home

Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Iraq

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 06:40:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Death Sqauds and Assassination teams may be coming to Iraq, courtesy of your U.S. Military. According to Newsweek, Rumsfeld is considering the option of counter-terrorist death squads. Go read the whole thing.

NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras.)

Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. ...

While Rumsfeld is lobbying for the Pentagon to be in charge of this new "option," others say it will be the C.I.A.

Pentagon civilians and some Special Forces personnel believe CIA civilian managers have traditionally been too conservative in planning and executing the kind of undercover missions that Special Forces soldiers believe they can effectively conduct. CIA traditionalists are believed to be adamantly opposed to ceding any authority to the Pentagon. Until now, Pentagon proposals for a capability to send soldiers out on intelligence missions without direct CIA approval or participation have been shot down. But counter-terrorist strike squads, even operating covertly, could be deemed to fall within the Defense department’s orbit.

[link via Buzzflash ]

< Soldier Gets Six Months in Case of Drowned Iraqi | BBC TV Airs "Springer the Opera" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Iraq | 94 comments (94 topical)
    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#1)
    by Kitt on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 06:59:54 PM EST
    And remember who the ambassador is for Iraq? Negropointe - he was there in the Honduras during the 80's. Fingers in all those central american pies.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 07:07:17 PM EST
    So The Massacre at El Mozote will become the Massacre at Najaf.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#3)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 07:08:57 PM EST
    Loki and Ares are sharing a beer tonight!

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 07:32:19 PM EST
    I have no witty comment or quip. This brought my closer to tears than anything that has happened to me personally or otherwise in the past two years. I feel physically ill. Thank you for reminding me why my complete and utter hatred for these people is justified.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 07:51:09 PM EST
    et al - From the article: "Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. Which way do you want it? Presently Iraqi civilians are being killed daily by car bombs and other means by the terrorists. Sadly they are also being killed by coalition forces by mistake. That, of course, doesn't matter to the dead. So it seems entirely proper that we should train and fund Iraqi government agents to advance the war on the gaggle of Baathists, Terrorist and other people interested in seeing Iraqi return to its previous deplorable condition.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 07:59:27 PM EST
    PPJ, The Truth Commission that examined what happened in El Salvador determined that some some 90% of the 75,000 killed in the twelve years were killed by government forces.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#7)
    by wishful on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 08:09:06 PM EST
    PPJ says - So it seems entirely proper that we should train and fund Iraqi government agents to advance the war on the gaggle of Baathists, Terrorist and other people interested in seeing Iraqi return to its previous deplorable condition. But but but, didn't the Bush cabal say that it was all Saddam's fault? How could they have been fooled so easily, and it was really the Baathists, Terraists and other people...all along. If only they had known this sooner....sigh...they could have planned for it instead of sending in death squads at the 11th hour. Oh, and what about that democracy thingy? I guess that will have to wait for another day too. Way to plan.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#8)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 08:10:37 PM EST
    ...we also provided the model for the Shah of Iran's secret police. It was a foreign policy that worked pretty well until it fell apart... oh, about, 1979. ...but then, Reagan and the neocons made it through that all right.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#9)
    by soccerdad on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 08:20:28 PM EST
    Sadly they are also being killed by coalition forces by mistake
    It was a mistake when they got hit by cluster bombs. It was an accident when they got hit by Napalm. It was a mistake when the bled to death because no medical care was allowed into the city. It was an accident when babies starved to death because there was no food and if their parents left the house they would be shot. It was a mistake when snipers shot anything that was outside the houses whether man, women or child. Lots and lots of mistakes. We invaded under a cloud of lies and then kill them when they resist. There is no number of deaths of the savages, heathen, marxists, insurgents, baathists or what ever group we are currently fighting that is too big for many of the conservatives. Their ability to justify atrocities knows no limit.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 08:26:55 PM EST
    Wow, talk about a policy that is destined to make things worse. Death squads might have worked in El Salvador, where there was a relatively small peasant insurgency & we controlled all of the surrounding countries, but Iraq is a whole different ball game. The scale is much different in Iraq, the insurgency is more sophisticated and we do not have an unlimited timeline as we did in El Salvadore. Not only will it fail as a policy but it will strip us of any shred of a moral fig leaf to hide behind. I'm sure that there are many people outside the U.S. who have been willing to stand up to pressure and argue on our behalf that will feel compelled to back away if this policy is put in place.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 08:39:55 PM EST
    Randy Paul - You are using an old trick of taking a military tactic and branding it using a previous activity. Iraq, of course, is totally different from San Salvador. All this does is say local forces will have a better chance at catching the terrorists. Wishful - Maybe you missed this. The Baath party was Saddam's party, and he was its head. They want back in power so they are acting as Terrorists by blowing up car bombs, etc., to intimidate the people of Iraq. And yes, other terrorist groups, al-Qaida, etc., are helping them. Hope the above isn't too complicated for you to understand. Daryl P - And for that we can thank Jimmy Carter's state department, and the French for housing the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. SD writes - "It was an accident when babies starved to death because there was no food and if their parents left the house they would be shot." BS is BS big guy. There have been no sieges long enough for a baby to starve to death. Just can't resist guilding the lily, eh?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 08:53:21 PM EST
    let's see -- hand-picked kurdish peshmerga death squads will be targetting the largely-sunni insurgency? sounds like a recipe for civil war to me, and empowering the kurds is not something the turks are gonna like either. also, the insurgency these death squads are gonna be targeting is not made up of poorly-equipped-and-trained peasantry, so i'm not sure what the tactical advantage would be here.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#14)
    by wishful on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 09:03:37 PM EST
    PPJ, The point is not that I missed it. The point is that even YOU got it. Maybe you should have shared it with your friends in the current administration.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#15)
    by Al on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 09:13:57 PM EST
    The Iraqi fighters are not terrorists. At no point did they attack the United States, or threaten to attack the United States. The United States attacked them, in their own country. Why doesn't the Pentagon target the real terrorists who perpetrated the attack on the World Trade Center? Why are they still attacking Iraq?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#16)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 09:20:24 PM EST
    The current administration was so myopic they couldn't tell the difference between Al Qaeda and Iraqi. I'm so myopic I can't tell the difference between Hussein's death squads and U.S. sanctioned death squads, both ostensibly in place to destroy "insurgents" and their sympathizers (the bad guys, the guys who aren't good, and the guys who aren't good enough). And if the administration is willing to have death squads there, they're willing to have death squads here.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 09:33:57 PM EST
    After a nice sojourn, I return to find that PPJ has now come fully out of the closet and is what I always suspected - an ever-willing apologist for this proto-fascist regime. PPJ, I suspect you consider yourself rather dashing in those brown shirts of yours. Sorry the War Machine can't kill enough innocent Iraqis for you, pal!

