Two Stories Tell the Tale

97silverlsc

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
953
Reaction score
0
Location
High Bridge, NJ
Two Stories Tell the Tale
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070606A.shtml
Thursday 06 July 2006

Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a central front on that war.
- George W. Bush, statement from Baghdad, 6/13/06

Two different stories boiled over in the last few days, each of which tells us too many sorry things about where we are as a nation. North Korea flopped several missiles into the Sea of Japan, including one that could reportedly reach the West Coast of the United States, and a discharged American soldier has been accused of raping an Iraqi teenager and shooting her and three members of her family.

The missiles in North Korea are of fundamental importance to both American national security, and the security of the Pacific region. In an irony of global proportions, the rogue government of North Korea declared to the United States and the world that it possessed nuclear weapons on April 24, 2003. This was, of course, a little more than a month after the Bush administration initiated the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Three years later, we are still mired in the bloodbath of Iraq, having found no weapons of mass destruction and having failed to establish anything even remotely resembling a democracy. A nation that was no threat to US security was smashed to flinders, and has since bloomed into a real and growing national security threat.

The influential journal Foreign Affairs recently polled 100 leading foreign policy experts on the efficacy of the so-called "War on Terror," and 86 of them declared the thing to be a comprehensive failure. We are far less safe now, they reported, thanks largely to what we have done in Iraq. "When you strip away the politics, the experts, almost to a person, are very worried about the administration," said Joe Cirincione, vice-president of the Center for American Progress. "They think none of our front-line institutions is doing a good job and that Iraq has made the terror situation much worse."

That threat was outlined in a recent diplomatic cable from the US embassy in Baghdad that describes the daily situation on the streets of Iraq. According to the cable, neighborhoods are dominated by self-appointed "governments" who barricade streets to keep outsiders away. Ethnic cleansing is taking place on a daily basis in every province. Gas lines last all day, and electricity is unavailable for hours at a time. Iraqi civilians working for the embassy must hide their employment or face abduction and death. The notion that the Iraqi central government exercises any control whatsoever is dismissed as laughable.

Yet here is North Korea flinging missiles into the ether after having openly admitted to possessing nuclear weapons. The fact that these missiles failed is no salve, for that failure will be used by their engineers to diagnose and fix the problems that brought the missiles down. The Bush administration expended blood and treasure to crush a country that had no ability to harm us, and sat idly by while a genuine threat sharpened its claws. Worse, this administration even now touts Iraq as the "central front" of their failed terror war.

This is not to say that the administration should have attempted an invasion and occupation of North Korea instead of Iraq. China, Russia, Japan and Pacific Rim geopolitics in general make such an invasion somewhat sticky. More important, of course, are North Korea's conventional warfare capabilities. Any kind of invasion or attack would have been riddled with danger and the potential for broadening complications.

Maybe, just maybe, a decision to avoid the invasion and occupation of Iraq would not have weakened American prestige on the international stage. Maybe the Bush administration's decision to give the international community the back of its hands would have helped us negotiate with the teeth-grinders running North Korea. Maybe our ability to telegraph a threat, something central to any negotiating stance and specifically important when dealing with a rogue state, would be far superior today had we not denuded our armed forces and treasury by getting bogged down in a useless Iraqi excursion.

The story surrounding the rape and slaughter of the Iraqi teenager and her family is, perhaps, even more damaging and dangerous than the North Korean situation. According to reports, Steven D. Green and several other soldiers got boozed up before breaking into the home of a family in Mahmudiayh, some 20 miles outside Baghdad. They shot three family members to death with an AK-47, raped the young woman, and then killed her as well. Their blood-spattered clothes were later burned to dispose of evidence.

News reports of the incident describe Green has having a "personality disorder," which may have motivated his actions, but nothing is said of the other soldiers involved having similar disorders. They picked this young Iraqi woman out, raped her, and butchered her and her family. This is one of five incidents currently under investigation involving American soldiers killing Iraqi civilians, the most notorious being the massacre in Haditha of 24 Iraqis.

The soldiers we have deployed over there are beginning to snap. They are trapped in an environment with no clear enemy to fight, but where their comrades are killed every day. Their mission has nothing to do with democracy or weapons of mass destruction, and they know it. All too often, they are killed on patrols between northern Iraq and Baghdad while guarding the convoys that run to and from the petroleum facilities. They go home and are sent back, and go home and are sent back.

The strain is on every soldier over there, and some of them are going insane from the pressure. Those who do not explode in a frenzy of indiscriminate violence suffer nonetheless, and must now endure the moral stain brought upon them by those fellow soldiers for whom the pressure is too much. Many vow to get out of the service once their time is up. Experienced non-commissioned officers - the backbone of any effective military - are walking away in record numbers. The threat posed to the basic fabric of our armed forces by Iraq is manifest and growing.

Delineating gradations of "horrifying" becomes a subjective task after a time, because after a certain level of disgust is reached and then surpassed, everything melds into indiscriminate shades of darkness. We invaded Iraq under false premises, killed tens and tens of thousands of innocent civilians, lost more than two thousand soldiers in the effort, ravaged the infrastructure, destroyed the economy, stole the oil, shattered any semblance of social order, unleashed a slow-burning civil war, and have attempted to paint the whole thing over with a veneer of democracy.

