Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I think that a lot of people are conflating these three separate plots together as being part of the same event and are forgetting al-Qaeda's penchant for staging simultaneous attacks, a la 9/11 or the Embassy bombings, or even more recently in Madrid.

Perhaps you're right, but that's bound to happen when the media doesn't do its job.

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Originally Posted by msm

Besides, since I didn't vote for W., and only once ever voted for a Republican president (in 1984), I am under the impression that I am more of a centrist than most of the moonbats around here. I'd be willing to bet than none of them have a voting record as Republican as mine is Democrat.

You lose. I was a registered Republican in California for more than 10 years (1978-1989) and then voted in the Republican primaries for 10 years after that in Michigan. I also voted for Bush Sr. in both 1988 and 1992. Only after W won the nomination in 2000 did I finally leave the Republican Party to vote Green. I've only started voting Democratic in 2002, two years after I discovered this site. FWIW, I had been a fan of S&H since 1992, while I was still a Republican.

It's the left that has become unhinged, methinks...

You may or may not have a point that the Left in general has become unhinged in their views. On this site, however, it's the Right that has become more unhinged in their behavior--Wingnut!

And you lose with me as well MSM.

I am a registered Republican (for 18 years, but not for much longer) who worked for the Reagan-Bush campaign before I could vote. In the '80's I gave money to Oliver North's defense fund and flirted with the John Birch Society. I have worked for the campaigns of both Jack Kemp in 1988 and John McCain in 2000.

A "moonbat" I am not. But I am someone who believes Bush should be impeached and put on trial in Congress for High Crimes.

And as for your little stunt about "imminent threat" above, I saw Administration officials say that Hussein's regime was an "imminent threat", a "immediate threat" and other things to that effect on TV back in early 2003. I was very concerned as a result and supported the Pre-Emption and telling France and the rest of the world to screw off. The Bushies knew EXACTLY what the perception was of what they were saying about Hussein. You can dick around all you want and play games but that won't change anything.

We are now in a Clusterf*ck that could grow to epic proportions and I am really pissed off about it.

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Originally Posted by msm

Besides, since I didn't vote for W., and only once ever voted for a Republican president (in 1984), I am under the impression that I am more of a centrist than most of the moonbats around here. I'd be willing to bet than none of them have a voting record as Republican as mine is Democrat.

You lose. I was a registered Republican in California for more than 10 years (1978-1989) and then voted in the Republican primaries for 10 years after that in Michigan. I also voted for Bush Sr. in both 1988 and 1992. Only after W won the nomination in 2000 did I finally leave the Republican Party to vote Green. I've only started voting Democratic in 2002, two years after I discovered this site. FWIW, I had been a fan of S&H since 1992, while I was still a Republican.

It's the left that has become unhinged, methinks...

You may or may not have a point that the Left in general has become unhinged in their views. On this site, however, it's the Right that has become more unhinged in their behavior--Wingnut!

And you lose with me as well MSM.

I am a registered Republican (for 18 years, but not for much longer) who worked for the Reagan-Bush campaign before I could vote. In the '80's I gave money to Oliver North's defense fund and flirted with the John Birch Society. I have worked for the campaigns of both Jack Kemp in 1988 and John McCain in 2000.

A "moonbat" I am not. But I am someone who believes Bush should be impeached and put on trial in Congress for High Crimes.

And as for your little stunt about "imminent threat" above, I saw Administration officials say that Hussein's regime was an "imminent threat", a "immediate threat" and other things to that effect on TV back in early 2003. I was very concerned as a result and supported the Pre-Emption and telling France and the rest of the world to screw off. The Bushies knew EXACTLY what the perception was of what they were saying about Hussein. You can dick around all you want and play games but that won't change anything.

We are now in a Clusterf*ck that could grow to epic proportions and I am really pissed off about it.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Anyone who has ever been to an auto salvage lot can attest to the prevalence of "hidden treasures" in a pile of scrap metal. What conclusions Foxnews (and msm for that matter) expect us to draw from this tidbit are beyond me...

IOW, no story here, Kiff...

