May 9, 2004

EXCUSE me!?

If you have delicate ears, or are of otherwise of refined disposition, do NOT read the following post.

I apologize to my regular readers for the following language.

Oh, my stars and garters.

The New York Time has truly jumped the shark this time. (registration required, but it's free)

In an article on the prison abuse at Abu Ghraib, the Times actually said:

"More than a year after the fall of Baghdad, Mr. Bush found himself in the remarkable position of having to persuade Iraqis and Arabs generally that Iraq was better off under the American occupation than it had been under Saddam Hussein."

Excuse my french, but what the FUCK is the Times talking about!?

No. Really. I've been holding off on this, since better men than I have done quite well on explaining the facts, but this is ludicrous. I mean, this is the "paper of fucking record," and all they can do is repeat the same mindless bullshit that has infected half of the planet?

Ok, let's review here. We will call the columns "no more" and "now."
-no more ears cut off for desertion, now we write scurrilous words on their buttocks.
-no more mass graves, now mass "naked butt" pyramids.
-no more real tortures, now we don't plug in the wires. Psyche!!!
-no more feeding people feet-first into plastic shredders, now we feed them feet-first into the public maw.

Ok. That last was pretty nasty.

Right now every known Arab country is collectively squirting a brick out the south forty over the "human rights abuses" committed by the US in Iraq. My question is: where the stinking Hell were these two-faced, hypocritical rat-bastards when Iraq slaughtered a million of its own citizens over a border dispute with Iran, when it used chemical weapons against its own citizens, when it destroyed 99% of the wetlands which hosted the Marsh Arab population of Iraq, and when the sons of of the mighty Hussein picked up women off the street, raped them, and then branded them as whores? (unless they just murdered them, of course)

I'm sorry. I've had it.
I've had it with the hypocritical mindless barbaric fucks who viciously torture "the other" on a regular basis, and then have the monumental gall and complete lack of any sense of proportion to criticize American mistakes.

I've had it with Muslim countries who have to be goaded into criticizing their own bloody mistakes (in every sense of the word), including forcing teenaged girls back into fire because they weren't wearing the right fucking dress (oh, gee, didn't know there wasn't an "Emily Post on How to Exit a Burning Building," asswipes)

I've had it with 12th Century countries who think that it's still acceptable to "ethnically cleanse" the countryside in God's Name.

I've had it with medieval bandits who still act as if they are still in the first freaking millennium, who have the unmitigated gall to condemn the United States of America for missing the target of "perfect humane civilization," while they still hold that female genital mutilation, and slaughtering the infidel are culturally correct.

End of rant. (signed) Casey the Jacksonian.

Posted by Casey at May 9, 2004 2:59 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Yes, they're hypocrites.

But don't change the subject, Casey. Fact is, our job just got immeasurably harder because another administration official botched his mission.

Ever heard of "Rumsfeld's Rules?" Among other things it says that "If you foul up, tell the president and correct it fast. Delay only compounds mistakes."

It also says "The price of being close to the president is delivering bad news. You fail him if you don't tell him the truth. Others won't do it. "

Sack Rumsfeld for breaking his own rules, raze Abu Graib and get on with it already.

And in November, sack Bush. It's the only way to restore accountability to the White House.

Posted by: Ara Rubyan at May 9, 2004 9:18 AM

Sack Bush to restore accountability? Obviously you think Kerry is/would be a very fount of accountability. Uh huh.

Admittedly, I haven't followed all details on this. But fire the SecDef over this? I don't see it. If the Pres wants him gone, he'll tell him to go.

And this only makes our job immeasurably more difficult because so many are willing to use this as a way to hammer the Pres, with no care for anything other than that. Some people really messed up; they're being investigated/tried/ for it; and I'm tired of being told how awful we are by people/countries who maintain torturers as staff.

Posted by: Mark` at May 9, 2004 2:54 PM

Ara Rubyan conveniently leaves out the fact that this problem has been in the process of being corrected for months.

