home

Memorial Day: Remembering Those Who Served

To all who served in our wars, and their families, thank you for your sacrifice.

To our President: It's time to leave Iraq. We cannot win this civil war. We can only lose more precious lives.

Bring the troops home now.

< Will Pols Be Punished For Not Ending The Iraq Debacle? | Should Scooter Libby's Sentencing Letters Be Made Public? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    And This (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sun May 27, 2007 at 11:47:07 PM EST
    Indeed; thanks J. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:01:42 AM EST


    Bravenewfoundation[dot]org (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Edger on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:45:34 AM EST
    The Iraq Veterans Memorial is an online [video] memorial to honor the members of the U.S. armed forces who have lost their lives serving in the Iraq War. The Memorial is a collection of video memories from military colleagues, co-workers, family, and friends of those that have fallen.

    A Moving Tribute (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by john horse on Mon May 28, 2007 at 06:36:10 AM EST
    Just kids (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Edger on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:47:23 AM EST
    Memorial Day: Remember the One Million Dead Iraqi Civilians

    One out of every eight Iraqi kids between the ages of 1 and 5 have been killed in this war.

    Don't blame the insurgents. If we weren't there, there would be no insurgents

    You can mourn the Iraqi dead tomorrow. (1.00 / 3) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:07:34 AM EST
    Can't you at least give our military one day??

    Parent
    Multitasking (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:35:50 AM EST
    I am certain that everything you do today is not soley focused on the Troops Killed in Iraq? It it?

    Parent
    Squeaky - Nope (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:47:21 PM EST
    but neither am I making a public display of the dead of other countries.

    My comment was simple and easy to understand.

    Parent

    But (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by squeaky on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:54:30 PM EST
    That has nothing to do with today. Your position 24/7/365 is that no news except pro war propaganda should ever be reported.

    News of Deaths, whether they are our troops, or civilian casualties only embolden the enemy and hurt the morale of our troops.

    You are for censorship of these details every day of the year. Nothing new for today.

    Parent

    Oh Jesus Jim! (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:50:04 PM EST
    Please just shut up for one day!  You have no idea what it has done to some of our soldiers who have witnessed the deaths of innocent Iraqis.  It can be just as soul devastating as witnessing troop deaths and the Iraqis didn't die like this until "W" did his deciding.  I have no problem honoring the Iraqi dead today.  I carry them in my heart also.  When my husband was there the first time and came to know some of them it BROKE HIS HEART that these people were just like him, they just want a home and a chance to raise their children.....they had so little when we showed up there and now a lot of that is blown to SH*T and a lot of their children along with it too and some of them really really really hate us and never even knew who we were before "W's deciding"!  Many Iraqis have lost their lives in America trying to find hers again and we have no guarantee she ever will and I don't think I care much anymore if she does!  Lady Liberty is just about dead and I'm too tired to care anymore and other important things needing tended to so let her die.

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:14:09 PM EST
    You have no idea what it has done to some of our soldiers who have witnessed the deaths of innocent Iraqis.
     

    Really? Do you think that you are the first person to discover that war is terrible?? Do you think that no one else has heard taps played?? No one else has seen a folded flag given to a widow??

    Tracy, your attitude reflects a kind of selfishness that is unique to many on the Left. Unable to support anything you attack and tear down all that do.

    So no Tracy. I won't shut up. I spent 10 years in Naval Aviation, and if having served and seen a few things is a requirement to speak, I have that right. So please step back and shut up yourself.

    Parent

    Thank you Jim... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by LarryE on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:41:06 AM EST
    ...for taking time on this Memorial Day to prove beyond doubt you are the sneering ignoramus we always knew you to be.

    Parent
    Edger repeats lies. (1.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:52:35 PM EST
    The lie: "One out of eight Iraqi children under the age of five have been killed in this war."

    The truth: "One out of eight Iraqi children die before the age of five."

    Do you see the difference? Edger's Lie makes it sound like these kids are dying because of war violence. Charitably, we could allow that maybe Edger meant that they died as a result of the effects of war, rather than as a direct result of violence. Both of these suppositions are untrue, however.

    In fact, one out of eight Iraqi children died before the age of five, according to U.N. studies published in 2003, which were conducted before we went to war. UNICEF, the U.N.'s humanitarian arm for children, reported in February 2003:

    Bellamy [executive director of UNICEF] pointed out that one out of eight Iraqi children dies before the age of five - one of the worst rates in the world. She also noted that:

    · One-third of Iraqi children are malnourished
    · One-quarter are born underweight
    · One quarter of school-age children do not go to school
    · One-quarter do not have access to safe water

    Of course, maybe we shouldn't be too hard on Edger for naively accepting what is being repeated all over the left blogosphere. It's not like we expect them to verify their "reality-based" claims.

