OT: The Swiftees

[Jared]

>> I've presented arguments to claims in the book. They can be addressed, point by point. Or, you can just hide behind this.>>

I choose not to debate the claims of a book when the book has not been read by BOTH people involved in said debate.

Really, this doesn't make any sense. You make claims that Kerry is being deceptive, using evidence presented in the book. I counter those claims. Then, instead of replying to my responses, you say "you haven't read the book!" I really can't see how this isn't ducking the question. And after I read the book, suddenly all my arguments will magically become addressable?

Come on. If you're going to make claims, you should back them up. "You haven't read the book" is hiding.

>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5831541/site/newsweek/

"Lambert’s surviving military records do not include the initial recommendation for this medal, so there is no way to know who filled the required role of witness to vouch for Lambert’s actions. But the citation contains such detail about the actions of both Thurlow and Lambert—actions that Kerry cannot have known since his launch was on the far side of the river—that it seems implausible Kerry could have written the recommendation."

This is the key piece. I don't buy it. Aside from the fact that Newsweek (I have a gift subscription regrettably) sides regularly with Kerry and the Democrats on almost every issue.

Quick point: you're setting up another ad hominem (attack the magazine as biased first before making your point).

The assumption that is made here by the author of this report is that Kerry could not have known what happened with Thurlow and Lambert, so he couldn't have written the spot report. Hm, so Kerry, right after picking Rassman out of the drink, ran back to the front of his boat, and filed a report about it, and therefore it didn't include information about Thurlow and Lambert. Oh, wait, I got another idea. After rescuing Rassman, Kerry went to one base, and all the other swift boats went to another base, so that they couldn't have shared their stories before writing reports, and Kerry filed his report in a vacuum.

This isn't the assumption. They're saying that it seems odd that Kerry would be writing spot reports for things he didn't witness. Even if he did write the report (again, there's no evidence for this), he would have to get testimony from others about what happened. So you have to assume that Kerry got everyone's testimony, added stuff about being under enemy fire, got Thurlow and Lambert Bronze Stars under false information, all so that Kerry could add details that would make him look good later? This is a stretch, and it's something that you have no evidence for.

Or could it maybe, just maybe, be that these swift boats, all based at the same spot, returned home, the men talked about what happened and one of them (Kerry or someone else) filed the spot report that included the details of what happened as told by the men?!

That's likely. And what the men told them is that there was a firefight.

The conclusion that if Kerry didn't see it, he couldn't have written the spot report, is absolutely ludicrous and I find it amazing that you don't see that.

Actually, I'll agree with you on this. This is a possibility. But then whoever wrote this would have to rely on the testimony of others there, and write up a report. So you have to assume that the person who wrote it decided to lie about incoming fire, something you have no evidence for.

[RandyM]

Anyone wanting to read a good thread discussing the bona fides of the Lambert story the David Corn wrote should check out this thread. I'm not going to cut and paste from it, but feel free to bring up anything noteworthy. Some excellent points are made there.

http://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5672

[RandyM]

By the way, the reasonable conclusion drawn in the thread I linked to above is that Kerry lied and there's no way to get around it.

So I challenge Jared and any other Kerry-defenders to poke holes in the conclusions drawn in the thread...it should be fun to watch.

Randy

[Bill_Abner]

Bush calls himself the "war president." He's been trumpeting his status as the commander in chief. One of their slogans is "Stay the Course." IOW, don't make waves, stay with the known, regardless of the results. So he started this whole thing about muscle-flexing.

Bill, as badly as Ohio has been hit economically, each new poll coming out seems to show Bush's lead there increasing. Seems like the only Battleground State solidly on his side at this point. Pocketbook is obviously not a big enough issue. Maybe Bush will win a lot of votes just on cultural issues like gay marriage and guns.