Much obliged, as always.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Anyone who has ever been to an auto salvage lot can attest to the prevalence of "hidden treasures" in a pile of scrap metal. What conclusions Foxnews (and msm for that matter) expect us to draw from this tidbit are beyond me...

IOW, no story here, Kiff...

Much obliged, as always.

Originally Posted by msm

Bush was just meeting with the King of Jordan; you think that would have provided a lede to revisit the story of the almost-gassing of Amman.

Elder's is the only RECENT story I could find, and I'd prefer another source, but the other sources aren't covering the story.

If in April, they reported life discovered on Mars, and then no further stories came out, wouldn't that seem wierd to you?

Admit it; I have a point here.

MSM, it may be because a terrorist attack that was foiled isn't perceived (rightly or not) as newsworthy as one that succeeds (Madrid), or as newsworthy as pictures of Iraqi prisoners being abused.

I'm not saying it's good journalistic practice, but I suspect that the Jordan story is just getting buried right now. All three cable news networks were pretty much wall-to-wall Rumsfeld & Co. all day, as far as I could tell.

Originally Posted by msm

Bush was just meeting with the King of Jordan; you think that would have provided a lede to revisit the story of the almost-gassing of Amman.

Elder's is the only RECENT story I could find, and I'd prefer another source, but the other sources aren't covering the story.

If in April, they reported life discovered on Mars, and then no further stories came out, wouldn't that seem wierd to you?

Admit it; I have a point here.

MSM, it may be because a terrorist attack that was foiled isn't perceived (rightly or not) as newsworthy as one that succeeds (Madrid), or as newsworthy as pictures of Iraqi prisoners being abused.

I'm not saying it's good journalistic practice, but I suspect that the Jordan story is just getting buried right now. All three cable news networks were pretty much wall-to-wall Rumsfeld & Co. all day, as far as I could tell.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by msm

I'd be willing to bet than none of them have a voting record as Republican as mine is Democrat. It's the left that has become unhinged, methinks...

Well, for governor I've voted Democrat twice and Republican twice since moving to Michigan... For President its been Democrat five times and Independent once. I consider myself a liberal and a Democrat...

In general, local politics are quite a different beast than the national scene. The fact that the poster from Michigan has never voted for a GOP president belies this fact. Some of my best friends are local Democrats, and I have made many a television commerical for Democrats even on the state level.

That I would never dream of voting for a Democrat presidential candidate -- I last voted for one when I was young and stupid -- simply, and very importantly, means that the poster from Michigan and I have two entirely differing worldviews on the most dangerous issues facing us today (and for the past 24 years).

And those sort of "issues" bear little impact on how the trains run in Kalamazoo or Chillicothe.

p.s. Go Paints!

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by msm

I'd be willing to bet than none of them have a voting record as Republican as mine is Democrat. It's the left that has become unhinged, methinks...

Well, for governor I've voted Democrat twice and Republican twice since moving to Michigan... For President its been Democrat five times and Independent once. I consider myself a liberal and a Democrat...

In general, local politics are quite a different beast than the national scene. The fact that the poster from Michigan has never voted for a GOP president belies this fact. Some of my best friends are local Democrats, and I have made many a television commerical for Democrats even on the state level.

That I would never dream of voting for a Democrat presidential candidate -- I last voted for one when I was young and stupid -- simply, and very importantly, means that the poster from Michigan and I have two entirely differing worldviews on the most dangerous issues facing us today (and for the past 24 years).

And those sort of "issues" bear little impact on how the trains run in Kalamazoo or Chillicothe.

p.s. Go Paints!

I am going to quote some rightwing media responses to the scandal--al from David Brock's excellent new web site, mediamatters.org, which features such quotes every day--because I think they show not only complete partisanship but complete irresponsibility.

The buck stops where?

Amid calls for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's removal over allegations of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military personnel, some conservative pundits have their own ideas of who is responsible. Media Matters for America has identified at least four groups who have been blamed: women, feminists, Muslims, and the academic left.

Women

Ann Coulter, right-wing pundit and syndicated columnist, said:

I think the other point that no one is making about the abuse photos is just the disproportionate number of women involved, including a girl general running the entire operation.