Funny how "the unbiased media" sat on this "story" for months until they judged they could do maximum damage to this administration.

Once again, it's apparent to everyone except rabid moonbats and "the arab street" that this is another unfortunate incident that has been crassly and blatantly politicized by the democrats.

I, for one am getting sick of it.

Posted by: Elephant Man at May 9, 2004 3:12 PM

Sack Bush to restore accountability? Obviously you think Kerry is/would be a very fount of accountability. Uh huh.

I might think Kerry is more accountable. I know for sure Bush in NOT.

Sacking someone sends a message to the next one in line that we won't stand for more of the same.

Posted by: Ara Rubyan at May 9, 2004 3:13 PM

"I might think Kerry is more accountable."

What's the color of thesky on Planet Ara?

Kerry has more flip-flps than a batallion of Viet Cong.

N. O'Brain
ImperialMinister for UselessKnowledge

Posted by: N. O'Brain at May 9, 2004 3:42 PM

Ara, as others have pointed out, work to nail the bad guys in this started long before the media started yelling, and so far as I know the Pres has not tried to stop it. Where's the accountability problem you're yelling about?

As far as firing the SecDef, if the Pres thinks necessary, fine. Firing someone, not because they did wrong but to make someone else happy, sends the message that you'll trash people for perceived political/publicity gain whether they did right or not. By your last comment, 'won't stand for more of the same' what? Trying to take care of the problem quietly? If he did not advise the Pres soon as should have, can be yelled at and/or fired if needed; again, to can him just to look tough on the situation is not a good idea.

Posted by: Mark at May 9, 2004 4:36 PM

I'm sorry. I've had it.

Actually lost it is more like it...


I've had it with the hypocritical mindless barbaric fucks who viciously torture "the other" on a regular basis, and then have the monumental gall and complete lack of any sense of proportion to criticize American mistakes.

Rape, murder defiling dead bodies and having sex with childern are hardly mistakes...its more like a major fuck up


I've had it with Muslim countries who have to be goaded into criticizing their own bloody mistakes (in every sense of the word),

and who died and left you their moral authority?


including forcing teenaged girls back into fire because they weren't wearing the right fucking dress

actually it was a burka but when your given to half truths and drama like you seem to be facts are of little importance


(oh, gee, didn't know there wasn't an "Emily Post on How to Exit a Burning Building," asswipes)

might i suggest some theme music here like as the world turns?


I've had it with 12th Century countries who think that it's still acceptable to "ethnically cleanse" the countryside in God's Name.

did you scream to intervene in Rwanda? no, are you happy with what is happening in china today in humn rights violations? no


I've had it with medieval bandits who still act as if they are still in the first freaking millennium, who have the unmitigated gall to condemn the United States of America for missing the target of "perfect humane civilization,"

we were the ones who set those standards for ourselves. are you so feeble minded that you think just because somebody else is doing something that makes it okay for everybody else? the clinton syndrome has really got you neocons in a rut huh?


while they still hold that female genital mutilation,

thats africa mr know it all, you know africa we been ignoring them for decades too...

and slaughtering the infidel are culturally correct.

thats what we are doing now right, according to annie coulter. facts are slick we created saddam and anybody he killed or gassed he did with the help of geo bush and ronnie reagan.

End of rant. (signed) Casey the Jacksonian.


Posted by Casey at May 9, 2004 02:59 AM | TrackBack

Posted by: grouchy at May 9, 2004 5:33 PM

Looks like grouchy is suffering from a profound brain cell lack. Moral equivalency rearing it's ugly head again. Well - you are trying to say that what a few 'soldiers' in Abu Graib did is equal to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that were gassed, tortured, killed and thrown in mass graves by Saddam and his henchmen. Bull.
Grouchy, I recommend checking out Webster's dictionary for the word 'dress'. But, if you did that, you might learn (gasp) that the word was used correctly.
With a little more remedial reading, you might also learn that female genital mutilation is common in the ME as well as Africa.
Also, Saddam became 'President' of Iraq in 1979 - so Carter created him, by your 'reasoning'. Facts are slick, aren't they? The greatest amount of industrial supplies (not gas, but stuff that could be made into gas) that the US shipped to Iraq was less than 10% of the total imported in any year you can pick.
Much more reading and logical thought needed - but if you had those, you wouldn't be the loony liberal you are, grouchy.
tweell

