Fighting the previous war and dissing General Petraeus: the historical underpinnings of MoveOn’s move (Part I)
The antiwar, anti-Bush Leftist organization MoveOn isn’t keen on preemptive strikes—except for its own towards its designated enemies, who now seem to include General Petraeus.
MoveOn has drawn quite a bit of metaphorical flak for its ad in the NY Times aimed at Petraeus. MoveOn’s boldness in attacking a very popular general and insinuating that he is not only mistaken but a dissembling traitor—and all of this before he even gave his testimony—has disturbed even some Democrats, if only for tactical reasons.
Nancy Pelosi, for example, says she “wished [MoveOn] wouldn’t have done that ad”— and I’ll bet she’s telling the truth. It puts the Democrats in an oh-so-delicate position. Do they alienate their MoveOn base by criticizing it, or do they draw the ire of the bulk of the great American middle for not supporting the military?
Joe Lieberman denounced the MoveOn ad, as could have been expected, and called for fellow Democrats to join him. It’s not surprising that so few heeded the call of a man widely regarded as a DINO. John Kerry seemed to make the strongest other Democratic anti-MoveOn statement, which was merely that the ad was “over the top.” Hillary dodged the issue by saying she would keep her focus on ending the war, Obama said he didn’t think the General was lying but merely wrong, and Edwards said he honored the general’s service without being in agreement with him, but none of them explicitly rejected or condemned the ad.
What’s going on here? Why would MoveOn take this tack, and why is it so difficult for the Democrats to denounce it? The answer, I believe, can be found—as with so things connected with the Iraq War and American politics—in Vietnam.
Historically, public opinion of generals and the military has waxed and waned. During WWI, which was truly (not just rhetorically) a stalemated war of attrition with extremely high casualties for the major European players, distrust and cynicism towards generals grew, especially overseas (see, for example, the controversy over British General Haig, who was blamed for causing enormous casualties unnecessarily through poor strategy). World War II, on the other hand, was the “Good War,” and it saw a plethora of US generals whose popularity remains high even today, and one who became a two-term postwar President, Eisenhower.
Vietnam involved a US turning point in this regard. What I would call the first act of the war—the 60s years, as opposed to the second-act 70s—featured public and press opinion towards the high command that began in trust and ended in contemptuous and angry cynicism.
This development had two main causes. The first was the correct perception that the military brass had perpetrated a cover-up of the My Lai massacre in its initial investigation, and that, left to its own devices, this might not have been corrected (scroll down to “coverup and investigations, here). In that regard, the press was widely perceived as applying the pressure to force a reluctant and dissembling military to finally come clean.
The second is the fact that William Westmoreland, the general in charge during the first act, specialized in optimistic and sanguine predictions that did not pan out. Prior to Tet, he boldly stated that the enemy was unable to mount a major offensive and the end was in sight. When Tet—a major (although ultimately unsuccessful) offensive—was launched, even though the enemy was decimated in the process it scored a propaganda victory in making Westmoreland seem to be an idiot and/or a liar.
Petraeus does not equal Westmoreland. In fact, even Westmoreland’s less-well-known successor, Creighton Abrams, he of the second act of Vietnam, did not equal Westmoreland.
But the anti-commander die was cast on the Left, not to be discarded. People often accuse generals of being so rigid in their thinking that they are fighting the previous war rather the present one. Petraeus, however, is an excellent example of a general who does not appear to have this problem. One can hardly say the same for the Left.
[Part II.]
Petraeus has famously counseled:
Not putting bad news out there does not help our cause.
Petraeus point:
We cannot fake our way to victory. If positive events do not outweigh negative events, the U.S. will not win the conflict anyway. Therefore, we ought not fear negative events. We ought use negative events, in fact, as coaching for how to improve our procedures.
It’s an interesting point. When commenters (like me) express frustration that the U.S. is inept in fighting the information war, we ought clearly be a stand that the information war equates to all the information, both good and bad.