I mean, this is lesson, you know, one million and 47 on why women shouldn't be in the military. In addition to not being able to carry even a medium-sized backpack, women are too vicious.
[FOX News Channel, Hannity & Colmes, May 5]

Linda Chavez, syndicated columnist and FOX News Channel political analyst, wrote:

But one factor that may have contributed -- but which I doubt investigators will want to even consider -- is whether the presence of women in the unit actually encouraged more misbehavior, especially of the sexual nature that the pictures reveal.
[The Heritage Foundation's website Townhall.com and The Baltimore Sun, May 5]

Feminists

George Neumayr, managing editor of The American Spectator, wrote:

The image of that female guard, smoking away as she joins gleefully in the disgraceful melee like one of the guys, is a cultural outgrowth of a feminist culture which encourages female barbarians. GI Janes are kicking around patriarchal Muslims in Iraq? This is [Feminist Majority Foundation president] Eleanor Smeal's vision come to life. Had Thelma and Louise gone off to Iraq -- and sexually humiliated some of Saddam Hussein's soldiers as payback for abuse to Jessica Lynch a few cities back -- the radical feminists could make a sequel. ...

Feminists are good at creating a culture that produces "equal-opportunity abusers," Donnelly says. What happened at Abu Ghraib is also happening in feminist America, she adds, pointing to an Associated Press article from last month on a "disturbing trend around the country. Girls are turning to violence more often and with terrifying intensity." ...

Perhaps in the eyes of feminists this isn't a crisis but a potential social program and these girls deserve ROTC credits.
[The American Spectator, May 5]

Muslims

Cal Thomas, syndicated columnist and host of FOX News Channel's After Hours with Cal Thomas, wrote:

Some Arab commentators are repeating the myth that the West has, once again, humiliated Muslims. If there has been humiliation, it isn't the fault of the West. It is Muslims' fault. They took trillions of dollars in oil money, and instead of building a culture dedicated to elevating their people, including women, they have squandered it on agendas and adventures that had the opposite result.
[Townhall.com and The Monterey County Herald, May 5]

The Academic Left

James Taranto, editor of The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com, [wrote:

[T]he New York Times profiles some of the soldiers implicated in abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and to be honest, they sound like a bunch of losers. ...

[I]ncreasing the quality of military recruits would probably help avoid future Abu Ghraibs. One constructive step toward that end would be for elite universities to drop antimilitary policies, so that the military would have an easier time signing up the best and brightest young Americans.

Many academic institutions have barred ROTC or military recruiters from campus for left-wing political reasons--first as a protest against the Vietnam War, and later over the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" law. Whatever the merits of these positions, it's time the academic left showed some patriotic responsibility and acknowledged that the defense of the country--which includes the defense of their own academic freedom--is more important than the issue du jour.
[OpinionJournal.com's "Best of the Web", May 6]

? S.M.

And last but not least, Rush Limbaugh, responding to his repeated statements that what we saw were, basically, fraternity pranks.

Limbaugh on the May 7 Rush Limbaugh Show:

Now why -- why on the NBC Nightly News and why on Crossfire does my name come up, and why do I have to be challenged? Don't - don't misunderstand - I don't mind that I am. Don't misunderstand that, I said, but "Do you condemn Limbaugh?" "Do you - ?" "I condemn Limbaugh! [mocking CNN Crossfire co-host Paul Begala and guest Representative Robert Wexler (D-FL)]" ...

I think the reason that I have to be condemned and they've got to play sound bites from this show and have everybody pooh-pooh it is because it's effective -- it's because there's one voice in this country that's contrary to the herd, to the to the to the mentality here that has -- that has picked up steam. And everybody is in that herd and everybody's making a rush in that certain direction, and there's one voice out there that's saying "Hey wait a minute! This is not what everyone's saying it is." ...

I'm not an elected official. I'm not part of the Joint Chiefs. I'm not in the command structure. I'm not in the chain of command at all, and yet I have to somehow be condemned. It proves it's politics, folks! ...

Who died? Who, who died here? What are we, what are we investigating? We haven't learned anything here. In fact, this is not about learning what happened, this is about these senators. ...

If you people in the media want to continue to characterize what I said, you can at least put it in context. You could say that it also reminds me of things I've seen at a Britney Spears or Madonna concert and on the MTV music awards. And if you're gonna do this let's just go ahead and get it right. ...

