Cooking The Books on The Death Toll In Iraq

[LoungeMachine]

The view from Baghdad: Mounting death toll which makes a mockery of US optimism

By Kim Sengupta

Published: 11 September 2007

By the time General Petraeus had finished speaking yesterday the slaughter in Iraq for the previous 24 hours could be tallied. It was not an exceptionally violent day by the standards of Iraq: seven US soldiers lay dead and 11 injured in the capital; other instances of sectarian violence included a suicide bomb which had killed 10 and wounded scores near Mosul while 10 bodies were found in Baghdad. Three policemen were killed in clashes in Mosul, and a car bomb outside a hospital in the capital had exploded, killing two and wounding six.

In Baghdad, on the surface the overt violence appears to have diminished. There are fewer loud explosions. But, the city is now being partitioned by sectarian hatred and fear; by concrete walls and barbed wire. Claims that the US military strategy is paving the way for a stable society bear little resemblance to the reality on the ground.

The US is accused of manipulating figures relating to violence to fit their case, ignoring evidence which shows that the influx of 30,000 troops has done little to end the continuing bloodshed.

The death of Omar al-Husseini in the Huriya district of Baghdad is one of many which does not even figure in the American reckoning. His killers, masked and carrying guns, dragged him away as his mother wept and his father pleaded for mercy. That was the last time they saw their son alive. Three weeks later they heard that he had been killed.

Omar was 20. His killers were Shia, he was a Sunni, the victim of a spree of murders which has ethnically cleansed neighbourhoods through the city. But both the US military and the Iraqi police have told his parents that as far as they are concerned the abduction and killings were purely criminal acts. This means, statistically, that his death is not included by the US in the calculations for sectarian killings produced yesterday.

The causes behind the daily death toll, if addressed at all, draw conflicting accounts. Mourners carried the coffin of a young mother along the streets of Sadr City yesterday. She had been killed, said the locals, along with her two daughters when US and Iraqi government forces had stormed four homes. The US military confirmed they had exchanged small-arms fire during the operation, but insisted they had no reports of civilian casualties. Also yesterday, attendants at the Baghdad morgue did their round of collecting bodies, nameless victims of faceless killers.

Omar's father, 48-year-old Barzan, said the attack on his son came after the Mehdi Army, a Shia militia, declared that they must leave their home. " We were going to leave, we did not want any trouble. We had very excellent relations with our Shia neighbours, but they could not do anything to help us ", he said. "They [the Mehdi Army] were also saying that my two sons were involved with the insurgents. That was not true, they had nothing to do with politics. Mohammed was away when they came, but Omar was there and they took him away and shot him. The police and the Americans say he was an Ali Baba [thief] and this killing was something to do with that. But everyone knows why he died, it is because we are Sunnis."

Barzan had fled with his family to the Khadrah district where he found refuge with his cousin. They could not watch much of General Pertraeus's address on satellite TV because of a power cut. Four years after the war, electricity supply in the city has dwindled to one hour a day.

Not far away from Barzan's new home are other houses, some with singe marks on doors and windows, properties of Shia who had been terrorised and driven out the other way. The walls being put up by US contractors at a record speed are formalising this break-up of Baghdad along sectarian lines. Militias rule the roost in the newly created ghettos; armed young men with sunglasses manning checkpoints, collecting levies from passing traffic, and meting out their own justice to victims who would never make the calculations on the effects of the surge.

The Americans at first welcomed the forming of the vigilante groups, calling them "guardians"; in some areas this was described as part of the " Sunni awakening", away from the insurgency. But this began to be tempered after tales of extortion began to surface, and now some have been arrested for "suspected al-Qa'ida ties".

The purge of the neighbourhoods, however, has helped to bring down the number of violent deaths, providing fewer sectarian targets. Residents seeing their neighbours being driven out are too afraid to do anything. Ali Mohammed, a Shia in Huriya, spread his hands in a gesture of hopelessness. " If we say anything we will be attacked," he said. "So what can we say? We know of people being driven out, being killed, but there is no one we can go to."

Others say the surge itself had led to the rise in intimidation by the militias. Rashid Kamal, in Amariya, said: "The Americans drove out the militias, but they only went into other areas. It is this which led to the places where Sunnis and Shia were living together being split up. People who have been neighbours for generations were forced to leave in a few hours."

Since the start of the surge, the deaths of US soldiers have fallen from a peak of 120 in May to 56 in August. But there are significant discrepancies between the figures for civilian deaths presented by the US military and independent estimates. According to American authorities, 165 civilians were murdered in Baghdad in August, a slight increase on the previous two months, but a sizeable decrease since the beginning of the surge. However, figures released by Iraq's Interior Ministry suggest that at least 428 people were murdered in Baghdad last month, and 612 in July. The Associated Press's tally of civilian deaths throughout Iraq in August was 1,809, the highest this year.

Under the US military's rules, a corpse shot in the back of the head is a " sectarian" killing, while one shot through the front is deemed to be a criminal one. Even under this arbitrary criterion it would be difficult on many occasions to distinguish which particular group a death may fall under. Attendants at the Baghdad morgue point out that victims often bear multiple gunshot wounds.

Hours before General Petraeus appeared in Washington, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, gave his own assessment of the surge. "The key to reconstruction, economic development and improving peoples' standards of living is security," he said. Violence in Baghdad, he declared, had " dropped by 75 per cent". He failed, however, to provide any figures.


© 2007 Independent News and Media Limited

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine




Under the US military's rules, a corpse shot in the back of the head is a " sectarian" killing, while one shot through the front is deemed to be a criminal one. Even under this arbitrary criterion it would be difficult on many occasions to distinguish which particular group a death may fall under. Attendants at the Baghdad morgue point out that victims often bear multiple gunshot wounds.



Are you fucking kidding me???????????????????????????

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Paul Krugnman discussed this in his NY Times Op-Ed last week. So are you saying that violence towards iraqi civilians is unacceptable? In that case, you DO support a sustained US military presence.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Paul Krugnman discussed this in his NY Times Op-Ed last week. So are you saying that violence towards iraqi civilians is unacceptable? In that case, you DO support a sustained US military presence.

:rolleyes:

Ohh, you almost got me with that clever Hannityesque word play.

So, are YOU saying there was no iraqi on iraqi civilian violence PRIOR to our occupation?

