LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 567
0 members and 567 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-02-2004, 11:32 PM   #3301
sgtclub
Serenity Now
 
sgtclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Survivor Island
Posts: 7,007
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Not so sure. What we did seems to be, we ran up against a resistant cell, and then denied them the battle they wanted (after they communicated their willingness to burn Fallujah down with all remaining residents in one big fight.) We kept up the night raids, avoided forming a big pocket of people (which would be a natural target for bombs, attacks, etc.), never gave them a focus, and now the area will be taken over by Iraqi patrols. I predict that, in two months, this is going to be a nice, peaceable town, working hard to get rid of terrorists and building a life.

If this was a blink, it was a blink taken for reasons of not destroying a town to save it, and I can't see a problem with that, especially since I do think they've hit on the way to save it.
I hope you are right, but I do not have a great deal of confidence in a former Saddam general running the show. Where is his loyalty? Probably with us against the foreigners, but what about the Iraqi resistence? I'm skeptical.
sgtclub is offline  
Old 05-02-2004, 11:49 PM   #3302
bilmore
Too Good For Post Numbers
 
bilmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 65,535
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I hope you are right, but I do not have a great deal of confidence in a former Saddam general running the show. Where is his loyalty? Probably with us against the foreigners, but what about the Iraqi resistence? I'm skeptical.
This was sort of instructive on what's going on:

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004...50097635940154

(If you keep going down the blog, he has some good insights into the whole Fallujahing mess.)
bilmore is offline  
Old 05-03-2004, 12:17 AM   #3303
Say_hello_for_me
Theo rests his case
 
Say_hello_for_me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: who's askin?
Posts: 1,632
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Not so sure. What we did seems to be, we ran up against a resistant cell, and then denied them the battle they wanted (after they communicated their willingness to burn Fallujah down with all remaining residents in one big fight.) We kept up the night raids, avoided forming a big pocket of people (which would be a natural target for bombs, attacks, etc.), never gave them a focus, and now the area will be taken over by Iraqi patrols. I predict that, in two months, this is going to be a nice, peaceable town, working hard to get rid of terrorists and building a life.

If this was a blink, it was a blink taken for reasons of not destroying a town to save it, and I can't see a problem with that, especially since I do think they've hit on the way to save it.
In a sense, I think the Iraqi general hugging the marine Col. said it all. I believe the negotiations were essentially us offering either to enfranchise the local Sunnis or confront them while they watched the Kurds and majority-Sunnis take overwhelming control of the gov't in June. The thinkers in Sunni-land have to be thinking that they'd better become enfranchised or they will become an afterthought as positions, power and wealth are passed out for and by the new government.

I'll note that these comments can all be tied back to my assertions about the need for elections. Its hard for anyone (the Sunnis) to argue with us offering them their own elected leaders, albeit no Sunni strongman at the top. So, we can do either the carrot or the stick. Enfranchisement or confrontation. Either way, we promise we leave when we are finished, and fighting only prolongs our stay. Its hard for them to argue that they don't want to be enfranchised, so make that one of their two choices, and we'll likely see the nice peaceable town you envision.

Note: Fallujah has been in the news for 8 to 9 months. At some point or another, we were destined to go in heavy for awhile. Who knows, if the 300K are still being coopted by the 2K, we might have to do it again (heavier) before. But, right now would be a great time to do a PR campaign in the region explaining how they will be left behind if they don't get on board. How'd they like to see an overwhelmingly Shiite military and government? That's what it seems they are facing if they continue to let the 2K act stoopid.

Hello
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'

Say_hello_for_me is offline  
Old 05-03-2004, 12:29 AM   #3304
Shape Shifter
World Ruler
 
Shape Shifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,057
How much does a cow cost?

Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'd like to buy him a cow.