Posted by: tweell at May 9, 2004 6:41 PM

Looks like grouchy is suffering from a profound brain cell lack.

its from all the hot air you gasbags are spouting


Moral equivalency rearing it's ugly head again.

you neocons know all about fake morality

Well - you are trying to say that what a few 'soldiers' in Abu Graib did is equal to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that were gassed, tortured, killed and thrown in mass graves by Saddam and his henchmen.

give skippy a gold star. you think its the sin or the numebr of sins? duhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Bull.
Grouchy, I recommend checking out Webster's dictionary for the word 'dress'.

and.........


But, if you did that, you might learn (gasp) that the word was used correctly.
With a little more remedial reading, you might also learn that female genital mutilation is common in the ME as well as Africa.

show me where its listed as an excuse to screw little boys and pose next to dead bodies and commit rape? what page is that on skippy?


Also, Saddam became 'President' of Iraq in 1979 - so Carter created him, by your 'reasoning'.

carter didn't give him weapons and poison gas did he? there are reams of proof that bush and reagan kept little saddam in charge. strike three skippy

Facts are slick, aren't they? The greatest amount of industrial supplies (not gas, but stuff that could be made into gas) that the US shipped to Iraq was less than 10% of the total imported in any year you can pick.

bullshit, i've written reams about it. the stuff he used was sent directly from the CDC in case your stupid thats the center for diease control. the shipments are public record and not denied by either admins.


Much more reading and logical thought needed - but if you had those,

you ain't got a clue skippy. i have reams of research and would eat your sorry behind for lunch. stop by my blog and i'll educate you. not enough bandwidth here in these comment windows.

you wouldn't be the loony liberal you are, grouchy.

tweet tweet skippy, name calling is so infantile.

tweell


Posted by: grouchy at May 9, 2004 9:38 PM

Leaving aside all the politics and history for a moment, let me explain the Abu Ghraib issue from the perspective of accountability.

You see, I was an officer in the Army (the U.S. Army, so according to some people's logic, I was formally trained in murdering, raping children, and psychosexual humiliation tactics). As a 1st Lieutenant platoon leader, I lived with a slight nagging fear that some day, one of my soldiers...one of the few fuck-ups...would do something so stupid as to jeopardize MY career, even though there was no way I could be expected to supervise them personally 24-7.

I can guarantee...GUARANTEE...that even the platoon leaders and company commanders of these fuck-ups in Iraq would never ORDER this kind of behavior. They should be fired for not being around enough to catch it and stop it, but far too many make these accusations of "systemic" problems, and it pisses me off.

So I KNOW for a fact that someone as high up as, say, SecDef or President, while they are RESPONSIBLE, are not so directly accountable as to lose their jobs. When those guys have their ears, eyes, and hands in everything that goes on under their command, we call it micromanagement. All I can say is thank God there are a few people who support and trust low- and mid-ranking officers and NCOs to do the right thing.

We in the military have something called UCMJ, which investigates, arrests, and prosecutes crimes in much the same due process as American civilians get, and that is exactly what's being done (at a much faster pace than we civilians are used to, BTW).

And as for the political debate on Iraq, as a former student of history, let me sum it up for everyone REAL quick: First of all, as a REAL Democrat, I hate it when people take President Jackson's name (or liberalism's name) in vain. We are currently fighting a war that has been going on since November 1, 1979...yes, let that one sink in...1979. FOUR SUCCESSIVE presidents have dicked it up almost beyond repair, so maybe we can forgive the current President for not having the perfect solution, even as he attempts to right the ship.

Just a thought.