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#18)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 10:49:26 PM EST
    PPJ: Which way do you want it? Presently Iraqi civilians are being killed daily by car bombs and other means by the terrorists. Sadly they are also being killed by coalition forces by mistake. That, of course, doesn't matter to the dead. So it seems entirely proper that we should train and fund Iraqi government agents to advance the war on the gaggle of Baathists, Terrorist and other people interested in seeing Iraqi return to its previous deplorable condition. Let me see if I understand. The bad people are killing innocent civilians. Maybe if we kill the bad guys along with some innocent civilians, we'll come out ahead. Is that really the best we can expect?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#19)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 10:55:22 PM EST
    PPJ, here's a sample of what we accomplished in El Salvador. Do you really think a repeat of this is in our best interests?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#20)
    by bad Jim on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 11:43:14 PM EST
    What is it about torture and death squads that brings out moral relativism in conservatives? It's a perfectly regular, repeatable phenomenon. They may call it realism, they may call it toughness, but for some reason they think it preferable to tolerating sex. Chacun a son gôut, eh?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peaches on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 04:49:28 AM EST
    ppj writes
    Wishful - Maybe you missed this. The Baath party was Saddam's party, and he was its head
    And Saddam was a sunni and he was Iraqi. He was at the head of both. I geuss by this logic all deaths in Iraq are justified. The AMericans should not be in Iraq. We cannot win and Rumsfeld knows it. He, along with the CIA and Pentagon, are preparing an exit strategy. The insurgency is winning and will ulttimately be justified with a victory. Evil as this adminsistration is, this exit strategy is probably one of the better ones they could come up with. I am sure the insurgents would welcome it. Shi'ite and Kurdish Death squads would meet their own deaths at the hands of SUnnis if they tried to infiltrate the insurgency. THis strategy would not work in Iraq. THe tribal bonds are too strong. The Americans will be wasting a lot of money trying to finance these operations and they will continue to suffer from bad publicity among the global community and the arab countries in particular, but at least the majority of American troops will be coming home. We're losing dudes!

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 05:16:51 AM EST
    Death squads. Great. I am mulling over how different our sponsorship of death squads is from the insurgent and terrorist habit of capturing westerners and cutting off their heads. Family members of the victims may experience pretty similar impact. What a disaster. I guess the Iraqis never had it so good. Mission accomplished. Tell me again how our troops will be hailed as liberators. The El Salvador option. Great.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 06:57:04 AM EST
    Quaker - The point is that civilians get killed in all wars. That is bad. It is also a fact. The majority of civilians now being killed are killed by terrorists, but some are, and will continue to be until this is over, killed buy coalition troops. CA - The use of the term "San Salvador death squads" is a smear attempt by those opposed to a strategy of using local troops. You have no way of knowing that "x" amount of civilians will be killed by the Iraqi Special Forces, yet you whip out the comparsions. To me it seems obvious that in a war where the enemy can not be identified until he starts shooting at you, local forces will be much better suited in identifying and attacking the insurgents. Perhaps you know of some psychic power that our regular forces could use. Peaches - You sound almost wishful. BTW - I understand the tribal differences. And so will the Iraqi Special Forces. bad jim writes - "What is it about torture and death squads that brings out moral relativism in conservatives?" Not being a conservative I can't answer for them, but I see no moral relativism in the use of Iraqi Special Forces. It is a logical and straight forward military tactic. et al - You folks are funny.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#24)
    by Aaron on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 07:36:47 AM EST
    The "logic" of people who endorse the "anything goes" (for us) approach works something like this: * We are good, so everything we do is good, including but not limited to our adoption (and escalation) of every tactic used by our enemy. * They are evil, so everything they do is evil, period, end of story. It makes life much easier if you learn to "think" like that. Right Jim?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#25)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 08:05:28 AM EST
    The majority of civilians now being killed are killed by terrorists, but some are, and will continue to be until this is over, killed buy coalition troops. This is an outright lie, or a filaure to see what actually goes on. Are you purposely blind or just ignorant. We have killed probably 10x the civilians the insurgents have. Immoral apologists that basis of all immporal regimes

