she's sorry, very sorry, I'm sorry too

I have talked about civilians on the battlefield before. It is a part of war the exists, I wish it is something that does not happen. Trust me, soldiers who are involved with this have a very difficult time dealing with the situation. More so when I child is involved.
I will not say, and I will become very hostile to any one who twist these words around or tries to revamp their meaning, civilians being killed on the field did not have ample warning. Fliers are sent out in English and Arabic that searches will take place and that they are strongly encouraged to leave. These civilians choose to stay and are fully aware that fire fights will happen.
Again, this is unfortunate, but the coalition forces make every attempt to make sure civilians are not harmed.

0 Replies

The real question is this:

dyslexia wrote:

so ralph I take you think it's a-ok that false information justifing the invasion of Iraq is a good thing because it's a volunteer army?

How much more so because civilians were warned?

0 Replies

when the dead, be they volunteers or warned native citizens, are victims of the Bush illegal invasion, they should be grateful for they have served a worthy service.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sorry, I'll trust the word of someone who was there over someone who wasn't there.

When the US forces draw up a plan, US soldiers direct the Iraqi army where to go, then the US is leading the fight. Simple as pie.

I'm not interested in 'subjective interpretation' bullsh*t. You guys are pathetic.

Cycloptichorn

It's a question of whether someone who was present at a battle was leading or following. One belief may be more realistic than another, but it is not an example of a clearcut lie.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

B9, every time you ask this question you get responses but disregard them or spin them into "exaggerations" or "mistakes". Then you go to the next thread and ask it again, only to ignore the responses.

I noticed you left off Rumsfeld -- no confidence that he was always honest then?

Anyway, here's one for you.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. -- Cheney

I don't ever ignore the responses, I disagree with them. Yeah, throw in Rumsfeld, if you like.

There is little doubt that at some time in the past Saddam was doing this, but probably not by 2002 anymore, based on our findings, or lack thereof, when we went in. I'll agree that Cheney should not have said "no doubt," but on what basis do you conclude that he didn't believe it? One supposes that you have never been wrong about anything.

0 Replies

Judith got a lot of blood on her hands. She said she was sorry but she also said she'd do it again. As for Rummy he was shaking Saddam's hand as Reagan's envoy after Saddam had used WMD and Reagan then opened the doors for American corporations to sell Saddam what he needed to make more WMD. What blood is on Saddam's hands from the 80s is also on the hands of Reagan/Bush. As for Cheney he was still doing business with Saddam right into the year 2000 when he joined Bushie on the GOP ticket. And Cheney skirted American law by using a Europeon subsidiary of Halliburton. Finally on Saddam's WMD both Powell and Condi were saying in 2001 that Saddam was weak and no threat to his neighbors. That sanctions had worked and that he had no WMD. Whatever caused them to change their minds? We now know they were 100% right in 2001. "2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat" http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

0 Replies

Judy Miller Grants Herself Absolution
Arianna Huffington
12.01.2005
Judy Miller Grants Herself Absolution

We thought we were done with Judy Miller, but last night she gave an interview on BBC's Newsnight that showed such a stunning unwillingness to hold herself accountable for her WMD reporting that it deserves to be noted as a postscript in our Judy Miller file.

"I'm deeply sorry our intelligence community got it wrong," she said.

"I am deeply sorry that the President was given a national intelligence estimate which concluded that Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons and an active weapons program," she said.

"I think it's a terrible failure, it's a shocking failure, it's a deeply troubling failure," she said.

Even when Miller tip-toed up the self-examination confessional, she ultimately granted herself absolution: "I'm deeply sorry that the stories were wrong."

The stories were wrong? Oh, so they wrote themselves now did they?

True to form -- and contrary to the BBC News headline on the story, "Miller 'sorry' for WMD inaccuracies" -- at no point did Judy Miller say she was sorry that she had got it so very wrong.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
B9, every time you ask this question you get responses but disregard them or spin them into "exaggerations" or "mistakes". Then you go to the next thread and ask it again, only to ignore the responses.

