compare the Red Cross's reports on Abu Ghraib before and after the US intervention. Think Borscht can come up with that one?

Borscht prefers meaningless rhetoric. Arguing with him is the same as arguing with woody. They love whackjob theories that have no basis in fact, then challenge you to prove them wrong.

 

[landslider2000]

For those of us who witnessed the divisiveness of Vietnam, the ceaseless debate about Iraq is tedious.

And, given the lack of a draft, often disingenuous.

Will all the people who are now passionately saying how much they care about soldiers act on their words and hire Iraq vets?

 

[Gringao]

Borscht prefers meaningless rhetoric. Arguing with him is the same as arguing with woody. They love whackjob theories that have no basis in fact, then challenge you to prove them wrong.

Woody's more into conspiracy and dark, cryptic motivations. Borscht prefers the synthetic outrage angle - taking some small facet of the war and constructing an entire edifice out of it that is emblematic of Chimpy's Wicked America: We didn't bomb Serbian cities and kill civilians under Clinton, we liberated Bosnia from an evil tyrant. By the same token, we didn't liberate Iraq from an evil tyrant, we invaded so we could abuse innocent civilians in Abu Ghraib.

This ginned-up nonsense over WP is made to order for Borscht.

 

[mack_the_knife]

For those of us who witnessed the divisiveness of Vietnam, the ceaseless debate about Iraq is tedious.

And, given the lack of a draft, often disingenuous.

Will all the people who are now passionately saying how much they care about soldiers act on their words and hire Iraq vets?

Funny part is how they support the troop, but disagree with about 90% of the troops who feel they are doing something worthwhile.

I suppose they're supporting the 10% who agree with them.

 

[ChemistryNone]

I am, I apologize

 

[mack_the_knife]

I am, I apologize

I done tried that, they won't let me take the rap either.

 

[The Mutt]

Thirty minutes ago there was a knock at my door.
It was George W Bush.
He begged me to drop my pants and let him suck me off.
I agreed.
He sucked me good.
I flooded his mouth with hot man-goo.
Post a link to prove me wrong.
I knew you couldn't.
Liar.

 

[Don K Dyck]

Some hazing at the prison isn’t quite the same as killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds.

There is no credible evidence that phosphorous was used against civilians (There are a lot of holes in that story.)

I won’t even bother with the last one.

Where do you guys come up with this shit? No facts, not even a good rumor, but you’re convinced anyway.

Oh, I see . . . firsthand accounts from U$ military personnel firing the canisters is not "credible evidence"?? Who are we kidding now??

 

[Don K Dyck]

Borscht doesn't really care about what happened at Abu Ghraib - what he cares about is that it can be used in a tactical attack against a political enemy. If he really gave a damn about what happened inside the walls of the prison, he would have been springing the length of his leash to demand the ouster of its previous landlord, Saddam Hussein:

LET ME BEGIN WITH A simple sentence that, even as I write it, appears less than Swiftian in the modesty of its proposal: "Prison conditions at Abu Ghraib have improved markedly and dramatically since the arrival of Coalition troops in Baghdad."

I could undertake to defend that statement against any member of Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, and I know in advance that none of them could challenge it, let alone negate it. Before March 2003, Abu Ghraib was an abattoir, a torture chamber, and a concentration camp. Now, and not without reason, it is an international byword for Yankee imperialism and sadism. Yet the improvement is still, unarguably, the difference between night and day.

LINK

Borscht knows that to hold a consistent yardstick up to Abu Ghraib means putting that same political enemy in the position of waging a war that might mean that political enemy would garner the credit for improving the conditions there, not to mention putting the dictator out of business.

Uhmmm . . . wasn't there a little court case to protect the commanding officer by crucifying a poor semi-literate OR woman?? Something about torture by American personnel, degrading prisoners by making them eat shit and other obscenities??

And Saddam Hussein was put inot power by the CIA . . . who also supplied anything he required to stay there . . .

Geez gringao . . . you're beginning to sound like another CIA apologist . . .

 

[Don K Dyck]

Let me get this straight, Dick - you're defending Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?

Well . . . just for arguments sake . . . what makes it any different to the American invasions of Somalia or Granada or Panama??