Most who express frustration do stand for both good and bad information getting out. We are simply frustrated by our belief that the ratio of good to bad in the field is inverse to the ratio of good to bad in the media. Effective information warfare would bring the media ratio more closely into accordance with the field ratio.
http://www.rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com
The possibility of an American victory in Iraq is intolerable to MoveOn and the rest of the Left. They want us to lose, preferably with as many casualties as possible. It’s not really about Bush, it’s about defeating America. Petraeus is an effective general so they want to destroy him.
If you can make people believe that everyone is lying to them except you, you can make them believe anything else. That’s why it’s important for some people to hammer home the idea that the media are always biased, and for others to insist that any news coming from the government or the military must be propaganda. It’s not about truth, it’s about power.
“The possibility of an American victory in Iraq is intolerable to MoveOn and the rest of the Left. They want us to lose, preferably with as many casualties as possible. It’s not really about Bush, it’s about defeating America. Petraeus is an effective general so they want to destroy him.”-Trimegistus
It most be blogging hour in the “booby hatch.”
Of course, just like Vietnam, those like Donk who work the hardest to orchestrate defeat will chock it up to “God’s will” or “somebody else’s fault”.
Hope you remember our appointment.
The Left is famous for overplaying its’ hand; and they’re doing it again with the “betray-us” meme. Trimegistus is correct in his overall assessment.
The next interesting fumble will come if the Islamists are able to pull off a domestic terror attack on the scale of 9/11 or the Beslan massacre. The whole reason for the 9/11 Truther operation is to try to counter something like this, in advance of the event. When they begin to prate about the Evil Bush Empire as a causative factor for 9/11-II while trying to use it as a organizing tool with the Useful Idiots they will overplay their hand once again. And, will be flirting with the possibility of a Presidential decree of internal security emergency (the laws and Exec. Orders exist) While this will fit their plan of “drawing down the Fascist Fist” they will find themselves all by themselves in their “vanguard of the proletarian revolution” without significant public support. Even the fellow travelers and liberal rats will take to the life boats.
Forget Move-On Neo, you guys might have to pull another Joe McCarthy style Army hearing.
It seems the defeatotards, or whatever you call us these days, have infiltrated Centcom.
Petraeus’s boss Adm. William Fallon said this about the “last honest man.”
Fallon told Petraeus [in March] that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickensh*t” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
Ok kids, man the cheeto bags, time for some all-night rationalizing and twisted logic. I’m sure you’ll see the “mission” through to “victory.”
ps-No. Lee, I could never forget.
What I think we have to remember is that MoveOn doesn’t speak for anyone in the moderate middle or tilting left. Most people as in either party are more middle minded. Extremism from either side is quite dangerous, as is seen in other parts of the world.
I do think there is a small fringe far left component that does wish for defeat. However, they are misguided if they think that the Dems want em. Just as most Republicans hold their noses to the far right wackiness. Same thing. Different script.
They made themselves look like the fools that they are and delivered to the right a golden egg. What better was to galvanize people when they have some pink shirt wearing weenie screaming in the halls of Congress.
Laura, what you should remember is that far Left groups such as Move On, and the “Pink shirt wearing weenies” would dearly love to speak for you, and for everybody else in the moderate middle and leaning left. And, if nobody stands up to them, they’ll appoint themselves spokes persons for the entire Democratic party. Already, Dem candidates seem to be too much in awe of such groups.
That’s a good point. I think it’s good to remember that for either party. Pandering to such extremes can hardly serve the greater good.
I don’t think MoveOn can fairly be compared to far right extremists who are excoriated by Republicans and Conservatives every time they raise their heads above ground.
MoveOn has political clout. MoveOn has George Soros’ money to contribute to re-election campaigns. MoveOn is a national player.
Democrats are as afraid to criticize MoveOn as WaPo is to publish Opus cartoons. Democrats are as afraid to criticize MoveOn as the entire MSM was to publish the 2006 Muhammed cartoons.