That is, assuming it doesn't cost as much as a new car. So, how much for that heffer in the window, mister? I wanna send it to a guy who was willing to do anything to take care of business. Who's with me? Let's get Hamill his cows back!
It really depends. Cows are something of an investment, Sometimes you have to feed them for 3 months before the investment is realized.
__________________
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming out any other way."
Shape Shifter is offline  
Old 05-03-2004, 10:07 AM   #3305
Gardener
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: www.peterthottam.com - Photos of 6 U.S. GIs humiliating Iraqi

FYI, the subject photos are on his website (www.peterthottam.com). He must have pasted them because he feels the whole country needs to see these. Why isn’t the U.S. national media showing these photos? What sort of warped value system have we developed as a nation? This is a serious tragedy and omininous for America. Quite disturbing...Americans everywhere need to see these photos (several consist of the POWs being forced by the 6 GIs to perform oral sex on each other and to copulate). What have we become? This -- together with the apalling state of the national media -- truly turns my stomach. It really makes one wonder what's really going on that the U.S. media is not covering, internationally and domestically... makes one wonder what's been happening Guantanamo Bay...and elsewhere. The U.S. national media has become an object of ridicule. Under very concentrated ownership it is an increasingly state-controlled mouthpiece and aparatus whose coverage is focused on achieving US foreign policy goals. Hence, the day-to-day realities in Iraq and casualty tolls are not covered. The WMDs question is not the focus of a rigorous national debate. Instead, the nation entertains itself with stories about Britney Spears, 'reality' TV shows such as "The Apprentice" and "Joe-Millionaire", alleged kidnappings in Wisconsin, Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson's breast, Laci Peterson, Kobe Bryant, and low-carb diet fads. The Orwellian nature and speed of what's unfolding in the United States is shocking and horrendous.

- G @ www.peterthottam.com

ps. Feel free to forward the subject URL for the photos to anyone who you think should see them. I think the whole country should bear witness to these photos (which our so called 'media' [sick joke that it has become] is hiding, along with many other things) and ask what our nation is turning into and what we are becoming.

FYI :

THE FUTURE (?) : http://www.bushflash.com/lotto.html ;

http://www.bushflash.com/ma.html

State of Emergency: http://www.bushflash.com/antiwar2.html

What 'Support Our Troops' Really Means : http://www.bushflash.com/ma.html

What 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' Really Means: http://www.bushflash.com/occupied.html

Undecided? Or Pro-Bush? : http://www.bushflash.com/memorial.html

------

Most importantly --> (Warning: THESE ARE VERY GRAPHIC): (1) http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wa...ame/index.html & (2) Remember these (US media won't let you see these)? : http://indybay.org/news/2003/03/1588323.php
 
Old 05-03-2004, 10:14 AM   #3306
sgtclub
Serenity Now
 
sgtclub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Survivor Island
Posts: 7,007
Gerald Ford Part Deaux

First a skiing fall, now this. Bring back Chevy.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...icycle?mode=PF
sgtclub is offline  
Old 05-03-2004, 01:30 PM   #3307
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,129
Press Conference

Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
A mistaken belief, if widely held, becomes a true belief? Okay, I'll be more fair: It becomes something, anything, other than a mistaken belief?

A mistake is a mistake. It may be less culpable if you were relying on a conventional wisdom,* but it doesn't make it something other than a mistake.

*Remember, the coalition of the UNwilling harbored enough reasonable doubt that they pussed out on actually killing people in pursuit of the point, so the conventional wisdom was never as adamant as the President on this.
Atticus, the sanctions were killing people and could only be justified by the perception the weapons existed.

Okay. There was a mistake about whether we would find weapons. I'm sure Bush believed we would find tons of weapons. That belief did not pan out, and is a "mistake." But I beleive the sound byte the reporters were looking for wasn't that "mistake," they wanted the mistake to involve a decision, and specifically rthe mistake based upon the belief that we'd find tons of weapons.

So maybe he could have said, "Well, I believed we'd find weapons, but so far we haven't. That belief was I suppose a 'mistake.' But if you means was the decision to invade a "mistake" because of this other 'mistake,' I must say no. Given that everyone believed the weapons were there, the only course I could take was to invade. That decision was not a mistake."