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#26)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 08:12:15 AM EST
    and of course you are wrong about the babies, they starve to death much faster than adults and its doubly bad if there is no water.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#27)
    by john horse on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 08:16:52 AM EST
    Jim, re:"The majority of civilians now being killed are killed by terrorists..." This statement, like much of what you write, is unsupported by the facts. The majority of civilian casualties are the result of the actions of the US and allies. According to Iraq Body Count, "For each civilian killed by "terrorists" on and since 9-11, the USA and its allies have brought about almost four non-combatant, civilian deaths in return." For some nonstatistical evidence of what we are doing there is this (warning graphic content). Of course, if you have any actual evidence to back up what you say, please provide it.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 08:18:32 AM EST
    SD - I will not agree with your 10X statement, but will agree that more civilians were killed during the actual war itself. That is past us. My comment read: "The majority of civilians now being killed are killed by terrorists....." Can't read, eh? Must have been out partying about the new job. Congratulations. BTW - Does this mean your time in academia is past? That you are now out in the cold world of industry?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#29)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 08:23:02 AM EST
    That is past us There is no limit to your ability to decieve yourself. Self-permotion alert! For anyone who is interested I have posted an article on Fallujah here. I encourage everyone who wants a better idea of what went on there to take a look.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 08:23:50 AM EST
    John H - Read my comment to SD. Especially the "now being" part. Araon - The use of Iraqi Special Forces does not imply approval of "anything goes." Why do you think that? Is everything America does, automatically bad? et al - I again note that the use of the term "San Salvador Death Squads" has no basis in fact, and is an attempt by the Left to rewrite the facts into what they want them to be.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 08:24:28 AM EST
    I am sure Jim has read William Langewiesche's second Letter from Baghdad in the January Atlantic and can give us a convincing explanation of why the first-hand observations of one of the only Western journalists left who dares to go out into the Iraqi community are wrong.

    Cranky
    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#32)
    by john horse on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 08:26:38 AM EST
    Rumsfeld is proposing that the US expand its role as the world's #1 state sponsored terrorist. Hunting down and killing your political opponents is incompatible with democratic government. This is more consistent with something that someone like Saddam would do. Everyday and in every way, we seem to resemble Saddam Hussein more and more.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 08:32:16 AM EST
    SD - The actual war with Saddam's Iraq is past us. This is occupation, and we have been very cautious in our use of power against the terrorists that attack the coalition, and the civilians. Fallujah was a military operation against a known terrorist strong hold. You think that wrong. But then you want us to leave Iraq, so you gin up all of these things that we are supposed to NOT do. Tell us. How do you think we can established a constututional republic in Iraq if we leave? Do you want to see it in the hands of the Baathists and terrorists? Do you have any idea, or care, what a blood bath that would be?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#34)
    by Adept Havelock on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 08:59:46 AM EST
    Seems apprpriate. We created Saddam Hussien in the 1980's In the 2000's we use the same tactics we used in Central America in the 1980's to clean up the mess we helped create. A strange synergy is at work. More proof that the "moral" leadership of Bush is as far from moral as one can be.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 09:20:43 AM EST
    Is there any military tactic that the trolls won't defend? Is there any violation of Constitutional rights that the wingnuts won't justify? What Bush administration actions will the trolls be rationalizing two years from now?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 09:31:27 AM EST
    Well, I will jump in here for soccerdad and state that I never expected us to establish a democratic government in Iraq. That is not what the war is about. Our record with establishing democratic governments brings to mind the military coups against democratically elected leaders like Aristide, Arbenz, Allende, Dhiem. We historically have preferred to set up military strong men like Noriega, Pinochet, Saddam, d'Aubisson, the Shah. If you think we have a record of establishing democracies, let me know where and when that happened. Last and only example that comes to mind is maybe Japan post WWII. That's been quite a while.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 09:36:34 AM EST
    The article and discussion about the death squads comes from that well-known leftist magazine Newsweek. Aren't they the ones that are always taking crazy liberal stands? No, wait, that's Mother Jones I am thinking of. Yep, Jim, Newsweek is just full of crazy leftist terrorists. They must be all from San Salvador, ya think? The comparison and discussion is about death squads. Paramilitary forces. You like the sound of that? You have a psychic take on that which makes it ok? Does the end justify the means? Come on, open the linked article and look at the bodies of the nuns who were murdered. Just how dangerous were they?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#38)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 09:56:27 AM EST
    This is occupation, and we have been very cautious in our use of power against the terrorists that attack the coalition, and the civilians
    . This is patently false. I know you will not accept this, so be it. Just continue in your fantasy world. And a question if the Fallujah operation was against a terrorist stronghold why did we let 2/3 leave before we started the siege. No this was "collective punishment" and pure intimidation that has not broken the back of the "insurgency". Shock and awe has failed as most predicted it would