Democrats will naturally pooh pooh MoveOn’s clout in public, even as they run in fear at openly and strongly criticizine MoveOn. Are we going to believe the Democrats words, or their cower in fear actions? Are we going to believe the Democrats, or our own eyes?
To counter my assertion that MoveOn is not equal to far right extremists, you would almost have to find examples where the Christian Coalition made consistently wacky accusations, as MoveOn does. But remember MoveOn is promoting skewed data – aka “lies” – out into the national consciousness every week. MoveOn is like a little dog which yaps lies every single day. The little dog never tires.
The Christian Coalition is not spewing lies into the national consciousness in any similar fashion to MoveOn. Further, when someone in the Christian Coalition goes too far – such as Falwell’s remarks after 9/11; or Trent Lott’s remards about Strom Thurman – other Christians, Conservatives, and usually Republican Congressmen rein him back in, via publicly pointing out the error in the remarks. The Christian Coalition person typically embarks on an apology tour. This is also a sharp contrast with the left-side non-reaction to outrageous remarks by MoveOn.
If Dems were not scared to lose MoveOn money, about 80 Dem Congresspersons would’ve been ripping MoveOn morning, noon, and night over the last three days. Dems love doing political posturing like they love taking their next breath.
I really think, if Dems were not scared of losing MoveOn and friends, Harry and Nancy would not be leading the party over a cliff vis a vis Iraq. I really REALLY disagree with the assertion that MoveOn is a non-powerful non-entity.
“I don’t think MoveOn can fairly be compared to far right extremists who are excoriated by Republicans and Conservatives every time they raise their heads above ground.”
I think they can… Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps is a registered Democrat, as are Pat Buchanan and David Duke.
It’s just that the Republicans lost all their right-wing nutjobs to Ross Perot in the 1992 election year, and hasn’t been inclined to welcome them back. Then, between 9-11 and the left wing’s blame-the-victim reaction to it, the Rs pretty much were handed the entire center on a silver plate, as the Ds’ decades of developing their anti-war, pro-diplomacy stance suddenly became a liability.
I increasingly find it highly remarkable that anyone who remains an administration supporter can get all excited about the left, the defeatocrats, moveon, etc. And, increasingly, I regard loud complaints about those things to be admissions on the part of the speaker or writer that Iraq is a complete mess.
Victory is not possible in Iraq. You hear me? It’s impossible. The only way victory is possible is if you define victory down to such incredibly low expectations that the whole event becomes a mockery.
Let me make this clear:
1) Iraq will not develop into the healthy, role-model democracy that was planned. Ain’t gonna happen.
2) Democracy will not spread around the Islamic world due to our work in Iraq.
3) Terrorism will not decrease as it was supposed to due to the spreading of democracy promised above. Please, go back and read the original propaganda from Bush, Rumsfeld, the NeoCons, etc., and the promises that they made. Ain’t gonna happen.
4) The US will not come out of this with greater regional or global leverage of influence. If you honestly believe, as some on the right do, all this crap about “a strong horse” and how Iraq makes us look determined and tough, think again.
What is going to come out of Iraq? Well, let’s see: We’ve blown HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. We’ve lost about 4000 of our best citizens and god knows how many arms and legs of those who did survive.
Imagine that money being spent on basic research in the national laboratories or places like DARPA for technological breakthroughs that would have benefitted our economy. Neocon morons gripe about the waste and expense of NASA; at $16 billion a year NASA is an amazing bargain compared to what we’re spending in Iraq.
It’s absolutely laughable to me that anyone with a modest amount of education could look at the mess that is Iraq, look at our own crappy infrastructure and say, “Oh yeah, we can win there!” WIN WHAT? WIN F**KING WHAT?
But it’s okay. Hey, don’t blame the Bush administration for it’s horrible management of this war. Don’t blame Rumsfeld. The amazing costs of this stupid war can’t possibly be the result of the clowns running it. No, blame “the media.” hahaha. Damn, one must really be trying to protect a shattered and fragile ego to blame the media for this mess.