This would just be tough to come up with immediately and to think through whether there isn't something in the above that he shouldn't say. I wasn't saying he couldn't answer it if given time to think through it, I was just postulating that it was a sarn hard question to answer.
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 05-03-2004, 01:30 PM   #3308
Gardener
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: www.peterthottam. com -- photos of 6 GIs & the humiliation of Iraqi POWs

Here's a good article on the photos and their devastating consequences for the United States w/r to world opinion.

US media alibis for torture in Iraq
By Bill Van Auken
3 May 2004

Photographs of the sadistic torture of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of US troops became front-page news around the world after their release last week. Only in two countries were they largely suppressed by the media--the United States and Iraq itself.

In Iraq, newspapers that can be--and have been--shut down at a moment's notice by order of the US occupation chief Paul Bremer chose not to publish them. Most Iraqis viewed on Arab television the revolting scenes of their countrymen, naked and with bags over their heads, being abused by leering American soldiers.

In the US last Friday, as people throughout the world viewed the appalling photographs on the front pages of their newspapers, not a single major American daily chose to give them similar treatment, and most blacked them out altogether.

CBS News, which first broadcast the photos on its "60 Minutes II" program last week, withheld the story for fully two weeks at the request of General Richard Myers, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. When it did air the segment, it was produced with the cooperation of the Pentagon, which sought to frame the story in such a way as to contain the damage before the foreign media obtained the same pictures.

But such is the gravity of this damage to US policy in the Arab and Muslim world that little or nothing can be done to contain it. The televised images seen by Iraqis have largely sealed the fate of the US occupation. They have confirmed the widespread and well-founded opinion that the war launched by the Bush administration was aimed not at liberating but subjugating the people of Iraq and expropriating the country's oil wealth. And they have created vast new reservoirs of support for a nationalist resistance that had already gained a mass following.

Iraqis viewing the hooded, naked men forced by grinning Americans to pile onto each other, simulate sex acts and, in one case, stand on a box with electrodes attached to the prisoner's body, were left to wonder whether the faces behind the masks were those of their relatives, neighbors or co-workers, tens of thousands of whom have disappeared into a network of concentration camps set up by the US occupation.

So the US media's efforts have largely been aimed at softening the impact of these revelations upon the American people themselves, among whom antiwar sentiment has never been higher. Two newspapers that serve as national voices for the ruling political establishment made this clear in a pair of editorials published over the weekend.

"President Bush spoke for all Americans of conscience yesterday when he expressed disgust" over the photographs, the New York Times declared in an editorial Saturday entitled "Abuses at Abu Ghraib."

It continued, stating that the torture and abuse captured in the photos defied "the accepted conventions of war" and supporting Bush's contention that the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib prison were the work merely of a "few soldiers" who would be "taken care of."

The media--including the Times--revel in proclaiming Bush the "commander-in-chief" as if it were some royal title. Yet now, somehow, he is the voice of "conscience" who bears no responsibility for the actions of those soldiers whom he presumes to command.

It can be safely assumed that Bush was neither shocked nor disgusted. The White House and the Pentagon had known about these atrocities for months and had done all they could to prevent them from being exposed.

As for the claim that torture at the US concentration camps is a crime carried out by just a handful of depraved military police reservists, it is disproved by the very existence of the photographs. Why did these soldiers feel so comfortable recording their criminal actions for posterity? How were they were able to assemble large numbers of naked prisoners in an open area and stack them into a pyramid for their amusement, without any fear of being discovered or punished?

Clearly, this degrading and abusive treatment was standard operating procedure for the US military. Torture was accepted and encouraged.


