Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards by Ghoulman

0 - Number of military funerals GWB has attended since becoming President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 10, 2004 11:08 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
0 - Number of military funerals GWB has attended since becoming President.

Apparently several othr presidents were slackers in this regard as well.

http://hnn.us/articles/1784.html

Have Presidents in the Past Attended the Funerals of Dead Soldiers?
By HNN Staff
HNN interns Lucas Rooney and Aaron Erlich contributed to this article.

Recently, President Bush has been criticized for failing to attend the funerals of the soldiers killed in Iraq. Maureen Dowd noted sarcastically in a recent NYT column that the president had not even bothered to attend the funeral of Specialist Darryl Dent, a "21-year-old National Guard officer from Washington who died outside Baghdad in late August when a bomb struck his truck while he was delivering mail to troops," though the service took place at a church just "three miles from the White House."

Have presidents in the past attended the funerals of soldiers who died in combat? Have they taken note of the deaths of U.S. soldiers? The record is mixed, as can be seen below. It would appear that few presidents have ever actually attended military funerals, though many used the bully pulpit to draw attention to lives lost in the service of their country.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 10, 2004 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
0 - Number of military funerals GWB has attended since becoming President.

Apparently several othr presidents were slackers in this regard as well.

I don't think this is an excuse that he didn't.

If he was sooooo confident that he has made the right choice (the contraversial decision to "go it alone"), then why hasn't he done this... at least once? Or is it the guilt?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 11, 2004 4:41 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I don't think this is an excuse that he didn't.

If he was sooooo confident that he has made the right choice (the contraversial decision to "go it alone"), then why hasn't he done this... at least once? Or is it the guilt?

While looking for the article above, I found several commentary pieces on this subject. Some propose that Presidents don't go to military funerals because they know it would turn a family's private grief into a media circus. You have to admit that's a good possibility.

Also consider that even in peacetime, there is probably a military person killed just about every day, in training accidents, vehicle crashes, etc. Does the President go to every funeral? He does have other important things to do. If not, how does he choose?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 11, 2004 6:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

You have to admit that's a good possibility.

Indeed it is.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Also consider that even in peacetime, there is probably a military person killed just about every day, in training accidents, vehicle crashes, etc. Does the President go to every funeral? He does have other important things to do. If not, how does he choose?

My thought is that this is a special circumstance. How many times did we hear from this administration say that the invasion of Iraq would be over in days if not weeks. How long has it been again? And still no semblance of peace.

All this and not even the smallest hint of an acknowledgement that he made a mistake. Shows poor character if you ask me.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 11, 2004 7:02 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
My thought is that this is a special circumstance. How many times did we hear from this administration say that the invasion of Iraq would be over in days if not weeks. How long has it been again? And still no semblance of peace.

All this and not even the smallest hint of an acknowledgement that he made a mistake. Shows poor character if you ask me.

On the original topic, here's some Memorial Day remarks at Arlington Cemetery. Not at a particular funeral, but recognizing our losses.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030526-1.html

And probably as close to recognition of continuing problems as you'll get, from a May 2004 speech.

"Our work in Iraq has been hard. Our coalition has faced changing conditions of war, and that has required perseverance, sacrifice, and an ability to adapt. The swift removal of Saddam Hussein's regime last spring had an unintended effect: Instead of being killed or captured on the battlefield, some of Saddam's elite guards shed their uniforms and melted into the civilian population. These elements of Saddam's repressive regime and secret police have reorganized, rearmed, and adopted sophisticated terrorist tactics. They've linked up with foreign fighters and terrorists. In a few cities, extremists have tried to sow chaos and seize regional power for themselves. These groups and individuals have conflicting ambitions, but they share a goal: They hope to wear out the patience of Americans, our coalition, and Iraqis before the arrival of effective self-government, and before Iraqis have the capability to defend their freedom."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 11, 2004 12:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

On the original topic, here's some Memorial Day remarks at Arlington Cemetery. Not at a particular funeral, but recognizing our losses.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030526-1.html

Holly propaganda Batman! I pitty the fool who swollows this.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And probably as close to recognition of continuing problems as you'll get, from a May 2004 speech.

"Our work in Iraq has been hard. Our coalition has faced changing conditions of war, and that has required perseverance, sacrifice, and an ability to adapt. The swift removal of Saddam Hussein's regime last spring had an unintended effect: Instead of being killed or captured on the battlefield, some of Saddam's elite guards shed their uniforms and melted into the civilian population. These elements of Saddam's repressive regime and secret police have reorganized, rearmed, and adopted sophisticated terrorist tactics. They've linked up with foreign fighters and terrorists. In a few cities, extremists have tried to sow chaos and seize regional power for themselves. These groups and individuals have conflicting ambitions, but they share a goal: They hope to wear out the patience of Americans, our coalition, and Iraqis before the arrival of effective self-government, and before Iraqis have the capability to defend their freedom."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html

I still do see nor to I expect an acknowledgement of the severe mistake that was made my him and his administration by going and invading Iraq *illegally*.