Hear the voice of the increasingly frightened, desperate left, in light of the Patraeus testimony and wavering polls: Victory is not possible in Iraq. You hear me? It’s impossible…. Ain’t gonna happen…. all this crap about “a strong horse” … WIN WHAT? WIN F**KING WHAT? … No, blame “the media.” hahaha….
Here’s an ironic bit at the start of the screech, though, that starts off plausibly enough, especially in light of the “loud complaints” that follow: Increasingly, I regard loud complaints about those things to be admissions on the part of the speaker or writer that Iraq is … — what, beginning to come round? salvagable after all? at least a partial success story? Well, no — any such admission would be a humiliating, ignominious defeat for the Bush-deranged partisans, wouldn’t it? No, better that their country be routed yet again than that they admit they might have been wrong. So instead, and as expected, Jimmy asserts it’s “… a complete mess. ” Whew — maybe that‘ll finally put the nail in the coffin!
But, don’t you think IT IS important to define success? While James’ approach is very loud on this topic, he does raise an important sobering point. What is success? Honest success, realistic success.
It’s also worth mentioning here that few of the Generals who were a part of the war in Iraq and had different ideas for how to move forward are hardly ever discussed in these circles. I don’t understand why not. I respect people like Casey, Abizaid and Zinni. Afterall, they were the commanders on the ground.
Of course, I see all of this and the debate about Iraq through a filter that certainly is biased in some way.
What is success?
Sorry to have to say so, Laura, but unlike wars of the past, this one will have no Unconditional Surrenders, armistice deals, and the like. Success in Iraq, as in the rest of the war against islamism, will always be a nebulous, relative matter, uneven in time and place. If you’re not happy with that, well, of course, you can always join the surrender crowd — you know, the people who think that just one more defeat and retreat will finally make our enemies leave us in peace.
As for James, it’s not that he’s loud, it’s that he’s boorish and thick, an obnoxious combination. He’s ignorable except for the fact that he’s so nicely representative.
James:
If peace in Iraq is impossible, then you and I will live to see the most awful genocide imaginable.
If peace in Iraq is impossible, and we must abandon that country to Islamists, then in five or ten years we will be fighting a true World War for our own survival against an aggressive, nuclear-armed Islamist state ruled by genuine apocalyptic madmen. Either they will kill us all or we will kill them all. Billions of people will die in any event.
I’m not kidding: abandoning Iraq means a total, genocidal world war within a generation. Those are the stakes. They are real, they are high, and no amount of wishful thinking and spouting of obscenities on your part will change that.
That is what you’re working to bring about with your demands that we abandon Iraq.
Defining success in war:
Part I.
Part II.
What I find most interesting is that Patraeus by everyone’s estimation is an incredibly formidable man and soldier who certainly understands with what he’s involved and is more than capable of handling himself, so why does the right feel the need to make such a fuss or someone calling him names? He’s a big boy, right? So why be so aghast that somebody took a verbal shot at him? If you recall, I only got my knickers in a bunch when they started attacking little Fala, but, like the general, I was a man who understood that getting into discussions of the direction of our country, particularly at difficult times, is a rough sport, not for the faint of heart. But, then again, fear is not what it used to be, now is it? God bless you all and God bless America.
Wow, Tatterdemalian, you got 33% of your party affiliations correct! With that kind of respect for factual accuracy, you have a bright future in the Republican Party.
Back in the Vietnam era Nixon and Kissinger were called war criminals. Did that help? No doubt some people think so, it got their voice heard. So the question is: was that the voice of sanity and reason then, is it today?
It just doesn’t seem so. To believe that this is the voice of reason, (General Betrayus) you have to buy into this out of control military industrial complex argument or that 9/11 was part of a conspiracy. People can be manipulated into believing things that just aren’t so. It’s a complex world most don’t have the time to analyze. Others analyze and find ways to trick us.
Neo, thanks for part I and II. Very articulate and complex.