Photos just "the tip of the iceberg"

The human rights group Amnesty International described the actions shown in the photographs as just "the tip of the iceberg." In a 2003 report, it stated: "Many detainees have alleged they were tortured and ill-treated by US and UK troops during interrogation. Methods reported often include beatings; prolonged sleep deprivation; prolonged restraint in painful positions, sometimes combined with exposure to loud music; prolonged hooding and exposure to bright light." The organization has documented a number of cases in which detainees have been beaten or tortured to death.

On the same day the Times published its editorial, the New Yorker magazine's web site posted a story by Seymour Hersh citing a 53-page report prepared by an Army general that concluded that "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses" were commonplace at Abu Ghraib.

Among the crimes, Major General Antonio Taguba recounted in his report: "Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape...sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee."

Hersh points out that many of the thousands of detainees held at Abu Ghraib were there simply because they were caught up in sweeps of neighborhoods or grabbed at military checkpoints.

The article includes a chilling indication of the extent to which the military has inculcated the attitude among the troops that Iraqis--and for that matter all Arabs and Muslims--are subhumans against whom cruelty can be inflicted with impunity. One soldier--who testified against other members of his unit--told of seeing another soldier "hitting one prisoner in the side of its ribcage." Not "his" ribcage, but "its." The Iraqi detainee was not seen as a human being.

General Taguba's report also concludes that the military police reservists--including the six who are the only ones facing prosecution at this point--were instructed by military intelligence and CIA interrogators to "set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses." That is, use torture and abuse to "break" the prisoners. Witnesses cited in the report quote military intelligence officers praising those carrying out these criminal acts. "Good job, they're breaking down real fast," said one.

Responsibility for these crimes go right up a chain of command--Taguba calls for reprimanding a colonel and lieutenant colonel responsible for military intelligence interrogations--that ends with the president himself.

In solidarizing themselves with Bush, the Times editors note that the vile actions of US soldiers at Abu Ghraib defy "the accepted conventions of war." But the entire Iraqi invasion and occupation has been carried out in defiance of "accepted conventions of war." Washington carried out an unprovoked war aimed at conquering an independent country that posed no threat to the United States, in order to subdue its people and seize control of its oil resources.

The Bush administration has prided itself on its arrogant refusal to be bound by any tenet of international law, repudiating the International Criminal Court and demanding that countries where its military operates agree to hold US soldiers as well as civilians immune from any charges of war crimes or human rights violations.

Bush himself glories in illegal acts of violence, boasting of US assassinations as a means of bringing Washington's enemies "to justice." To proclaim such an individual as the voice of "conscience" speaking for "all Americans" is an obscenity.

For its part, the Washington Post, the authoritative voice of the Washington political establishment, published an editorial headlined "Rule of Lawlessness." Again, while ostensibly condemning the acts at Abu Ghraib, the editorial is crafted in a manner designed to minimize and even justify them.

"Taken together, the photographs demonstrate some of the most demeaning, humiliating and shameful treatment of prisoners imaginable, short of actual physical torture," the Post writes.

Forcing naked men with bags over their heads to climb onto each other in a pyramid, or attaching electrodes to a man's body and telling him he is going to be electrocuted if he falls off a box, is indeed torture. A number of Iraqis have come forward to say that they found the kind of degenerate sexual humiliation carried out by their US captors worse than the physical torture inflicted by the secret police of the Saddam Hussein regime.

The Post laments the existence of the photographs for the "the damage they have done to America's image in the world, to the cause of stability in Iraq and even to the cause of democracy in the Middle East."

In reality, these images have provided a graphic expression of the criminal character and aims of the US intervention in Iraq. The war and occupation have nothing to do with democracy. The type of cruelty seen in these pictures is a feature of every war waged by an imperialist power against the people it seeks to colonize.

The Post goes on: "The fact that some of the soldiers in charge of the prison have now been suspended or penalized will surely be overlooked by foreign audiences, and the fact that the prisoners had attacked US troops matters not at all."