He and his have shown no remorse nor regret and all I can do is sit here and hope that your guys down there will vote him out of office in Nov. I have only pitty for him and his for being such shallow shells of (and I use this term for them reluctantly) humans.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 11, 2004 10:28 PM

RICKKER

This thread has gone on for some time now. For those pro Bush I have but one question. What has his administration do right? Jobs? Econonmy? Dipl... I cant even finsh that one. I was never for him since day one. He was the least quallified for the job. Recently I dispise the fact his people are all over Kerry's vietnam military history. None of those pansies ever put on a uniform. Bush himself can't even say he completed national guard duty. Call me crazy but I would much rather follow someone who had been through a war and not want to cause the horrors of war on others than follow a drunken frat boy with delusions of being some cowboy war hero. The bush administration has done a terrible job over the last four years. The Republicans think they are actually doing a good job is what scares me. How do I know Kerry will be better? I really don't know his record of flipflopping decisions bothers me but he can't be as bad as the fool in office now. No I am not a Democrat I am independant. This is my humble oppinion.

if we do not learn from our past we are doomed to repeat its mistakes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 12, 2004 7:00 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm just wondering, when did facts become propaganda?

When they are a list of unsupported, unrelated statistics or polls.

Statistics can only be considered meaningful when they are taken in context. The oldest trick in the book is to pull a bunch of statistics out of context and claim it proves your point. Anyone who has watched a toothpaste advertisement should know this.

These statistics prove nothing, except who is gullible or who is looking out for the anti-Bush talking points. No fair-minded person would take this article to be meaningful.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 12, 2004 7:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Statistics can only be considered meaningful when they are taken in context. The oldest trick in the book is to pull a bunch of statistics out of context and claim it proves your point. Anyone who has watched a toothpaste advertisement should know this.

True.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

These statistics prove nothing, except who is gullible or who is looking out for the anti-Bush talking points. No fair-minded person would take this article to be meaningful.

You do realize that there *is* a difference between quoting actual number and quoting statistics. Most of the above are just numbers, and the others are easily checked.

Example of the former:

37 Death toll of US soldiers in Iraq in May 2003, the month combat operations "officially" ended.

Example of the later:

5 Percentage of the world's population that is American.
25 Percentage of the world's oil used by America.

I'd say only a fair-minded person would be able to realize these things. And since most of these number aren't percentages or they are percentages that are well established, I'd say, try again.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 2:37 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

A number taken out of context is a number that is meaningless, whether it is a percentage or an actual number. Granted percentages are more meaningless in that condition, but it doesn't change that this article is, in the end, saying nothing. It simply lists a bunch of numbers, and leaves the conclusion to the reader. Which might be fine if the article weren't entitled "Four Years of Double Standards." The truth, however, is that I can take just about any 4 year stretch, pretend everything that happened in that 4 years is the direct intent of a certain person, select a bunch of numbers without explanation and then claim that these numbers represent double standards of that person. Explanations of these numbers might reveal that, in fact, there are no double standards, but you won’t know one way or the other without those explanations. It's the oldest trick in the book. 37 combat deaths mean what? You see in these numbers only want you wanted to see.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 3:03 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
A number taken out of context is a number that is meaningless, whether it is a percentage or an actual number. Granted percentages are more meaningless in that condition, but it doesn't change that this article is, in the end, saying nothing. It simply lists a bunch of numbers, and leaves the conclusion to the reader. Which might be fine if the article weren't entitled "Four Years of Double Standards." The truth, however, is that I can take just about any 4 year stretch, pretend everything that happened in that 4 years is the direct intent of a certain person, select a bunch of numbers without explanation and then claim that these numbers represent double standards of that person. Explanations of these numbers might reveal that, in fact, there are no double standards, but you won’t know one way or the other without those explanations. It's the oldest trick in the book. 37 combat deaths mean what? You see in these numbers only want you wanted to see.

I find it bizarre that the very people who go on and on about the indeterminacy of information like this, criticizing people for seeing "what they want to see" in a bunch of facts, that these very same people will turn around and justify an administration that has made the most ruinous assumptions based on bad data, skewed their own facts, caused the wrongful deaths of tens of thousands (oops!) of people and then cooked the information again to justify themselves after the fact.