[We did.]

I do not subscribe to the theory that the American military is a bunch of idiots, I don't subscribe to the theory the American military is a bunch of boobs. .... The whole thing here just troubles me because what could have been or what could be actually something pretty smart is being cast now as one of the biggest most egregious mistakes that's ever been made. ... It could well be that the whole purpose here, which has been said, was to humiliate these prisoners. And there's no better way of doing it than what was done. These are Arab males -- what better way to humiliate them than to have a woman have authority over them? What's the purpose here? What's the objective of this? The objective is to soften them up for interrogation later, later on. As I said, there was no horror, there was no terror there was no death, there was no injuries, nothing. And given the profound fear of these jihadists and these prisoners, if you confront them with that fear, if you humiliate them that way, it might open them up, you might get keys to unlock what it is that have that they're not coming forward with. ...

If you look at these pictures you cannot deny that there are elements of homoeroticism and as was stated by a woman -- and I forget her name [Donna M. Hughes] -- column on National Review Online yesterday, her point was, -- yeah, I've seen things like this on American websites. You can find these if you have the passwords to these various porn sites, you can see things like this. And her point was maybe these kids -- the soldiers, the guards whoever, who are of a certain age group, who've grown up with access to this -- are simply acting out what they've on these websites or something, just for the fun of it. Or maybe other reasons.

My own comment on Rush: people who advocate torture are driven by hatred. And to quote FDR, I welcome their hatred.

David Kaiser '47

?

I am going to quote some rightwing media responses to the scandal--al from David Brock's excellent new web site, mediamatters.org, which features such quotes every day--because I think they show not only complete partisanship but complete irresponsibility.

The buck stops where?

Amid calls for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's removal over allegations of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military personnel, some conservative pundits have their own ideas of who is responsible. Media Matters for America has identified at least four groups who have been blamed: women, feminists, Muslims, and the academic left.

Women

Ann Coulter, right-wing pundit and syndicated columnist, said:

I think the other point that no one is making about the abuse photos is just the disproportionate number of women involved, including a girl general running the entire operation.

I mean, this is lesson, you know, one million and 47 on why women shouldn't be in the military. In addition to not being able to carry even a medium-sized backpack, women are too vicious.
[FOX News Channel, Hannity & Colmes, May 5]

Linda Chavez, syndicated columnist and FOX News Channel political analyst, wrote:

But one factor that may have contributed -- but which I doubt investigators will want to even consider -- is whether the presence of women in the unit actually encouraged more misbehavior, especially of the sexual nature that the pictures reveal.
[The Heritage Foundation's website Townhall.com and The Baltimore Sun, May 5]

Feminists

George Neumayr, managing editor of The American Spectator, wrote:

The image of that female guard, smoking away as she joins gleefully in the disgraceful melee like one of the guys, is a cultural outgrowth of a feminist culture which encourages female barbarians. GI Janes are kicking around patriarchal Muslims in Iraq? This is [Feminist Majority Foundation president] Eleanor Smeal's vision come to life. Had Thelma and Louise gone off to Iraq -- and sexually humiliated some of Saddam Hussein's soldiers as payback for abuse to Jessica Lynch a few cities back -- the radical feminists could make a sequel. ...

Feminists are good at creating a culture that produces "equal-opportunity abusers," Donnelly says. What happened at Abu Ghraib is also happening in feminist America, she adds, pointing to an Associated Press article from last month on a "disturbing trend around the country. Girls are turning to violence more often and with terrifying intensity." ...

Perhaps in the eyes of feminists this isn't a crisis but a potential social program and these girls deserve ROTC credits.
[The American Spectator, May 5]

Muslims

Cal Thomas, syndicated columnist and host of FOX News Channel's After Hours with Cal Thomas, wrote:

Some Arab commentators are repeating the myth that the West has, once again, humiliated Muslims. If there has been humiliation, it isn't the fault of the West. It is Muslims' fault. They took trillions of dollars in oil money, and instead of building a culture dedicated to elevating their people, including women, they have squandered it on agendas and adventures that had the opposite result.
[Townhall.com and The Monterey County Herald, May 5]

The Academic Left

James Taranto, editor of The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com, [wrote:

[T]he New York Times profiles some of the soldiers implicated in abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and to be honest, they sound like a bunch of losers. ...

