Beijing - The recent spectacular transit of Venus across the face of the sun may lead to disastrous flooding along Chinaâs Yellow River, a leading charlatan scientist warned in the local media on Sunday. While millions were marvelling at the celestial show earlier this month, Geng Guoqing, an expert on tabloid pseudo-science natural calamities, was more worried about the consequences for Chinaâs second-longest river, the Xinhua news agency reported. He compared historical records reaching 2,187 years back and found a clear correllation between Venus transits and serious floods along the riverâs middle and lower reaches, according to the agency. The reason could be that Venus blocks part of the sunâs radiation that should have been transmitted to Earth, said Guo, a janitor researcher at the Special Committee on Natural Calamities Forecasting under the China Geophysics Society. This causes climatic disturbances across the globe, he argued. "Outbreaks of woo-woo idiocy" would be more like it.
As the flood season approaches, officials along banks of the 5 464km Yellow River are not taking any chances of a trip to the Gulag. Four silt-stirring vessels started a 24-day operation on Saturday morning to remove tons of silt from the river, in one of many efforts to prevent flood waters rising, Xinhua said in a separate report. As they have every year for decades, transit or not.
Torrential rains and flooding were responsible for nearly 2 000 deaths in China in the first nine months of last year. The wardens of the Peopleâs Prison would undoubtedly like to dodge some of the blame for these various disasters, so naturally Gengâs fantasy would clear censorship. As for the idea itself, Venus is 1/30th the apparent diameter of the Sun. Its apparent area is therefore 1/30^2, or 1/900th that of the Sun. It blocked 1/900th of the Sunâs light for all of 6 hours.
To be fair I know grad students and even professors who would probably buy into this. Several of them have told me that they think satellites affect the climate by blocking sunlight, and a fair number were completely taken in by Fox TVâs Loathesome Moon Hoax Show a couple of years ago.
#2
..Ya know, the other possibility is that they just discovered that Three Gorges is gonna go, and they're going to blame Venus...
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/20/2004 16:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Mike, you may be on to something.
Or, they just may be nuts.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/20/2004 17:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Nuts" for $25, Alex!
Posted by: Fred ||
06/20/2004 18:33 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Atomic Conspiracy: Professors of WHAT?
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
06/20/2004 21:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Transit of Venus may cause flooding, sez Chinese quack scientist
The reason could be that Venus blocks part of the sunâs radiation that should have been transmitted to Earth, said Guo, a janitor researcher at the Special Committee on Natural Calamities Forecasting under the China Geophysics Society. This causes climatic disturbances across the globe, he argued.
Permit me to suggest that the only "flooding" to occur will be at Internet sites like this one.
Let's cut to the chase, shall we?
Do more substantial total solar eclipses by the moon cause any sort of similar effects?
Thought so. Any questions?
The Venereal influences this moron "scientist" cites are more likely of syphillitic rather than planetary origin.
#7
The usual, Phil; poli-sci, anthropology,"human services", modern literature, "multicultural studies." The biggest crank, unfortunately, is a professor of anatomy (yikes!). I haven't determined whether he touts the benefits of leech therapy, but I will find out.
The Dubai Court yesterday sentenced an American citizen to two-month imprisonment to be followed by deportation for insulting a policeman on duty. The case dates back to April 8, 2003, when the policeman, who was carrying out his duties in the departure hall at Dubai International Airport, asked the 29-year-old Steven to open the suitcase he was carrying. The suitcase contained several mobile phones and computers whereby he was asked to present the relevant documents verifying his ownership of the items. Steven said he had no such documents and began insulting the policeman.
An Israeli newspaper said on Sunday, June 20, that Tel Aviv has been holding "advanced talks" with officials from the United Arab Emirates to open a liaison office in the country, a matter immediately dismissed by a UAE source as an "Israeli propaganda". Quoting diplomatic sources, Haaretz said Israeli officials have for months been holding talks with UAE representatives on opening a quasi-diplomatic office in the capital Abu Dhabi to represent Israeli interests. The office would not be a full diplomatic representation, but rather a center similar to the one already existing in Qatar, said the Israeli daily. According to the Israeli sources, Abu Dhabi will agree to "a quiet presence of Israeli diplomats on site who would officially be the representatives of a foreign company." Israeli army radio said that negotiations involving lawyers were already at an advanced stage and were now concentrating on issues such as security and location Israel may dispatch a special envoy with a message from Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom to update the UAE leadership on its controversial disengagement plan. An Emirati source knocked down the story as "Israeli propaganda". Whether itâs true or not. They donât want to be swarmed by indignant wahhabis...
"Israel is trying to gain some assets for the so-called Gaza separation plan," the source, who asked not to be named, told Agence France-Presse. Last September, the Israeli flag for the first time ever flapped over the Dubai-based International Convention Center as the emirate hosted the annual joint meeting of the World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Gulf state has been at pains to stress that Israel attended the meeting at the invitation of the World Bank and IMF, not the UAE government.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/20/2004 10:32:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
(This act by the Crown is long over due to Sir Wiesenthal.)
Britain has awarded an honorary knighthood to Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal in recognition of a "lifetime of service to humanity," the British Foreign Office said. Wiesenthal, 95, survived incarceration in Nazi prison camps in eastern Europe during World War II and has since dedicated his life to bringing those responsible for the Holocaust to justice. He is perhaps best known for his role in tracking Adolf Eichmann, the one-time SS leader. Eichmann was found in Argentina, abducted by Israeli agents in 1960, tried and hanged for crimes committed against the Jews. The knighthood, awarded Friday, also recognized the work of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, which was founded in 1977 to promote remembrance of the Holocaust and the defense of human rights. Because he is not a British citizen, Wiesenthal cannot use "Sir" in front of his name, but he can put the letters KBE after his name. The initials stand for Knight Commander of the British Empire. On the Net: Simon Wiesenthal Center: http://www.wiesenthal.com
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/20/2004 11:42:07 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
A freak tornado killed at least three people, injured 14 others and caused widespread damage in a small town near the Turkish capital, Ankara, today, local media reported. Television showed damaged buildings, uprooted trees and overturned vehicles in Cubuk, which is about 30 miles north of Ankara. Two young children were among the dead. "It was like a bomb had exploded outside. We had only seen tornadoes in films," the Anatolian state news agency quoted one witness as saying. Tornadoes are very rare in Turkey, though much of the country suffered summer storms today and parts of Istanbul witnessed heavy flooding. Authorities sent emergency aid including tents and blankets to the town.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/20/2004 12:37:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
parts of Istanbul witnessed heavy flooding.