So someone with access to billions of dollars in tax payers' money and the power to put thousands of American soldiers in harm's way based on faulty or outright dishonest intelligence are less accountable than some folks online "jumping to conclusions." Talk about double standards!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 5:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You know, I just came to the very sobering realization: Pro-Bush is faith-based voting. These people have got religion and neither facts nor logic will sway them.

Most people can't point to a single thing Bush has done for them. The only two popular groups that can point to some kind of kinship are the born-agains and the militarists.

Frankly, I don't think you can change a born-again's mind. Anyone who thinks that Jesus has spoken to them personally despite all physical evidence to the contrary is pretty much beyond redemption. You can show them the shills and microphones that drive the healing shows and their favorite preacher in bed with two hookers and it doesn't make a dent. Might as well talk to a crack addict about quitting.

The remainder have a very black/white view of the world: You're either with us or against us; I'm either totally safe or facing WW3. Nuance is not part of their repetoire, which is why thay have faith in GWB- he speaks their language and promises that we'll "win" and be perfectly safe again. So the fact that they being manipulated by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney for some other agenda just doesn't penetrate. These people are so deeply in denial that NOTHING will make a difference to their faith.

www.bushsbrain.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 6:28 AM

Note: Edited ... 'cause I fugged up. ;p

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Pro-Bush is faith-based voting. These people have got religion and neither facts nor logic will sway them.

Yes, it's well known that the Bushites milk the fundamentalist nuts in the USA for votes (I've seen giant flat screens on tabernacles with GWBs piggy face preaching. Preaching is his speach style, ever notice?). This is framed as a War against Islam. GWB said it himself in not so many words (because he only has a few).

BTW Geezer, when someone states GWB never went to a military funeral it isn't an invitation to a bullshiet strawman arguement from the peanut gallery of paid propagandists. So F*** ***... {we have lost Ghouly transmition due to Echelon interferance... thanx Daddy!}

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 7:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
A number taken out of context is a number that is meaningless, whether it is a percentage or an actual number. Granted percentages are more meaningless in that condition, but it doesn't change that this article is, in the end, saying nothing. It simply lists a bunch of numbers, and leaves the conclusion to the reader.

I'd hate to tell you but this is what journalism is supposed to be. Not the editorial presented as fact/truth that the US has.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Which might be fine if the article weren't entitled "Four Years of Double Standards." The truth, however, is that I can take just about any 4 year stretch, pretend everything that happened in that 4 years is the direct intent of a certain person, select a bunch of numbers without explanation and then claim that these numbers represent double standards of that person.

This article does something that no US "news" agency has done. It's prereq. is that the reader has been paying attention over the past years.

I'm sorry that you don't understand. Perhaps you should goto some US "news" source where they can tell you what you want to hear (read that as Bush admin. propaganda).

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

You see in these numbers only want you wanted to see.

Aren't you doing this very thing?

And by the way. For these numbers to be "out of context", they actually have to be put into some sort of context. Which they weren't. Try again.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I find it bizarre that the very people who go on and on about the indeterminacy of information like this, criticizing people for seeing "what they want to see" in a bunch of facts, that these very same people will turn around and justify an administration that has made the most ruinous assumptions based on bad data, skewed their own facts, caused the wrongful deaths of tens of thousands (oops!) of people and then cooked the information again to justify themselves after the fact.

So someone with access to billions of dollars in tax payers' money and the power to put thousands of American soldiers in harm's way based on faulty or outright dishonest intelligence are less accountable than some folks online "jumping to conclusions." Talk about double standards!

Nice post. But it will soon be lost once Geezer or one of those other paid liars draw you into a baloney arguement about anything but the point. Which just high-jacks the thread andd those who want to talk about what bastards Dick Cheney and the rest are.

You are nearly defencless against people who do this for a living. They come in and defend the undefendable all day, weekdays, 9 to 5. Why? They are paid obviously. I'm of the opinion no one could have read Sigy or HKs posts for this long without gaining some wisdom. I know I have.

Yeah, I'm constantly amazed people on AMerican news shows just put up with insane statements that are obviously wrong, a lie, or just stupid.

Stupidity is considered an opinion in the USA.

But guess what America... that's not the case in the rest of the world. You know, that entire planet that is against the Bush White House. The whole frickin' world. You know, the world that had the largest protests in HISTORY against the Iraq Invasion.

you'd think that would matter to Ameri... oh wait. It doesn't.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 10:17 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I'd hate to tell you but this is what journalism is supposed to be. Not the editorial presented as fact/truth that the US has.

This article does something that no US "news" agency has done. It's prereq. is that the reader has been paying attention over the past years.