Wow.

Bring back Saddam then.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Are you fucking kidding me???????????????????????????

:mad: :mad: :mad:

What does it matter, Lounge. A death is a death. Does it matter what they write on the toe tag?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by WAR
What does it matter, Lounge. A death is a death. Does it matter what they write on the toe tag?

No, War

It matters what they tell Congress, and The American People.

You've been lied to for so long you're getting used to it.

Isnt it funny you still bring up what the definition of the word is, is...

Yet don't expect the truth coming from our military leaders.

Why do you hate the truth so much? ;)

[Ellyllions]

I just think it's ironic that the 6th anniversary of the most horrible tragedy in this generation's lifetime happens to also be the day that George Bush changes his stance on the Iraq War.

Mark my words fellas...this hearing has changed everything.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by WAR


A death is a death.



But when BushCO uses these deaths to promote their version of the facts on the ground, and have people go before Congress saying the violence is down, because they're using ENRON-type accounting, it matters a great deal.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
No, War

It matters what they tell Congress, and The American People.

You've been lied to for so long you're getting used to it.

Isnt it funny you still bring up what the definition of the word is, is...

Yet don't expect the truth coming from our military leaders.

Why do you hate the truth so much? ;)

Yeah, Lounge, I've been lied to by liberals who claim that 500,000 Iraqis have been killed by our troops over there.

That's who's been lying to me.

I believe our military leaders, you don't. There's the difference.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
But when BushCO uses these deaths to promote their version of the facts on the ground, and have people go before Congress saying the violence is down, because they're using ENRON-type accounting, it matters a great deal.

So are you saying Petraeus is lying?

He denied all these allegations yesterday, by the way.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by WAR
So are you saying Petraeus is lying?



He was never sworn in...

[Warham]

Yeah, but he wasn't testifying.

He was giving a report.

There's no reason for a guy that's served in the military for thirty years and several presidents (at the least) to lie about the situation over there.

[LoungeMachine]

He had ALL the reason to "spin"

How many Generals have been fired since the invasion?

Starting with Eric Shinseki

He DARED to say we'd need 300k occupational forces.

He was right.

Rummy was wrong.

[Warham]

Rumsfeld did make mistakes. Alot of them, including underestimating the forces necessary to secure the peace.

I'll never argue with you about the error of Rumsfeld's ways.

But you just proved my point. Shinseki wasn't a mouthpiece for the Bush administration, so why is Petraeus now?

What pisses me off are groups like Code Pink who think he's some kind of traitor if he gives any kind of good news. Fuck those groups! Petraeus has done more for his country than they ever will.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
:rolleyes:

Ohh, you almost got me with that clever Hannityesque word play.

So, are YOU saying there was no iraqi on iraqi civilian violence PRIOR to our occupation?

Wow.

Bring back Saddam then.

You didn't answer the question.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
You didn't answer the question.

No, it is unacceptable. [duh?]

But I dont buy your premise that if we stay and occupy, it will decrease.

Now answer mine.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by WAR
What pisses me off are groups like Code Pink who think he's some kind of traitor if he gives any kind of good news. Fuck those groups! Petraeus has done more for his country than they ever will.

Fine.
No Argument.

But where was your outrage when they swiftboated Kerry, who was also an American hero who served his country?

Certainly much more brave and heroic than your Chickenhawk In Chief.

W didnt find Viet Nam until 2006 :rolleyes:

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Fine.
No Argument.

But where was your outrage when they swiftboated Kerry, who was also an American hero who served his country?

Certainly much more brave and heroic than your Chickenhawk In Chief.

W didnt find Viet Nam until 2006 :rolleyes:

I actually admire Kerry for his service, but it's what he said when he got back that I didn't like.

I don't think the Swiftboaters were attacking his service, they were attacking what he said to Congress in 1971, unless I'm mistaken. Correct me, if so.

Some of those swiftboaters were vets too. When you've got vet on vet warfare, it's tough.

[LoungeMachine]

Why is speaking truth to Congrss in 1971 any different than Patreus in 2007?

Did Kerry lie top Congress?

Hindsight being 20/20 we should have gotten out of Viet Nam in '71

Think of the lives it would have saved.

The truth sucks sometimes.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by WAR
I actually admire Kerry for his service,

Thank God.

You may be the first Con in here to say it....

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Why is speaking truth to Congrss in 1971 any different than Patreus in 2007?

Did Kerry lie top Congress?

Hindsight being 20/20 we should have gotten out of Viet Nam in '71

Think of the lives it would have saved.

The truth sucks sometimes.

Well, I think I can meet you halfway here. We fought that war poorly too! We could have leveled Vietnam in a few weeks, but we went for years and years with no end in sight. The whole reason for going over there was fraudulent (Gulf of Tonkin).

My father was over there for awhile. Thank God he made it back in one piece. Otherwise, you wouldn't have me around here. hehe!

Seriously, though. I don't think Kerry 'lied', per se. But I think he was interested in politics even back then.

Also, some of the things he's said since the Iraq War started have bugged me, like his comment about US troops terrorizing Iraqi children in the middle of the night.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Thank God.

You may be the first Con in here to say it....

Well, we should all admit it.

Any other cons in here?

:crickets chirping:

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by WAR
Yeah, but he wasn't testifying.

He was giving a report.

There's no reason for a guy that's served in the military for thirty years and several presidents (at the least) to lie about the situation over there.


You just endorsed a military leader lying in a report. You just said that is okay.

From that report, the president is supposed to inform the public, who voted him in.

So it's okay for the president to repeat a lie? You'll buy that, and carry on huh?

Fucking douche bags lke you fucking amaze me. ANYTHING to justify the mass murder of Bushco huh?

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by WAR
Well, I think I can meet you halfway here. We fought that war poorly too! We could have leveled Vietnam in a few weeks, but we went for years and years with no end in sight. The whole reason for going over there was fraudulent (Gulf of Tonkin).

My father was over there for awhile. Thank God he made it back in one piece. Otherwise, you wouldn't have me around here. hehe!

Seriously, though. I don't think Kerry 'lied', per se. But I think he was interested in politics even back then.



Also, some of the things he's said since the Iraq War started have bugged me, like his comment about US troops terrorizing Iraqi children in the middle of the night.



So you're saying it's inconceivabke for US troops to commit atrocities? Only sand******s, nazis and japs can do that, right?