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#39)
    by john horse on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 10:10:17 AM EST
    Jim, re:"My comment read: "The majority of civilians now being killed are killed by terrorists.....Can't read, eh?" I guess it depends on what you mean by "now." How about providing the basis of your methodology? Does "now" include the 2 attacks against Fallujah? Please provide the evidence (link) proving what you say? My guess is that, like much of what you write, there is no factual basis to it.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 11:06:23 AM EST
    okay, i figure the following 1. you start doing death squads and every other country but the u.s will pull out, not even britain will stay put for it. 2. i would also expect every arab with a pair hanging to drive, cycle, walk, or crawl to iraq to try and kill an american, religiously motivated or not.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#41)
    by Andreas on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 11:06:31 AM EST
    It does not make much sense to argue with supporters of state terrorism such as "Poker Player (aka Jim)". Politically more significant (but hardly surprising) is the silence of the Democratic Party.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#42)
    by wishful on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 11:09:40 AM EST
    Andreas, I get the feeling that there are a good number that don't fit into the Repug camp, and as you point out, the Dems don't represent us, at least not out loud. Who then does represent the rest of us do you suppose?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#43)
    by Andreas on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 12:01:42 PM EST
    wishful wrote: "Who then does represent the rest of us do you suppose?" Well, a new political mass party is needed which is founded on the lessons of the last century. The Fourth International is building such a party. Those interested in an alternative to imperialist war and barbarism are invited to read its publication World Socialist Web Site and to join this struggle.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 12:13:49 PM EST
    no party with the name socialist in it can hope to succeed in the u.s for more than a half century.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 12:14:36 PM EST
    Observer - Perhaps you could tell us what is un-constitutional about training special forces of local Iraqi citizens. Oh, you can't? Then why do you use the troll like tactic of making knowingly false comments? CA - The Left has complained for years about our support of what they call "dictators." Now, when we overthrow one and attempt to establish a constitutional government, it is "wrong." Yes indeed, my country wrong and wrong is your mantra. John H - Now. "the present time or moment " Now."of or relating to the present time : EXISTING SD - We tried to let those not involved with the terrorists, out. Do you find that wrong? I would think you would like that. Of course we know that you agree with OBL that: "...because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical." I think our actions in Iraq have proven him correct. Posted by soccerdad at September 25, 2004 09:13 AM "

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#46)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 12:46:37 PM EST
    PPJ can't answer the question so you attack. And you drag up the OBL quote which I keep agreeing with because of our actions. So you are up to your usual desperate tactics. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 12:50:11 PM EST
    The use of the term "death squads" has every bit as much validity as the use of the U.S and Israel's patent applied for term "terrorists" to charecterize anyone with the gumption to resist aforementioned countries heavy-handed will. Btw,Jim I assume you have documtary evidence for your continual assertion that former Baathists that fight against the occupation want a "return" to the former state of affairs - as if that were in any shape or form possible -

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    - Surely the "former Baathists" must have issued some OBL-like statement that you can quote ad-nauseum,so lets see it.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#49)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 01:14:38 PM EST
    I know you guys can read and comprehend. Thus, your characterization of this policy is a lie. Iraq will have an election, the process will continue, and Iraq will be a democracy. Unless you guys are really lucky. I see the usual ration of crocodile tears for the dead or potential dead. When I was in El Salvador in 1987, we were told by a Catholic human rights group (Tutela Legal), that the death squad killings had dropped to something like 1% of the rate of the early part of the decade. The faith-based liberals and peacefreaks were devastated. When dead peasants are required to reproach US policy, dead peasants are supposed to be provided. FAILURE!!! In 1987, on a per capita basis, El Salvador was safer than Detroit. BTW, Iran/Contra had to do with Nicaragua. David Brooks has an illuminating column in the NYT today. They're having this boring election crap in El Salvador and Nicaragua. No wonder you guys are bummed.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 01:25:32 PM EST
    Aubrey - Well,at least you still had the comfort that SOME were being killed. Btw,"something like 1% etc" wouldnt hold up before many competant investigative bodies."Peace freaks" - and youre what? A death freak? Torture freak? You probobly have alot to be excited about these days.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#51)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 01:29:32 PM EST
    It may have an election, whether a democracy results from the election or if civil war results from the civil war remains to be seen. The rest of your drivel is just attacks on us assigning us motives and thoughts which we have not had. But I know that won't get in the way of you making baseless accusations against people. That is what you do best. Actually thats all you do

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 01:42:58 PM EST
    SD - writes "And a question if the Fallujah operation was against a terrorist stronghold why did we let 2/3 leave before we started the siege" and I write in reply: "We tried to let those not involved with the terrorists, out." As for rhe Fallujah operation, I had previous written to you at 9:23AM :"Fallujah was a military operation against a known terrorist strong hold." And now you write: "can't answer the question so you attack...: SD, do you read the rsponse? Or do you just make another off the cuff attack? jondee - You will have to ask SD. He is our resident OBL comment expert, so he may have some information on comments made by OBL's partners in crime. ;-) Dearest No Name - And I assume you have some documentary evidence that Baathists do not want a return to a Baath Party rule. Sure. I am a Baath Party member and I want free elections in which I will continue to lose power. Yeah. Makes a lot of sense, eh? As the kids say, Duhhhhhh.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#53)
    by john horse on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 01:47:14 PM EST
    Jim, Oh I get it. When you say "The majority of civilians now being killed are killed by terrorists" what you mean by "now" is "the present time or moment, of or relating to the present time, EXISTING." So does that mean you are not counting any Iraqi civilians killed prior to today? If not what period of time are you basing your statement on? By the way, you still haven't provided any evidence. Show me the links! Why don't you just admit that you either don't know or you are wrong.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#54)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 02:23:10 PM EST
    PPJ the point that you chose to miss is that we let most (2/3) of the insurgents out. So now its no longer a terrorist stronghold, and then they attacked anyway destroying the city. So it was more "shock and Awe" collective punishment