Our ability to deal with international threats has suffered, and our soldiers in Iraq are showing undeniable signs of cracking. We have been whistling past the graveyard in North Korea, and making a graveyard out of Iraq, and the world is a far more dangerous place today because of it.

BINGO!!!
 
-yawn-

That article sucked. It distorted history and it drew conclussions that anyone with any background in international politics would identify as completely incorrect.

Do us all a favor, instead of posting total crap from "truthout," just post crap from the NY Times. They have to at least pretend to be journalists over there.
 
Phil's still having a bhong party over Karl Rove's indictment as reported by truthout.org.
 
Predictably, when they can't debate an issue, they take aim at the poster and the source.
LAME
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Predictably, when they can't debate an issue, they take aim at the poster and the source.
LAME

Don't be a fool. That article's nothing but an op-ed full of baloney, published by a FULLY discredited website.

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/truthout-admits-it-lied-about-rove-indictment

From Salon:

Jason Leopold, Truthout story, May 12, 2006: "Karl Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, within the last week that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to people knowledgeable about these discussions."

Jason Leopold, Truthout story, May 13, 2006: "Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald ... [has] served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning."

Marc Ash, editor's note, May 15, 2006: "What everyone is asking right now is how accurate is the story? Has Rove in fact been indicted? The story is accurate, and Karl Rove's attorneys have been served with an indictment."

Jason Leopold, radio appearance, May 16, 2006: "What's kind of troubling here, is being accused of just making up a story. I mean, what would I be doing that for? ... We believe that this is a solid story, and we went with it."

Marc Ash, editor's note, May 18, 2006: "For the past few days, we have endured non-stop attacks on our credibility, and we have fought hard to defend our reputation ... While we had only our own sources to work with in the beginning, additional sources have now come forward and offered corroboration to us."

Marc Ash, editor's note, May 19, 2006: "The time has now come ... to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it."

Marc Ash, interview, May 20, 2006: "We're not in a position to continue on without an official confirmation. Unless we get some official confirmation, we're going to look stupider and stupider."


Marc Ash, editor's note, May 25, 2006: "We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13 ... We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed."

Marc Ash, editor's note, June 3, 2006: "We stand by the story. TO's staff is treating this story as our highest priority and will be following up with additional information as it becomes available."

Jason Leopold, Truthout story, June 12, 2006: "Four weeks ago, during the time when we reported that White House political adviser Karl Rove was indicted for crimes related to his role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, the grand jury empanelled in the case returned an indictment that was filed under seal in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under the curious heading of 'Sealed vs. Sealed.'"

Marc Ash, editor's note, June 12, 2006: "We believe that federal criminal indictment '06 cr 128' ('Sealed vs. Sealed') is directly related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation ... We believe that Karl Rove is cooperating with federal investigators, and for that reason Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is not willing to comment on his status."

Marc Ash, e-mail message, June 12, 2006: "We are comfortable with what we've published. We're going to let her ride."

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/comments/2006/6/13/104836/605/25

Rove Will Not Be Charged In CIA Leak Case, Lawyer Says

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 14, 2006; Page A01

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove will not be indicted in the CIA leak investigation, his attorney announced yesterday, a decision that signals that a special prosecutor's probe is unlikely to threaten any other Bush administration officials.

Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald told Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, in a short letter delivered Monday afternoon that he "does not anticipate seeking charges" against Rove in the case, Luskin said. Rove was told about 4 p.m. while aboard a Southwest Airlines flight en route to a campaign speech in New Hampshire, but he waited until early yesterday morning to publicly reveal the news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061300267.html

*owned*
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Predictably, when they can't debate an issue, they take aim at the poster and the source.
LAME

Are you kidding me? When you have no argument, you post one of these ridiculous op-eds based on fiction. It's not possible to resond to a long-winded liberal fantasy rants.

It's not possible to succinctly address all of the lies, mistruths, halftruths, and incorrect assertions. And by failing to address on of the problems, you're essentially tacetly endorsing it.

Anytime you post something of substance, you'll certainly find it directly responded to, and debunked. But not when you post crap like that.

Our ability to deal with international threats has suffered, and our soldiers in Iraq are showing undeniable signs of cracking. We have been whistling past the graveyard in North Korea, and making a graveyard out of Iraq, and the world is a far more dangerous place today because of it.
The conclusion is false, and the author misrepresented the truth, lied, and employed terribly flawed logic and judgement in order to come to that conclusion.
 
I'm upset that 97Silverlsc didn't make a wittier thread title, he could have made it in Dickens fashion with what he had to play with... i.e.. 'A Tale Of Two Stories' :rolleyes:
 
95DevilleNS said:
I'm upset that 97Silverlsc didn't make a wittier thread title, he could have made it in Dickens fashion with what he had to play with... i.e.. 'A Tale Of Two Stories' :rolleyes:

Well, if you're going to post fiction, at least make it interesting. :rolleyes:
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top