American soldiers are beyond reproach right?

This is EXACTLY the thinking that voted Bush into office. TWICE!!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Baby's On Fire


Only sand******s, nazis and japs can do that, right?



Dude...

I held my tongue before, because I figured it was a one-time thing...

I'm not going to edit your posts over it, but I really hate it when people in here use the N***** term.

I dont care what color or context, it personally bugs me.

So as a favor to me.....

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Baby's On Fire


American soldiers are beyond reproach right?



I think I remember WAR coming out against Abu Grahib and Haditha, so that may be unfair.

But it's no stretch to say SOME US Soldiers used terrorist tactics against the rules of engagement.

And they should be dealt with.

But the smear campaign levelled against Kerry in 04 was criminal

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Dude...

I held my tongue before, because I figured it was a one-time thing...

I'm not going to edit your posts over it, but I really hate it when people in here use the N***** term.

I dont care what color or context, it personally bugs me.

So as a favor to me.....



:gulp: I used it to make a point of sarcasm. that being, AMERICANS would never commit atrocities, only nazis and non-whites from other cultures.

I'm sure you recognize the sarcasm. Maybe you're having an off-day........

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I think I remember WAR coming out against Abu Grahib and Haditha, so that may be unfair.

But it's no stretch to say SOME US Soldiers used terrorist tactics against the rules of engagement.

And they should be dealt with.

But the smear campaign levelled against Kerry in 04 was criminal


Well, that's my point.

A Vietnam vet has every right to voice his opinion, one way or another.

It's so convenient for the Repuklicans to overlook American atrocities in Iraq and yet hammer away at Kerry for his views after experiencing the bullshit of the Vietnam war firsthand.

Especially considering their hero president is a coward and draft dodger vis-a-vis his daddy keeping him away from the dangers of Vietnam.


But that's the status quo of Bushco and every scumbag who supports them.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
I used it to make a point of sarcasm. that being, AMERICANS would never commit atrocities, only nazis and non-whites from other cultures.

I'm sure you recognize the sarcasm. Maybe you're having an off-day........

No man, I know where you're coming from....

I'm having a great day, but I've seen it before.

I just have a real issue with the term, regardless of context.

It's one reason I have such utter disdain for rap / hip-hop

That, and it gives me a fucking headache.

No issues, and you're a great poster here in FL

It was just a personal request.

I try to only edit dick shots, personal info, and troll-spam.

:gulp:

Carry on.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
Well, that's my point.

A Vietnam vet has every right to voice his opinion, one way or another.

It's so convenient for the Repuklicans to overlook American atrocities in Iraq and yet hammer away at Kerry for his views after experiencing the bullshit of the Vietnam war firsthand.

Especially considering their hero president is a coward and draft dodger vis-a-vis his daddy keeping him away from the dangers of Vietnam.


But that's the status quo of Bushco and every scumbag who supports them.

Couldnt agree more...

Let's not forget Cheney got 5 deferments. And almost as many DUI's

Wolfowitz? draft dodger
Perle? draft dodger
Cheney? see above

Chimpy? AWOL

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
No man, I know where you're coming from....

I'm having a great day, but I've seen it before.

I just have a real issue with the term, regardless of context.

It's one reason I have such utter disdain for rap / hip-hop

That, and it gives me a fucking headache.

No issues, and you're a great poster here in FL

It was just a personal request.

I try to only edit dick shots, personal info, and troll-spam.

:gulp:

Carry on.

I understand. But a word is a word, and every word was invented for a purpose.

The use of the "N-Word" does not a racist make. That's like equating everyone who uses the word "bitch" or "cunt" as being a mysogyinst.

In the case of my post, it was used for sarcasm. Though yes, I do use the word when approparite. Within context.

Axl rose said it best: "Not all black people are ******s, but when someone is acting like a fucking ****** then I call it like I see it".

Eloquent? No. To the point? Yes.


Later, we can discuss the use of the word "Jap". Invented by Americans after Pearl Harbour, by the way.

Those, nice, non-racist, non-atrocity-committing American boys.........,

[LoungeMachine]

I knew / got all of that...

I also am well aware of the race-baiting of Japanese Americans, including internment.

It actually goes back to our treatment of the indinginous, true "Americans" we now call Indians.

You will get no argument from me about American atrocities and hypocrisies throughout history.

And I never implied you were a racist either.

I. JUST. HATE. THE. N. WORD.

It was just a request........

:gulp:

[Baby's On Fire]

Gotcha.

I will try my best not to use the word. But I like the word. It has heart and soul. Meaning. When I use it, it expresses for more than it's few letters.

But I will try and avoid offending you. But it's hard, because it offends so many people I find distasteful. The holier-than-thou types who THINK the word. And probably use the word. But won't admit it.

Then, in the face of having no real retort, invoke my use of it to try and sidestep the issue at hand.

But, I promise I will try my best to avoid it.

Keep in mind, Cadaverdog pretends to be offended by it. So how can you blame me when I say it?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
Keep in mind, Cadaverdog pretends to be offended by it. So how can you blame me when I say it?

LMAO

I dont expect to see cadaverdung back in here much....

Unless his wife lets him. :D

:gulp:

[Baby's On Fire]

He'll be here, spewing drivel.

The beauty of him is he doesn't know when to stop, and keeps spewing nonsense to our amusement.

Until then, I will have a drink and wait for the entertainment to arrive.

[LoungeMachine]

I just discovered his Feedback whine about someone else closing another of his stupid threads...

3 of his 7 threads thus far are complaints in Feedback

:lol:

The Gift that keeps on Giving.

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by WAR
What does it matter, Lounge. A death is a death. Does it matter what they write on the toe tag?


Most of the deaths can be traced to the occupation and the breakdown in security...

But what I think worth mentioning here, as the article points out between the lines, is that a lot of the sectarian murders are carried out by people with ties to the "Iraqi" gov't. You know, the one we support?

Boy, is that "Surge" gonna' work...:rolleyes:

When the national police force is little more than a corrupt and brutal shill for militias, you really think that bodes well?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by WAR
...
Also, some of the things he's said since the Iraq War started have bugged me, like his comment about US troops terrorizing Iraqi children in the middle of the night.

Actually, if you read "Fiasco," you'll find Gen. Petraeus also criticized the heavy handed tactics of US troops thinking they could intimidate the insurgency out of Iraq with firepower and roughhousing...