I'm sorry that you don't understand. Perhaps you should goto some US "news" source where they can tell you what you want to hear (read that as Bush admin. propaganda).

When the "About the Author" blurb included with Mr. Carter's article includes the line "In recent months he has transformed the regular editor's letter at the front of the magazine into less of a chat about its coming contents the spreads of Annie Leibowitz and rants of Christopher Hitchens and more a full-bore diatribe against the world of George Bush." I'm not exactly reassured that his presentation is entirely un-biased. Can you let me know why I should be?

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

And by the way. For these numbers to be "out of context", they actually have to be put into some sort of context. Which they weren't. Try again.

Huh?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 3:28 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
And by the way. For these numbers to be "out of context", they actually have to be put into some sort of context. Which they weren't. Try again.

I think the absurdity of this statement proves my whole point. This is the kind of contradictory logic that is so pervasive among people who seek to justify their own preconceived notions. You see only what you want to see.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

When the "About the Author" blurb included with Mr. Carter's article includes the line "In recent months he has transformed the regular editor's letter at the front of the magazine into less of a chat about its coming contents the spreads of Annie Leibowitz and rants of Christopher Hitchens and more a full-bore diatribe against the world of George Bush." I'm not exactly reassured that his presentation is entirely un-biased. Can you let me know why I should be?

Whatever the intentions are of the author it matters not when the numbers are facts, *not* opinions.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

And by the way. For these numbers to be "out of context", they actually have to be put into some sort of context. Which they weren't. Try again.

Huh?

Note: It's directed to Finn Mac Cumhal, but see below.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 8:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
And by the way. For these numbers to be "out of context", they actually have to be put into some sort of context. Which they weren't. Try again.

I think the absurdity of this statement proves my whole point. This is the kind of contradictory logic that is so pervasive among people who seek to justify their own preconceived notions. You see only what you want to see.

I think I'll have to spell it out for you. What I meant is that numbers are only numbers and they specify facts (see orig. post). So then, what context where they in?

I went to the super market today. Is this "out of context". How can it be? _*/It's just a statment/*_. There is *not* context here, just statments.

Any context you see, *you* put there.

And I find it funny that you pretty much admitted to not understanding what I said, yet you proceed to assume what I meant.

You talk about the absurdity of my statment. You say that I only see what I want to see. Perhaps you should look to yourself before you start to try to pass judgment on others.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 1:31 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Whatever the intentions are of the author it matters not when the numbers are facts, *not* opinions.

OK. So how do you react to these numbers? I'll even provide cites.

76 - Percent of Senate Intelligence Committee public hearings Sen. Kerry has not attended during his tenure on the committee
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241

64 - Percent of Senate roll call votes Sen. Kerry missed in 2003.
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0421103&PHPSESSID=e923581b16
91934a9dcfca5b7503cec7

Does the man never go to work? Is this the kind of work record you'd want from a man who wants to be President? Or Dog catcher?

Of course, if you check the cite for the second number, you'll see that Sen. Kerry had a 90%+ voting record for the years preceding 2003, a year in which when he was presumably campaigning a good bit of the time. So the second number is a classic example of taking a fact out of context.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 5:49 AM

^^^ hey you neocon targ sucker... try not to be so obviously off topic jerk!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

OK. So how do you react to these numbers? I'll even provide cites.
[snip]

One cannot prove that something is false by providing information unrelated to the topic at hand. So, you must enlighten me on how this is appropriate for *this* thread as this has *nothing* to do with GW's record nor the numbers presented above.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 11:51 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

OK. So how do you react to these numbers? I'll even provide cites.
[snip]

One cannot prove that something is false by providing information unrelated to the topic at hand. So, you must enlighten me on how this is appropriate for *this* thread as this has *nothing* to do with GW's record nor the numbers presented above.

It shows that true facts, stated out of context, can be used to deceive and mislead. I contend that the article which is the original topic of this post uses this technique. I gave an example of this in the post directly above, and in an earlier post about the Homeland Security Funds allocation figures quoted by Mr. Carter in the article in the original post.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 3:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

It shows that true facts, stated out of context, can be used to deceive and mislead. I contend that the article which is the original topic of this post uses this technique.

And of course the sheer volume of these facts doesn't move you. One must look at these facts and ask themselves, how can they be put into a good context? I dare you to put:

"""
200 Number of regulation rollbacks downgrading or weakening environmental laws in Bush's first three years in office.
"""

in a good light. If you read the first post you'll see *many* of these. So, much for you context issue.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I gave an example of this in the post directly above, and in an earlier post about the Homeland Security Funds allocation figures quoted by Mr. Carter in the article in the original post.