This argument, meant to exonerate the US military, consists of inventions and lies. Those who are being prosecuted were not "in charge of the prison"; they consist of a handful of low-ranking reservists who are, from the standpoint of the Pentagon, entirely expendable. As for the prisoners having "attacked US troops," how do the Post editors know that? Have they the names and records of the naked men with sacks on their heads? The bulk of those who are being held at the US prisons and torture camps were grabbed on the flimsiest grounds by US troops and are being held indefinitely without hearings or even charges.

Finally, the newspaper chides the Bush administration for failing to provide "adequate legal processes" for detainees held without charges not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

"Better than any legal treatise, these photographs demonstrate the potentially corrupting effect of the atmosphere of lawlessness in these prisons," the editorial concludes. "It must not be allowed to continue."

But the "corrupting...atmosphere of lawlessness" did not begin in the military's prison camps. The torture carried out there is only the refined expression of the corrupt and lawless character of the US ruling establishment and the policy of armed conquest it has pursued in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

America's ruling elite, both the Democratic and Republican parties, and in particular the corporate-controlled media are all implicated in the shameful and repulsive crimes carried out at Abu Ghraib and other US concentration camps and prisons around the world. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others are guilty of war crimes for the actions carried out by their military subordinates.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent job, Peter. Keep up the good work! These schmucks need to be castigated from time to time about what's really going on in the Middle East.

-------------

In response to:

Subject: Re: www.peterthottam.com-Photos of US GIs & Iraqi POWs

FYI, the subject photos are on his website (www.peterthottam.com). He must have pasted them because he feels the whole country needs to see these. Why isn’t the U.S. national media showing these photos? What sort of warped value system have we developed as a nation? This is a serious tragedy and omininous for America. Quite disturbing...Americans everywhere need to see these photos (several consist of the POWs being forced by the 6 GIs to perform oral sex on each other and to copulate). What have we become? This -- together with the apalling state of the national media -- truly turns my stomach. It really makes one wonder what's really going on that the U.S. media is not covering, internationally and domestically... makes one wonder what's been happening Guantanamo Bay...and elsewhere. The U.S. national media has become an object of ridicule. Under very concentrated ownership it is an increasingly state-controlled mouthpiece and aparatus whose coverage is focused on achieving US foreign policy goals. Hence, the day-to-day realities in Iraq and casualty tolls are not covered. The WMDs question is not the focus of a rigorous national debate. Instead, the nation entertains itself with stories about Britney Spears, 'reality' TV shows such as "The Apprentice" and "Joe-Millionaire", alleged kidnappings in Wisconsin, Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson's breast, Laci Peterson, Kobe Bryant, and low-carb diet fads. The Orwellian nature and speed of what's unfolding in the United States is shocking and horrendous.

ps. Feel free to forward the subject URL for the photos to anyone who you think should see them. I think the whole country should bear witness to these photos (which our so called 'media' [sick joke that it has become] is hiding, along with many other things) and ask what our nation is turning into and what we are becoming.

FYI :

THE FUTURE (?) : http://www.bushflash.com/lotto.html ;

http://www.bushflash.com/ma.html

State of Emergency: http://www.bushflash.com/antiwar2.html

What 'Support Our Troops' Really Means : http://www.bushflash.com/ma.html

What 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' Really Means: http://www.bushflash.com/occupied.html

Undecided? Or Pro-Bush? : http://www.bushflash.com/memorial.html

------

Most importantly --> (Warning: THESE ARE VERY GRAPHIC): (1) http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/w...hame/index.html & (2) Remember these (US media won't let you see these)? : http://indybay.org/news/2003/03/1588323.php
 
Old 05-03-2004, 01:35 PM   #3309
bilmore
Too Good For Post Numbers
 
bilmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 65,535
Re: www.peterthottam. com -- photos of 6 GIs & the humiliation of Iraqi POWs

Quote:
Originally posted by Gardener
Long. Oh, so long.
Damn. Ty found his old login.
bilmore is offline  
Old 05-03-2004, 01:53 PM   #3310
andViolins
(Moderator) oHIo
 
andViolins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: there
Posts: 1,049
Re: www.pottythottam. com -- photos hot nekkid chicks

Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Damn. Ty found his old login.
Are business school classes over for the semester? What's with the mass posting by Pete? I know he's looking for a job for the summer, but this ain't gonna score him any interviews.

aV
andViolins is offline  
Old 05-03-2004, 02:22 PM   #3311
The Larry Davis Experience
silver plated, underrated
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Davis Country
Posts: 627
Seems like the tide has receded on the discussion regarding the Abu Ghraib prisoner mistreatment, but this Seymour Hersh column is pretty interesting, esp his citation to the prior internal reports on the subject.