Petraeus 101st "Airborne" division favored more velvet gloved approach as per his "counterinsurgency" mantra...

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by WAR


I don't think the Swiftboaters were attacking his service,

I love this guy. I really do. He never ceases to amuse.

[Warham]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
I love this guy. I really do. He never ceases to amuse.

You should love me. Everybody else here does.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Boy, is that "Surge" gonna' work...:rolleyes:

It's working a hell of a lot better than the previous half-baked plan.

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by WAR
It's working a hell of a lot better than the previous half-baked plan.

That half-baked plan was made by the same fuciking idiot who made this plan.

My God, someone please skewer this guy. I am tired but need a real challenge.

Someone please try and educate him.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by WAR
It's working a hell of a lot better than the previous half-baked plan.

Well it fuckwell couldn't be any worse!

And that's not saying much. It's still was never meant to be a "strategy for victory," just essentially a giant stall tactic.

At first, I think it was something about biding time for the Iraqi gov't to implement some sort of nat'l reconcilation plan...

Now it's just about semantics and covering Bush's ass...

[Baby's On Fire]

I wish you would apply this level of logic and understanding to your rants about MA not being in VH anymore.

But I digress.........

[Warham]

Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
That half-baked plan was made by the same fuciking idiot who made this plan.

My God, someone please skewer this guy. I am tired but need a real challenge.

Someone please try and educate him.

In the Front Line, you don't ask somebody to do a job you can't do yourself.

If you got the game, you take the ball yourself and run with it. Don't ask Nick or Lounge to save you.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well it fuckwell couldn't be any worse!

And that's not saying much. It's still was never meant to be a "strategy for victory," just essentially a giant stall tactic.

At first, I think it was something about biding time for the Iraqi gov't to implement some sort of nat'l reconcilation plan...

Now it's just about semantics and covering Bush's ass...

The Iraqi government gets more accomplished than our government does. How does that make our Congress look?

[Warham]

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j191/mikesamerica/toon071307ac.png

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by WAR
The Iraqi government gets more accomplished than our government does. How does that make our Congress look?

Yeah, they're great at killing innocent civilians and inflaming sectarian hatred, while our boys and girls fight and die to protect them from the consequences of their actions...

And a lot of Congress not getting anything done has to do with the Republican minority - which looks to be shrinking and Bush's veto powers...

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by WAR
You should love me. Everybody else here does.

Wrong. Everyone may be amused by - but no one loves -the village idiot.

They didn't attack his service? Nice convenient short term memory.

John Kerry military service controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The John Kerry military service controversy describes a political issue that gained widespread public attention during John Kerry's candidacy in the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign. While a thorough review of the record shows the charges to be without merit, the slow response by the Kerry campaign to counter what it believed to be blatantly false misinformation about a key asset that distinguished Kerry from Bush dented public recognition of that distinction and weakened Kerry's poll numbers at a critical time in the campaign.





[edit] Issues in the controversy
The central issue of the controversy is John Kerry's Vietnam war record. In television advertisements and a book called Unfit for Command, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), later known as the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, questioned details of his military service record and circumstances relating to the award of his combat medals.


[edit] Background

Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (August 2004)Several members of SBVT served in the same unit as Kerry, but only one, Stephen Gardner, served on the same boat. However, a number of Kerry's SBVT critics were present on accompanying Swift Boats, at some of the salient events of Kerry's enemy engagements in Vietnam.

Other SBVT members included two of Kerry's former commanding officers, Grant Hibbard and George Elliott. Hibbard and Elliott have alleged, respectively, that Kerry's first Purple Heart and Silver Star were undeserved. In addition, members of SBVT have questioned the merit of Kerry's other medals and his truthfulness in testimony about the war.

Defenders of John Kerry's service record, including virtually all of his former crewmates, have stated that SBVT's accusations are false.


[edit] Allegations and evidence

[edit] First Purple Heart
Some SBVT members have questioned Kerry's first Purple Heart, received for a wound sustained on December 2, 1968. Kerry remained on duty after being wounded, and sought treatment at the following day's sick call. They assert that the injury was too minor to merit a citation because the only treatment Kerry received, after the removal of a piece of shrapnel from his arm, was bacitracin (an antibiotic) and a bandage, and he returned to service immediately; however, other division members, including at least one SBVT member, received Purple Hearts under similar circumstances (ReportsAwards). SBVT also claims that the wound was not from enemy fire but was from shrapnel of a grenade he fired himself [1], a claim they believe is supported by the fact that no combat casualty or after action report for the incident has been discovered.

The criteria for the Purple Heart call for its award for any injury received during combat requiring treatment by a medical officer; the military makes no distinction regarding the severity of the injury. Under military regulations, the Purple Heart is awarded for "friendly fire" wounds in the "heat of battle", so long as the fire is targeted "under full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment."

An article in the Boston Globe described the circumstances in which Purple Hearts were given to wounded soldiers in Vietnam:

"'There were an awful lot of Purple Hearts — from shrapnel; some of those might have been M-40 grenades,' said George Elliott, Kerry's commanding officer. 'The Purple Hearts were coming down in boxes. Kerry, he had three Purple Hearts. None of them took him off duty. Not to belittle it, that was more the rule than the exception." [2]
In Douglas Brinkley's book Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, Brinkley notes that Purple Hearts were given out frequently:

"As generally understood, the Purple Heart is given to any U.S. citizen wounded in wartime service to the nation. Giving out Purple Hearts increased as the United States started sending Swifts up rivers. Sailors — no longer safe on aircraft carriers or battleships in the Gulf of Tonkin — were starting to bleed, a lot."
And according to the Los Angeles Times:

"Navy rules during the Vietnam War governing Purple Hearts did not take into account a wound's severity — and specified only that injuries had to be suffered 'in action against an enemy.'"
"Self-inflicted wounds were awarded if incurred 'in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.' Kerry's critics insist his wound would not have qualified, but former Navy officials who worked in the service's awards branch at the time said such awards were routine."
"A Times review of Navy injury reports and awards from that period in Kerry's Swift boat unit shows that many other Swift boat personnel won Purple Hearts for slight wounds of uncertain origin." [La Granga and Braun, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 17, 2004]
In an SBVT television ad, Dr. Lewis Letson asserted, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury," but did not specify the alleged lie. Kerry's medical records list a medic, J. C. Carreon, as the "person administering treatment" for this wound. Dr. Letson's name does not appear on the record, but Letson claimed it was common for medics to sign the paperwork even though Letson would treat the patient. That claim cannot be verified as Carreon died in 1992.

