First off through out that crap, in an ideal world. Because no one will ever live there. I've read a good amount on this and Agree with Chanak. There is no way these soldiers just went out on thier own, these were orders one way or another.
And now the government is turning against them, or at least its seen somewhat like that.
I've heard apealing arguments of why not letting all the photo's out, if those who are in them are truly guilty they might get loose because thier lawyers will cry they didnt get fair trial (soemthing like that). Either way were so sedated to all of this it wont hurt his campaign, this is Kerry's to loose and thats the word
I dont comdemn the soldiers actions if they were ordered too, I condemn those who ordered them and those who now declare they didnt. This should slip right up the ranks and find poison somewhere.
Jackie Treehorn: People forget the brain is the biggest sex organ.
The Dude: On you maybe.
And now the government is turning against them, or at least its seen somewhat like that.
The US government, like any government, is not monolithic. There are forces at work that want to get the soldiers and forego the rest, and there are forces that want to investigate everything and nail all the guilty parties. Both these are operating from within the government. What makes things interesting is that motives are mixed in both camps. Just off the top of my head, such as it is:
Lower ranks only. Altruistic: It will hurt our military's morale if it's all brought out, and our rep overseas, in Iraq, and at home. Quietly deal with the upper ranks. Meritricious: It's an election year. If I'm Republican, this may hurt me. Veterans will come after me, in any case. I'll look like I'm military-bashing.
Everything, right up the chain of command. Altruistic: We owe it everybody to expose it all. The government must not hide this sort of thing. How can we hold our collective heads up, otherwise, internationally? And what about the hundreds of Iraqis that have been abused or tortured? Their families? Meritricious: If I'm a Democrat, I'll look good if I attack this, and make my opponents look bad. I can spin this so it appears on pro-military, anti-corruption. I can appear highly moral, though I attend parties at 3 AM and drink like John Warne...er, a senator.
Something for everybody! I imagine anyone involved in considering this at any time may be anywhere along the spectrum, above, on either side. The fun comes in figuring what's going on in the ruthless, apparently ethical heads of all the lawyers who fill our elected government positions at the top. If you call that fun, I guess.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Humbug. Sack Washington, set fire to the city and dance on the ruins. Set up local governments armed with nuclear warheads and fully armed militia. YES!
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Fable you must commit to my vision of a new world, we must find a person that is willing to... succumb to our desires. A KING we must invade england, we must strike at france and germany. The first American KING WILL RULE!!
Jackie Treehorn: People forget the brain is the biggest sex organ.
The Dude: On you maybe.
Originally posted by Therion So.. you say he should not release them at all? Well, it may be better for his election (if they're not leaked anyway.. which is quite reasonable to expect IMO).
He has little choice in the matter.. we know he has documents, he knows he has them.. and at this time it would probably be worse for him to withold information from the American people.
I myself believe they should have been released as soon as the people involved were charged.
Now as to Bush, I have no idea, Most likely he doesn't have an idea. I have seen some say dump them all now so Bush can distance his self before the election, some saying let them leak so the people lose interest over time. Neither I believe will work....but I wouldn't be in the situation to begin with.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
Just heard some of the text of Rumsfeld's speech to the troops over in Iraq--about how things may sound bad, but he wanted to assure them that it's stopped, and that it was just a *few* troops.
He's now using US troops as a cover for making speeches to the folks back home, covering his own ineptitude--and of course, neglecting the fact that many Iraqi prisoners were traumatized by the torture. I find this whole excursion and his use of people who are actually putting their lives on the line thoroughly, irretrievably disgusting.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Originally posted by Weasel Now as to Bush, I have no idea, Most likely he doesn't have an idea. I have seen some say dump them all now so Bush can distance his self before the election, some saying let them leak so the people lose interest over time. Neither I believe will work....but I wouldn't be in the situation to begin with.
Well, I wouldn't be in that situation, either, because I could never be President.