Ask any presidential historian (worth his/her salt) and they'll tell you that polls in August really don't mean much. Right now, according to state polls, Kerry wins if the election were held today despite the fact that Bush leads in polls in Ohio and Florida. Of course this is meaningless right now. When it's THIS close, those polls can change in a heartbeat. Kerry had an 8 point lead in Ohio last month. Now, he doesn't. Bush had a huge lead in Tenn. and now Kerry has the lead. Polls in August are super fickle.

Historically, the Pres in office has a big lead at this point, and Bush is either down a little or up a little depending on who you listen to. The Dispatch, the paper that I quoted, is a moderate right wing paper, not overly right, not nowhere near the left, and they had a story last month saying that they expect more new Ohio voters this year than there have been in 60 years. Of course, those new voters don't show up in any of these polls. The question: are they coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bush or Kerry? I don't know, but something sure has triggered a LOT of new voter registration in the state.

We can debate Vietnam, swift boats, National Guard records, et al until our fingers bleed. None of that is really going to matter in the end. The key voters, the indies, have yet to make up their mind. This has also happened in the past. Recall how CLOSE the Carter/Reagan race was in the summer of 1980. In looking at the results at http://www.usconstitution.net/elecvotes.html ..Reagan won 489-49. Same with 1992. Clinton was in a dogfight with Original Flavor Bush, and yet won 370-168. In elections like this, the indies don't move, usually, until after the debates. All of this current stuff is precursor to the important stuff, when the people who are not right or left sit down to watch these two men debate against one another, with all of the other crap shoved to the side. It's then when they'll have a chance to truly go at each other.

If polling shows Bush up in Ohio by 7-10 points in late October then that's cause for alarm if you're a Kerry backer. Right now? a 5-8 point lead in a poll is still razor thin.

[Jared]

Anyone wanting to read a good thread discussing the bona fides of the Lambert story the David Corn wrote should check out this thread. I'm not going to cut and paste from it, but feel free to bring up anything noteworthy. Some excellent points are made there.

http://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5672

Are there specific quotes that you want me to address in this? They seem to bring up lots of stuff. A lot of these posts start with this:

"Here's my thoughts on what may have happened:"

"Yep, that's the model/hypothesis I came up with in another thread."

"I think Polaris' version is likely very accurate as to what happened."

It's people coming up with ways that it might have happened that are consistent with a Kerry lied/the records are wrong/etc. viewpoint. And?

This is conjecture from people that weren't there that think that Kerry was lying...so they'll come up with accounts that fit what they want to believe. They might be right too...or they may not be. But anyways, there are lots of accounts in this post. If there's something specific that you want us to respond to, then let us know, and we'll see if it's addressable.

[dougb]

>> Just like W stopped 9/11 before it happened eh? >>

In other words, your defence of Kerry's position is to attack Bush's? That's all you've got?

Let's see...Bush was in office 8 months before 9/11. Preceding that, Clinton was in place for 8 YEARS. The Director of the CIA was .. George Tenet..Clinton Appointee. Bush kept him. Maybe that was his mistake, not cleaning house. The 9/11 report didn't absolve anyone of blame, nor did it assign blame to anyone per se. The system failed to protect us. Period. If you are going to blame Bush for 8 months I could blame Clinton for 8 years. But where does that get us, really?

> But I guess spending time at the ranch clearing brush is clearly more important than bothering to do anything aft er being warned about impending hijacking attempts in the United States. Of course, a career made out of being 1) a failed student 2) a failed pilot 3) a failed businessman should have warned us that perhaps he really wasn't up to the job. >

Straight from the Michael Moore school of "don't bother me with facts, I just HATE BUSH!"

>> And his policy for stopping future terrorist attacks? - attacking countries that don't pose a threat to the United States, killing thousands of innocent civlians and increasing world-wide rage against the United States. >>

John Kerry felt Iraq posed a threat to us. Al Gore said he did. Bill Clinton said he did. Our intelligence agencies said he did. The British Intelligence said he did. The Russian intelligence said he did. Putin said he warned Bush that Iraq was going to do something to us. But ...Bush just made it up and lied, right? Lesson #1 to future presidents. Don't listen to what your Democratic predecessor and Democratic senators say...they are wrong.