[I]ncreasing the quality of military recruits would probably help avoid future Abu Ghraibs. One constructive step toward that end would be for elite universities to drop antimilitary policies, so that the military would have an easier time signing up the best and brightest young Americans.

Many academic institutions have barred ROTC or military recruiters from campus for left-wing political reasons--first as a protest against the Vietnam War, and later over the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" law. Whatever the merits of these positions, it's time the academic left showed some patriotic responsibility and acknowledged that the defense of the country--which includes the defense of their own academic freedom--is more important than the issue du jour.
[OpinionJournal.com's "Best of the Web", May 6]

? S.M.

And last but not least, Rush Limbaugh, responding to his repeated statements that what we saw were, basically, fraternity pranks.

Limbaugh on the May 7 Rush Limbaugh Show:

Now why -- why on the NBC Nightly News and why on Crossfire does my name come up, and why do I have to be challenged? Don't - don't misunderstand - I don't mind that I am. Don't misunderstand that, I said, but "Do you condemn Limbaugh?" "Do you - ?" "I condemn Limbaugh! [mocking CNN Crossfire co-host Paul Begala and guest Representative Robert Wexler (D-FL)]" ...

I think the reason that I have to be condemned and they've got to play sound bites from this show and have everybody pooh-pooh it is because it's effective -- it's because there's one voice in this country that's contrary to the herd, to the to the to the mentality here that has -- that has picked up steam. And everybody is in that herd and everybody's making a rush in that certain direction, and there's one voice out there that's saying "Hey wait a minute! This is not what everyone's saying it is." ...

I'm not an elected official. I'm not part of the Joint Chiefs. I'm not in the command structure. I'm not in the chain of command at all, and yet I have to somehow be condemned. It proves it's politics, folks! ...

Who died? Who, who died here? What are we, what are we investigating? We haven't learned anything here. In fact, this is not about learning what happened, this is about these senators. ...

If you people in the media want to continue to characterize what I said, you can at least put it in context. You could say that it also reminds me of things I've seen at a Britney Spears or Madonna concert and on the MTV music awards. And if you're gonna do this let's just go ahead and get it right. ...

[We did.]

I do not subscribe to the theory that the American military is a bunch of idiots, I don't subscribe to the theory the American military is a bunch of boobs. .... The whole thing here just troubles me because what could have been or what could be actually something pretty smart is being cast now as one of the biggest most egregious mistakes that's ever been made. ... It could well be that the whole purpose here, which has been said, was to humiliate these prisoners. And there's no better way of doing it than what was done. These are Arab males -- what better way to humiliate them than to have a woman have authority over them? What's the purpose here? What's the objective of this? The objective is to soften them up for interrogation later, later on. As I said, there was no horror, there was no terror there was no death, there was no injuries, nothing. And given the profound fear of these jihadists and these prisoners, if you confront them with that fear, if you humiliate them that way, it might open them up, you might get keys to unlock what it is that have that they're not coming forward with. ...

If you look at these pictures you cannot deny that there are elements of homoeroticism and as was stated by a woman -- and I forget her name [Donna M. Hughes] -- column on National Review Online yesterday, her point was, -- yeah, I've seen things like this on American websites. You can find these if you have the passwords to these various porn sites, you can see things like this. And her point was maybe these kids -- the soldiers, the guards whoever, who are of a certain age group, who've grown up with access to this -- are simply acting out what they've on these websites or something, just for the fun of it. Or maybe other reasons.

My own comment on Rush: people who advocate torture are driven by hatred. And to quote FDR, I welcome their hatred.

David Kaiser '47

?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

My own comment on Rush: people who advocate torture are driven by hatred. And to quote FDR, I welcome their hatred.

I'm never sure if Rush is driven by hatred, or by ratings. Either way, he isn't on my list of good guys.