On the night in question, Kerry was not on a Swift boat, but on a 15-foot skimmer. Kerry opened fire on suspected guerrillas on the shore. During this encounter, Kerry suffered a shrapnel wound in the left arm above the elbow. Accounts differ over the crew aboard the skimmer, the source of Kerry's injury - Kerry has stated that he does not know where the shrapnel came from [3] — and several other major details.

James Wasser, who later became Kerry's radarman on PCF 44, was serving as an interpreter on board-and-search missions at the time; on the night of December 2 he was on the Swift boat accompanying the skimmer, interrogating fishermen picked up by the skimmer (Tour of Duty, pp. 156-158).

SBVT's claims about the incident are primarily based on an account by retired Rear Admiral William Schachte, then a Lieutenant. Schachte has stated that he regularly led training missions for recently arrived officers such as Kerry. One tactic described by Schachte was for a Swift boat to tow the skimmer to the target area and wait nearby. The skimmer, manned by three people, "would go in, draw fire and get out immediately." The waiting Swift boats or air support would attack the enemies thus detected. Schachte stated that he had participated in all previous skimmer missions up to and including the night Kerry was injured, although the latter claim could not be substantiated. [4][5]

In an interview in 2003, Schachte made no mention of being on the skimmer with Kerry that night; in addition, he described the action as a "firefight" and said of Kerry, "He got hit." [6] In August 2004, however, Schachte stated that he was the senior officer on Kerry's skimmer that night, with one enlisted man also on board, that he popped a flare after detecting movement, and opened fire. He stated that there was no return fire, and that Kerry was "nicked" by a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher he fired himself. [7] Moreover, while Schacte has described Kerry as, at the time, a "rookie [who] would never be put in command" of a skimmer mission [8], Kerry was actually given command of a Swift boat and crew just three days after the skimmer mission and sent into a combat area[9].

Kerry crewmates Bill Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon dispute Schachte's 2004 account. Zaladonis stated that "Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry, we were the only ones in the skimmer." [10] Runyon added, "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three." They recounted that the skimmer opened fire on suspected guerrillas attempting to evade the patrol, as they ran from sampan boats onto the shore. Both Runyon and Zaladonis believe, but are not completely certain, that the skimmer received return hostile fire; Runyon commented, "It was the scariest night of my life." Runyon also stated that he is "100 percent certain" that no one on the boat fired a grenade launcher. [11] [12] Zaladonis has noted that Schachte went on "a bunch of" other skimmer missions and speculated that Schachte might have inadvertently mixed up his dates. [13]

SBVT member Grant Hibbard, who was Kerry's commander at the time, has claimed that Kerry came to him the morning after the incident, after he had been to sick bay, stating that he was eligible for a Purple Heart [14] . No one has claimed to have witnessed this conversation. Hibbard has also claimed that he denied Kerry’s request and does not know how the award eventually came to be granted, although he had initially stated that he acquiesced on the matter of the award [15]. The presentation letter for the award was dated February 28, 1969 [16].

In addition, Hibbard stated in "Unfit for Command" (Chapter 3) that he had been told that "our units had fired on some VC units running on the beach," which if true would meet the criteria for the Purple Heart.

SBVT also points to the narration of a subsequent event in Tour of Duty (pp. 188-189). Brinkley opens the account of a four-day cruise by telling us how "Kerry — who had just turned 25 on December 11, 1968 — was a fine leader of his men". He goes on to quote Kerry's reflections in his notebook: "A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky." SBVT argues that this journal entry shows that the incident could not have involved enemy fire. [17] Others argue that Kerry was referring to ambushes, a common misfortune for Swift boats which Kerry had not yet suffered, or to the crew collectively, as he used the term "we" instead of "I," and most of his crewmembers clearly had been "shot at" before.


[edit] Bronze Star
Kerry's Bronze Star has been criticized by former Swift boat commander Larry Thurlow. During the incident leading to the medal, Thurlow was in overall tactical command of five boats, including Kerry's. The incident began when one of the boats struck a mine. In 2004 Thurlow, along with two other SBVT members, alleged that Kerry's citation for bravery under fire is false because neither Kerry's boat nor any of the others was under hostile fire. In a sworn affidavit about the incident, Thurlow testified, "I never heard a shot." [18] Of the three boat commanders present besides Kerry and Thurlow, two are SBVT members who now claim that there was no hostile fire during the incident. But one of them was seriously wounded with a concussion and the other left the scene early on to accompany the wounded to safety. Only Kerry and Thurlow remained behind to work on damage control. [19] The other boat commander present, Don Droz, was later killed in action; however, his widow recalls Droz's account as being consistent with Kerry's. [20]

Several other witnesses insist that there was hostile fire during the incident. Jim Rassmann, the Special Forces captain Kerry rescued, wrote, "Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river...When I surfaced, all the Swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water." Del Sandusky, the driver on Kerry's boat, PCF-94, stated, "I saw the gun flashes in the jungle, and I saw the bullets skipping across the water." Wayne Langhofer, who manned the machine gun on Don Droz's PCF-43, stated, "There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river." [21] Michael Medeiros, aboard PCF-94, recalled "a massive ambush. There were rockets and light machine gun fire plus small arms." Jim Russell, the Psychological Operations Officer of the unit, who was on PCF-43, wrote "All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach... Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river." [22]

Although it is not mentioned in Unfit for Command, Thurlow himself was awarded a Bronze Star for his actions during the same incident. Thurlow's citation includes several phrases indicating hostile fire such as "despite enemy bullets flying about him" and "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire", and speaks of fire directed at "all units" of the five-boat fleet. [23] Thurlow's medal recommendation, signed by Elliott, used the phrasing "under constant enemy small arms fire." Also unmentioned in "Unfit for Command" was the name Robert Lambert, Thurlow's chief petty officer who was the official eyewitness cited for Thurlow's Bronze Star recommendation, and who won his own Bronze Star for "courage under fire" for pulling Thurlow out of the water. Lambert still insists that the boats were receiving fire from the enemy. [24]