To boil it down for mass consumption would be a task indeed. That’s exactly what your post answers to me. However, in order to WIN this war, it must be articulated to the masses in a way that can be trusted and supported. You know that I have a perspective that I bring with me on this, so I may not be the best one to say this, but, most people have no clue about how long and at what price this will take. Couple that with an overwhelming number of people, misguided perhaps, who feel distrustful of the messenger and will discount everything that the admininstration says. It will take a sobering and honest look at the whole equation. I don’t want to be a skeptic, but who is going to carry the mantle of this venture? Because, the state of affairs in the US military and personnel in the military now serving may indeed just burn out. And, that’s not a defeatist statement. It’s just that the guys that are doing the work won’t want to do it indefinately at the same deployment and redeployment track they are on now. But then, that gets my in to trouble, not just with the Left but the Right as well. Nobody seems to want to talk about how the all volunteer Army that worked pretty well after Vietnam will have to change and adapt in order to secure our country and to position ourselves militarily in the global sphere. The troops that are rotating back in December will still leave the same number pre-surge and they will still face 15 month deployment schedules until we can add Brigades and battalions; something that takes a very long time as well. So, while I understand what success CAN look like, someone needs to tell everybody else. If that cannot be done effectively, then we will have no choice but to leave.
When did the Iraqis become our enemies? When we invaded their country? Imagine that. Has a single Iraqi ever attacked an American anywhere else in the world besides Iraq? Does our occupation of their country somehow prevent them from coming over here to attack us? How?
I remember some people from Saudi Arabia attacking our country. Their leaders are in Pakistan last I heard.
And, I just thought of this as well. The WILL, Neo you brought up a good point in your part I and II as well. The WILL of people to make such sacrifices if the leaders from both parties don’t want to ask them to make such sacrifices. It’s not a popular message. The first MAN OR WOMAN to articulate that, and mean it, will be truly courageous. If someone told you that you needed to spend 100K on a life saving procedure, and you knew that to do so would put you in a life altering bind for several years to come, do you choose life or death? It hurts, but it must be done.
Laura,
Midway down your 10:46 you point to difficulties the U.S. military will have in adapting to changing global threats. I say: whats new about that? OODA Loop it! Get it done.
Also, your 10:59 accidentally answers your 10:46 via alluding to the “WILL” needed to prevail.
Your major 10:46 assertion is Who will be an effective public leader? Can anyone be an effective public leader?
This tracks well with my frequent observation about the importance of information warfare, as I believe leadership is a cousin of information warfare. Leadership is reminding people of what they really want to do, though maybe they had not yet consciously realized what they really wanted to to, or maybe they were too scared or timid to stand up for what they really wanted to do. Nevertheless, when effectively led, people have a light bulb moment: “Of course! That’s what I’ve really wanted to do all along! I just didn’t realize it.”
What I also intended to say:
That a task is difficult is also what makes it great!
Everything in life is difficult, and thank goodness it is!
Every generation wishes to be called to do great things. A leader can incorporate that.
And the Tennis match of stupid things said continues: As long as people from the other side say stupid things like GOP Leader Boehner did on CNN yesterday, you just pour fuel on the fire.
This is not what soldiers need to hear. Nor military families.
No wonder so many soldiers feel like the rope in the tug of war. Boehner and MoveOn…idiots!
Bad information can be used to raise morale, GC. The media gets away with maintaining depression level morale by always keeping the highs and lows down to a certain under the sea level value.
One author had an amusingly funny episode of disinformation targeted against the media. He staged a tour for a media/humanitarian figure to ensure that she saw all kinds of torture and internationally illegal interrogation sessions going on and then gave her the film of it all. She got up in front of the global news to make a big stink of it, only to be counter-attacked by the fact that the whole thing was a sham, with the prisoners being actually soldiers.
The media are this guillible. They were during the Cold War reporting on the Soviets. They were and are on reporting over Castro, Chavez, Amanie, and Saddam. They will always be this, because their world views are too inflexible to really grasp the fine details of the difference between illusion and reality.