Another factor was the post September 11 willingness to make civil rights secondary. In the months immediately after September 11th, the media occasionally asked a 'what if' question. If the government had captured a terrorist, and they had good reason to believe the terrorist had knowledge of an upcoming major terrorist event, should the terrorist be tortured? From the way the question was asked, the various reporters and editorial writers did not think it an open and shut case for the Enlightenment philosophers. In the immediate aftermath, I could quite understand if the intelligence community thought they had an informal 'will of the people' wink of the eye, allowing them to commit war crimes.

If so, they did not understand how fickle the press and perhaps the American people are.

A handful of guards in the short term might have been inevitable. It went on too long, however, to be an aberration. I also don't like how the Administration seems to have tried to keep it secret. Well, that might have been inevitable too, given the style of the current administration.

There seem to be three basic approaches. 1) You do the wrong thing, cause war is hell, and the way to end war is to make it enough of a hell that the opposition loses the will to fight. 2) You do the right thing, cause if you don't, you get bad PR. 3) You do the right thing, as it is the only way to win the hearts and minds of The People.

I'm not sure whether 1 or 2 bothers me more.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

My own comment on Rush: people who advocate torture are driven by hatred. And to quote FDR, I welcome their hatred.

I'm never sure if Rush is driven by hatred, or by ratings. Either way, he isn't on my list of good guys.

Another factor was the post September 11 willingness to make civil rights secondary. In the months immediately after September 11th, the media occasionally asked a 'what if' question. If the government had captured a terrorist, and they had good reason to believe the terrorist had knowledge of an upcoming major terrorist event, should the terrorist be tortured? From the way the question was asked, the various reporters and editorial writers did not think it an open and shut case for the Enlightenment philosophers. In the immediate aftermath, I could quite understand if the intelligence community thought they had an informal 'will of the people' wink of the eye, allowing them to commit war crimes.

If so, they did not understand how fickle the press and perhaps the American people are.

A handful of guards in the short term might have been inevitable. It went on too long, however, to be an aberration. I also don't like how the Administration seems to have tried to keep it secret. Well, that might have been inevitable too, given the style of the current administration.

There seem to be three basic approaches. 1) You do the wrong thing, cause war is hell, and the way to end war is to make it enough of a hell that the opposition loses the will to fight. 2) You do the right thing, cause if you don't, you get bad PR. 3) You do the right thing, as it is the only way to win the hearts and minds of The People.

I'm not sure whether 1 or 2 bothers me more.

Within minutes, Lawson got a call back from one of Hackworth's associates. The author and commentator put Lawson in touch with the CBS News program "60 Minutes II" and help set in motion events that led to the public disclosure and apologies by President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.


One irony of the way the story came to light: Lawson first tried to bring attention to the scandal by writing to 17 members of Congress, but, he told the New York Times, he got virtually no response. Now, members of the House and Senate are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation for not bringing the matter to their attention.


Before contacting Hackworth, Lawson said he also went to the Red Cross, members of Congress in both parties and Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly.


One major figure in the scandal, a two-star general, has already been reassigned with a new post ? running Fort Huachuca in Arizona.


Maj. Gen. Barbara G. Fast, who is now the fort's deputy commander and is serving overseas in Baghdad, will take over as head of the post and its military intelligence school in late summer or early fall. In a recent Army report on the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, disgraced Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the commander of several military police officers facing criminal charges, identified Fast as the person largely responsible for causing prison overcrowding in Iraq.


Fast has been serving since last summer as intelligence chief for the U.S. military command in Baghdad. In that role, she was the person responsible for approving the release of prisoners who "are of no intelligence value and no longer pose a significant threat" to American forces and allies.


Karpinski told Army investigators looking at prison abuse that Fast "routinely" refused to approve the release of such prisoners even after a military review panel in Iraq had recommended that they be released.

Hackworth exposed abuse scandal
Decorated soldier, commentator said Pentagon hoped it would go away

Within minutes, Lawson got a call back from one of Hackworth's associates. The author and commentator put Lawson in touch with the CBS News program "60 Minutes II" and help set in motion events that led to the public disclosure and apologies by President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.


One irony of the way the story came to light: Lawson first tried to bring attention to the scandal by writing to 17 members of Congress, but, he told the New York Times, he got virtually no response. Now, members of the House and Senate are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation for not bringing the matter to their attention.