I noticed you left off Rumsfeld -- no confidence that he was always honest then?

Anyway, here's one for you.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. -- Cheney

I don't ever ignore the responses, I disagree with them. Yeah, throw in Rumsfeld, if you like.

There is little doubt that at some time in the past Saddam was doing this, but probably not by 2002 anymore, based on our findings, or lack thereof, when we went in. I'll agree that Cheney should not have said "no doubt," but on what basis do you conclude that he didn't believe it? One supposes that you have never been wrong about anything.

Where's the difference about being wrong and lying? Am I lying when I'm saying "The United States endorse torture"? After all, US soldiers WERE torturing prisoners. US soldiers WERE murdering prisoners.

Was Rumsfeld simply wrong when he said about the WMD "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." There was evidence at that time that NO WMD where to be found there....

Is somebody lying who says that the US don't abide by the Geneva Conventions, abduct innocent civilians, torture innocent civilians, murder innocent civilians? Is he lying? Is he wrong? Yes or no?

0 Replies

Re: Judy Miller Grants Herself Absolution

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Arianna Huffington
12.01.2005
Judy Miller Grants Herself Absolution

We thought we were done with Judy Miller, but last night she gave an interview on BBC's Newsnight that showed such a stunning unwillingness to hold herself accountable for her WMD reporting that it deserves to be noted as a postscript in our Judy Miller file.

"I'm deeply sorry our intelligence community got it wrong," she said.

"I am deeply sorry that the President was given a national intelligence estimate which concluded that Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons and an active weapons program," she said.

"I think it's a terrible failure, it's a shocking failure, it's a deeply troubling failure," she said.

Even when Miller tip-toed up the self-examination confessional, she ultimately granted herself absolution: "I'm deeply sorry that the stories were wrong."

The stories were wrong? Oh, so they wrote themselves now did they?

True to form -- and contrary to the BBC News headline on the story, "Miller 'sorry' for WMD inaccuracies" -- at no point did Judy Miller say she was sorry that she had got it so very wrong.

Hubris. Hubris is ordinary. It kills us sometimes. We all have it. Sometimes it is very costly.

To me the failure is with others to intercept all this.

I know we are all weary of the polarization going on, oh, and the deaths, and I think people on both sides of the should we have invaded line are sorry about the deaths. Which deaths who is sorry about is another subject. But let's say people of good faith of various sides of this invasion don't will death to others. (you're right, it's hard for me to say that, but some who were for invasion aren't darthvader, death invaders, by definition. Some for invasion thought it was just.)

My question is about the lie down of the US press.

0 Replies

ralpheb wrote:

ALL the people in the military volunteered. There is not one single soldier, airman, marine or sailor who did not. Everyone in the military who has an IQ above "damn I'm stupid" knew full well the dangers of being in the military. These people accept what their lives are. If a person is not willing to make the sacrifices that are required to be in the military, they never should have raised their hand.
For those in the military, It is not a matter of if a war should have been declared or not. It's a matter than one has been declared.
Everyone is so willing to blame Bush. That seems to be so simple. Last time I looked at my constitution, it was congress who approves the budget and congress who can declare war and make treaties. Congress did declare war, congress approved the budgets since then and congress has made no attempt to design and establish a treaty.
How many of you have been to Iraq to see how the Iraqi's feel about not being oppressed anymore?
Did Bush make a scenic connection from Al Quada and Bin Laden to Iraq? Sure he did. And I have no qualms about it in the slightest. Nor does my family who await my return. And, should I not return? My family will know that it was in defense of what I believe- and that is everyone should be allowed the chance at true freedom.

Congress DID NOT declare war. Where did you come up with that jewel of disinformation??