Sincerely,
Liberal without cardiac hemorrhaging

P.S.--Some of have ALWAYS been bothered by the situations in China, Rwanda, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Vietnam, etc. etc.

End of rant.

Posted by: XSpyder at May 9, 2004 9:57 PM

2 wrongs don't make a right here. We supposedly hold ourselves above what Saddam did to his people, yet here we are doing exactly what he did. What you fail to realize, it is not the number of people who did it, or the number of prisoners involved, just one showed the world that we are just as capable of bad behavior as Saddam. But the worst part of it is the fact that they all posed for pics in such a manner as to show the world that they thought it was funny as hell.
Now tell me what message did this send out. That we are barbaric too.

Oh and I would love it if just one person would explain to me why Iraq??? If Bush was hellbent on stopping madmen and butchers, why didn't he look to the African nations who are just as bad, if not worse than Saddam?

Posted by: Marcia at May 9, 2004 10:02 PM

Do not even fucking go there. Our soldiers aren't digging mass graves, gassing anyone, or throwing children out of helicopters. I know this because I used to work with them, and believe it or not, they are the same people as you and me. There IS a difference, as reprehensible as their behavior may be (well, it IS). When Bush's secret police come to rape and butcher you and your family, then come talk to me about this moral equivalence.

And I'll explain to you "why Iraq". Because we had the ability to do something about Iraq, since we'd been at war CONTINUOUSLY with Saddam since, what, January 20, 1991 (yeah, did you forget about those EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE and dangerous no-fly-zones?...I thought so).

You don't think Bush wishes he could do something about all the despotic shitholes in the world? Unfortunately, there are a lot of factors and constraints in his way, including the den of thieves and bandits up on FDR Drive in New York.

THAT'S why Iraq. And maybe political and cultural pressure can help with North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Iran, Sudan and China, and the world can gradually become a little safer.

Posted by: XSpyder at May 9, 2004 10:14 PM

Marcia, I think XSpyder covers your point very well; what those men and women did was wrong, and no one (except, apparently, Rush Limbaugh) is trying to minimize what they did, nor shift blame.

In point of fact, the US armed forces have never, in their entire institutional lives, committed the crimes that Hussein's people did. Raping a woman in front of her family, cutting mens ears off for desertion, putting children into prison; when and where, Marcia, have the Army or Marines ever performed these actions? I would like to see times, dates, places, and names, if you would be so kind.

As for why the US doesn't intervene everywhere there's a problem: it's called "finite resources." Not even the United States of America, with a $10 trillion GDP, can police the whole world. You think the deficit is bad now? We would have to triple our active-duty forces (at least) and come close to doubling the defense budget to cover all the tragedies. Is that what you want? Are you willing, literally, to pay the price?

Posted by: Casey Tompkins at May 9, 2004 11:08 PM

XSpyder, thanks for the input. I always appreciate a veteran's comments. It seems to me that the "most offended" category usually consists of people who know nothing of the military, and can't be bothered to learn.

As for "taking Jackson's name in vain," it was not meant to be offensive. Did you read the article I linked to? From your comments I suspect you agree with most of it.

Grouchy: nice try at a fisk, but I think you missed the mark. :)

You have (apparently) taken the worst rumors at face value, and accepted them as true. The folks over at DU or IndyMedia might agree with you, but the rest of us are expecting silly things, like (oh, I dunno) "evidence."

Even if the worst were proved for that single outfit, it does not change the fact that those acts never were, and never will be part of the doctrine of the United State armed forces. What went on in that prison is as much a part of our military heritage as was My Lai; that is, not at all.

Actually, if you took the time to look around the blogosphere, you would find that the "military types" are the most offended, which makes sense. Those men and women are professionals, and no professional is happy when a screw-up soils the uniform, then whines that "no one told me not to!"