This never happened when the Romans were incharge.
Posted by: Charles ||
06/20/2004 1:29 Comments ||
Top||
Itâs Ok this time, though, since itâs not Bushitler/Ashkkkroft or the CIA, but everyoneâs favorite fifth columnist, Lumpy Riefenstahl himself. Moore warns of swing to the right; Harper would `like this to be 51st Stateâ Is "strawman" morally equivalent to "blubber-boy"?
Strawman, Fat Man, what's the diff?
Filmmaker hopes his movie sways vote And the Starâs collective lips donât even fall off when they say this. A clue, Star-niks: heâs a friggin FOREIGNER.
PETER HOWELL
MOVIE COMMISSAR CRITIC
Firebrand arsonist and filmmaker Michael Moore hopes his controversial new work Fahrenheit 9/11 will help stop Conservative Leader Stephen Harper from becoming Prime Minister, along with throwing U.S. President George W. Bush out of office. Delusions of grandeur perhaps?
Moore came to Toronto last night for the Canadian premiere of his Palme dâOr-winning film, which opens in theatres June 25 and which scorches the truth Bush administration for its handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that followed them. Heâs still pissed that people other than Bush supporters were killed.
And he brought with him a warning that if Canadians swing to the right by electing Harper on June 28, as polls suggest might happen, then dire consequences will follow.
Oh, horror! Dire consequencesâ¢! The dreaded knock on the door at night comes to Canada!
[Knock knock!]
"Yes?"
"It's the RCMP, Ma'am! Open up!"
"Wha..?"
"Your car's parked in front of a fire plug! You'll have to move it!"
How would the Canadian left respond to a Republican busy-body issuing such a threat?
"I canât believe that you guys would think about going in that direction, when weâre trying to get out of that direction," Moore told the Star, shortly before heading to the Varsity Cinemas to make a red-carpet arrival at the screening. Breathtakingly stupid generalization, presumption of clarivoyance and presumption of authority. Moore is not the arbiter of what Candadians want, he is certainly not the arbiter of what Americans think, and this "we" for whom he makes these pronouncements is simply his own devoted little corps of pop-culture conformist slaves.
"I hope this doesnât happen. Bush is going to throw a party (after the Canadian election). Heâs going to be a happy man. (Harper) has a big pair of scissors in his hand. He wants to snip away at your social safety net. Heâd like this to be the 51st State."
Gasp! The 51st state! Toronto would become indistinguishable from... uhhh... Montpelior. Or maybe Seattle, without as much rain... Or... ummm... Milwaukee, only with better beer... Or Toledo, without... mmmm... whatever the hell it is Toledo has.
But even those weren't as close as his ties to the al-Khadr family...
Moore has become much more serious about his political views, so much so that Disney attempted to stop its subsidiary Miramax Films from releasing Fahrenheit 9/11, for fear of upsetting Bush supporters. ... and anyone else who gives a ratâs ass about not inciting the terrorists with Goebbels-inspired appeasement propaganda. I am a Democrat, twice elected to public office as such, and I hate the ground this fat charlatan defiles with his presence.
The surprise Palme dâOr win last month in Cannes helped Moore find other distributors, including Canadian collaborationists firms Alliance Atlantis and Lions Gate. Fahrenheit 9/11 has become one of the yearâs hottest properties. There have been reports Stateside of right-wing attempts to block or limit distribution of the film, and at least one death threat has been reported against an exhibitor. Remember, for totalitarians, criticism and disagreement=oppression and censorship, since they assume the right to be free of any dissent.
Despite all that, Fahrenheit 9/11 is still expected to roll out on hundreds of screens in North America on June 25. That includes 55 in Canada, but the Canadian tally will rise to 140 within two weeks. Moore said the distributors here originally thought of delaying the release of Fahrenheit 9/11 until after the Canadian federal election, to avoid influencing the outcome â even though the film makes almost no mention of Canada. Outraged audiences see lefty duplicity and Hollywood meddling for themselves and vote for Harper?
"And I said, no, no, no. Even if itâs just four days before the election, youâve got to get something out there to inspire people to do the right thing here. This movie should say to Canadians, you want to join the Coalition of the Willing? Get ready to send your kids over to die for nothing, so that Bushâs buddies can line their pockets." "or you can run up the white flag of dhimmitude so my Hollywood buddies and I can line our pockets."
Fahrenheit 9/11 is unrelenting in its criticism of Bush, beginning with his controversial victory over Democratic challenger Al Gore in the 2000 election, a vote that was finally decided by the Republican-dominated Supreme Court.
On appeal from the Dummycrat-dominated Florida Supreme Court...
The film makes powerful connections between the Bush family and with Saudi Arabian oil interests, including the family of Sept. 11 terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.
A "powerful" connection isn't quite the same thing as a "truthful" connection...
Fahrenheit 9/11 is also unstinting in its depiction of the brutality of war, showing grisly scenes of the Iraqi conflict not widely seen on U.S. TV, including the recent desecration of American bodies in Falluja. The Hate-America Cultâs foreign media outlets often pretend that Americans are shielded from news that is, in fact, widely available here. It is one of the favorite themes of their smug, arrogant, and monumentally transparent anti-American bigotry.
"I canât take it any more," Moore said. "Thatâs really the bottom line. I canât stand what Bush has done from the get-go." Neither can Osama bin Laden.