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 02:29:07 PM EST
    Jim wrote: CA - The Left has complained for years about our support of what they call "dictators." Now, when we overthrow one and attempt to establish a constitutional government, it is "wrong." Jim, what I said was "I never expected us to establish a democratic government in Iraq. That is not what the war is about." If you are going to use the quotation marks, quote. Establishing democracy, nurturing democracy, I am all for it. So what if the Iraqi's were to vote for return to Saddam? If you are really committed to democracy, you have to allow for such an outcome. I would be sorry to see it happen, but the point is that we have made the situation much worse and there is no end in sight. This country, what has it done right? Lots. We have this 200 plus year experiment in the power of democracy. We were pulled in to WWI and II and made the world a safer place when we stood up to aggressors. We convened the trials at Nuremburg and made it clear to the world that people might be held accountable for war crimes. We worked to develop the Geneva Conventions. We have done a lot of good stuff. We are currently doing a lot of terrible stuff. How do the rose-colored glasses fit?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 02:29:48 PM EST
    Jim,again,wheres your hard evidence other than the assertions of the foreign policy gurus of Fox,as to percentage of "former Baathists" taking part in the insurgency and for thier supposed desire to "return to power"? Hard evidence please, not neo-con spun blatherings.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 02:31:07 PM EST
    Somehow I think Rummy's plan to turn to Iraqi death squad is yet another step in the wrong direction, but we are a long way down the wrong path in Iraq today. Oh, and don't forget, we gave the world the Jerry Springer show. Democracy can be messy.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    Stop responding to PPJ's provocations. He is a naughty little boy who will do and say whatever it takes to get your attention. Ignore the bad boy.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#59)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 02:59:07 PM EST
    Of course Bush doesn't care about Democracy in the world. see here and here for a couple of examples.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#60)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 03:15:32 PM EST
    As I say, try to ignore the democracies in Central America. The list of dictators somebody mentioned are all ex-dictators. Unlike your buddy, Fidel, who will die in bed a dictator, if you have your way. Yeah, Soc, you motives are so pure. Right. There is no catastrophe so horrid you will not facilitate it if it will damage Bush and the republican administration.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#61)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 03:17:57 PM EST
    soccerdad - Of course Bush doesn't care about Democracy in the world. in the world!? He doesn't support it for the US so why would he support it for anyone else?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 03:23:06 PM EST
    Dearest No Name - Well, at least I identify myself. That way anyone can identify my comments. This prevents me from taking positions "just for fun" as you claim. Tell us. Why don't you step and identify yourself?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#63)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 03:25:35 PM EST
    Oops. Missed a point. The issue about the 99% reduction in death squad killings is not that 1% is good, although it's about a hundred times better. The point was the lefties so terribly disappointed about the 99% that wasn't happening. One opponent of Low Intensity Conflict wrote, after an article plainly intended for the in-group, that the LIC in El Salvador was, 1, working, 2, not causing nearly as many casualties as conventional ops. That meant, she said, that those of "us" who were used to raising the consciousness of the American people against intervention by pointing to mass casualties were going to have to find a new tactic. Clearly, you need lots of dead peasants. The problem with the El Salvador tactic, even if it's run as you claim--but know better--it will kill a disastrously (for you) lower number of people with a much higher hit rate of bad guys. No wonder you are so exercised about it. The Phoenix program in Viet Nam was designed to kill the individual troublemakers instead of letting them start fights in which dozens or more of conscripts and civilians got killed. For that reason, the left opposed it. The left needs dead innocents. Now, I'm not telling you anything about this that you don't know. I'm telling you something else. I'm telling you everybody else knows it, too.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#64)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 03:26:15 PM EST
    RA - off your meds again I see. Well I've had enough of Moe and Larry for today. Time to get out before curley shows up.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 03:46:50 PM EST
    Difference between you and me, Soc, is that I've been on both sides of this particular fence. And I can tell you from this side that we here actually know what's going on over on your side. You aren't fooling anybody. That you all nod solemnly at each other doesn't mean anybody actually agrees. (Jeez, I love how that alliteration just pops out.) Try to remember that. It's only part of the schtick.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 03:52:25 PM EST
    In 1987, on a per capita basis, El Salvador was safer than Detroit. Except if you were a peasant or priest that the death squads wanted to make an example of. In a visit to San Salvador in February 1989, Vice President Dan Quayle told army leaders that death squad killings and other human rights violations attributed to the military had to be ended. Ten days later, the US-trained Atlacatl Battalion--which was believed to have a US trainer assigned to it at all times--attacked a guerrilla field hospital, killing at least ten people, including five patients, a doctor and a nurse, and raping at least two of the female victims before shooting them. Sources close to the El Salvador military said afterward that Quayle's warning was not taken seriously, but as rhetoric aimed at the US Congress and the American public. Democracy by Death Squad...and you couldn't be more proud. Kind of makes me glad that the Iraq failure will send the U.S. to the same fate as the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 04:02:14 PM EST
    And I can tell you from this side that we here actually know what's going on over on your side. Whatever side you happen to be on, I hope they have padded walls for your sake. It's only part of the schtick. And your schtick is the curious proposition that killing more and more people will make more Iraqis want to go along with us. Hasn't worked so far has it? Didn't work in Viet Nam did it? Never mind that, we have El Salvador as our shining example of state sponsored terrorism success. Good luck and godspeed John Negroponte. And may the next mortar shell fired from a donkey cart have your name on it.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 04:35:31 PM EST
    Ernesto, you lost the Cold War. Deal with it. You may ask the folks in Central America if they want the FMLN back. And any time they don't want democracy, I guess they can vote themselves out of it. Why don't you start a party with that as your theme?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 04:48:53 PM EST
    The policy, from the beginning, is genocide. It is, from the beginning, the dismantlement of Iraq. "There is no more Iraq. There will be three territories." --MF. Henry Kissinger. They have been overt about their planning, and 911 is part of their plan. How else would they have Negroponte, the Patriot Act, and all the rest READY TO GO within a day or two of the attack. It's a conspiracy; it's treason; it is certainly war crimes and war for profit and racism. They don't care how many kids they kill (1/2 the population of Iraq are minors). They don't care how many orphans they make in the US ("soldiers are suckers"). But why despair now? We haven't had a legal election in four years, but this will NOT stand. A lot of bad days are coming for these bastards. They are covered in the spittle of a rampaging wolf, but even the real Stalin one day had his worst day. "What do I care? We'll all be dead" -GWB, bragging about his mental illness. As for Central and South America, what the US did in CA -- those are crimes right next to Hitler's, Richard. As are these. You think you'll just walk through the earth making crimes you're proud of, that's just because you and your kind are VENALITY incarnate. --