Good for you, you found an example of what you're talking about. Have you found one in the list that this thread is talking about? _*/No/*_. Why don't you put your post in the context of this thread, then we'll talk.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

and in an earlier post about the Homeland Security Funds allocation figures quoted by Mr. Carter in the article in the original post.

Whereas you basically just stated that you could verify the figures. I stated that these aren't the only figures by there own admission, which didn't seem to bother you. Therefore I believe that they are hiding things which you just came back to say that you could verify the figures easily. Ergo, the funds issue (this entire example of yours) is still in contention.

So, please don't state this as if it has been established.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2004 7:07 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

ready for more years of the same...cleaning up his own mess this is new territory for the Bushes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 7, 2004 11:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JaynezTown:
ready for more years of the same...cleaning up his own mess this is new territory for the Bushes

What are you taling about? There is no mess

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 3:27 AM

FIREFLOOZYSUZIE

While we're debating "propaganda," what do you
think about opening the invasion of Falujah
with an attack on the HOSPITAL?

According to our own press, U.S.-backed Iraqi forces
stormed the hospital, handcuffing people and
rounding up doctors, because our very first concern
is that Doctors not be allowed to screw up our
view of events by releasing casualty numbers and
making us look bad.

Reports already coming in that doctors are not
being permitted to treat injured Falujahians (sp)
and are being forcibly kept out of areas where there has been bombings or fightings.

Injured and dying Iraqis won't be treated,
because OUR side doesn't want the world to
know anything but our version of this action.

Anyone else have a comment on this?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 4:51 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by firefloozysuzie:
While we're debating "propaganda," what do you
think about opening the invasion of Falujah
with an attack on the HOSPITAL?

According to our own press, U.S.-backed Iraqi forces
stormed the hospital, handcuffing people and
rounding up doctors, because our very first concern
is that Doctors not be allowed to screw up our
view of events by releasing casualty numbers and
making us look bad.

Reports already coming in that doctors are not
being permitted to treat injured Falujahians (sp)
and are being forcibly kept out of areas where there has been bombings or fightings.

Injured and dying Iraqis won't be treated,
because OUR side doesn't want the world to
know anything but our version of this action.

Anyone else have a comment on this?

The Pentagon has noted that capturing the hospital may reduce what they consider inflated casualty claims like the ones issued during the Spring operation. Inflated claims by the insurgents, or coverup by the coalition...take your pick.

There are other, tactical, considerations.

The first major objectives of the attack were the highway bridges over the Euphrates river from the west. The hospital in question is within small arms range of these bridges. Since the insurgents have a history of making hospitals, mosques, schools, etc. into fighting positions, there are good tactical reasons for taking it as soon as possible. There were reportedly four fighters captured and 38 killed in the hospital. Expect to hear about the coalition shooting at mosques also, if they receive fire from them.

Keeping folk at the hospital handcuffed while you're sorting them out is a lot better than either shooting them all or letting the insurgents, who don't tend to wear uniforms, mix with the staff and pull out weapons later.

I imagine not letting medical aid, probably in ambulances, into the combat zone has a lot to do with the fact that the insurgents are expected to use car bombs, and any moving vehicle will likely be targeted. A captured ambulance could be especially effective in the car bomb role, as coalition forces might hesitate to fire on it. Why give the insurgents the opportunity?

There will undoubtedly be civilian casualties. Classic insurgency doctrine wants civilian casualties. The former regime forces, who probably make up a good percentage of the fighters in Falluja, didn't hesitate to use human shields during the early part of the war, and probably won't now. They want bodies on the ground for the cameras. They'll provide the bodies, and the cameras as well.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 6:09 AM

FIREFLOOZYSUZIE

"Putting everyone in handcuffs. Sort out
insurgents later. Better than shooting them all"

Excuse me, but how DO we "identify" the
insurgents from the innocent bystanders
in Falujah? Not just in the hospital, but
everywhere?

Reading through your post (which I appreciate,
because you supply a lot of detail) it sounds
as if we ARE shooting first, asking questions
later. From what you tell me, we've decided that high civilian casualties are not only expected and permissable, but we've already predetermined that high casualties will be the fault of the
insurgents -- all part of their "big plan" to
win the war of public opinion-- and therefore will not be any fault of U.S. policy or tactics.

That sounds both terribly callous and
suspiciously untruthful to me.

But enough about my opinion. The point is, Do you think moderate Iraqis and the world at large will buy our assertion that the terrorists are to blame for whatever happens in Falujah? Or do you think
that - despite our efforts at the hospital - reports from Falujah will cause much of the world to denounce America's actions there?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 9, 2004 7:34 AM