>> That is, to put it charitably, an unusual way to combat terrorism. He's singehandedly managed to reverse all the good will that the United States received from around the world after September 11.>>

Good will doesn't buy you a cup of coffee at 7/11. Good will would not have meant beans when these people were skimming millions of bucks off of the oil-for-food program, one of the most corrupt systems ever installed. But if you had it your way, Saddam would STILL be in power, the rape rooms would be busy 24/7, mass graves would still be being filled, and at some future date al Qaeda might have brought in an anthrax, or nuclear surprise for us, courtesy of Saddam Hussein. But hey, those 25 million Iraqis who are free for the first time in 30 years of living in terror? SCREW 'EM! WE GOT A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT TO BRING DOWN! (But it was okay to overthrow Slobodan Milosevic, who of course was an imminent threat to us...because it was the "compassionate" thing to do ...and not because the President was a Democrat).

A Democrat's definition of a just war: "One where our National Interests are not involved and we do not stand to benefit in any way".

>> Maybe Kerry is too genteel to defeat Bush. If he really had a mean streak he could go nuclear and run adds showing W sitting in the classroom without a clue how to respond while people were burning to death in the towers. >>

Only if we can make it a triple split screen showing Kerry doing the same thing.

Let's see. You think that because Bill Clinton didn't receive a warning about hijacked airliners in his 8 years of office he is equally responsible to someone who did receive a warning (from George Tennant) and did absolutely nothing for a whole month. Is this REALLY what you're arguing?? I can just see Harry Truman saying "You know, if goddamn Roosevelt hadn't been president before me then I wouldn't have to deal with this mess in Korea"

As for the 9-11 report there is a really simple reason why it doesn't assign blame to anyone in particular. The Republicans were not going to permit the report to be released unless the apportionment of blame were left to a subsequent report.

As for the Michael Moore remark perhaps you could provide some evidence that 'Not So Curious George' has succeeded as a student, pilot, or businessman. After all, a man who graduated by his own admission with gentlemen's Cs, and who wasn't even able to complete his arduous duty in the Texas Air National Guards 'Champagne Unit', doesn't exactly strike me as someone who exactly excelled through life. I will grant you, however, that in the case of his business ventures he did manage to amass an impressive amount of money from the trail of failed business ventures he left behind

And you might want to do a little research on Iraq. Turns out those mass graves are being filled up plenty fast right now - courtesy of the United States Military. Of course when Saddam actually was killing significant numbers of Iraqis the United States ( Ronnie and Bush 1) supported him. Yup, get out of power Saddam so we can go kill ourselves some Iraqis. That policy is bound to win you lots of friends in the Arab world. And the rape and torture rooms - Open for business under new management! Cleaned up, repainted, and reopened. Uncle Sam's going to show them how to run a real rape and torture establishment. YEE HAW!!!

And then we get to the standard 'Osama and Saddam were cooperating, or could have cooperated, or might cooperate, closely together line'. Oops, all the evidence contradicts this but why would that stop you from repeating the accusation. I mean, they could have cooperated together if only they didn't despise each other so much. Fact is, the only terrorists operating in Iraq (if you don't count Allawi's car bombings) were operating in the Kurdish enclave in Northern Iraq outside of the area controlled by the Iraqi government. But hey, why let the facts get in the way when there's a war you want to fight? Especially when its other people who have to do the actual fighting and dying.