    Parent

    Edger's Reasoning is Correct (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by squeaky on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    The infant mortality rate in Iraq is a direct result of our bombing the food and water supply, the infrastructure and pollution from depleted uranium and other toxins resulting from desert storm.

    The sanctions put the cherry on the cake to ensure that generations would be cripple, diseased and malnourished.

    Parent

    Reality (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Edger on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:08:23 PM EST
    After 4 years of illegal, violent Occupation the post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Iraq total ONE MILLION (UN Population Division and medical literature data). Taken together with 1.7 million excess deaths in the 1990-2003 Sanctions War (UN Population Division) and 3.7 million Iraqi refugees (UNHCR), this constitutes an Iraqi Genocide (as defined by the UN Genocide Convention) and an Iraqi Holocaust in comparison with the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million victims). The Iraqi under-5 infant deaths (1990-2007) now total 1.8 million, 90% having been avoidable and due to Western war crimes. Total Iraqi excess deaths (1990-2007) total 2.7 million. The post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Afghanistan now total 2.2 million
    ...
    Three quarters of the people of Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan are Women and Children.

    The Bush War on Terror is in horrible reality a cowardly War on Women and Children, a War on Asian Women and Children and a War on Muslim Women and Children.

    Reality....

    Parent
    Ad hominem munis hominem equals no hominem. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Dadler on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:23:23 PM EST
    It takes denial of an awful sort (and more than a little intellectual cowardice) to attempt to parse "effects" of war from war itself.  Or to simply not mention the decade of sanctions we employed when we knew they did nothing buy harm the general populace, of whom children and the elderly were/are the most at risk (and from which your pre-war stats arise).  It's hard to understand this kind of denial, but I can.  It comes from those who have lived lives of ease and comfort, who have never experienced that which they believe they have such a handle on, and lack the creativity to think around that lack of experience.  You are entitled to your opinion and I would never say you didn't have the right to it, but when it's so shamefully dishonest it must be called out.  With family in this battle, a little brother looking at a third tour, your endless rationalizing and warmongering without risk is just off the charts infuriating.  

    To suggest this war has been anything but murderous from the Iraqi population (the elderly and children especially) is simply unbelievable.  What do you think war is, sonny?  Have you never been shot at, had a gun pointed at you, have you never thought you were about to die a horrible death?  Have you never been near a major explosion?  Have you never survived the trauma of inflicted violence?  Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, was a largely secular nation, had no relationshiip with Al Qeada, and you still can't do anything but criticize the left for trying to take into account something our government doesn't even think worth of concern --Iraqi deaths.  We don't count them.  We don't care.  Be a man, stand up, and accept the truth that your country does not think the deaths of innocent Iraqis are worth keeping track of.  And therefore what we know of those deaths comes from outside sources, sources you  

    But denial is denial, and it's a strong thing.  Powerful.  It's kept you from enlisting and fighting in this war which you're perfectly happy to defend and have others fight for you, when you are young and able and are only stopped by the truth -- that you are afraid and know it is not worth risking your life for.

    Period.

    Talk about school and how you just have so many other important things to do, go ahead, and understand it renders as hypocritical noise all you say on this topic.  

    Go fight.  Then come back and talk.  As it is now, you seem far too green and inexperienced in the ugliness of life.  Some people have the imagination to be wise without the direct experience.  You don't have that game.

    Go get it.  Enlist, suit up, and take the battlefield.  We have enough lawyers.  But my little bro sure needs some help in the Marines.

    Peace.

    Parent

    Of course that subject should'v read... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:24:09 PM EST
    Ad hominem MINUS hominem equals no hominem.

    Parent
    dadler and et al (1.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:29:32 PM EST
    In fact, one out of eight Iraqi children died before the age of five, according to U.N. studies published in 2003, which were conducted before we went to war. UNICEF, the U.N.'s humanitarian arm for children, reported in February 2003:

    Perhaps you failed to note that the study was done before the war.

    Parent

    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by desertswine on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:25:08 PM EST
    you can donate here, Melor.

    What your money can buy

    $15 will purchase enough vaccine to immunize 10 Iraqi children against measles, mumps and rubella.

    $109 will provide 10 families with Basic Family Water kits that contain water purification and sanitation supplies.

    $250 will purchase an emergency health kit that contains basic drugs, medical supplies and equipment for 1,000 Iraqis for 3 months.

    $2,000 will purchase a 10,000 liter collapsible water tank that can help provide safe drinking water to Iraqi children trapped in the ongoing conflict.

    Parent

    now (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by orionATL on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:55:39 AM EST
    yes, bring them home now,

    right now.

    not another life should be sacrificed for george bush's poor judgment and his subsequent attempts to rectify that poor judgment to avoid history's harsh judgment of him.

    and it's time for americans to demand that bush come out from behind that shield of specious "concern for the troops" he hides behind to protect his failed judgments.

    you can't keep soldiers dying needlessly and at the same time claim that you care  for their well-being.

    great sentiment, TL, but (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by scribe on Mon May 28, 2007 at 05:12:24 PM EST
    you got one thing wrong (twice).  You wrote:

    To our President: It's time to leave Iraq. We cannot win this civil war. We can only lose more precious lives.