So commit seppukku or something. Or take the Marilyn Monroe way out...
#1
Why not? We've got a foreign millionaire billionaire meddling in our election.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/20/2004 17:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Barb, the term 'Hate cult' is correct.
When cults such as the various Muslim death cults (jihadees) threaten the general public safety, governments must take proper corrective action to protect the public.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/20/2004 18:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Wouldn't it be nice if Moore were exiled to Nunavit? I'm sure he could do a film comparing his blubber to that of whales and walruses.
#4
Careful there, Mike. Looks like your ego's getting to the point of no return. The only thing the media machine loves more then building a celebrity up, is ripping them to shreds on the way down. And you'll be a big, fat, sitting duck.
George W. Bush was on his way back to Washington from Macdill Air Force Base in Florida last Wednesday when aides told him the 9/11 commission had found no evidence that Iraq was involved in the fateful attacks on the U.S. But some media outlets were already portraying the commission as saying Iraq and al-Qaeda had never had ties of any kind â a position the White House disputes. "I hope you made our case," Bush told aides. The next morning the President was furious when he saw a New York Times headline saying NO QAEDA-IRAQ TIE. Immediately, White House staffers called officials at the CIA to see if the agency had updated its assessment of Saddam Husseinâs relationship with al-Qaeda; according to a senior White House official, CIA officials told Bush aides they still believed there were links. That gave Bush the green light, and later that day he went before cameras to declare that "the reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda" is "because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." By the end of the week, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice had also stepped before microphones to declare that they had nothing to apologize for.
When it comes to describing purported connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam, the Bush Administration sometimes sounds like a teenager carefully delineating the different shades of romance from "seeing other people" to "hanging out" to "hooking up." The Administration claimed this week that there was "no link" between Iraq and 9/11 and insisted it had never said there was one. But back in 2002 Bush stated that "you canât distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam in the war on terror." And when Bush declared war on Iraq last year, he sent a letter to Congress citing Iraqi involvement in 9/11 as one of the reasons for war. Democrats, who have lambasted Bushâs handling of the war, believe the holes in the Administrationâs claims provide an opportunity to exploit Bushâs credibility gap. John Kerry jumped on the report, saying Bush misled the country in making the case for war. The Democratic National Committee last week put out ads questioning Bushâs truthfulness.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/20/2004 4:41:26 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
...There was a photograph in The New York Post a few weeks ago of Bill Clinton and some other fellow entering a room. Seven-eighths of the picture was Clinton with a big broad smile and his arms outstretched, like a cheesy Vegas lounge act acknowledging the applause of the crowd before launching into his opening number ("I Get a Kick Out of Me"). The gaunt, cadaverous fellow wedged into the left-hand sliver of the photograph proved on closer inspection to be Senator John Kerry, looking like a gloomy, aged retainer trying to remind the big guy that heâs running late. In this case, four years late...
This month alone, Bill Clinton is promoting his doorstopper autobiography (My Lie - whoops, My Life), plus promoting a movie about himself (The Hunting of the President), as well as promoting his new album of celebrity duets with Celine Dion, Robbie Williams and many more, and promoting his new range of Clintagra male performance products which enable middle-aged men to maintain erection for two full terms. Okay, those last two arenât due until the autumn. But he did release a CD of a new, more sensitive version of Peter and the Wolf in which, instead of capturing the wolf and leading him away never to be heard of again, Peter realises the error of his lupophobia and releases the wolf back into the wild. Thatâs more or less what has happened to Clinton: instead of being confined to the obscurity of retirement, the wolf is back in the wild...
You prob'ly would prefer to not read this, if you are a Clinton fan...
#2
Sherry - IIUC... What's happened is that your RB cookie has been deleted - so the RB script that accepts article posts doesn't "know" who you are - and directs your article post to the "hold" queue. To keep from getting your article posts caught in the editor holding pen, post a comment on any item - this step stores the RB cookie on your machine. Then, you can post without getting hung up - it "knows" you. I believe this is a correct picture of whassup. Fred can edit if I'm wrong and he see this post. :-)
Leaders of the Sept. 11 commission said Sunday they do not regard differences with the Bush administration over the question of al-Qaidaâs relationship with Iraq under Saddam Hussein as a major point of contention. Saddamâs alleged link with terrorists was a central justification of the Bush administration for toppling the former Iraqi government. A commission staff report says that while there were contacts between Osama bin Ladenâs network and the Iraqi government, they did not appear to have produced a collaborative relationship. Al-Qaida had "a lot more active contacts" with Iran and Pakistan than it did with Iraq, but "we donât see serious conflicts" with the White House over the issue, said the commission chairman, former Republican Gov. Thomas Kean of New Jersey.
Vice President Dick Cheney has said Iraq responded to some of bin Ladenâs overtures for assistance. That led the commissionâs vice chairman, former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, to again ask that the vice president provide evidence. "We asked the vice president if he had information we did not have," said Hamilton, who appeared with Kean on ABCâs "This Week." Kean said, "Obviously, if there is some information, we need it." Hamilton said the White House and the commission agree on the central point: There is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq in the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. Hamilton said the commissionâs mandate does not extend to the Iraq war and Kean said the staff report containing the finding is an interim document the commission will consider in compiling its final report.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
06/20/2004 12:15:47 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Carl Levin (D-Fugue State) was just on CNN complaining that Cheney is arguing with the commission's findings as Dingell and teh NY times interprets them. Cheney and Bush need to continue to make things clear before the crap the Alphabets are making up from whole cloth becomes the conventional wisdom
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/20/2004 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
Brig Gen Janis Karpinski told the BBC she was being made a "convenient scapegoat" for abuse ordered by others. Top US commander for Iraq, Gen Ricardo Sanchez, should be asked what he knew about the abuse, she told BBC Radio 4âs On The Ropes programme. One soldier has been sentenced and six others are awaiting courts martial for abuses committed at Abu Ghraib jail. Gen Karpinski said more damaging information was likely to emerge at those trials. Gen. Karpinski, your remarks to the leftist press is doing itâs own damage. You should resign your commission. Now.