I like your idea of a triple split screen. Of course, it wouldn't be possible because in 2001 the buck stopped with George W. Bush. Or would have, if he were a Democrat

Best wishes,

Doug

[Brando70]

I took a peek too, Jared, and didn't see much there except for speculation. What was funny was the guy who was the lawyer criticizing the press for the way they handle "witnesses," when that whole forum is obviously working under the assumption Kerry is lying and searching for explanations to prove it. There's nothing wrong with that, except in no way, shape, or form is that an investigation over there. It's a "Kerry's a liar" circle jerk. Meanwhile, in the so-called liberal media, I've seen stories/reports back and forth offering credence to the Swift Boat Vets and also criticizing inconsistencies in their stories. So who is fair and balanced again?

[Jared]

And you might want to do a little research on Iraq. Turns out those mass graves are being filled up plenty fast right now - courtesy of the United States Military. Of course when Saddam actually was killing significant numbers of Iraqis the United States ( Ronnie and Bush 1) supported him. Yup, get out of power Saddam so we can go kill ourselves some Iraqis. That policy is bound to win you lots of friends in the Arab world. And the rape and torture rooms - Open for business under new management! Cleaned up, repainted, and reopened. Uncle Sam's going to show them how to run a real rape and torture establishment. YEE HAW!!!

Whoa whoa whoa.....mass graves being filled up courtesy of the US Military? Come on...I'm no fan of the war, but this is going waaaay too far. Trying to say that what the US Military has done is equal to what Hussein did when he was in power is absurd.

[FatPitcher]

Seriously, people, if you don't want to read the book, at least go to the swiftvets.com forum. There's good information there, with plenty of people who have kept tabs on every little happening on the issue and who are willing to discuss the subject without getting off topic.

Just don't pose your questions confrontationally (they have a troll problem, as you can imagine) and don't try to steer the topic to something that doesn't pertain to SBVT (i.e. AWOL Bush, Kerry's environmental record, etc.).

I'm not going to respond to all the things I said I was going to respond to, because if you still think that Kerry was in Cambodia, there's no point in debating any other incidents. (Another point I forgot to bring up is that he specifically recalled Christmas celebrations--rockets and celebratory gunfire and such--while in Cambodia, making the "sometime in January" story even more implausible, if that's even possible.)

I don't think Kerry's service was disgraceful. He did some brave things, as did all soldiers who saw combat. But I don't think it's as noteworthy as he would have people believe. He clearly made up and exaggerated stories to support his arguments (Cambodia-contras/anti-war sentiment/turning point in life, Bronze Star/No Man Left Behind). A lot of soldiers probably made up stuff. But they aren't running for president, and they aren't using their inflated claims of being a "war hero" to assert that their military and national security credentials are unassailable, as Kerry is. And they didn't turn the country against their shipmates and their fellow soldiers by testifying solely with secondhand knowledge (much of which has since been discredited) that they had committed heinous war crimes. They didn't privately meet with North Vietnamese leaders to encourage them to wait for the U.S. to capitulate. They didn't belong to an organization that proposed assassinating U.S. Senators (the idea of Scott Camil, who is now working for Kerry campaign in Florida) and that was led by a man whose claims of being an officer and being in Vietnam turned out to be completely false.

[dougb]

Jared

10,000+ civilians killed since the invasion. Large areas of Najaf and Fallujah levelled by aerial bombardment and ground fire. If 10,000 people doesn't equal a mass grave then I'm not sure what does.

To be fair, though, it certainly doesn't reach the level of depravity of Saddam's killings in the 80's and early 90's. Unfortunately, the United States was perfectly willing to go along with the whole thing back then. The United States even sided with Saddam on the issue of chemical weapons use. At least in Kosovo the U.S. intervened within reasonable proximity to the ethnic clensing. And there is absolutely no evidence that Saddam's brutality was in any way related to the invasion.

Best wishes,

Doug

[Jared]

Seriously, people, if you don't want to read the book, at least go to the swiftvets.com forum. There's good information there, with plenty of people who have kept tabs on every little happening on the issue and who are willing to discuss the subject without getting off topic.