    Bring the troops home now.

    This should read:

    To our President: It's time to leave Iraq. Neither you nor anyone else could or will win this civil war. You will only lose more precious lives.

    Bring the troops home now.

    I didn't vote for that as*clown and neither did you, so why are you either assuming part-ownership in, or ratifying, the war which is his personal fit of ego?  The blood is on his hands, and on the hands of those who voted for him, and who continue to vote with him.

    BTW Folks (1.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:33:49 PM EST
    Isn't it neat how the anti-war left has managed to turn a day meant to honor those Americans who have died in defense of our country into a thread about Iraq??

    and isn't it a shame ... (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Mon May 28, 2007 at 08:42:15 PM EST
    ... that ppj has corrupted this day meant to honor the sacrifices made by all Americans to attack others.

    For shame!

    Parent

    Sailor (1.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:46:36 AM EST
    Yes, their actions are shameful.

    Just one post, one thread on one day and the anti-war Left couldn't leave it alone.

    Yes, it is a shame indeed.

    Parent

    projecting again (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:46:56 PM EST
    all you did all day yesterday was make personal attacks on other people and never actually said anything about Memorial Day and what it means.

    Just one post, one thread on one day and rabid wringingers couldn't leave it alone.


    Parent
    No it isn't strange... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:05:29 AM EST
    Because Iraq was never a threat to the Constitution of the United States, which a soldier is sworn to defend. And it is too bad the grave domestic threat to the Constitution is going undefended at this time (and actively cheerleaded by certain partisan Republicans who shall remain nameless).

    Parent
    Ernesto (1.00 / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:47:56 AM EST
    Well, as so many, including you I think, have told mne, you can always join up and correct things.

    Parent
    How is that? (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Repack Rider on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:15:49 AM EST
    you can always join up and correct things.

    Mr. Spock would give you a Vulcan pinch for your illogical statement.

    Help me understand how giving Bush more cannon fodder will "correct" things?  Won't that just perpetuate the problem, which is tht we have military people in Iraq when we shouldn't?

    Did the draft "correct" Vietnam?

    The people who should, but don't, "join up" are those who think things are already "correct."  That would include all the 20-something bloggers who cheerlead for something they want no personal part of.

    Why don't you go abuse them on THEIR sites?

    Oh, I forgot.  They don't allow comments.

    Parent

    RePack (1.00 / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:15:17 PM EST
    Why don't you start a blog. That way you could ban me.

    Parent
    corrupted (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:11:51 AM EST
    Well, as so many, including you I think, have told mne, you can always join up and correct things.
    wrong as always, you are always lecturing that when you serve you give up your freedom of speech.

    let the warmongers and their children serve, people who want to make a change organize and vote for folks who will make a change ... not just rubberstamp the policies of the chimp who would be king.

    Parent

    Salior (1.00 / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:14:09 PM EST
    Well, such things as following lawful orders doesn't apply to folks like Ernesto and, of course, Sailor.

    Parent
    Same ol', same ol'. (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:07:19 PM EST
    Memorial Day is no exception; things go on just the same as ever here at TalkLeft.

    I get up in the morning, check the Web, see that Edger's got another fantastic claim in the comments at TalkLeft. A few minutes on Google debunks the claim. I post a comment.

    Then Edger's little cheerleaders jump in to defend him. First it's squeaky with the claim that, "well, Edger's reasoning is right, even if his claim is in fact wrong." More of that "fake but accurate" that we've come to expect from the "reality-based" community.

    Squeaky makes the first little change to Edger's lie: he didn't mean "this war" he meant "since Desert Storm." Of course, Edger's comment makes no sense if that's what he meant--he wrote about the insurgents, which didn't exist until after 2003.

    Also, notably absent from squeaky's comment are ideas on alternatives to the sanctions regime for dealing with Saddam Hussein. He forgets that sanctions existed for eight years under a Democratic president.

    Once more: Edger claimed that "one out of every eight Iraqi kids between the ages of 1 and 5 have been killed in this war." That is untrue. It is a lie. In fact, the death rate in Iraq for children under five was one out of eight before "this war" began.

    Then it's Dadler to the rescue
    and a subject change...well, actually, three or four subject changes. Let's see how many nonsequitur's Dad managed to introduce:

    (1)"It takes denial of an awful sort (and more than a little intellectual cowardice) to attempt to parse "effects" of war from war itself."  It is noteworthy that Edger said nothing about the "effects" of war, while I explicitly mentioned them in an effort to help verify Edger's fantastic claim. As I wrote this morning, however, the death rate for Iraqi children under age five was one in eight before the Iraq war began. I included UNICEF's summary of conditions as of February 2003 to demonstrate just how deteriorated the situation in the country was.