What's really funny is that I'm not even a conservative, much less a "neo-con." Try checking out that link I mentioned to XSpyder. I doubt that you would like it very much, though. :)

Posted by: Casey Tompkins at May 9, 2004 11:31 PM

Keep in mind that this story was not broken by brave fearless investigative reporters by the media. It was brought to official attention by one person brought into that chain of command, who looked at the situation and said this is wrong and needs to be stopped.

As near as I can tell from the published sequence of events the 'violations' occurred in November, it was reported in December, and Central Command announced an investigation in January. On March 12th or 13th an interim report on the investigation was released. It took a month and a half later for the 'media' to become concerned and to put out the photos of the atrocities on the airwaves. (I just wonder if that was because it was 'sweeps' week and they wanted to beat the print media to the punch with the story?)

Posted by: Mike Boelter at May 9, 2004 11:48 PM

Why Iraq? I find it hard to believe that anyone with a 2 digit IQ can ask, but here we go again.

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction programs: Iraq used poison gas against Iran and against the Kurds. They had a continuing program to separate U235 using centrifuges. They have weaponized anthrax. 3 for three here. Chemical, Nuclear, and Biological.

2. After invading Kuwait, Iraq was thrown out. To get the war to stop, they signed a peace treaty, agreeing in part to get rid of their WMD programs. This was never done. 17 UN Security Council resolutions later, it was still never done. If they didnt keep the terms of the treaty, then the US and allies become freed from the terms of the peace treaty, that is the war is back on.

3. Iraq famously has supported terrorism, providing retirement homes for the like of Abu Nidal, and many others, at least until they wanted to prevent interrogation. Iraq has also provided $25,000 or so to the families of Arab terrorists who kill Jews.

4. Iraq has engaged in terrorism against the US. There is the attempt to asassinate former president George HW Bush. The first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center was led by Iraqi agents, using Kuwaiti passports stolen during Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.

5. Has Iraq coordinated terrorist activities with Al Queda? The evidence of coordination with Al Queda is thin, because those meetings took place with minimal witnesses, so there is intentionally little evidence of what went on. There is a great deal of evidence that Al Queda operatives seem to have travel arrangements where Iraqi Intelligence happen to have similar travel arrangements, and there is certainly no proof that Iraqi Intelligence has not coordinated with Al Queda.

So Iraq is unique:

Weapons of mass destruction programs? check

Support of Terrorism? check

In violation of treaty? check

Terrorism against the US? check

Coordinated with Al Queda? maybe


Clear enough, all you trolls and moon bats?

Posted by: Don Meaker at May 9, 2004 11:49 PM

XSpyder, thanks for the input. I always appreciate a veteran's comments.

i am retired military. usn over 20 years.

It seems to me that the "most offended" category usually consists of people who know nothing of the military, and can't be bothered to learn.

so much for that sterotype huh?


As for "taking Jackson's name in vain," it was not meant to be offensive. Did you read the article I linked to? From your comments I suspect you agree with most of it.

Grouchy: nice try at a fisk, but I think you missed the mark. :)

well at least you acknowledge the effort lol

You have (apparently) taken the worst rumors at face value, and accepted them as true.

i am still involved with the military after 20 years you make connections that never die. i also go to fort knox quite often and am involved in support groups there.

The folks over at DU or IndyMedia might agree with you, but the rest of us are expecting silly things, like (oh, I dunno) "evidence."

do your eyes fail you?

Even if the worst were proved for that single outfit, it does not change the fact that those acts never were, and never will be part of the doctrine of the United State armed forces.

actually the facts are emerging that prove that it was accepted by the senior officers which is just as bad

What went on in that prison is as much a part of our military heritage as was My Lai; that is, not at all.

my lai isn't part of our heritage? how?

Actually, if you took the time to look around the blogosphere, you would find that the "military types" are the most offended, which makes sense.

i have a blog thanks and i am a military "type", and your point is?