Gen Karpinski was in charge of the military police unit that ran Abu Ghraib and other prisons when the abuses were committed. She has been suspended but not charged. And that is far as it should go. Karpinskiâs crime was one of passivity in her command. A serious matter in a war zone.
Photographs showing naked Iraqi detainees being humiliated and maltreated first started to surface in April, sparking shock and anger across the world. I was neither shocked nor angered. I thought it hilarious what we saw was considered anything to get upset about. The brutal beheading of Americans should have sparked even more shock and anger, but not to the Beeb. We know which side they are on. And Gen. Karpinski. You are talking to the Beeb, arenât you.
Gen Karpinski said military intelligence took over part of the Abu Ghraib jail to "Gitmoize" their interrogations - make them more like what was happening in the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which is nicknamed "Gitmo". She said current Iraqi prisons chief Maj Gen Geoffrey Miller - who was in charge at Guantanamo Bay - visited her in Baghdad and said: "At Guantanamo Bay we learned that the prisoners have to earn every single thing that they have. He said they are like dogs and if you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog then youâve lost control of them." An insult to dogs everywhere.
He's right, in that if you once let them get the upper hand they'll keep it...
Gen Karpinski repeated that she knew nothing of the humiliation and torture of Iraq prisoners that was going on inside Abu Ghraib - she was made a scapegoat. But, elsewhere in this exchange you say you knew elements of your own command. Either you knew or you didnât, Gen. Karpinski. Or did you know before you didnât know?
Top commander Ricardo Sanchez must be asked serious questions about what he knew about the abuse and when, she said. Gen Sanchez said in May that he took a personal responsibility for the abuse by soldiers at Abu Ghraib jail. But he denied authorising interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation, stress positions or sensory deprivation. Last week, he asked to be excused from any role in reviewing the results of an investigation into the abuses. He requested that a higher-ranking general take on that task, Pentagon officials said. A US general who has investigated the abuse has blamed the soldiers - and found no evidence "of a policy or a direct order given to these soldiers to conduct what they did". Thatâs coz Gen. Karpinski was much more concerned about being a general in the US Army than actually being a general in the US Army.
But Gen Karpinski believes the soldiers had not taken the pictures of their own accord. You said you didnât know, Gen. Karpinski. Which is the lie?
"I know that the MP [military police] unit that these soldiers belonged to hadnât been in Abu Ghraib long enough to be so confident that one night or early morning they were going to take detainees out of their cells, pile them up and photograph themselves in various positions with these detainees." Which is it? Either you knew about what was going on or you didnât. Or did you just know enough about the possible tendencies of elements in your command to make this statement? And you failed to monitor them.
"How it happened or why those photographs came to the Criminal Investigation Divisionâs attention in January I think will probably come out very clearly at each individualâs court martial." No question it will come out, but not at trial and not publicly, Gen. Karpinski. You just screwed yourself as a military officer for the allies. Have a nice life. You shoulda shut up and let events take their course; sorta like what you did at Aby Ghraib.
#7
Badanov, you opine that Gen Karpinski should resign her commission because she was interviewed by the BBC. Does your rule apply to male military officers too, if they have been interviewed by BBC?
Do you, Badanov, think that the BBC is on the side of the terrorists who behead terrorists? Do you think that's why the BBC didn't ask Gen Karpinski to comment about the beheadings?
Do you think General Karpinski approves of the beheadings? Do you think that explains her failure to express shock and anger about the beheadings in her interview with the BBC?
Are you accusing General Karpinski of lying when she says she did not know about the humiliation incidents in the jail?
General Sanchez says he didn't know. Is General Sanchez lying too?
Donald Rumsfeld says he didn't know. Is Donald Rumsfeld lying too?
President Bush says he didn't know. Is President Bush lying too?
General Karpinski says she believes the soldiers had not taken pictures of their own accord. Do think she in fact does not believe this? Do you think she really believes something else?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 9:56 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Mike S has it backwards. The question is not about those above Karpy's pay grade, but those below. Weren't there any colonels, majors, captains or lieutenants, any grade, between Karpy and Graner? How come we never hear about them? She's responsible for the environment in which this occurred, whether she knew about the specific photo incidents or not, but so are they.
As to Bush and Rumsfeld, their bosses will conduct a regularly scheduled performance review this November.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
06/20/2004 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Weren't there any colonels, majors, captains or lieutenants, any grade, between Karpy and Graner? How come we never hear about them?
They're all males.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 11:10 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Badanov, you opine that Gen Karpinski should resign her commission because she was interviewed by the BBC.
Yes.
Does your rule apply to male military officers too, if they have been interviewed by BBC?
Do you really think this is all about gender? I have repeated this several times on this board and others and in other venues: this is about a General losing control of her command.
Nothing more.
A senior grade officer was so in the dark about goings on in her own command that she was relieved, thankfully, of that responsibility. Losing control of the troops means death not only to a commander's own unit, but also to other friendly units as well, as well as other components in a warzone, civilians, etc. It can be likened to a contagious disease.
None of the aforementioned people would have submitted to interviews of the BBC nor would they have spoken disparagingly about their comrades in arms.
And here's a hint: They didn't run Abu Ghraib.
Karpinski did.
Oh wait, Karpinski is a woman general, so the rules of conduct doesn't apply to her... Sorta like how she acted at Abu Ghraib. She shriked her responsibility and now you want us to believe it was because how she was equipped. It is eally sad you can be so stupid about a fundamental matter in military science.
For the umpteenth time: Karpinski lost control of her troops and was properly relieved of command. I think loss of her command in a warzone is about as bad as it gets. Being relieved of command is a career ending event, as it should be; so is giving an interview to a news organization that a disseminator of enemy propoganda.
Do you, Badanov, think that the BBC is on the side of the terrorists who behead terrorists?
Yes. The BBC are a known outlet for enemy propoganda.