    (2) "With family in this battle, a little brother looking at a third tour, your endless rationalizing and warmongering without risk is just off the charts infuriating." And as someone whose brother is going back for his second time, I find your fatalism and the Left's attempts to end the war no matter the cost in lives to be infuriating.

    (3) "To suggest this war has been anything but murderous from the Iraqi population (the elderly and children especially) is simply unbelievable." Of course, I never suggested that war hasn't been deadly for Iraqis. I'm not really sure why Dad claims that I did, except that it distracts from the fact that I revealed Edger's lie for what it was. I do appreciate the patronizing "sonny" he threw in, though. That's always a nice touch.

    (4) "It's kept you from enlisting and fighting in this war which you're perfectly happy to defend and have others fight for you, when you are young and able and are only stopped by the truth -- that you are afraid and know it is not worth risking your life for." Ah, the chickenhawk meme. I knew it I wouldn't be long in a conversation about the war without a Lefty bringing that up. Dad, you have no idea why I haven't enlisted, but--as usual--my arguments will stand or fail regardless of my personal status.

    Anyway, Dad manages to talk about everything except the fact that Edger's lie is just that: a lie. The death rate for Iraqi children was one in eight before "this war" began. As a piece of anti-war propaganda, Edger's claim is rather sad since it's so easy to Google and debunk. As I said earlier, that hasn't kept lefties from repeating it endlessly. What was that you were saying about denial, Dad? As if there weren't plenty of good arguments to make about the war, you've got to rely on some bogus ones?

    Typical (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:55:17 PM EST
    Hey let's quibble about exactly how our meddling has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, shall we? Yeah, that will take everone's mind off the fact that the entire war was based on fabricated BS.

    So it's come to this...Memorial Day is but one more excuse for Republican chickenhawks to try and evade reality.

    Parent

    Gabe, I know you're a numbers kind of guy (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:10:21 AM EST
    and accuracy is top of your list when it comes to discussing the effects of the Iraq debacle.

    I have to give you credit for being right in pointing out that I was wrong.

    Apparently, with the numbers I quoted above for infant deaths attributed to the invasion and occupation you may even be justified in saying I lied. You're certainly within your rights to say that if you wish, especially since I really should have done some minimal fact checking first.

    The figure of 1 in 8 was off substantially, Gabe.

    U.K. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 25 Jan 2006

    25 Jan 2006 : Column 2145W

    Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the infant mortality rate has been in Iraq in each of the past four years. [44444]

    Hilary Benn: Estimates of Iraq's infant mortality rate vary. The most detailed information we have on infant mortality rates in Iraq is the Iraq living Conditions Survey 2004" (ILCS) conducted by the Iraqi Central Office for Statistics and Information Technology in April/May 2004. This survey can be found [here]. This gives information about infant mortality for the period 1999-2003. We do not have a breakdown of the data by year as requested.

    For the period 1999-2003, the survey shows the infant mortality rate as 32 deaths per 1,000 births during the first year of life. The rate for girls was 29 per 1,000 for girls and 25 per 1,000 for boys. However, other estimates have reported significantly higher infant mortality rates, and the ILCS report acknowledges that their estimate may be too low because of under-reporting of child deaths.

    A 2003 report by Ali, Blacker and Jones (respectively of the World Health Organisation (WHO), the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and UNICEF), reported the 1998 infant mortality rate as 100.8 deaths per 1,000 births. The UN Population Database (2004 revision) estimated Iraq's infant mortality rate as 94.3 deaths per 1,000 births for the period 1995-2000. They use the same estimate of 94.3 per 1,000 for the period 2000-2005.

    1 in 10 in 1998, and about .94 in 10 for 2000-2005 sounds much more reasonable, don't you agree Gabe?

    The others, the statistical discrepancy you might call it, apparently have survived quite well, Gabe. Well enough to have become Iraq's Dispensable Children.

    I'm sure the Iraq people are very happy with their newfound freedom and democracy.

    The good news Gabe, out of all of this, is that when in 2003 the U.N. predicted that Over 1 Million Iraqi Children Might Die in War, in their Secret UN Document, it looks like they were wrong too. To make that figure of a million deaths attributable to the current "war" work you need to include the adults. What a relief. I'm sure the dispensable children are very happy.

    Gabe, I wouldn't be surprised to hear of the Iraqis soon establishing their own Memorial Day to commemorate their liberation by George W. Bush.

    Would you?

    I'll try to be more accurate in future, Gabe.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:42:08 AM EST
    Whenever I see such figures from the UN, I always wonder why you, and others of the Left, have had so little, actually nothing almost, to say about the oil for food program that the UN corrupted.

    Couldn't hand A look at hand B and say,"Brother, you are killing the children I am counting."