I'm checking it out. I don't think the information is as good as you say it is...but I'm definitely reading it. Again, thanks for the tip.

I'm not going to respond to all the things I said I was going to respond to, because if you still think that Kerry was in Cambodia, there's no point in debating any other incidents. (Another point I forgot to bring up is that he specifically recalled Christmas celebrations--rockets and celebratory gunfire and such--while in Cambodia, making the "sometime in January" story even more implausible, if that's even possible.)

None of us have said that Kerry was definitely in Cambodia. This is what I said:

The thing is we don't know if he was there or not AND there's no primary evidence either way. I don't know if Kerry is telling the truth on this or not. But there isn't enough evidence for me to say he's lying either. This is probably the "best" claim that the Swift Vets have, and it's something that's iffy.

As for your regarding celebratory gunfire in January, Tet (the Vietnamese New Year) is in January. And it's celebrated with celebratory gunfire.

[Brando70]

FatPitcher,

One thing I agree with is that Kerry has pushed the military service to the forefront of his campaign. Prior to the Dem National Convention, it was mostly his supporters that discussed it, which I was fine with. But since then, he has tried to make it a key stumping point. I know why he's doing it, I just wish he would just say he served and get on with it.

But as far as I am concerned, there are two issues:

--Cambodia, which IMHO is not very relevant in terms of Kerry's service. It has no bearing on his valor or personal conduct.

--The medals, which do.

And from what I'm seeing in the various pro-Swift postings and articles, I'm not convinced that those medals were deceptively earned somehow. I think this group is latching onto every single contradiction they can as a way to "get" Kerry. But I know, from my own experience, that I make the same kind of contradictions all the time, misremembering things, forgetting and omitting stuff, even about key events. So, unless someone's going to prove that Kerry deliberately fudged to get those medals, then I consider it irrelevant.

As for their argument about Kerry's conduct in the anti-war movement, I think the Swift Boat Vets have a point, even if I don't agree with it. But the man's 20-year record in the Senate is a lot more relevant than all this Vietnam stuff, whether you are for him or against him. Just in the same way that Bush's record the last 3 years is more important than whether he went to Vietnam.

[RandyM]

DougB, there are people I will debate issues with. You're not one of 'em. The reason is simple. You are a fanatical Bush-hater who will not be dissuaded no matter what is posted, because your views are based on a vitriolic personal hatred of an individual, not based upon policies, records or histories. It is absolutely useless to argue issues or facts with someone who is as extreme on the loony left as you are.

The various against Bush's intelligence and other personal cheap shots simply put you so far out of the mainstream there's no reaching you. You cannot be convinced, and you cannot be dissuaded, or even made to act rational. Your posts exude unfiltered personal hatred.

Therefore, I will not be responding to any of your posts. Say what you like in reply. I will not answer you. There are just some people it is a waste of time to reach. Even the guy to my left, Jared, has seen just how over the edge you are. Not worth my time, pal.

Randy

[dougb]

DougB, there are people I will debate issues with. You're not one of 'em. The reason is simple. You are a fanatical Bush-hater who will not be dissuaded no matter what is posted, because your views are based on a vitriolic personal hatred of an individual, not based upon policies, records or histories. It is absolutely useless to argue issues or facts with someone who is as extreme on the loony left as you are.

The various against Bush's intelligence and other personal cheap shots simply put you so far out of the mainstream there's no reaching you. You cannot be convinced, and you cannot be dissuaded, or even made to act rational. Your posts exude unfiltered personal hatred.

Therefore, I will not be responding to any of your posts. Say what you like in reply. I will not answer you. There are just some people it is a waste of time to reach. Even the guy to my left, Jared, has seen just how over the edge you are. Not worth my time, pal.

Randy

It always gives me a chuckle when anti-Kerry extremists accuse others of 'hating'.