Thurlow claims that his Bronze Star citation (given to him after he had left the military) is in error. He now states that he noticed some errors when he received the citation in 1969 but saw no reason to try to correct the record. [citation needed]

Thurlow and others in SBVT claim that, although it normally would have been Thurlow's responsibility, Kerry wrote the after-action report upon which all the citations were based. However, Thurlow and Lambert's medal citations and the after action report contain considerable detail about the incident which would not have been visible to Kerry given his position across the river at the time, that Kerry could not have known (such as the exact minute Cmdr Elliot, aboard the LST, transmitted the request for helicopter support), or that took place after Kerry had left the scene. [25] [26]

The after-action report is initialed "KJW", who SBVT claims is Kerry. However, Kerry's initials are "JFK", and SBVT cites no reason why Kerry would have included a "W". These same initials "KJW" appear on other reports about events in which Kerry did not participate. [27] A Navy official stated to the New York Times that the initials referred, not to the author of the report, but to the headquarters staffer who received it. [28]

Furthermore, Kerry's base commander, Adrian Lonsdale, stated that according to the precedence he had set out in his operations order, Kerry would be the "only logical candidate" to write the report based on his length of service in Vietnam. However, Kerry actually had the least amount of time in Vietnam of any of the officers there that day (although Droz had arrived at Anthoi somewhat later than Kerry). [29]

In addition, SBVT claimed that the after action report for the incident was sent from the Coast Guard cutter where Kerry had received medical treatment, the USCGC Spencer [30], but relevant Navy documents indicate that the report was likely transmitted from a ship with a routing indicator that would apply to the LST Washtenaw County, where all nonevacuated officers who had served on the mission were berthed for the night [31][32][33].

Finally, beyond the medal citations, all U.S. Navy documents indicate hostile fire during the action. Kerry's boat (PCF-94) even received special recognition from Captain Roy Hoffmann on March 14 in his weekly report to his men; the report's description of hostile fire was not disputed at the time. [34] PCF-94 had major damage that had to be repaired before it could resume patrols. [35] Also, later intelligence reports confirm the presence of hostile forces, with six Viet Cong casualties from the incident. [36]


[edit] Silver Star
Kerry's Silver Star medal has been called into question by George Elliott, Kerry's former commanding officer and a member of SBVT. Elliott's stated position on the award changed during the course of the 2004 Presidential campaign.

Kerry's medal citation indicates that he charged into an ambush, killing an enemy preparing to launch a rocket. In his 1969 performance evaluation, Elliot wrote "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG [Lieutenant Junior Grade] Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several KIA [Killed in Action]. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach." [37]

During Kerry's 1996 Senate re-election campaign, when there was criticism of his Silver Star, Elliott responded: "The fact that he chased armed enemies down is not something to be looked down on." [38] In June 2003, Elliott was quoted as saying the award was "well deserved" and that he had "no regrets or second thoughts at all about that." [39]

During the 2004 campaign, however, Elliott signed two affidavits that criticize the award. The first, in July 2004, stated in part, "When Kerry came back to the United States, he lied about what occurred in Vietnam..." After the release of this first affidavit, Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe quoted Elliott saying, "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here...I knew it was wrong...In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake." [40] Elliott contended that Kranish had substantially misquoted him, but the Globe stood by its account, calling the disputed quotes "absolutely accurate". [41]

The story prompted Elliott to release a second affidavit, in August 2004, in which he stated, "Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong." [42]. The second affidavit made what Elliott called an "immaterial clarification", in that he admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the circumstances of the shooting. Rather, his initial statement that Kerry had been dishonest was based on unspecified sources and a passage contributed by Kranish to a biography of Kerry.

However, although Elliott claims that he was not in possession of the facts of the event, the original citation that Elliott wrote (which is not the citation that appears in "Unfit for Command") incorporates most of the details in the after action report. The report states that Kerry chased and shot a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong. In addition, it states that the PCFs were filled with troops, that all three boats turned into the first ambush and beached, that the troops conducted the first sweep, and that while Kerry led the first landing party during the second sweep, the other landing parties and troops followed and took out the VC.

Kerry’s crew members who were there that day do not agree with Elliott’s characterization of the event in his 2004 affidavits. They contend that the enemy soldier, although wounded, was still a threat. For example, one of them, Fred Short said, "The guy was getting ready to stand up with a rocket on his shoulder, coming up. And Mr. Kerry took him out ... he would have been about a 30-yard shot. ... [T]here's no way he could miss us." [43] Del Sandusky, Kerry’s second in command, described the consequences to the lightly armored Swift boat: "Charlie would have lit us up like a Roman candle because we're full of fuel, we're full of ammunition." [44] Another witness stated that the VC "had an entry wound at the side of his chest and exit wound at the opposite side of the chest cavity, a wound that was consistent with reports of the man turning to fire a second B-40 rocket."[Gibson interview, Springfield Republican, September 5, 2004]

The only member of SBVT who was present that day, Larry Clayton Lee, has stated he believes Kerry earned the Silver Star. [45].

Another eyewitness, William Rood, now a Chicago Tribune editor, recently gave an account that supports Kerry's version of the events of that day. Rood was commander of PCF-23, which was one of the two Swift boats that accompanied Kerry's PCF-94.

Rood discounted several specific charges made by SBVT about the incident. In his (second-hand) book account, O'Neill implied that Kerry chased down a lone "teenager in a loincloth clutching a grenade launcher which may or may not have been loaded," without coming under enemy fire himself. In contrast, Rood stated that there were multiple attackers, there was heavy hostile fire, and the guerrilla Kerry shot was "a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the Viet Cong usually wore" armed with a "loaded B-40 rocket launcher". Also, O'Neill called Kerry's tactic of charging the beach "stupidity, not courage." Similarly, Hoffman characterized Kerry's actions as reckless and impulsive. However, Rood stated that Kerry's tactic of charging the beach was discussed and mutually agreed with the other Swift boat commanders beforehand. He also notes that, at the time, Hoffman praised all three Swift boat commanders and called the tactics developed "a shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that they "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers." [46] [47] O'Neill responded that Rood's criticism was "extremely unfair" and stated that Rood's account of events is not substantially different from what appeared in his book Unfit for Command, for which Rood had declined an interview. [48] However, despite this protestation, O'Neill's account in the book is in fact substantially different from Rood's and all of the U.S. Navy documentation for the mission and the medals produced in Vietnam at the time. [49] [50] Moreover, contrary to O'Neill's claim, the American eyewitnesses to the second sweep, including SBVT member Larry Clayton Lee, have stated that there were multiple VC at the scene of the second sweep ("Tour of Duty," p.292); ("John F. Kerry, the Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best," p.102);[51];