    No, the Iraqi story always begins with the invasion and if any there is to be any other discussion it must be of the Iraq-Iran war, or to note that Iraq was the cradle of civilization as if 3,000 years or so has wrought no changes.

    It is often noted that "Saddam was a secular killer" in tones that remind me of how Mussolini "made the trains run on time." No one mentions the Kurds, the people in the delta, and just the garden variety killings by Saddam.

    And no one dare note that it was the Oil For Food program that he stole from??

    Can we say that war kills? Can we say that we invaded, but how many Iraqis have been killed by other Iraqis?? Why is this?? Almost all of you say the war is over and that we must leave because what we have is a civil war.

    And who is fighting the war? Isn't it Iraqi against Iraqi with some Iranians and Syrians thrown in for good measure?? And what drives the war?? Isn't it in fact not a civil war but a war between a somewhat secular group, the Baathists against radical Moslem Shia and even (perhaps) more radical al-Qaeda??

    I can do nothing for those in the grave, but by trying to establish a stable government that will end the killing I can look in the mirror and say, "I try."

    It is the least we can do for those killed in Iraq by other Iraqis, and the other millions through out the ME in this convulsion of religion and change.

    But like the Republican isolationists of the 30's, you let your hatred of the President blind you to what is happening and your libertarian leanings lead you to believe that you can run home and hide from the world. But, just as the Chamberlains of the Repubs, France and the real one in England, your desire for "peace" is meaningless to those who want power. And like them you are dithering, complaining while the cancer grows.

    The Democrats I grew up with were Liberals. Wilson, FDR, Truman and Kennedy were demi-Gods. You no more resemble them than night resembles day.

    Oh how they must wish you would change your name.

    Parent

    Ok OFF program scandal bad (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:20:24 AM EST
    feel better?  You've agreed to stipulate war is bad. That's a start. You've admitted the war is being fought by
    "Iraqi against Iraqi with some Iranians and Syrians thrown in for good measure??"
     Progress!

    But then the contradictions begin:

    "Isn't it in fact not a civil war but a war between a somewhat secular group, the Baathists against radical Moslem Shia..."

    You've admitted it was Iraqis v Iraqis in one paragraph, then you deny its a civil war another.

    You also blew it with your speculative

    "...even (perhaps) more radical al-Qaeda??"
    All the reporting I have seen indicate al Qaeda in Iraq is junior league to the original and is a minor part of the problem in Iraq.  

    The "even (perhaps)" is good though-  raise the fear level and give yourself plausible deniability at the same time. Its junior league though compared to this classic:

    We cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. ...

    Then there is this  passage:

    But like the Republican isolationists of the 30's, you let your hatred of the President blind you to what is happening and your libertarian leanings lead you to believe that you can run home and hide from the world. But, just as the Chamberlains of the Repubs, France and the real one in England, your desire for "peace" is meaningless to those who want power. And like them you are dithering, complaining while the cancer grows.

    At best its just hyperbole. When you begin to believe your own propanda it becomes delusional with no rational basis in reality. Are you suggesting the groups jockying for power in Iraq have plans and intentions of conquering the world?

    Evidence please?

    None of the Democratic Demigods you cite would be so foolish.

     

    Parent

    That's not the case, Molly (1.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:32:59 AM EST
    All the reporting I have seen indicate al Qaeda in Iraq is junior league to the original and is a minor part of the problem in Iraq.
     

    It is fairly standard policy for Lefties these days to minimize the role of Al Qaeda in Iraq. This despite loads of reporting that indicate that Iraq is at the forefront of Al Qaeda's efforts.

    Molly, here are some links and summaries to the reporting that you have missed:

    (1) The deputy leader of Al Qaeda (AQ) sends a letter to the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in which he claims that AQI is beating the Americans and exhorts him to expand his holy war into Syria. Link.

    (2) The mastermind of the 7/7 London bombing, "one of al-Qaeda's most experienced, most intelligent and most ruthless commanders," was captured...crossing from Iran into Iraq. Link.

    (3) The classified National Intelligence Estimate for the beginning of the year claims that AQI is only a small part of the insurgent groups. "Not so" claim four of the sixteen intelligence agencies, who filed a dissent to the NIE. The majority only counts insurgents as AQ-related if they were trained at an AQ camp or recruited through religious means. The dissenters count insurgents as AQ-related if they're taking orders from AQ. Link.

    That'll get you started. I've gotta get to work.

    Parent

    Fast ball over the center of the plate (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:51:38 AM EST
    The first two links do not support your proposition- al Qaida is a major issue in Iraq.. They only support a proposition not in dispute: The fact that al Qaeda is in Iraq.

    For your 3rd link you cite the minority opinion. The majority opinion is contra and supports my contention. Thank you for supplying it (The classified National Intelligence Estimate for the beginning of the year claims that AQI is only a small part of the insurgent groups) for me, so I don't have to look it up.

    going, going GONE!