Best wishes,

Doug

[Teal]

"This seems like it's an unevidenced smear, and I'm calling people on it"




Does what it "seem" to be really matter if you haven't "read the book"? You're a solid debater, Jared, but that line up at the top is a chink in the armor, if you ask me. You've left a door wide open...you'll go to great lengths to search out counterclaims to claims you haven't even read! You CAN'T call people on it, bro, til you KNOW (know) what exactly the SBV's are saying... how can you even claim it seems unevidenced if you haven't read the thing? Just wondering...

[Teal]

"Just like W stopped 9/11 before it happened eh? But I guess spending time at the ranch clearing brush is clearly more important than bothering to do anything aft er being warned about impending hijacking attempts in the United States."



Kinda like this armchair quarterbacking we all do in here? How many times have we been attacked since then, genius? Wait, don't hurt yourself, I'll just tell you...zero. nada. zip. zilch. You think it's because they just decided to play nice and leave us alone?

[Teal]

"Again with the "you haven't read it, so your arguments are invalid" tack. I've presented arguments to claims in the book. They can be addressed, point by point. Or, you can just hide behind this."



"Really, this doesn't make any sense. You make claims that Kerry is being deceptive, using evidence presented in the book. I counter those claims. Then, instead of replying to my responses, you say "you haven't read the book!" I really can't see how this isn't ducking the question. And after I read the book, suddenly all my arguments will magically become addressable?

Come on. If you're going to make claims, you should back them up. "You haven't read the book" is hiding."


Jared:
Seriously, man, you're wrong on this one...try your approach in a court as a defender, and you're guy will go down in flames. You simply MUST know where the other side is coming from if you're going to accurately defend it. I have a hard time understanding your rationale that reading the book doesn't have anything to do with it...it has everything to do with it...




"Turns out those mass graves are being filled up plenty fast right now - courtesy of the United States Military. Of course when Saddam actually was killing significant numbers of Iraqis the United States ( Ronnie and Bush 1) supported him. Yup, get out of power Saddam so we can go kill ourselves some Iraqis. That policy is bound to win you lots of friends in the Arab world. And the rape and torture rooms - Open for business under new management! Cleaned up, repainted, and reopened. Uncle Sam's going to show them how to run a real rape and torture establishment. YEE HAW!!!"


Doug:
That's just pathetic, immature, and pointless. You're embarrassing yourself...

[dougb]

Teal,

10,000+ dead civilians is pathetic?
documented torture and rape by U.S. soldiers is pathetic?
Wholesale destruction of civilian areas is pathetic?

I agree it is pathetic. These people didn't do anything to Americans and yet they are killed, tortured, and whole areas are being laid to waste. The general population is now in more danger than they were before the invasion.

And when they come to the U.S. for a little payback for turning their country into a charnel house please don't sit there and ask "Why us? Why do they hate us?" Because I can practically guarantee you that in Fallujah, Najaf, Baghdad, and other cities across Iraq there are families and individuals asking this question of you right now.

"Let the dead bury the dead"

Best wishes,

Doug

[Teal]

"These people didn't do anything to Americans and yet they are killed, tortured, and whole areas are being laid to waste. The general population is now in more danger than they were before the invasion."



What the hell are you TALKING about?!? Abu Ghraib? Is that it? That your big torture story? 7 or 8 nutcases who get bored? What else "documented" do you have? If you're going to bring the accusation, please bring the proof with you.



" And when they come to the U.S. for a little payback for turning their country into a charnel house please don't sit there and ask "Why us? Why do they hate us?" Because I can practically guarantee you that in Fallujah, Najaf, Baghdad, and other cities across Iraq there are families and individuals asking this question of you right now."



You're conjuring up stuff in your mind. Payback? Tell that to the Iraqi Soccer team, who would be being stuffed feet first into a wood chipper right now for losing the other night if not for us "imperialistic American dogs". That IS what you think, I can "practically guarantee it", same as you. Get over your morally ambivalent high road...geez.