About defining success in Iraq I can propose that it will be like Chechen Republic now. Before the war, it was terrorists training ground and a bridgehead to launch raids on neibouring regions, organize mass murder like Beslan and Moscow theater hall. Except that, internally it was a pirate state, without any semblance of law, where the main activities was robbery, abducting of foreiners for ransom and slave trade. Now most of bandits are dead or enlisted to government security forses. There is no democracy to speak about (just as in Russia properly), but order and security are restored, and the ruling thug (a bandit, of course) is loyal to Moscow. Basically, this a colony or protectorat, that can be managed with little blood and treasure payed. Schools and hospitals are open, infrastructure repared. Like in British India, actually, with some hope for progress to civilized society.
gcotharn,
well, at least someone else is starting to get an idea what Laura’s mission around here is.
“Your major 10:46 assertion is ‘Who will be an effective public leader? Can anyone be an effecive public leader?'”
Well, Laura? Have anyone in mind?
Well Lee if you’re baiting me on Pres. Candidate? The answer is NO. None of them seem to give a rat’s ass about the military. They all just want to get in the big house
I am coming from an advocacy position when I post Lee, nothing wrong with that, or at least I thougtht. My “mission” is to speak up FOR the military. If this country has the WILL to follow through and stay committed to the GWOT, then it will require many more people to step up and make that happen.
GCotharn is right about how a truly effective leader can make that happen by articulating it well enough so that people will make that choice, I agree.
Until that happens though, what do we do about the returning vets with PTSD, the ones who’s families are falling apart while they are deployed, the ones who can’t keep going back tour after tour? Is that somehow slanted Lee? I think not. It’s hard for me to stand on the sidelines and cheer when I see what I see. And, there seems to be some sort of disconnect here about soldiers and their struggles in general, remarks that to me are very offensive to the ones who actually do the job, the American soldier. PTSD is not some “made up” and exagerated condition. It is a serious physical condition. For instance, if you were to look at a brain scan of a soldier with TBI and look at the brain scan of a PTSD brain, you will see stark similarities. The brain actually changes because of the stress that the body and mind go through in times of severe stress or heightened anxiety.
So, please, if you just want to hear yourself speak and support each other in that venture, then fine, I can leave if you wish me to. I will leave that to Neo. If you want to have other voices engage, voices that don’t have a hidden agenda but perhaps a different slant on a serious issue, then I am happy to give and take accordingly.
Thanks
fuzz, would an assassination attempt count as attacking an American? I’ll leave you guessing as to who Saddam attempted to take out.
If others know please chime in, but I believe at least one bombing attack has been tied to Saddam also.
Pingback:Morality, politics, natonal interest, and vengeance together « Sake White
Well, Laura,
Apparently now you seem to post from confusion, rather than advocacy. On the one hand, the war should end because it’s being run incompetently, yet you’ll support it if more sign up to share in the incompentence.
You have no idea who you would support for President? None at all?
No Lee, I really don’t see anyone that I like so far. They all sound the same to me. I think it’s too early to decide, at least that’s my opinion. I can tell you who I DON”t like. You decided yet?
Yeah, I at least have “some” idea at this point. Currently leaning toward Guiliani or Thompson.
So all you can muster is a plaintive cry in the wilderness, huh? “Won’t SOMEBODY step up and lead us?”
Lee, I have some reservations about Guiliani. IMO he’s pretty disingenuine…too flip floppy. Thompson lacks experience IMO. Ron Paul, way to extreme IMO, I don’t know about Romney. He did do some good things in Massachusetts, and that’s saying something! So, I think it will be more clear as time goes on. Again, this campaign started too early for me. Anything could happen between now and the primary. And, layers of the onion get peeled back well enough to see WHO will lead, again, in my humble opinion. I do see the appeal of both Guiliani and Thompson though.
Yep, thought you would remain non-committal while standing above to criticize choices made by others.
Interesting in that you denounce Ron Paul as “too extreme”, but everything you say parrots him to a T.