    (thanks Dad for teaching me to hit!)



    Parent

    MB - Congrats (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:22:39 PM EST
    Your ability to argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a needle is shown quite well.

    Parent
    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#66)
    by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:40:15 PM EST
    try dealing with the subject of the thread for a change.

    Parent
    Salior - Heh (1.00 / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:17:37 PM EST
    Sailor doesn't go for deep comments betweem two people... No sir. He's a man of simple tastes, plainly spoken...

    Or is that just a lack of understanding??

    Parent

    DA (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 30, 2007 at 08:30:15 AM EST
    What that has to do with Memorial Day I haven't the vaguest idea.

    That you desperately want to pick an argument and start sailor who was also picking a fight by making a false claim, I fully understand.

    yadda yadda

    Parent

    DA (1.00 / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 30, 2007 at 01:01:03 PM EST
    yadda yadda

    Parent
    DA (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:47:07 PM EST
    yadda yadda

    Parent
    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#83)
    by Sailor on Wed May 30, 2007 at 02:24:01 PM EST
    obviously a congenital brain defect prevents this commenter from dealing with the actual subject of a thread.

    Parent
    Salior (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:46:40 PM EST
    Tell it to the Marines.

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:47:47 PM EST
    I suppose you also agreed with the majority of intelligence agencies on WMD in Iraq, too?

    Something is not necessarily true just because a majority of people are saying it. That's why I included the information about the methodologies used in the NIE. I was hoping you would use your own judgment.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:58:21 PM EST
    I suppose you also agreed with the majority of intelligence agencies on WMD in Iraq, too?
    Have you read the new report from the Senate Intelligence Committee on Pre War Intelligence? Or are you just regurgitating talking points from wingnuttia?

    Parent
    squeaky (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:19:08 PM EST
    The Demos are busy rewriting History, eh????

    Parent
    No that would be Conservative territory (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:54:59 PM EST
    Majority of intel agencies believed... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:17:03 PM EST
    Had this discussion with Jim- see if you can do any better than he.

    1. Where did  Powell get this idea if your statement (the majority of intelligence agencies thought  Saddam had WMD's.) is correct

    We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.

    2. Or the reporting in State of Denial wherein Woodward states Rumsfeld said no believes Saddam has nuclear weapons at the same time Bush was stating that

    we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud

    1. Explain the weapons inspectors reports after they went back in before the war- no WMD.

    2. Here is another one for you to chew on. The Bushies set up the OSP because they didn't like the intel they were getting from the CIA on Iraq and WMD.

    If the majority of intelligence agencies,  as you say, believed Saddam had WMD,  why did the Bushies feel the need to set up the OSP?

    Now couple Powell's statement about NO WMD (which intel services do you think he was relying on when he made that statement?) and the perceived need for the OSP and what is the elephant in the room?



    Parent

    Here's another one I just came accross (none / 0) (#74)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:30:57 PM EST
    While you are ignoring my previous questions, here is another one of those inconvenient facts:

    Alan Foley, the head of the CIA's Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center (WINPAC). WINPAC led the CIA's analysis of Iraq's purported WMD ... (as reported in the Italian letter, page 125)

    here were strong indications that Foley all along was toeing a line he did not believe. Several days after Bush's State of the Union speech, Foley briefed student officers at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, DC. After the briefing, Melvin Goodman, who had retired from the CIA and was then on the university's faculty, brought Foley into the secure communications area of the Fort McNair compound. Goodman thanked Foley for addressing the students and asked him what weapons of mass destruction he believed would be found after the invasion. "Not much, if anything," Goodman recalled that Foley responded. Foley declined to be interviewed for this book.



    Parent

    Intelligence Community (none / 0) (#75)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:41:20 PM EST
    Molly, you and squeaky have done a good job showing that the intelligence community got it wrong on WMD and ignored dissenting voices in the 2002 NIE. How does that strengthen your argument that ypu'll "stick with the majority" on the 2006 NIE and ignore the dissenters?

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:04:24 PM EST
    Have you been eating shrooms?

    I have pointed out consistently that the intel services, particurally the US intel services got it right and was ignored by Bush and Cheney.

    Lets go through the facts again.

    1. Powell says there is no WMD. Which intel services do you think he got that info from? OURS dummy. AND IT WAS CORRECT!

    2. Not liking the intel being given by the US servics, the Bushies set up the OSP. The OSP provides all sorts of convoluted analysis of the danger posed by Saddam and "his WMD". The OSP is shown to be wrong. Reverese engineering it, If the Bushies don't like what the traditional intel services are producing and so set up the OSP and the OSP produces intel they like (that Saddam is a danger), then it is obvious the traditional services got it right- no WMD. This is confirmed by

    3. Alan Foley and Winpac who is quoted as saying there will be no WMD found.

    Then there is Hans Blick- no WMD.