Before contacting Hackworth, Lawson said he also went to the Red Cross, members of Congress in both parties and Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly.


One major figure in the scandal, a two-star general, has already been reassigned with a new post ? running Fort Huachuca in Arizona.


Maj. Gen. Barbara G. Fast, who is now the fort's deputy commander and is serving overseas in Baghdad, will take over as head of the post and its military intelligence school in late summer or early fall. In a recent Army report on the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, disgraced Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the commander of several military police officers facing criminal charges, identified Fast as the person largely responsible for causing prison overcrowding in Iraq.


Fast has been serving since last summer as intelligence chief for the U.S. military command in Baghdad. In that role, she was the person responsible for approving the release of prisoners who "are of no intelligence value and no longer pose a significant threat" to American forces and allies.


Karpinski told Army investigators looking at prison abuse that Fast "routinely" refused to approve the release of such prisoners even after a military review panel in Iraq had recommended that they be released.

Hackworth exposed abuse scandal
Decorated soldier, commentator said Pentagon hoped it would go away

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by msm

I'd be willing to bet than none of them have a voting record as Republican as mine is Democrat. It's the left that has become unhinged, methinks...

Well, for governor I've voted Democrat twice and Republican twice since moving to Michigan... For President its been Democrat five times and Independent once. I consider myself a liberal and a Democrat...

In general, local politics are quite a different beast than the national scene. The fact that the poster from Michigan has never voted for a GOP president belies this fact. Some of my best friends are local Democrats, and I have made many a television commerical for Democrats even on the state level.

That I would never dream of voting for a Democrat presidential candidate -- I last voted for one when I was young and stupid -- simply, and very importantly, means that the poster from Michigan and I have two entirely differing worldviews on the most dangerous issues facing us today (and for the past 24 years).

And those sort of "issues" bear little impact on how the trains run in Kalamazoo or Chillicothe.

p.s. Go Paints!

Exactly , and you make my point. Just because I have voted for Republicans doesn't mean I can't be a liberal. Similarly, just because MSM has voted for Democrats doesn't make him non-conservative.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by msm

I'd be willing to bet than none of them have a voting record as Republican as mine is Democrat. It's the left that has become unhinged, methinks...

Well, for governor I've voted Democrat twice and Republican twice since moving to Michigan... For President its been Democrat five times and Independent once. I consider myself a liberal and a Democrat...

In general, local politics are quite a different beast than the national scene. The fact that the poster from Michigan has never voted for a GOP president belies this fact. Some of my best friends are local Democrats, and I have made many a television commerical for Democrats even on the state level.

That I would never dream of voting for a Democrat presidential candidate -- I last voted for one when I was young and stupid -- simply, and very importantly, means that the poster from Michigan and I have two entirely differing worldviews on the most dangerous issues facing us today (and for the past 24 years).

And those sort of "issues" bear little impact on how the trains run in Kalamazoo or Chillicothe.

p.s. Go Paints!

Exactly , and you make my point. Just because I have voted for Republicans doesn't mean I can't be a liberal. Similarly, just because MSM has voted for Democrats doesn't make him non-conservative.

I think we be 3T still...but the 4T will be a self-inflicted injury.

We are at the "cutting" stage of Catastrophe

The "suicide" will be the "Big One" of Crisis IMHO... but it will be our own doing and not anothers.

I think we be 3T still...but the 4T will be a self-inflicted injury.

We are at the "cutting" stage of Catastrophe

The "suicide" will be the "Big One" of Crisis IMHO... but it will be our own doing and not anothers.

He's claiming it's a "stain on our country's honor"... I think not. The stain on your country's honor, Bush dear, was the one on the infamous blue dress that made headlines while Clinton was in the White House... this isn't a 'stain' this is a catastrophe. Your credibility was gone the moment you stepped into Iraq and couldn't find the WMD... your reputation never existed.

A Ms. from Mesopotamia Blogs

He's claiming it's a "stain on our country's honor"... I think not. The stain on your country's honor, Bush dear, was the one on the infamous blue dress that made headlines while Clinton was in the White House... this isn't a 'stain' this is a catastrophe. Your credibility was gone the moment you stepped into Iraq and couldn't find the WMD... your reputation never existed.