Laura’s statement was fair enough, Lee. There will be future events that affect people’s views of T and R and the others.
Saddam only tried shooting down American pilots. The fact that only some Americans were tortured by Saddam’s thugs, probably means others are hoping to avoid big bad Saddam in 2003. Certainly Saddam had great big brass ones compared to the French or Germans. Although that didn’t help him much when his neck was stretched.
* From Marine LTC Clifford Acree, commander of VMO-2 squadron, and Chief Warrant Officer Guy Hunter, shot down over Kuwait in their OV-10A Bronco observation plane on January 18, 1991:
To make Acree’s steel handcuffs tighter, an Iraqi soldier stood on them, “forcing the metal claws into his wrist bone” and cutting off blood circulation. “His hands turned purple and swelled to three times their normal size.
“After being blindfolded, Acree and Hunter were driven in a large SUV for about eight to 10 hours to Baghdad.” Iraqi soldiers seated all around them beat the two Americans with rifle butts and bl[a]ckj[a]cks the whole way.
“The next three days in Baghdad were the most brutal for Acree.
Interrogations [in the Iraqi intelligence center that captives nicknamed ‘the Biltmore’] continued around the clock…. Acree’s neck, injured during ejection from his plane, was a particular focus of his captors, who attacked it repeatedly…. He remembers hearing a sound indicating something large was about to strike him. He envisioned a 4-by-4 post hitting the front and right side of his head. The blow lifted him up and out of his chair and onto the floor. Before he fell unconscious, he thought this blow had killed him….
“Acree was soon forced to endure a starvation diet of one bowl of broth per day, sometimes with a piece of small, thin bread. At times, he ate scabs off his body to reduce his intense hunger and stop his stomach from churning….
“During his last interrogation at the Biltmore, he was told that if he did not cooperate with them the next day they would use a new form of torture on him. Specifically, the guard said:
‘Tomorrow there will be 10 questions. If you have 10 good answers, you will have 10 fingers. And if there are 10 bad answers, you will have no fingers. And the torture will continue, and we will send your body home in pieces to your wife.
“Fortunately for Acree, that night allied forces-not knowing of the presence of the POWs in this lawful military target, dropped four 2,000 pound bombs on the Biltmore. The bombing reduced much of the Biltmore to rubble and the POWs were transferred, in the bus holding the screaming Iraqi, to ‘the Joliet,’ the POWs’ nickname for another prison in Baghdad.
“In addition to physical and psychological abuse, Hunter’s eyes became infected. He often had to pry his eyes open in the morning with his fingers because they had been sealed shut with pus from the infections. While in Iraq, he never received medical attention to correct these problems…. Upon his release, he was in a stupor for three years.”
* From Marine Capt. Craig Berryman, who was shot down in his AV-8B Harrier near Kuwait City on January 28, 1991:
“The interrogator pointed out to Berryman that his failure to make contact with any military personnel meant that he was presumed dead and that the Iraqis could therefore kill him with impunity. Berryman was extremely concerned that his family would have to go through life never knowing what happened to him. Indeed, Iraq never notified the Red Cross or any other organization of Berryman’s status as a POW.”
* From Marine Capt. Russell Sanborn, whose AV-8B was shot down over southern Kuwait on February 9, 1991:
“The guards also used a rubber hose to hit Sanborn’s legs and back…. They also smacked the sides of his head so hard they knocked him off his stool, loosened his teeth and broke his eardrums. After his eardrums had been ruptured, he could not hear or understand their questions. He was taken back to his cell.”
* From Air Force Col. Jeffrey Tice, whose F-16 fighter bomber was shot down over Baghdad on January 19, 1991:
“Tice’s captors beat him so hard they dislocated his jaw twice and burst his left eardrum. They hit him with rubber hoses and with clubs. They also tied a wire from one ear to another to something like a car battery and shocked him to the point that every muscle in his body contracted at once.” This forced Tice to clamp his jaws down so hard that he broke several of his teeth.