[RandyM]

Teal, Your motives are good, but your time is wasted on dougb. Anyone who believes that we are there to show Iraqis just how great rape rooms can be is off the deep end. Let him live in his own little fantasy world. He can hang out with the other "Bush lied" crowdmembers and sing kumbaya. He has no place in a debate where people are actually trying to argue from a rational perspective.

Just ignore him -- with any luck he'll get sick of being ignored and go hang out on the moveon.org forums, where he can talk to all the other Bush haters who will say "rah rah" when he invesnts fantasies to make himself feel better.

Randy

[James_E]

That's it! Enough!

I'm banning all you jerks from the TOCA2 races I host.

[dougb]

Teal,

No I don't really believe that the United States=Saddam Hussein. If you'd bothered to read my reply to Jared you'd have seen that. But torture is torture. We expect it from Saddam but not from the United States. I assume you don't condone the torture and rape either.

You might want to read this: Schleschinger Report

http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/040824finalreport.pdf

Bottom of page 5 for conclusions about responsibility. The whole report is 124 pages although there is a good executive summary in the first section.

Taguba report

http://www.agonist.org/annex/taguba.htm

Limited mandate but provides good description of what went on at Abu Graib. He was not allowed to investigate very far up the chain of command although he did provide a lot of good information.

Couple of good articles by Seymour Hersch (gosh, investigative journalism!!)

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

Transcript of an interview with Seymour Hersch on the torture scandal

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... 10/1417253

Guardian article on private sector involvement in torture

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 25,00.html

Amnesty International Press release

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/EN ... of=ENG-IRQ

Amnesty International Open Letter to Bush

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/EN ... of=ENG-IRQ

Best wishes,

Doug

[Teal]

Doug:
Whoa, buddy! If you eat that much, you should know you're gonna throw it up... (Information regurgitation!)
I don't have near enough time to go through all that stuff. I'm pretty sure I don't need to read something from Amnetsy International to get their angle. There to the left, juuuusst a little...one thing I can say with relative certainty is that, outside of an isolated incident at Abu Ghraib, which involved DIRECTLY a few twisted individuals, (one at least has the balls to admit his own responsibility-imagine that; someone taking responsibility for their actions in this country...) abuse ( I wouldn't call it torture-look up that word in the Hussein dictionary for it's proper definition) is not an issue. I have spoken with soldiers on the ground. This is not going on. What do I care what a bunch of pundits and politicians say about it? The soldiers have nothing to gain from coloring Iraq with a Washington or special interest group crayon. Things are much better over there than a scandal starved media will ever report, and that's sad. Are they still fighting? In spots yes. Are they engaging in the wanton distruction of towns and mosques? NO. NO. NO. And they aren't "Slaughtering innocent Iraqis". That's just nonsense. We didn't send Hannibal Lechter over there...besides, it's not your "fact" finding that gets my goat. It's the goading, elementary school playground tone in your attacks, and it diminishes your credibility exponentially...

[XXXIV]

That's it! Enough!

I'm banning all you jerks from the TOCA2 races I host.

They are amazing arent they???

I was hoping it would die after the election but now...........
I think they can keep this thread going long after Xmas

[dougb]

Teal,

You can read the executive summaries if you don't want to read the full reports. They'll provide you with the main points and conclusions. Typically, that is what a senior executive will concentrate on.

And generally you'll find Amnesty Interational quite balanced, which is why they tend to annoy governments everywhere. They have a passion for human rights, which to my mind exemplifies the best of what America stands for. Don't dismiss them so readily until you've actually examined and thought about what they say and write.

As for the tone of my posts I'll admit that the one post was probably an ill-advised attempt to mix humor and sarcasm. That post probably read to many as if I was stating that there was no difference between the United States and Saddam - which was not my intention. However, I think that you'll have to agree the vast majority of my posts have been conducted in a respectful and informed manner.


Best wishes,

Doug