A Ms. from Mesopotamia Blogs

Originally Posted by msm

Michael, all those links are from last month, thus supporting my point that the media is underplaying these reports.

Did Al Qaeda have WMD or not? Isn't that an important question?

You missed the BBC report (from last month) indicating that not 20,000, but 80,000 people may have been killed. Here's another detail worthy of investigation: are those numbers high, or low, or what?

Bush was just meeting with the King of Jordan; you think that would have provided a lede to revisit the story of the almost-gassing of Amman.

Elder's is the only RECENT story I could find, and I'd prefer another source, but the other sources aren't covering the story.

If in April, they reported life discovered on Mars, and then no further stories came out, wouldn't that seem wierd to you?

Admit it; I have a point here.

The Elder article did not contain any new information not present in the earlier articles. They added speculation. The only chemical mentioned in multiple reports with photos was sulfuric acid. Other photos show many blue jugs of chemcials but didn't give a list of what they were.

It seems to me that the Jordanian authorities aren't giving out this information. The media can't report what they don't know. Fox news doesn't have anything more, nor have they implied that the chemicals might be chemcial weapons. This makes me suspect that the chemicals are not chemical weapons, but rather ordinary chemcials like household ammonia and bleach that when mixed yield a poisonous gas.

Originally Posted by msm

Michael, all those links are from last month, thus supporting my point that the media is underplaying these reports.

Did Al Qaeda have WMD or not? Isn't that an important question?

You missed the BBC report (from last month) indicating that not 20,000, but 80,000 people may have been killed. Here's another detail worthy of investigation: are those numbers high, or low, or what?

Bush was just meeting with the King of Jordan; you think that would have provided a lede to revisit the story of the almost-gassing of Amman.

Elder's is the only RECENT story I could find, and I'd prefer another source, but the other sources aren't covering the story.

If in April, they reported life discovered on Mars, and then no further stories came out, wouldn't that seem wierd to you?

Admit it; I have a point here.

The Elder article did not contain any new information not present in the earlier articles. They added speculation. The only chemical mentioned in multiple reports with photos was sulfuric acid. Other photos show many blue jugs of chemcials but didn't give a list of what they were.

It seems to me that the Jordanian authorities aren't giving out this information. The media can't report what they don't know. Fox news doesn't have anything more, nor have they implied that the chemicals might be chemcial weapons. This makes me suspect that the chemicals are not chemical weapons, but rather ordinary chemcials like household ammonia and bleach that when mixed yield a poisonous gas.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Exactly , and you make my point. Just because I have voted for Republicans doesn't mean I can't be a liberal. Similarly, just because MSM has voted for Democrats doesn't make him non-conservative.

Sorry, dude, you ain't gettin' it. Democrats became a national party by guiding this country into the #1 position. Having thus done so, they then had a change of heart and repented of this sin in 1972. The GOP picked up the ball and continued to run with it. Go, America! You're still #1.

It's like Saari just said, "The 'suicide' will be the 'Big One' of Crisis IMHO... but it will be our own doing and not anothers." Only I now agree we be 4T. So the choices are now being made. You and I are now as mortal enemies as the Torys v. Republicans, as the Rebels v. the Yanks. Very soon it shall be a duel to the very death of one or the other, dude.

Go Bush or Bush is Hitler. The choice is yours. 8)

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Exactly , and you make my point. Just because I have voted for Republicans doesn't mean I can't be a liberal. Similarly, just because MSM has voted for Democrats doesn't make him non-conservative.

Sorry, dude, you ain't gettin' it. Democrats became a national party by guiding this country into the #1 position. Having thus done so, they then had a change of heart and repented of this sin in 1972. The GOP picked up the ball and continued to run with it. Go, America! You're still #1.

It's like Saari just said, "The 'suicide' will be the 'Big One' of Crisis IMHO... but it will be our own doing and not anothers." Only I now agree we be 4T. So the choices are now being made. You and I are now as mortal enemies as the Torys v. Republicans, as the Rebels v. the Yanks. Very soon it shall be a duel to the very death of one or the other, dude.

Go Bush or Bush is Hitler. The choice is yours. 8)