Do you think that's why the BBC didn't ask Gen Karpinski to comment about the beheadings?
Huh?
Do you think General Karpinski approves of the beheadings?M/I>
** Re-reads my reply ** HUH??
Are you accusing General Karpinski of lying when she says she did not know about the humiliation incidents in the jail?
She said in her interview she knew some MPs in her unit long enough to know they didn't have much time to be confident enough to make photographs of the prisoners. She also said the MPs did not take pictures of their own accord. So, she is admitting she knew something, but this after subsequent media interniews in which she said she knew nothing.
General Sanchez says he didn't know. Is General Sanchez lying too?
General Sanchez wasn't running Abu Ghraib.
Donald Rumsfeld says he didn't know. Is Donald Rumsfeld lying too?
Rumsfeld wasn't running Abu Ghraib.
President Bush says he didn't know. Is President Bush lying too?
Bush wasn't running Abu Ghraib.
General Karpinski says she believes the soldiers had not taken pictures of their own accord. Do think she in fact does not believe this? Do you think she really believes something else?
When you to conduct an interview with a known outlet for enemy propoganda, is it hard to credit Karpinski's judgement. It appears Gen. Karpinski is maintaining the same professionalism after being relieved of command that she did before she was relieved. If I had any doounts as to this officer's incomptetence, they are gone after this little stunt.
Badanov, you opine that Gen Karpinski should resign her commission because she was interviewed by the BBC.
Yes.
Does your rule apply to male military officers too, if they have been interviewed by BBC?
Do you really think this is all about gender? I have repeated this several times on this board and others and in other venues: this is about a General losing control of her command.
Nothing more.
A senior grade officer was so in the dark about goings on in her own command that she was relieved, thankfully, of that responsibility. Losing control of the troops means death not only to a commander's own unit, but also to other friendly units as well, as well as other components in a warzone, civilians, etc. It can be likened to a contagious disease.
None of the aforementioned people would have submitted to interviews of the BBC nor would they have spoken disparagingly about their comrades in arms.
And here's a hint: They didn't run Abu Ghraib.
Karpinski did.
Oh wait, Karpinski is a woman general, so the rules of conduct doesn't apply to her... Sorta like how she acted at Abu Ghraib. She shriked her responsibility and now you want us to believe it was because how she was equipped. It is eally sad you can be so stupid about a fundamental matter in military science.
For the umpteenth time: Karpinski lost control of her troops and was properly relieved of command. I think loss of her command in a warzone is about as bad as it gets. Being relieved of command is a career ending event, as it should be; so is giving an interview to a news organization that a disseminator of enemy propoganda.
Do you, Badanov, think that the BBC is on the side of the terrorists who behead terrorists?
Yes. The BBC are a known outlet for enemy propoganda.
Do you think that's why the BBC didn't ask Gen Karpinski to comment about the beheadings?
Huh?
Do you think General Karpinski approves of the beheadings?
** Re-reads my reply ** HUH??
Are you accusing General Karpinski of lying when she says she did not know about the humiliation incidents in the jail?
She said in her interview she knew some MPs in her unit long enough to know they didn't have much time to be confident enough to make photographs of the prisoners. She also said the MPs did not take pictures of their own accord. So, she is admitting she knew something, but this after subsequent media interniews in which she said she knew nothing.
General Sanchez says he didn't know. Is General Sanchez lying too?
General Sanchez wasn't running Abu Ghraib.
Donald Rumsfeld says he didn't know. Is Donald Rumsfeld lying too?
Rumsfeld wasn't running Abu Ghraib.
President Bush says he didn't know. Is President Bush lying too?
Bush wasn't running Abu Ghraib.
General Karpinski says she believes the soldiers had not taken pictures of their own accord. Do think she in fact does not believe this? Do you think she really believes something else?
When you to conduct an interview with a known outlet for enemy propoganda, is it hard to credit Karpinski's judgement. It appears Gen. Karpinski is maintaining the same professionalism after being relieved of command that she did before she was relieved. If I had any doounts as to this officer's incomptetence, they are gone after this little stunt.
#12
Badanov, you have to realize -- Mike Sylwester has a serious problem regarding Abu Ghraib. He can't believe that Rumsfeld himself wasn't the one taking the pictures, so he latches on to every story -- no matter how poorly reported -- that tries to make it a bigger deal.
He's been caught deliberately leaving out pieces of stories that don't fit his fetish; he's at best blinded by his rage, at worst a purposeful liar.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/20/2004 11:33 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Do you, Badanov, think that the BBC is on the side of the terrorists who behead terrorists? Yes. The BBC are a known outlet for enemy propoganda.The brutal beheading of Americans should have sparked even more shock and anger, but not to the Beeb. We know which side they are on. And Gen. Karpinski.
So, I repeat my question: Do you think General Karpinski approves of the beheadings? Do you think that explains her failure to express shock and anger about the beheadings in her interview with the BBC?
General Sanchez wasn't running Abu Ghraib. Rumsfeld wasn't running Abu Ghraib. Bush wasn't running Abu Ghraib.
She says she wasn't running that cell block. She says the military intelligence unit was running that cell block.
When you to conduct an interview with a known outlet for enemy propoganda [BBC], is it hard to credit Karpinski's judgement.
I'm sure President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, Donald Rumsfeld, General Myers and many other officials have been interviewed by BBC. Do you credit their judgement?
Do you really think this is all about gender? I have repeated this several times on this board and others and in other venues: this is about a General losing control of her command. Nothing more.
On a scale of 1 to 100, Badanov, would you say that the reason for your hostility to General Kapinski being because she is a woman officer is closer to 100 or is closer to 90?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#14
On a scale of 1 to 100, Badanov, would you say that the reason for your hostility to General Kapinski being because she is a woman officer is closer to 100 or is closer to 90?
Wow, Mike. What a classic example of someone unable to handle the answer they're given, and instead substituting their own misperceptions.