The accounts of Vietnamese witnesses are consistent on several points with Rood's. Ba Thanh, the guerrilla killed while carrying the B-40 rocket launcher, was "big and strong" and in his late 20's. Return fire was also intense, according to Vo Van Tam, who was then a local Viet Cong commander: "I led Ba Thanh's comrades, the whole unit, to fight back. And we ran around the back and fought the Americans from behind. We worked with the city soldiers to fire on the American boats." No Vietnamese witnesses saw how Thanh died or saw him being chased by an American. [52]

No individual who was present that day has disputed Kerry's version of events, nor suggested that he did not earn the Silver Star.

O'Neill states that the Silver Star was awarded after only two days, "with no review" ("Unfit For Command," p. 81). However, the medal was awarded on March 6, six days after the action, and Hoffmann and Lonsdale stated in 1996 that all proper review procedures were followed.

Commenting on the Silver Star issue, Republican Sen. John Warner, who was Under Secretary of the Navy at the time, stated "We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal, a very high one, when it goes through the secretary...I'd stand by the process that awarded that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition." [53] Elmo Zumwalt, Commander of the United States Naval Forces in Vietnam at that time, signed Kerry's original Silver Star citation and defended the award in 1996, saying "It is a disgrace to the United States Navy that there's any inference that the [medal] process was anything other than totally honest." Boston Herald, October 28, 1996.

[Nickdfresh]

Here's an article on "The Surge," from those splineless liberals at the.... Defense Intelligence Agency?


http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1228928#post1228928

[Warham]

Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
Well, that's my point.

A Vietnam vet has every right to voice his opinion, one way or another.

It's so convenient for the Repuklicans to overlook American atrocities in Iraq and yet hammer away at Kerry for his views after experiencing the bullshit of the Vietnam war firsthand.

Especially considering their hero president is a coward and draft dodger vis-a-vis his daddy keeping him away from the dangers of Vietnam.


But that's the status quo of Bushco and every scumbag who supports them.

Dude, Bush isn't our 'hero' president. Stop painting with such a large brush. Should I make cracks about you being Canadian, and not knowing what the fuck you are talking about?

You don't know me, and haven't posted here long enough to make those kind of judgements.

I don't overlook atrocities in Iraq, but I also don't like the tactics of people like Dick Durbin who compare our troops to Nazis, etc. That's uncalled for.

And if you want to know who my hero president is, it's Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. Those are my 'hero' presidents.

[Warham]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Wrong. Everyone may be amused by - but no one loves -the village idiot.

They didn't attack his service? Nice convenient short term memory.


Settle down there, AP.

I wrote this previously in the thread.

"I don't think the Swiftboaters were attacking his service, they were attacking what he said to Congress in 1971, unless I'm mistaken. Correct me, if so."

I was corrected, and that's that. Kerry got his purple hearts, and he deserved them. End of story.

Now back to hating on WAR. :)

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by WAR
Settle down there, AP.

I wrote this previously in the thread.

"I don't think the Swiftboaters were attacking his service, they were attacking what he said to Congress in 1971, unless I'm mistaken. Correct me, if so."

I was corrected, and that's that. Kerry got his purple hearts, and he deserved them. End of story.

Now back to hating on WAR. :)

But why should we have to spend time correcting you? EVERY damn post from you has some distortion or fabrication!!!

And that's not "that". You admit you were corrected, now the appropriate thing to do is apologize for wasting my time by having to educate you about things you already know full well about (I bet if I went through your back-posts, I would find something from around October of 2004 where you attack Kerry's service, or at the least where you back up your airport bathroom stall buddy BBB for his inanities).

Apologize, bitch!!!

[Warham]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
But why should we have to spend time correcting you? EVERY damn post from you has some distortion or fabrication!!!


Incorrect!

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by WAR
Incorrect!

See? A *BLATANT* lie right there!

[Nitro Express]

Originally posted by WAR
So are you saying Petraeus is lying?

He denied all these allegations yesterday, by the way.

No Petraeus was frightfully honest when he said he had no idea that the current opperations and the surge would have any positive impact on Iraq. Could you imagine General Eisenhower sending all those soldiers to their deaths on D-Day and going, oh I have no idea how it's going to impact the war, I really haven't given it that much thought.

What a crock. Nobody knows why we are over there except Bush's Bilderberg backers who want to destroy the United States, the US Dollar, and the US Military and put the ruins under their control and make Europe the leader again.

The biggest obsticle in the way of a global govt. was the United States. Well, they are doing a number on us now. It's so obviouse. They want those middle east oil fields before China gets them.

[Nitro Express]

Ever wonder why our military doesn't use US made small arms but European made ones. Yup, Fabrique National and HK are huge companies with Bilderberg ties. These people like war. They sell lots of guns and bullets.

Of course the US small arms industry sees none. Hell, we can't even supply our own military with ammo without Israeli Military Industries making some of it for us. What a fucking crock. The US is just a shell of it's former self.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
The biggest obsticle in the way of a global govt. was the United States. Well, they are doing a number on us now. It's so obviouse. They want those middle east oil fields before China gets them.

I'd be lying if I said that sometimes the current politics of the day don't keep me from looking at the bigger picture. I debate politics much out of my personal conservative beliefs, not a love for the Republican party, per se. They just are the lesser of two evils for me, currently, but as I say, both parties are evil.

Many politicians are beholden to special interest groups and the almighty buck and really don't care for their constituency. That's why the buck gets passed on to the next guy when they start collecting that fat pension.

You are right. The US is going down a slippery slope and it's only a matter of time before our sovereignty is destroyed and we become a part of the world machine. It might not be in our lifetime, but it'll come. If the US doesn't, I suspect that it'll be severely crippled at some time in the future, and will cease to be the lone world superpower.