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#70)
    by john horse on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 04:56:36 PM EST
    Richard, Let me understand what you are saying. The reason that the Left opposes death squad activity is because it will result in a lower number of civilian casualties? Here I was thinking that the Left's opposition to death squads had something to do with a concern with human rights. Why by your logic, if the death squad activity resulted in fewed civilian casualties, that must mean that they were really humanitarians. Is it too late to nominate the death squads for a Nobel prize?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#71)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 06:07:38 PM EST
    You're partly right, John, and partly wrong, but then I got lost in the second half of the piece. The plan in mind does not include death squads, unless you figure that any small Infantry unit is a death squad. I suppose you do. But, anyway, the way it works, as you know and now you know I do, is that you need dead peasants to reproach US policy. Your concern with, say, Low Intensity Conflict has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with the fact that LIC produces far fewer civilian deaths than does conventional war. As to the Nobel Peace Prize, isn't that the one Arafat got, and Le Duc Tho? Nope, those were mass killers, including indiscriminate murder of civilians as a goal. So, nope, I don't think the new plan would qualify for the Nobel.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 06:23:53 PM EST
    Richard Aubrey...have you ever considered applying for Sec. of Defense? You are quite possibly insane enough to have a serious chance of getting it in this administation. And if we "won the cold war", then what did we inherit for our victory? Why are we still invading third world countries?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#73)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 06:38:25 PM EST
    Ernesto, when you lost the Cold War, us guys on this side got to not lose it. Didn't go nuclear, either. All in all, that's cool. Nobody said winning the Cold War was going to give us anything else but not losing it. Why invading Third World countries? If you haven't figured that out by now, I'm not going to waste cyberwhatsit trying to explain it. It has nothing directly to do with the Cold War. It has more to do with the end of WW I, when the Ottoman Empire was parceled out between the victors. As with parceling out Africa several decades earlier, there was little interest in ethnic issues when slapping borders down on maps. It has to do with the vicious and insane Jew-hatred of Europe and Arabs and Muslims more generally. It has to do with the strongman kind of rule which uses anti-Israel, anti-Jew and anti-US propaganda to divert the anger of the populations. Stuff like that.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 06:52:46 PM EST
    Richard Aubrey...you will recall from your cold war textbooks that Afghanistan is a place where Evil Empires go to die. Who is there now? You see, that's what we inherited. Are you catching on yet? I didn't think so.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 06:59:40 PM EST
    It has to do with the strongman kind of rule which uses anti-Israel, anti-Jew and anti-US propaganda to divert the anger of the populations. But why are the populations angry? Because they are yearning to have IMF policy installed by U.S. military force?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#76)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 08:39:35 PM EST
    As regards Afghanistan, Ernesto, you wish. You dream. You hope for terror and tyranny and murder and permanent war. Just so Bush looks bad. As regards why the people are angry: Because they live in countries run by the local version of the Mafia only they're not so sentimental. If you're not in, you're so far out they have to mail you sunlight, COD. And there's no way to get in, to make a decent living. You are at the whim of the security forces and you dare not even think about it for fear of letting something slip and one of your friends and neighbors rats you out to the Volkspolezei or whatever they have and you disappear. This would lead to an explosion if it weren't for the diversion toward the US and Israel. The IMF? Ernesto, to the extent lefties can be embarrassed, you have managed.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 10:05:14 PM EST
    Clearly you have mistaken Ernesto for Dick Cheney. Bush couldn't look any worse if every leftist on the earth drew a picture. He is his own worst enemy. He lied about the cause of war, lied that war wasn't inevitable, lied about having proof of the WMD, lied about the cost of the invasion, lied about not approving the torture, lied about lying about lying to lie about his lying. This is not the product of Michael Moore. MM did not make him sit in that chair looking guilty as hell while people were jumping to their deaths. MM did not make him stare like a deer at headlights when asked what his mistakes have been. His stupidity, mendacity, viciousness, and corruption are blatantly obvious. That you don't see it is proof that there is no light at the end of the tunnel of Bush's rectum. --