Badanov's answer was clear: "I have repeated this several times on this board and others and in other venues: this is about a General losing control of her command. Nothing more."
What part of that didn't you comprehend? In what part of his answer did he mention Karpinski's gender? Why did you feel it necessary to, well, lie about his answer?
Is it because you believe Karpinski -- or, rather, want to believe her, because what she says supports your opinions -- and prefer to paint disbelief of her as coming from dark, sinister motives like sexism than to consider their objections rationally?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/20/2004 11:46 Comments ||
Top||
#15
My impression is that he's so hostile to Gen Karpinski 90% because she's a woman officer and 10% because she is on the side of the terrorists who behead Americans.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 11:53 Comments ||
Top||
#16
So, I repeat my question: Do you think General Karpinski approves of the beheadings?
Of course not.
Do you think that explains her failure to express shock and anger about the beheadings in her interview with the BBC?
I remarked she spoke with a leftist publication with disseminates enemy propoganda. I frankly care little for the prisoners, except I disaprove of the fact they are still breathing my air.
General Sanchez wasn't running Abu Ghraib. Rumsfeld wasn't running Abu Ghraib. Bush wasn't running Abu Ghraib. She says she wasn't running that cell block. She says the military intelligence unit was running that cell block
It was Karpinski's prison, and therefore Karpinski's problem. Everything that went on in that prison was her under her purview. Karpinski was clearly not up to the task, and she risked the lives of those under her command and of other friendly units.
When you to conduct an interview with a known outlet for enemy propoganda [BBC], is it hard to credit Karpinski's judgement. I'm sure President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, Donald Rumsfeld, General Myers and many other officials have been interviewed by BBC. Do you credit their judgement?
Yes I would if they said some event that took place in an area directly under their command was not their responsibility and said so to a known enemy propoganda outlet.
Do you really think this is all about gender? I have repeated this several times on this board and others and in other venues: this is about a General losing control of her command. Nothing more. On a scale of 1 to 100, Badanov, would you say that the reason for your hostility to General Kapinski being because she is a woman officer is closer to 100 or is closer to 90? .
Cute way to pose a question. Mike, do you masturbate in front of Abu Ghraib prison photos five times a day or is it closer to nine?
#17
Be patient, Robert. He's already admitted that he thinks BBC is on the side of terrorists who behead Americans. By the end of the day I'll get him to admit he hates Gen Karpinski because she's a woman officer.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 11:56 Comments ||
Top||
#18
My impression is that he's so hostile to Gen Karpinski 90% because she's a woman officer and 10% because she is on the side of the terrorists who behead Americans.
There's no evidence supporting your impression. He's stated his view clearly and succinctly, yet you continue to believe otherwise. Just as a reminder, here's what badanov said:
"I have repeated this several times on this board and others and in other venues: this is about a General losing control of her command. Nothing more."
Either start citing facts, or admit you're talking out your ass.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/20/2004 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Be patient, Robert. He's already admitted that he thinks BBC is on the side of terrorists who behead Americans.
A senior BBC correspondent in the Gaza Strip is reported to have told a Hamas gathering that journalists and media organizations are "waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people."
The alleged remarks, by BBC Arabic Service correspondent Faid Abu Shimalla, were reported on the Hamas Web site, which said they were made at "an impressive and well-attended ceremony" [in early May] to honor some 140 Palestinian, Arab, Islamic, and international journalists and attended by Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
At the ceremony, Hamas official Ismail Abu Shanab said journalists should be honored for "the special role they have played through their cameras, pens, and skills, as well as through their rare courage and daring which they have demonstrated by their joining the nation struggling fiercely against the enemy."
He praised their "accurate depiction of the terrorism employed by the Zionist enemy and its vile crimes, as well as the outstanding courageous portrayal of our children and martyrs."
Naw. Can't be that, right? No doubt you know badanov's mind better than he does.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/20/2004 12:02 Comments ||
Top||
#20
If Mike is right, Karpinski is being hung out to dry in order to protect male ass.
If he's not right, Karpinski clearly doesn't have the organizational management skills necessary to run a big operation--which is doubly damning since military is run so much differently than business (as in: "do as you're told, or else.")
I think OldSpook is completely right.
And who can argue against RC's post #19?
I think I should have been in charge of Abu Gharib. And I'm a woman. Anybody have a problem with that?
#21
Robert, do you think that senior correspondent Faid Abu Shimalla speaks for BBC? When Faid Abu Shimalla says something, then, in your opinion, that's BBC's position?
And therefore, do you say, if General Karpinski is interviewed by BBC, then that means she endorses BBC position and by extension endorses everything said by senior correspondent Faid Abu Shimalla?
Do you, Robert, extend your rule on this matter to other people who are interviewed by BBC? Do you say, for example, that Tony Blair by extension agrees with everything ever said by senior correspondent Faid Abu Shimalla?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#22
nice Strawman argumenting Mikey. Karpinski wanted all teh benefits of her position and none of the responsibilities. Man or woman, that person should shut the fuck up and quit whining. To continue to argue she's being punished for being a female officer demeans all the female's in the friggin world who do their job competently. You need to get a grip, cuz that moral high-horse you think you're on is an ass...
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/20/2004 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#23
You go, Frank!
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/20/2004 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
#24
I think I should have been in charge of Abu Gharib. And I'm a woman. Anybody have a problem with that?
If, as a military officer, you can follow orders, and you know and hold yourself and your command fundamental elements of military science: that you control and direct your own troops and take responsibility for everything that takes place in your area of responsibility; that protection of command, yet another vital element in military science, is paramount (which means you do not talk to a known outlet for enemy propoganda ) then you as well any other military officer regardless of gender should have control of that prison.
My whole stance on Gen. Karpinski is simple. Karpinski, in complaining she is being made a scapegoat for what happened in her command, is failing to take responsibility for what actually took place. This, to me means, she did not know what was going on, which means she lost control of her command.