 

[Don K Dyck]

No, not as a weapon against civilians. The soldier that deliberately and knowingly targets a civilian is putting his liberty and career in serious jeopardy.

Bull manure!!!!

Abusing civilains is SOP for AMericans . . .

 

[Don K Dyck]

LOL.

Yeah, coz the US army never kills civilians.

Uhmmm . . . so My Lae and Lt William Calley were both figments of somebody's overactive imagination?? . . .

Man, woman or child, soon as they're doused in napalm they magically transform into terrorists.

Of course . . . such a convincing strategy . . . now why didn't I realise that it is all in the label . . .

Good one Borscht . . .

 

[Don K Dyck]

I didn't say that. I said they don't target civilians. As opposed to those that we are fighting (for whom you don't seem to have a disparaging word at hand), whose arsenal is comprised of primarily targeting civilians.

. . . and Borscht . . . here is the 'proof' of your earlier hypothesis . . .

The Americans don't target civilains, they only kill "insurgents"/freedom fighters . . . but how do you tell who is a freedom fighter when they dres the same as civilians??

The same way that they did in Vietnam . . . if it moves shoot it . . . it wasn't one of ours (I hope) . . . so it MUST be a VC . . .

Nothing changes in the Department of Defense . . . only the names are changed to protect the guilty . . .

 

[Don K Dyck]

For those of us who witnessed the divisiveness of Vietnam, the ceaseless debate about Iraq is tedious.

And, given the lack of a draft, often disingenuous.

Will all the people who are now passionately saying how much they care about soldiers act on their words and hire Iraq vets?

More importantly . . . why don't the rabid members of the 49th Chairborne Division (UnderuberFuhrer Ishmael commanding) just rush out and enlist for overseas service immediately??

I'm sure that the marines could do with a boost to their falling recruitment numbers . . .

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

I did my time in the Marines and I have little respect for your POV.

 

[RobDownSouth]

They found an "underbriefed ambassador" and then, when his answers didn't match what was going on in the field, said the US lied? Jesus, that's rich.

I...I...I feel a song coming on!

To everything...
Spin! Spin! Spin!
There is a Gringao...
Spin! Spin! Spin!
And a lie to suit any purpose, under heaven

A lie to distract, a lie to conceal
A lie to bluff, a lie to squeal
A lie to distort, a lie to berate
A lie to further his own brand of hate

To everything...
Spin! Spin! Spin!
There is a Gringao...
Spin! Spin! Spin!
And a lie to suit any purpose, under heaven

With nothin' but apologies to the Byrds

 

[GeorgeWBush]

Who gives a shit who is lieing they are all a bunch of assholes for not taking care of america first.

 

[miles]

. . . and Borscht . . . here is the 'proof' of your earlier hypothesis . . .

The Americans don't target civilains, they only kill "insurgents"/freedom fighters . . . but how do you tell who is a freedom fighter when they dres the same as civilians??

:

They're the ones shooting at you, dumbass.

 

[miles]

A lie to distract, a lie to conceal
A lie to bluff, a lie to squeal
A lie to distort, a lie to berate
A lie to further his own brand of hate
s

A fitting ditty from Rob "The Liar."

 

[Gringao]

Uhmmm . . . wasn't there a little court case to protect the commanding officer by crucifying a poor semi-literate OR woman?? Something about torture by American personnel, degrading prisoners by making them eat shit and other obscenities??

And Saddam Hussein was put inot power by the CIA . . . who also supplied anything he required to stay there . . .

Geez gringao . . . you're beginning to sound like another CIA apologist . . .

There have been a number of prosecutions and investigations into the abuses at Abu Ghraib. All have shown that it was the soldiers at the facility that acted on their own, not under orders from superior officers. Most of those responsible are now being punished and prosecuted.

As for the CIA angle, yeah I know you think that and there's nothing anyone can say to make you think differently. Do you really believe that the US installed Saddam in power so he could buy weapons by the shipload from France, Russia and China?

The reality, however, is that Saddam rose to power on his own ruthlessness, cunning and brutality, nothing more. He murdered his way to the top of the Ba'ath Party (itself a vile bastard offspring of the Vichy government) and then to the presidency in Iraq.