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 11:14:34 PM EST
    Richard Aubrey...Shock and Awe was more than a military strategy for Iraq...it was an economic strategy, too. And like the military strategy, it is failing miserably. Why? Because no investor is dumb enough to put money into Iraq now. Only 51 percent of those who cast votes that were counted are investing anything into Bush's policies. And they will lose their tax bucks, countrymen and this empire same way the Soviets did. Let's see your guys invade Iran now so we can watch the economy implode even faster, shall we? I say again, you need to apply for Sec. of Defense, you definitely have what it takes.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#79)
    by john horse on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 03:37:47 AM EST
    Richard, Congratulations on figuring us Leftists out. Where do you get your psychic abilities? Yes, we do need "dead peasants" in order to attack US foreign policy. If those on the Right were really smart you would outmaneuver us by not supporting policies and practices that result in civilians, such as teachers, doctors, union organizers, etc. from being killed and nuns from being raped. You know a "kinder, gentler" more "compassionately conservative" death squad, but thats almost a contradiction in terms, isn't it?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 04:05:37 AM EST
    Whoops, no Ernesto, that's an incorrect statistic. A great number of voters in many states report voting for Kerry and having their vote come up as for Bush. We know that voters in several states found that their punch cards were PREPUNCHED for Bush (making a Kerry vote invalidated the entire ballot). Such fradulent tactics are felonies under state law, if not federal. And it goes on. It's not just that people were blocked from the polls by tactics like the $R nationwide voter registration company caught in Nevade destroying Dem voter registrations they had solicited, a felony. Votes were shifted in large numbers by Diebold and ES&S, and smaller companies like Triad, who we CAUGHT altering the electonic machines statewide in Ohio in order to prevent a recount, which is a felony on several levels. So it isn't "51%" of nothing, Ernesto. This election was something like 65 Kerry/35 Bushliar. Bush ran that bad a campaign. But why work harder? He knew the fix was in. Let them eat cake. "Inauseation II" on 21 Jan is just another in the series. Collect them all. --

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#81)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:10:30 AM EST
    Paul In LA writes - "MM did not make him sit in that chair looking guilty as hell..." Guess we can get rid of judges, lawyers and that old fashioned jury. You can just look at someone. "A great number of voters in many states report voting for Kerry and having their vote come up as for Bush." How do they know? And if the knew, didn't they immediately report the problem? Ernesto writes - "Let's see your guys invade Iran now so we can watch the economy implode even faster, shall we?" Uh, do you ever watch the economic news? Stock market at close to the previous top, 154,000 jobs created..

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#82)
    by Richard Aubrey on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:17:01 AM EST
    Paul in LA. The "Bush Lied" thing wore out. Everybody, including you, knows that all intel services believed the WMD were in Iraq. The best you have is Bush was mistaken like everybody else. Of the reasons given to Congress, WMD were a grossly disproportionate minority. The rest of your accusations are equally baseless. As to my psychic abilities: I've hung around lefties long enough to get the hang of imputing vile motives to my political opponents. How do you like getting it back?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#83)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:21:48 AM EST
    Uh, do you ever watch the economic news? Stock market at close to the previous top, 154,000 jobs created..
    Stock market notindicator of overall economuc health but I'm sure you knew that. The number of jobs created is not enough to keep up with population growth(you need 200k/month just to keep up with increase in eligible) therefore its a net loss. Bush is down 3 million jobs. In fact due to current account deficits and over extension of loans, no savings, and reduced foreign investment the economy is actually teetering on the edge The health of the economy has been proped up in recent years by 1. asian central banks paying for our deficits and 2. an explosion in "assest economy", i.e. people bought because of 2nd, 3rd mortgages or equity loans due to increase in house values. In some areas values are in the "bubble range".

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#84)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 10:24:17 AM EST
    PPJ: I did not say this act was unconstitutional. I was referring to the fact that you, and all the other lying scum like yourself, will defend any act the Bush administration takes if it is framed as necessary for the "war on terror". Lock up a citizen without due process because Bush says he's a terrorist? Okay with you. Torture people who are picked up at random? Okay with you.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 11:42:59 AM EST
    Richard - When your spiritual progenitors had to face the music at Nuremberg,was beatification automatic? Or is there a mandatory waiting period complete with investigations into the veracity of "roundings up","cleansings"," actual pain and anguish inflicted" stories?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#86)
    by Richard Aubrey on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 11:49:55 AM EST
    Jondee, I am aware you object to the killing of those fighting against us. The folks at Nuremberg got hammered for two things, by and large. One is starting a war and the other was deliberate killing of civilians. The plan to which you object foresees neither of these. Worse, it is about killing the insurgent leaders before they can kill US soldiers and Iraqi civilians. No wonder you're upset.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#87)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:09:57 PM EST
    Richard - Judging by the number of civilians killed,maimed,and traumatized in one form or another,I can only surmise that your masters are either grossly incompetent, brutish and sadistic,patent liars,or, more likly,all of the above.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#88)
    by Richard Aubrey on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:19:01 PM EST
    Jondee, you ought to go into business as a trout. You picked up that lure and swallowed it big time. There are death squads in Iraq. They kill civilians by the score. You had an opportunity to mention them. You didn't. The reason is that these murderers are enemies of the US. Thus, their actions don't even register on your outrage meter.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#89)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 01:35:31 PM EST
    Richard - the Free French Im sure registered loud on your outrage meter when they..well you get the idea.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#90)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    Observer writes - "PPJ: I did not say this act was unconstitutional. I was referring to the fact that you, and all the other lying scum like yourself..." My dear as* breath. Why do you choose to use vulgar like attacks when a simple disagreement would be effective. Have you had a bad day down on the corner? You wrote: "Is there any military tactic that the trolls won't defend? Is there any violation of Constitutional rights that the wingnuts won't justify?" My deepest aplogies for thinking you capable of writing two sentences that require connected thoughts.