But anyway, the reason why Bush can't fire the Secretary of Defense right now is because he would have to pick an immediate replacement (since we're at war, and it's not a good idea to run a war without a Secretary of Defense), and the confirmation hearings would turn into a huge critique of the war. Whether you like the war or not (oh boy, I love it), you have to admit that it wouldn't be smart for Bush to put himself through that deliberately right before the election. Rumsfeld is here to stay (unless we kick Bush out of office and make him take his whole gang with him).
Originally posted by Gwalchmai I would vote for impeachment.... I think Bush's lies and failings are far worse than anything Clinton ever did....
Worse? Yes, infinitely worse, from many angles. But not illegal.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Originally posted by fable Humbug. Sack Washington, set fire to the city and dance on the ruins. Set up local governments armed with nuclear warheads and fully armed militia. YES!
I see you read Weasel's Guide to Peace.
Need to edit my book and add this...
"Set up local governments answering to Lord Weasel the Great armed with nuclear warheads and fully armed militia."
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
Originally posted by fable Humbug. Sack Washington, set fire to the city and dance on the ruins. Set up local governments armed with nuclear warheads and fully armed militia. YES!
Finally, you see the light.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. -[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
Originally posted by VonDondu Well, I wouldn't be in that situation, either, because I could never be President.
But anyway, the reason why Bush can't fire the Secretary of Defense right now is because he would have to pick an immediate replacement (since we're at war, and it's not a good idea to run a war without a Secretary of Defense), and the confirmation hearings would turn into a huge critique of the war. Whether you like the war or not (oh boy, I love it), you have to admit that it wouldn't be smart for Bush to put himself through that deliberately right before the election. Rumsfeld is here to stay (unless we kick Bush out of office and make him take his whole gang with him).
That's what the Undersecretary is for. And believe me, right now the military would be better off - maybe we could get some of those generals who were sacked for disagreeing with 'ol Dumbsfeld about war plans (and who were also dead-on right) back in there to help.
There's nothing a little poison couldn't cure...
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, ... to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
Yes, that disgustola little Goebbels-clone. Kicked out of the White House by Bush Senior because his views were too right wing(!) that little fascist is perfect for being the hand that makes the Bush-puppet move and talk.
I am not young enough to know everything. - Oscar Wilde
Support bacteria, they're the only culture some people have!
The show is not over yet. If he resigns half way through the revelations there will be new calls for resignations when the rest of the truckload hits the fan.
By the way I understand that Rumsfeld is claiming that the pictures should not be released because according to the Geneva convention the victims have a right to privacy.
I am of on holiday - enjoy - as I shall be back
And a little quote in the light of the US legalising toture.
"if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you."
George Orwell
Lynndie England, the obviously slightly retarded girl who "only did what she was ordered to do" has been shown having gangbangs with multiple partners in front of the prisoners. On camera! I just have to echo the Senator who said "How the hell did these people get into the army?" We're down on rudimentary caveman-level here. Heroes, indeed.
I am not young enough to know everything. - Oscar Wilde
Support bacteria, they're the only culture some people have!
Originally posted by Tom2 By the way I understand that Rumsfeld is claiming that the pictures should not be released because according to the Geneva convention the victims have a right to privacy.
Surely not? I'd have to hear a reputable source to believe that one. Rumsfeld using US troops in Iraq for his own personal photo-op the other day is really low, but this just reaches a nadir of callousness. I don't think even that cynic would dare voice such a statement.
On the other hand, Shrub *did* claim that the reason prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were outside the reach of the US legal system was because it was Cuban soil. As hypocrisy goes, that's pretty intense.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
"Well, I wouldn't be in that situation, either, because I could never be President."
Because? Location, birthplace?
Because you have to get people to vote for you if you want to be President.
On the other hand, since I don't have any military experience, a lot of people would say I'm better qualified to lead this country than Senator Kerry, who had the gall to serve and then say he didn't enjoy it. And if I lied about military service, I bet I'd get even more votes, seeing how things work in this country.