    4 for 4.

    You are either tripping or not playing with a full deck.



    Parent

    Yep, them pesky facts ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:52:28 PM EST
    ... have a liberal bias.
    It is fairly standard policy for Lefties these days to minimize the role of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
    Wrong, that is the intelligence and military assessment of the role AQ has in iraq. and 4 out 16 agencies? One of them from the treasury dept? And the NY Sun had the exclusive? Geebus dude.

    Parent
    always going off topic (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:15:02 AM EST
    the day was about honoring the war dead and you have had nothing but off topic trolling and personal attacks. standard despicable fare from ppj.

    Whenever I see such figures from the UN, I always wonder why you, and others of the Left, have had so little, actually nothing almost, to say about the oil for food program that the UN corrupted.
    the UN? small potatoes compared to corporate America, under condi's guiding, blood soaked hands.

    Parent
    Sailor (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:24:34 PM EST
    And your point is this.

    America bad.

    Bush evil.

    sigh....

    Well, at least you don't try to hide.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#63)
    by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:54:07 PM EST
    You just can't come up with anything honoring Americans who have died in combat can you?

    Parent
    Salior - Still can't read the thread (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:28:55 PM EST
    before attacking.

    Just kids (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Edger on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:47:23 AM EST
    Memorial Day: Remember the One Million Dead Iraqi Civilians

    One out of every eight Iraqi kids between the ages of 1 and 5 have been killed in this war.

    Don't blame the insurgents. If we weren't there, there would be no insurgents

    [ Reply to This ]

        You can mourn the Iraqi dead tomorrow. (1.00 / 3) (#11)
        by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:07:34 AM EST
        Can't you at least give our military one day??

    BTW - Since I had to explain "Black shoe vs Brown shoe" to you, and since you had no knowledge that Naval Aviation actually existed....

    I do not believe you were in the Navy.

    Sea Cadets.... Maybe.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#84)
    by Sailor on Wed May 30, 2007 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    and everything you just wrote sums up your attitude. You have not written one thing about the veterans who died for you. Shame on you, you shameless POS.

    And I don't need a lecture on the navy from a coward who continually lies about his service. There was nothing in my post indicating ignorance of the navy or its traditions, just doubting that you served from careful parsing. Now that your ignorance of naval and aviation is confirmed I'm sure you didn't.

    Parent

    Gabe? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:17:30 AM EST
    Are there any other lies about the Iraq Debacle that you'd care to memorialize here?

    Parent
    Dixie Chicks (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sun May 27, 2007 at 11:29:32 PM EST
    A little off-topic, but... (none / 0) (#5)
    by desertswine on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:02:32 AM EST
    in case anyone is interested in this kind of thing.

    I looked up my Uncle Albert, who served in WWI, survived, and then had the unfortunate luck to die the next year in the flu epidemic.

    And my friend, Jimmy, who got killed in Viet Nam.

    "Ancestry.com presents more than 90 million U.S. war records from the first English settlement at Jamestown in 1607 through the Vietnam War's end in 1975. The site also has the names of 3.5 million U.S. soldiers killed in action, including 2,000 who died in Iraq. The records, which can be accessed free until the anniversary of D-Day on June 6, came from the National Archives and Records Administration."

    This is Memorial not Veterans Day (none / 0) (#8)
    by ding7777 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 08:24:08 AM EST
    Q. What is the difference between Veterans Day and Memorial Day?

    A. Many people confuse Memorial Day and Veterans Day.  Memorial Day is a day for remembering and honoring military personnel who died in the service of their country, particularly those who died in battle or as a result of wounds sustained in battle. While those who died are also remembered on Veterans Day, Veterans Day is the day set aside to thank and honor ALL those who served honorably in the military - in wartime or peacetime.  In fact, Veterans Day is largely intended to thank LIVING veterans for their service, to acknowledge that their contributions to our national security are appreciated, and to underscore the fact that all those who served - not only those who died - have sacrificed and done their duty.



    what, one can only thank (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jen M on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:30:32 AM EST
    war veterans on veteran's day?

    Parent
    Jen M (none / 0) (#24)
    by ding7777 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:44:26 PM EST
    You can thank war veterans anytime... but
    the pupose of Decoration/Memorial Day is a time to honor the war dead and decorate their graves with flowers.

    Parent
    Catch 22: Tree Falling Makes No Sound (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:58:49 PM EST
    And Undocumented Soldiers become stooges and tools of Propaganda, because they are invisible.
    Since last year, the military's embedding rules require that journalists obtain a signed consent from a wounded soldier before the image can be published. Images that put a face on the dead, that make them identifiable, are simply prohibited.

    If Joseph Heller were still around, he might appreciate the bureaucratic elegance of paragraph 11(a) of IAW Change 3, DoD Directive 5122.5:

    "Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service member's prior written consent.".....