If, for example, ( albeit a poor one ) Gen. Sanchez's HQ staff started running a prostitution ring in Baghdad, and Sanchez subsequently stated he knew nothing of the matter, Sanchez should be relieved of command, not for the crimes taking place, but because he did not know, i.e. he lost control of his staff ( his command ). Losing control of your command can cascade down into the ranks. It is potentially a deadly event.
And I will bet you that Sanchez wouldn't have gone to BBC to complain he is being made a scapegoat, not because he is male but because he probably has better judgement about such matters than Karpinski apparently did.
And the thing is: All Karpinski has to do is STFU.
And Karpinski just doesn't get it. She IS finished as a military officer, especially after this dumbass interview she gave to the BBC. She should resign and make a personal commitment to shut up and take her lumps just as any other military officer should in any similar situation.
#25
If Mike is right, Karpinski is being hung out to dry in order to protect male ass.
I would not put it that way, ex-lib. I suspect Badanov's venom is based almost entirely on a hostility to women officers. His venom is focused entirely on one woman, and he is very hostile to any suggestion that some blame might be apportioned to anybody below or above her.
Gen Karpinski says that the command over the cell blocks where the scandal occurred was transfered from her to the military intelligence unit. Furthermore, she says that members of the military unit coached the guards there to act in ways that led to the scandalous misbehavior. MOst people, I think, would agree with her, if she is correct about those facts, that the primary blame should be laid on the responsible officers in the military intelligence unit instead of on her.
I think the facts are still murky. It's not clear whether the commmand over that cell block was transfered from her. It's not clear what the military intelligence people told the guards to do.
In general, I think that the guard unit was grossly undermanned and undertrained for the number of prisoners. I heard during the congressional hearings that the ratio of guards to prisoners at the prison was supposed to be five times greater, according to US Army norms.
I also think that a great deal of confusion was created at the prison last September and October by the influx of a large number of military intelligence personnel who were pressured excessively to extract much more "actionable intelligence" from the prisoners there. I say that confusion contributed very significantly to the guards' scandalous misbehavior, which occurred mostly in November. The people who created the confusion are happy to dump all the blame off themselves onto General Karpinski -- to some extent because she is a woman and to some extent simply because they can.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 12:35 Comments ||
Top||
#26
The problem is that the General, no mater gender, is abdicating responsibility for action in her command - in her DIRECT command. She did not see that the troops were taken care of (morale was crap in that unit and NOTHING was done), she did nto ensure that her orders were followed, she did not ensure that her command enforced discpline and reporting that an efficient military unit requires.
And worse of all, she NEVER visited her subordinates and go all the way down the Chain of Command to tour the facility and talk to the line troops.
She was INCOMPETENT - she should never have pinned on that Star - only reasons she rose far above her competence are politicts, and Clinton's "experiments" in using the Army as a social experimentation area instead of a fighting force.
As for her subordinates, many of them ARE being prosecuted. The Sgt MAjor of the battalion in question has already had his career ended, and the company commander and battalion commander are being investigated and given official reprimands.
Those are something Genereal Sit-On-Her-Ass Karpinsky did not do over the months of investigation prior to the publishing of the photos.
MIke Syl - you are an ass, and you pander to jackoff officers when you try to use thier gender to damn them or protect them. You obviously know jack squat about the needs of the military.
It must be *COMPETENCY* that is the bottom line. Anything less, like gender based crap, simply gets people killed!
#27
interesting phrase Mike: "to some extent because she is a woman and to some extent simply because they can"
that's exactly Clinton's rationale for the Lewinsky fun and games
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/20/2004 12:47 Comments ||
Top||
#28
If Mike is right, Karpinski is being hung out to dry in order to protect male ass. I would not put it that way, ex-lib. I suspect Badanov's venom is based almost entirely on a hostility to women officers. His venom is focused entirely on one woman, and he is very hostile to any suggestion that some blame might be apportioned to anybody below or above her
Do a search of rantburg. If you can find ANY posting I have ever made here or elsewhere in ANY forum or venue that referred to Gen. Karpinski as anything other than a general or I have used the any other term than 'she,' I will apologize for it.
And Mike, I don't care. If I was hostile to Karpinski because she is female, I would admit it. I have no problem with admitting the truth.
But I post this with confidence that if I did EVR regard Gen. Karpinski as anyone or anything OTHER than a military officer who was simply not up to the task accord her, I will apologize for them. But you won't find it here or elsewhere.
My entire thesis has been from a coldly military point of view. I frankly don't care if you continue this little charade. It's your time to waste.
#29
Badanov, what is your general opinon about women officers in the US military?
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#30
Robert, do you think that senior correspondent Faid Abu Shimalla speaks for BBC?
Yep. Particularly when the BBC defends her in regards to her statements. Ya see, where I come from, if an employee makes a public statement regarding company policy, and that employee's statement is contrary to company policy, that employee is canned. If, on the other hand, the company retains the employee, and further DEFENDS them, then it's a safe bet that the company has no problem with that statement.
When Faid Abu Shimalla says something, then, in your opinion, that's BBC's position?
The BBC didn't repudiate her statement, and their actions in recent years certainly support her statement, so why shouldn't I take that as their position?
And therefore, do you say, if General Karpinski is interviewed by BBC, then that means she endorses BBC position and by extension endorses everything said by senior correspondent Faid Abu Shimalla?
I never said that. Badanov never said anything like this. This is a strawman you've built in your fevered little mind, and in no way reflects the beliefs of anyone.
I suspect Badanov's venom is based almost entirely on a hostility to women officers.
You have offered absolutely no evidence to support that suspicion. You are quite simply talking out your ass.
No big surprise; it was clear long ago your head was there.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/20/2004 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Badanov, what is your general opinon about women officers in the US military?
Mike, don't you have some self-gratifying to do while you look at Abu Ghraib prison photos?
#32
Badanov, what is your general opinon about women officers in the US military?