Now you know why I hate the United Nations.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
You admit you were corrected, now the appropriate thing to do is apologize for wasting my time by having to educate you about things you already know full well about

I actually laughed out loud. That was fuckin funny. Maybe the funniest thing I ever read here that wasn't posted by dickface mcslapnuts.

I think pig changed his name to make it harder for new posters to search for his nonsense in the past. this is logical considering his apparent shame at the nonsense he used to post.

on to relevant issues:




Not far away from Barzan's new home are other houses, some with singe marks on doors and windows, properties of Shia who had been terrorised and driven out the other way. The walls being put up by US contractors at a record speed are formalising this break-up of Baghdad along sectarian lines. Militias rule the roost in the newly created ghettos; armed young men with sunglasses manning checkpoints, collecting levies from passing traffic, and meting out their own justice to victims who would never make the calculations on the effects of the surge.

This is looking exacly like India when they kicked out all the muslims to make pakistan. we all know where that went. Let's see how many people died during the mass exodus:


The partition of India left both India and Pakistan devastated. The process of partition had claimed many lives in the riots. Many others were raped and looted. Women, especially, were used as instruments of power by the Hindus and the Muslims; "ghost trains" full of severed breasts of women would arrive in each of the newly-born countries from across the borders.

15 million refugees poured across the borders to regions completely foreign to them, for though they were Hindu or Muslim, their identity had been embedded in the regions where there ancestors were from. Not only was the country divided, but so were the provinces of Punjab and Bengal, divisions which caused catastrophic riots and claimed the lives of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs alike.

Many years after the partition, the two nations are still trying to heal the wounds left behind by this incision to once-whole body of India. Many are still in search of an identity and a history left behind beyond an impenetrable boundary. The two countries started of with ruined economies and lands and without an established, experienced system of government. They lost many of their most dynamic leaders, such as Gandhi, Jinnah and Allama Iqbal, soon after the partition. Pakistan had to face the separation of Bangladesh in 1971. India and Pakistan have been to war twice since the partition and they are still deadlocked over the issue of possession of Kashmir. The same issues of boundaries and divisions, Hindu and Muslim majorities and differences, still persist in Kashmir.
http://english.emory.edu/Bahri/Part.html


I was looking for body counts but I gave up after a couple tries. You get the picture.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I think pig changed his name to make it harder for new posters to search for his nonsense in the past. this is logical considering his apparent shame at the nonsense he used to post.


Interesting theory, but total rubbish.

People can easily search out what I've said in the past, and I stand by all the comments I've made here since April, 2004.I have no shame about what I've posted. Jaded, yes, shamed, no. I even put a clue in my signature as to my somewhat modified name. I'm not hiding. I changed it for reasons I won't discuss.

And remember, the person who made that post you laughed at like a hyena used to post here under a total different name.

Irony?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by WAR
And remember, the person who made that post you laughed at like a hyena used to post here under a total different name.

Irony?

no

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by WAR
Interesting theory, but total rubbish.

People can easily search out what I've said in the past, and I stand by all the comments I've made here since April, 2004.

Like when you said george allen was a lock for the repubs in 08? Come on man.

BTW I do feel a twinge of guilt for being so mean to you, but you just keep setting me off. You're like a nice dog who keeps shitting everywhere.

[Nitro Express]

Originally posted by WAR
I'd be lying if I said that sometimes the current politics of the day don't keep me from looking at the bigger picture. I debate politics much out of my personal conservative beliefs, not a love for the Republican party, per se. They just are the lesser of two evils for me, currently, but as I say, both parties are evil.

Many politicians are beholden to special interest groups and the almighty buck and really don't care for their constituency. That's why the buck gets passed on to the next guy when they start collecting that fat pension.

You are right. The US is going down a slippery slope and it's only a matter of time before our sovereignty is destroyed and we become a part of the world machine. It might not be in our lifetime, but it'll come. If the US doesn't, I suspect that it'll be severely crippled at some time in the future, and will cease to be the lone world superpower.

Now you know why I hate the United Nations.

What's frustrating is nobody can touch the US without our consent. Right now we are bent over screaming fuck me!

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Like when you said george allen was a lock for the repubs in 08? Come on man.

BTW I do feel a twinge of guilt for being so mean to you, but you just keep setting me off. You're like a nice dog who keeps shitting everywhere.

I never said Allen was a lock. I said I liked the guy and hoped he'd do well. I still do! He made an error in judgement after a guy egged him on. I know I could never be in public office, I'd be too non-PC.

But to say he was a 'lock' before I knew the competition. I don't think I said that.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
no

yes it is!

Or maybe you don't really know...

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by WAR
I never said Allen was a lock. I said I liked the guy and hoped he'd do well. I still do! He made an error in judgement after a guy egged him on. I know I could never be in public office, I'd be too non-PC.

But to say he was a 'lock' before I knew the competition. I don't think I said that.

Christmas, every time I don't go back and quote you I hear this shit. I was too lazy to search for your exact words. fucking sue me.


It's ok to admit you're wrong. I'm wrong sometimes too. I honestly thought I'd be part of a big cloud of atoms now thanks to gw&friends. See, I was wrong. It's not that hard.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Christmas, every time I don't go back and quote you I hear this shit. I was too lazy to search for your exact words. fucking sue me.


It's ok to admit you're wrong. I'm wrong sometimes too. I honestly thought I'd be part of a big cloud of atoms now thanks to gw&friends. See, I was wrong. It's not that hard.

When did I ever say I wasn't wrong about things? I mean, I said George Allen had a good shot in '08. That backfired! I was wrong about Congress keeping control in '06. I was wrong if I ever said Bush would handle the immigration situation, but he's been an absolute failure...

I'm getting depressed.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by WAR
Bush ... he's been an absolute failure...

I'm getting depressed.

Welcome to my world.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by WAR
I never said Allen was a lock. I said I liked the guy and hoped he'd do well. I still do! He made an error in judgement after a guy egged him on. I know I could never be in public office, I'd be too non-PC.

But to say he was a 'lock' before I knew the competition. I don't think I said that.



Originally posted by WAR
yes it is!

Or maybe you don't really know...



Originally posted by WAR
When did I ever say I wasn't wrong about things? I mean, I said George Allen had a good shot in '08. That backfired! I was wrong about Congress keeping control in '06. I was wrong if I ever said Bush would handle the immigration situation, but he's been an absolute failure...

I'm getting depressed.

Lies!!! All blatant lies!!!