0 Replies

ralpheb wrote:

Congress did declare war

That should be easy to prove. Please provide a link to the declaration of war by the US Congress.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

There is little doubt that at some time in the past Saddam was doing this, but probably not by 2002 anymore, based on our findings, or lack thereof, when we went in. I'll agree that Cheney should not have said "no doubt," but on what basis do you conclude that he didn't believe it? One supposes that you have never been wrong about anything.

Sure I have. But 1) I'm not the vice president and I'm not advocating the invasion of a country and 2) at the time he said this there was doubt within the intelligence community and certainly at the IAEA.

0 Replies

I have come to the conclusion that the rightwingers will always think this war on Iraq is nothing but the best thing that ever happened. They will NEVER admit to the lies, because they think their war is just too holy and sancosanct. "GOD" is on their side and no matter what happens, their perceptions are the truth, no matter how wrong they are. It doesn't do any good to argue the point with them, because they are too far removed from real life to understand anything beyond what they have been fed from "George (the messiah) Bush and his Disciples of War.

They have "faith", and they have "GOD". They don't need truth, facts, or reality!

They're a lost cause. We can save ourselves a lot of frustration by realizing that. We need to get to the polls and remove them from power as soon as possible. If we don't, we deserve the ignorant crap they have brought upon us.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
There is little doubt that at some time in the past Saddam was doing this, but probably not by 2002 anymore, based on our findings, or lack thereof, when we went in. I'll agree that Cheney should not have said "no doubt," but on what basis do you conclude that he didn't believe it? One supposes that you have never been wrong about anything.

Sure I have. But 1) I'm not the vice president and I'm not advocating the invasion of a country and 2) at the time he said this there was doubt within the intelligence community and certainly at the IAEA.

Cheney wrote up his ideas of the invasion of the mideast in 1991&1992. He finally was able to find a dolt stupid enough to do it.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

ralpheb wrote:
Congress did declare war

That should be easy to prove. Please provide a link to the declaration of war by the US Congress.

"Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war."

Iraq War a.k.a. Operation Iraqi Freedom Iraq H.J. Res. 114,
October 16, 2002 77-23(senate) 296-133(house) ongoing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

0 Replies

thank you John

0 Replies

no problem. I'm not even a supporter of George Bush but let's be realistic. George Bush does not call the shots. He is simply a figurehead for the people who are making the decisions behind the scenes. Some people just love to blame all the world's problems on GW. It's just convienent to blame him because he's the president.

0 Replies

John Creasy

John Creasy wrote:

no problem. I'm not even a supporter of George Bush but let's be realistic. George Bush does not call the shots. He is simply a figurehead for the people who are making the decisions behind the scenes. Some people just love to blame all the world's problems on GW. It's just convienent to blame him because he's the president.

Why should we not blame George W. Bush if, as you claim, he allows himself to be a figurehead and be manipulated? Such a person does not deserve the presidency.

BBB

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

no problem. I'm not even a supporter of George Bush but let's be realistic. George Bush does not call the shots. He is simply a figurehead for the people who are making the decisions behind the scenes. Some people just love to blame all the world's problems on GW. It's just convienent to blame him because he's the president.

Yes, it's easier to say "I blame Bush" than to say, "I blame all the scumbag piece-of-**** pus-bags who are manipulating the strings of this incompetent douchebag puppet we have as our president."

0 Replies

Bush volunteered for the position of president and he knew what the responsibilities were. He pushed for the authorization, it's his plan. Do I hold Congress blameless? No, not at all because it's their job to check him at the door and they basically voted away their constitutional power, which I'm not even sure is legal but whatever. They voted to authorize the president to make the decision whether or not to use force. It was still the president who decided when and how to do it. So yes, he bears primary responsibility as it should be.

And ralpheb, I don't know why you are thanking Mr. Creasy for essentially proving that, contrary to what you said, congress did not declare war.

0 Replies

she's sorry, very sorry, I'm sorry too

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know