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#91)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 02:55:56 PM EST
    Paul in LA. The "Bush Lied" thing wore out. Everybody, including you, knows that all intel services believed the WMD were in Iraq. The best you have is Bush was mistaken like everybody else." ""He lied about the cause of war," No one made him lie about the Yellowcake, which the CIA TOLD HIM WAS A LIE. " lied that war wasn't inevitable," Nothing changed to make him LIE that war wasn't inevitable (or Powell's statement that the policy wasn't regime change). Nothing made him get into power with the plan already to attack Iraq. Nothing made Rumsfeld write about attacking Iraq within moments of 911. "lied about having proof of the WMD," Nothing made Wolfowitz say that they chose the WMD angle because it was the best propaganda for pushing the war. Nothing made Powell stand up in the UN with the biggest sack of lies in history. Nothing made Bush and his team of liars push the faulty intel, to quote the Bush chief-of-staff, like "roll(ing) out a new product." "lied about the cost of the invasion," No one forced Bush and his team of liars to grossly underestimate the cost of the invasion. Nothing forced them to no-bid contract to their own companies, so that blast walls which Iraqis can supply for $250 each, cost American taxpayers $1,000 each from Halliburton. "lied about not approving the torture," No one made Bush lie that he was opposed to the torture, only to find that he in fact authorized it. "lied about lying about lying to lie about his lying."" Richard, you are either deluded or a fool. Bush is as reliable as a high-explosive IED. He reliably lies at every opportunity. Nothing made him and Rumsfeld understaff the invasion (by 4/5 of what the Pentagon said they needed), which allowed the enemies of our troops to loot large amounts of munitions. It's the Bush tsunami, and it is a natural result of his greed for power. No one is to blame but him and his cronies for how low his credibility is, worldwide. HE'S A LIAR, and then some. --

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#92)
    by Richard Aubrey on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:14:48 PM EST
    Paul in LA. Wrong again. "LIE" presumes knowledge that what one says is incorrect. In some cases, such as WMD, everybody thought SH had them. Bush, believing this, said so. That's not a lie, it's a mistake. Wolfowitz was referring to about sixteen different issues and suggesting that they ought to have one, and WMD should be it. I'd have thought you'd be pleased, on account of there were so many reasons the lefties were accusing the admin of not being able to make up its mind. Nobody gets the cost of a war right in advance and so being wrong is not a lie. What yellowcake are you talking about? Anyway, the lie thing wore out, and everybody knows it. You know, if you believed the stuff you say, you'd be the dumbest guy in the country. But you know better and hope to find at least one guy dumb enough to believe. The cost to that is to look to everybody who's not that dumb like a ....liar. So you look bad to, say, a hundred folks and convince one guy who got loose from the group home. How is this a positive outcome?

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#93)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:32:35 PM EST
    Of course Bush knew the stockpile of weapons did not exist. Hussein Kamel was Saddam's son in law. He defected and was debriefed by the CIA, MI6 and the UN. He told everyone that the stockpiles had been destroyed. He later returned to Iraq and was promptly killed. Now you combine this with the fact that the inspectors were not finding anything and the reason Bush rushed to war is obvious. Every day he let the inspectors stay in Iraq and not find anything saw a further decrease in his justification. and No all the intel agencies did not agree about WMDs forcing the pentegon to set up ODP under Feith. These are dtails RA "forgets" or deems "unimportant".

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#94)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:33:45 PM EST
    should be OSP not OPD

    Re: Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Ir (none / 0) (#95)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    "LIE" presumes knowledge that what one says is incorrect." Even if you lie to yourself about it. ("Damn, those WMD must be here SOMEWHERE [lifting the cushions of his couch]"). "In some cases, such as WMD, everybody thought SH had them." So your side claims. This completely ignores people like Scott Ritter, who insisted that the country was DISARMED. He was right; why not, he actually checked. The ONLY issue was the palaces, which is why the resolution was passed. Are you telling us that checking the palaces, as Hussein eventually allowed, did not clarify the facts on the ground? Of course it did. Quoting politicians and browbeat (and life-threatened) CIA is a LIE, Dick, and I think you know it. "Bush, believing this, said so. That's not a lie, it's a mistake." Apparently not, since he's incapable of noticing any mistakes. It's a lie, it's a lie, it's a lie-ee-ai-ee-ai. "How is this a positive outcome?" Just keep lying to yourself, Dick. You have 1350+ soldiers and 100,000+ mostly innocent Iraqis dead as a result of your faith in Bush to make mistakes he can't admit. What is the punishment for understaffing the invasion? Rumsfeld did such WONDERFUL work, he didn't guard a single ammo dump in the country!! He only armored 2% of the vehicles!! He didn't guard the nuclear materials for a full month!! He allowed 4,000 shoulder-fired missiles to go missing!! He got good Americans KILLED trying to be tanks. How you pat yourself on the head, for being a monster in sheep's clothing. You're not fooling anyone around here any more. Even the $Rs are doubting the sanity and morality of the NEVER elected Little Prince. --

    Rumseld Considering 'El Savador' Option for Iraq | 94 comments (94 topical)