Those men and women are professionals, and no professional is happy when a screw-up soils the uniform, then whines that "no one told me not to!"

these were not mistakes these werte deliberate acts preformed in broad daylight

What's really funny is that I'm not even a conservative, much less a "neo-con." Try checking out that link I mentioned to XSpyder. I doubt that you would like it very much, though. :)

i don't see any link


Posted by: Casey Tompkins at May 9, 2004 11:31 PM

Posted by: grouchy at May 10, 2004 12:45 AM

"What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?" -- George Orwell

The mistreatment will be punished... that... is the difference.

Certainly the 500,000 Iraqi's Saddam butchered know that difference... and every prisoner in every prison in the MiddleEast would consider Abu Ghraib an upgrade in treatment.

Posted by: DANEgerus at May 10, 2004 1:15 AM

Grouchy mustered his 3 functioning brain cells and said:

"you neocons know all about fake morality"
Yep. It's what liberals have. We punish our own that screw up, unlike your favorite folks.

"show me where its listed as an excuse to screw little boys and pose next to dead bodies and commit rape? what page is that on skippy?"
Ah, when proved wrong, change the subject.

"bullshit, i've written reams about it. the stuff he used was sent directly from the CDC in case your stupid thats the center for diease control. the shipments are public record and not denied by either admins"
Now grouchy switches directions again and talks about the anthrax we shipped Iraq to make vaccines with. Of course, he can't be bothered to see that we ship that to every country that asks for it, because it's used to make VACCINES. Another bit of remedial reading I seriously doubt you will do.

"you ain't got a clue skippy. i have reams of research and would eat your sorry behind for lunch. stop by my blog and i'll educate you. not enough bandwidth here in these comment windows."
Your knowledge is lacking, your dialog is juvenile, and I see no use in carrying this further. Go back to your blog and stop begging for traffic.

tweell


Posted by: tweell at May 10, 2004 2:21 AM

Hey Grouchy - time for you to face to the east, drop to your knees, kiss the ground, and wave your skanky ass in the air. Allah needs you...

Posted by: Bart at May 10, 2004 11:48 AM

"you ain't got a clue skippy. i have reams of research and would eat your sorry behind for lunch. stop by my blog and i'll educate you. not enough bandwidth here in these comment windows."
Your knowledge is lacking, your dialog is juvenile, and I see no use in carrying this further. Go back to your blog and stop begging for traffic.

tweell

beg for traffic? like i want morons to stop by my page? i offer education of the uninformed like you but beg? not hardly. i have all the tarffic i need. i have no ads and buy my own bandwidth so whatys to beg for?

as for the rest of your "quips" you are like a parrot sprouting reams of gop crap. dies your ass hurt where they stick there hand up it to make your mouth move? is your name squeal or tweel?

Posted by: grouchy at May 10, 2004 8:39 PM

grouchy,

I call bull on your military claim. You don't sound like of the military types I know. In fact your inpersonation is less facile than that of Micah Wright. I'd say you aren't any older than about fourteen, and too poorly educated to get into the military, based on your comments.

Yours,
Wince

Posted by: Wince and Nod at May 12, 2004 7:35 PM

I take a stand that no one has shared, so far, namely that what happened at Abu Ghraib (with the possible exception of prisoner deaths) is not only VERY mild, but rather standard methodology for breaking through a person's resistance to answering questions.

Personally I'd prefer that they be seated, strapped in, given a shot of brain-juice, and simply recorded as they joyfully do all they can to truthfully answer questions asked, BUT... THAT non-destructive method is NOT ALLOWED, perhaps because it bypasses all conscious choice and actually gets results.

In any case, the prisoners were NOT PoWs, because they did not meet even ONE of the Geneva Accords' requirements for recognition as an 'enemy combatant'.

Well, shouldn't they be accorded simple human dignity? NO, inasmuch as they were picked up under conditions which demonstrated they were Islamofascist zealots, intent on raping, murdering and otherwise infringing on the human dignity (and human LIFE) of anyone else who got in their way.

Real damage here is curtailing interrogation which effectively saves the lives of decent Iraqis, Americans and others serving Iraq's higher interests at this time.

Posted by: Sharps Shooter at May 19, 2004 3:15 AM