“Tice called this contraption ‘the Talkman.’ ”
Humbling indeed.
What matters to people and some Americans is whether Saddam did anything to harm them or theirs. Like Ayrab tribes, family is the only thing that matters, that and the religion of transnational progressivism.
All those other folks, Americans and Iraqis, that Saddam targeted? They don’t care. Hell, even if they did, they would never ask for vengeance because their souls are empty.
If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?-
William Shakespeare
Saddam’s dead, coincidentally. The thing is though, Bush is a compassionate conservative.
Similarly, Rumsfeld and the Afghan war commander, Army Gen. Tommy Franks, at a recent Pentagon briefing, tried to distance themselves from a videotape shot by a Predator drone showing a Navy SEAL being shot in the head by the Taliban. This distancing fit with the Bush administration’s attempt to look different from former President Clinton in the way it conducts military operations abroad. As administration officials commit America’s sons and daughters to the war on terrorism, they seem to be in constant fear of summoning up in the minds of the American public the old images of U.S. servicemen being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, Som[a]lia.
What that means is that Bush had all the justificiation he could ever ask for to stoke American rage and anger at Iraq, but he never used it.
Ensuring that videos and films made from enemy atrocities are shown and remembered, are some of the best propaganda you can obtain to stoke up your side’s bloodlust. The Ayrabs use it to great effect against us, in fact.
Bush, contrary to reports of Hiterlism, is too civilized and sensitive for such. What differentiates him from folks on the Left, however, is that Bush’s weakness is caused by his love and desire not to inflict pain on American families. The Left’s desire for games is based upon the fact that they just don’t care, and if they did care, they wouldn’t care for Americans.
The American people deserves their revenge, since Americans take so little of it. They always side with magnanimity, which is great when your former enemies deserve it, but not so great when they don’t; when they use it to inflict more pain and sorrow upon us.
The transnational progressives like the ICC, Amnesty International, NewYorkTimes, and other such groups disagree. They say revenge is only a valid motive for people killing Americans and civilians.
Cost about 10 minutes and some attempts, but I eventually solved the problem, Neo, if only through elimination.
Som[a]lia is a country, like soci[a]lism, that is banned, it seems ; )
That and jacks with black on them.
The funny part is that LA was annoyed to some end, and some others too, about their comments disappearing when they were arguing. They said that you had deleted it or something. Hilarious and useless venting really.
I’m too curious as to what the problem was or is. It was sort of like scrapple, where you have to figure out word combinations. In this case, it was reading into normal words for the special stuff.
It is hilarious that S[o]ma is actually a drug. Cause there was a movie about it.
Lee, you seem to think that my opinion is some sort of threat to you personally. I mean, you ask a question, you get an honest answer. You also get a respectful, In My Opionion, rather than trying to define it as fact.
There is room here for everybody. We are all at the same table Lee. If you just want to attack regardless of the answer, then you just show me and perhaps other people as well that you really don’t intend to discuss, only to tear down.
No hidden agenda Lee to the answer,. I really don’t know who I will support because I, personally, think it’s too early. You can make up your mind about who YOU would support. Fine by me. Luckily, you don’t get to define me. Thanks
“Lee, you seem to think that my opinion is some sort of threat to you personally. I mean, you ask a question, you get an honest answer. You also get a respectful, In My Opionion, rather than trying to define it as fact.”-Laura
Dear, Lee is just a common a**hole at the the end of the bar popping off his mouth.
You give some of these posters a little too much credit.
To much of a good thing.
“There will be future events that affect people’s views of T and R and the others.”
Now, that statement is fair. Seems to me we’ve had people like U.B. who demand answers from others they are unwilling to answer themselves. When asked “what do you think?”, and your answer is “I don’t know; what do you think?” Is evasion in my mind.
And the things I “spout from the end of the bar” stand on their own backed by me alone, as opposed to donk’s “big bad biker gang and fight club”(baah…ha…ha…ha) to say he’s right.
Pingback:The Death Of News Reporting