The column points out that the detainees at Abu Ghraib aren't all POWs (although many are). Also the last quote strikes me as particularly likely:
Quote:
Similarly, Gary Myers, Frederick’s civilian attorney, told me that he would argue at the court-martial that culpability in the case extended far beyond his client. “I’m going to drag every involved intelligence officer and civilian contractor I can find into court,” he said. “Do you really believe the Army relieved a general officer because of six soldiers? Not a chance.”
Rightly or wrongly, this may get uglier before too long, despite the official story that these were isolated incidents.
The Larry Davis Experience is offline  
Old 05-03-2004, 02:36 PM   #3312
Say_hello_for_me
Theo rests his case
 
Say_hello_for_me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: who's askin?
Posts: 1,632
Quote:
Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Seems like the tide has receded on the discussion regarding the Abu Ghraib prisoner mistreatment, but this Seymour Hersh column is pretty interesting, esp his citation to the prior internal reports on the subject.

The column points out that the detainees at Abu Ghraib aren't all POWs (although many are). Also the last quote strikes me as particularly likely:
Rightly or wrongly, this may get uglier before too long, despite the official story that these were isolated incidents.
Ya know, none of this makes sense. Torture or coercion? I'm sure taking photos of one guy giving another a blowjob could put some of these guys into a corner.

But why would you have put a smiling 21 year old girl into the picture? I'd approve of the torture technique if it made sense (well, actually, I wouldn't agree with forcing someone to have sex of any sort), but this thing with the Americans appearing in the pictures makes it seem pretty far from an intelligence-gathering tactic.

And whatever happened to cauliflower ears or baseball-bat beatings through phone book-padding? Sheesh, and these guys were prison guards in America?

Hello
__________________
Man, back in the day, you used to love getting flushed, you'd be all like 'Flush me J! Flush me!' And I'd be like 'Nawww'

Say_hello_for_me is offline  
Old 05-03-2004, 02:49 PM   #3313
bilmore
Too Good For Post Numbers
 
bilmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 65,535
Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
But why would you have put a smiling 21 year old girl into the picture?
The guys figured out that doing that made the 21-year-old girl horny.
bilmore is offline  
Old 05-03-2004, 02:58 PM   #3314
The Larry Davis Experience
silver plated, underrated
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Davis Country
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
But why would you have put a smiling 21 year old girl into the picture? I'd approve of the torture technique if it made sense (well, actually, I wouldn't agree with forcing someone to have sex of any sort), but this thing with the Americans appearing in the pictures makes it seem pretty far from an intelligence-gathering tactic.
I would find it unsurprising if I read that the intel types told the guards in some nonspecific way to keep the prisoners off-balance/uncomfortable/humiliated so they could play the "even we don't know what those guards will do next unless you talk" card. Thus the pics could be seen as a humiliation tactic, not as ammo for blackmail or something like that.

Or maybe not. Lord knows I don't have all the answers on this one. My knowledge of interrogation tactics is limited to my onetime infatuation with Law and Order reruns.
The Larry Davis Experience is offline  
Old 05-03-2004, 02:59 PM   #3315
Shape Shifter
World Ruler
 
Shape Shifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,057
Press Conference

Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm sure Bush believed we would find tons of weapons. That belief did not pan out, and is a "mistake."
Bush mistaked!
__________________
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming out any other way."
Shape Shifter is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:38 AM.