    Until last year, no permission was required to publish photographs of the wounded, but families had to be notified of the soldier's injury first. Now, not only is permission required, but any image of casualties that shows a recognizable name or unit is off-limits. And memorials for the fallen in Iraq can no longer be shown, even when the unit in question invites coverage.

    NYT

    Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:24:03 PM EST
    Since last year, the military's embedding rules require that journalists obtain a signed consent from a wounded soldier before the image can be published. Images that put a face on the dead, that make them identifiable, are simply prohibited.

    That paragraph makes no sense. What does requiring a signed consent form from a wounded soldier have to do with images that put a face on the dead?

    Two separate subjects.

    But then you are quoting the Intellegence Leaker of Record. AKA New York Times.

    Of course I am sure you can ask John Edwards to channel a dead soldier and see if wants to be a shill for some reporter trying to win a Pulitzer...

    Parent

    squeaky - Now from one who is serving... (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:32:28 PM EST
    An Army infantry officer serving in Iraq writes to offer a deal to the New York Times in connection with the article by David Carr that John writes about immediately below:

    "I'd like to make the New York Times a deal. I'll consent to them publishing my picture in the event I'm wounded when they start publishing pictures of the bureaucrats who leak details about NSA Surveillance, the Swift bank monitoring program, etc., so that the public can evaluate and better understand the whole of those stories as well.

    Right...I didn't think so..."

    Now isn't that a scream???

    Parent

    powerline ... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:07:19 AM EST
    ... is not a source for info, it is a source of righhtwing lies, but ppj just proves again that he can't tell opinon from reporting.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:37:25 PM EST
    So you are for censorship. WHat else is new?

    Parent
    Don't change the subject.... (1.00 / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:45:08 AM EST
    But since you bring it up...

    Note that the soldier in question is asking the NYT for information it is concealing....

    I mean... spaking of censorship...

    Who be the one refusing to show????

    Parent

    I wish ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Sailor on Mon May 28, 2007 at 08:40:01 PM EST
    ... that ppj had spent this day looking at the 3,414+ faces of the dead that died, and continue to die for bush's (and ppj's) war that had nothing to do with 9/11.

    Like I did.

    ppj always attacks folks with his 'did you serve' crap.

    I got a question: when ppj claims to have '10 years in naval aviation' does that mean he was in the military for 10 years? I call BS.

    Sorry for my obvious anger in the above, but after looking into all the faces and reading some of the distraught parents' comments about just this war, I am so sick of scoundrels (patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel) claiming to support America while doing nothing but making sure more Americans will die for a lie.

    Parent

    Sailor - Always I have to educate you. (1.00 / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:26:35 PM EST
    The US Navy is split into two parts. One is called "black shoe." They serve in the part that runs the ships.

    The other is called "brown shoe." They serve in that part that has airplanes.

    It is called Naval Aviation. I served 10 years in Naval Aviation.

    No charge for the education.

    Parent

    i served in the navy (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:09:15 AM EST
    your continual fudging of the terms makes me doubt your 'service.'

    There are a lot of people in naval aviation who are not in the navy. And more all the time due to outsourcing.

    Parent

    Sailor (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:17:49 PM EST
    Have I told you lately how much I appreciate your drool sense of humor and ability to make stupid statements to amuse us??

    A Tech Rep would not be in Naval Aviation.

    But just for you. I was in the United States Navy for 10 years. During that time I served in what is commonly known as "Naval Aviation."

    BTW - Since you don't understand the terms "brown shoe" and "black shoe" that tells me that you also wouldn't know the difference between "ship's company" and "squadron member."


    Parent

    off topic personal attack (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Sailor on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:44:38 PM EST
    Since you don't understand the terms "brown shoe" and "black shoe" that tells me that you also wouldn't know the difference between "ship's company" and "squadron member."
    having actually been in the navy I understand all those terms, your ignorance of aviation and careful parsing of how you 'served' leadds me to doubt you were ever anything but a lineboy with buck rogers fanasies.

    Do you ever have anything to say about the subject at hand?

    Parent

    You were in the Navy?? (1.00 / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:11:11 PM EST
    And you claim the use of the term Naval Aviation is "careful?"

    hahahahahahaha.....

    I bet your rate was "Sea Bat Catcher..." That or "Golden Spike Searcher.."

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#82)
    by Sailor on Wed May 30, 2007 at 02:21:48 PM EST
    do you ever have anything to write on the actual topic?

    Parent
    American Spirit (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:15:22 PM EST
    Is alive even though many are dead and dying in our war of convience.

    On the lighter side here are some pro war posters with the propaganda photoshopped out. Hialrious.

    Americans for retiring Memorial Day: Our mission is to stop war for 100 years or so and the holiday will lose its bite.

    Imagine Vetrans day becoming obsolete?