Mike, I thought you knew the answer to this. Hell, you've been claiming absolute knowledge on this all morning; you've just NOW gotten around to asking?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/20/2004 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#33
OldSpook, she says those cell blocks were taken out of her direct command. It seems to me that they were. A large number of military intelligence personnel were assigned to the prison in September and October, and General Karpinski was basically told that henceforth they would manage everything that happened in those cell blocks. Most of the trouble happened in those cell blocks in November.
I agree with you, OldSpook, think Gen Karpinski nevertheless should have inquired and intervened. She indeed lost her command and career because she failed to do so. If, however, she indeed had inquired and intervened, then she would have lost her command and career anyway, because she was supposed to understand that she was supposed to stay out. She was damned if she did, and she was damned if she didn't.
The decision had already been made at much higher levels to establish a fundandamentally new prison regime that would push and push to extract actionable intelligence from the prisoners. Anybody who objected would be batted down. The fact that subsequent misbehavior was photographed and undeniably exposed to the world public was an unpredictable wild card.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 13:12 Comments ||
Top||
#34
Re: #30
Robert, here's what the linked article actually says: A BBC spokesman last night confirmed to The Jerusalem Post that Shimalla has been the Gaza Strip correspondent of the BBC Arabic Service for the past five years, but he said the BBC was unable to locate the Web site and could not comment further. He noted, however, that Shimalla is âa senior and experienced journalist who knows the requirements for impartiality.â
To me, that looks mostly like a no-comment.
Do you, Robert, think that this weak "no-comment" statement really justifies Badanov when he replies as follows? Do you, Badanov, think that the BBC is on the side of the terrorists who behead Americans? Yes. BBC are a known outlet for enemy propoganda. The brutal beheading of Americans should have sparked even more shock and anger, but not to the Beeb. We know which side they are on. And Gen. Karpinski.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#35
Badanov: Mike, don't you have some self-gratifying to do while you look at Abu Ghraib prison photos?
Aha, just as I thought. You are against General Karpinski 90% because she is a woman officer and 10% because she supports the terrorists who behead Americans.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#36
OldSpook, she says those cell blocks were taken out of her direct command. It seems to me that they were. A large number of military intelligence personnel were assigned to the prison in September and October, and General Karpinski was basically told that henceforth they would manage everything that happened in those cell blocks
If that was the case then the transfer would have been memorialized in a written order. I have yet to see any reference to a written order. If Karpinski was told she was no longer responsible for that cell block, she sould have insisted on written orders. The lack of paper memorializing this arrangement should have raise the first flag.
As it was, as I understand it, her personnel were being used even though she wasn't to manage the cellblock. Here is where I have a problem with your version of events. Now if she was told to stay out of the cellblock but her people were being used, she still had responsibility for the actions of those people and she still has responsibility to her command, her fellow commanders, and to her commnader, to get this in writing, and to order those charges to keep her apprised of what was really going on in that block. This is black letter military stanard in armies the world over.
As far as I am aware no such written directive exists. That alone is serious enough: to allow your own charges to be used in a command seperate under the physical where you have command, but not being aware of what her charges were doing, and being unaware of orders they were receiving is inexcusable.
Did they keep her in the dark about what whomever was in charge of that cellbloack was doing? It doesn't matter. It happened in a place where she had absolute command, and she took ZERO initiative to ensure she knew exactly what was going on.
Gen. Karpinski wasn't up to the task assigned her.
#37
Game, set, match to OldSpook. Okay boys, tournament's over, let's all move on.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/20/2004 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#38
Badanov, I agree with everything you wrote in #36. I would add that blame should also be placed on the officers in charge of the military-intelligence unit.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#39
The decision had already been made at much higher levels to establish a fundandamentally new prison regime that would push and push to extract actionable intelligence from the prisoners. Anybody who objected would be batted down. The fact that subsequent misbehavior was photographed and undeniably exposed to the world public was an unpredictable wild card.
You really believe this line of bullshit, don't you?
The decision had already been made at much higher levels to establish a fundandamentally new prison regime that would push and push to extract actionable intelligence from the prisoners.
FALSE. The extent of the evidence so far is that some prisoners were ruled illegal combatants, and that some were subjected to "more pressure". The change was miniscule, as seen by the fact that Rumsfeld had to approve treatment that amounted to solitary, a shave, and cold meals.
Anybody who objected would be batted down.
Pure crap. You have no evidence of this.
The fact that subsequent misbehavior was photographed and undeniably exposed to the world public was an unpredictable wild card.
Never mind the evidence that Graner was the "mastermind" behind the abuse and photographing. Never mind that others have already testified that, had the officers been aware, they would have stopped it.
If, however, she indeed had inquired and intervened, then she would have lost her command and career anyway, because she was supposed to understand that she was supposed to stay out.
You have no evidence of this. In fact, the evidence points to the exact opposite -- for example, the Taguba report specifically praises the soldiers who exposed the abuse and who refused to take part.
OldSpook, she says those cell blocks were taken out of her direct command. It seems to me that they were.
She's contradicting what she told Taguba:
It is clear from a comprehensive review of witness statements and personal interviews that the 320th MP Battalion and 800th MP Brigade continued to function as if they were responsible for the security, health, and welfare, and overall security of detainees within Abu Ghraib (BCCF) prison. Both BG Karpinski and COL Pappas clearly behaved as if this were still the case.
During the course of the investigation I conducted a lengthy interview with BG Karpinski that lasted over four hours, and is included verbatim in the investigation annexes. BG Karpinski was extremely emotional during much of her testimony. What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce basic standards and principals among its soldiers.
(Emphasis mine)
It appears Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba agrees with Badanov, and that Karpinski hasn't learned a thing since he spoke with her.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/20/2004 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#40
...Okay - I did 20 years in the USAF, and out of the 10 best officers I served with, I would easily say that six or seven were women. And if the shit ever well and truly hit the fan, of the ten people I knew who were most likely to get home, most of them were women.
NONE of what has happened here has to do with Ms. Karpinski being a woman - other than the fact that she really does (from the point of view of a veteran) seem to be trying to be hoping that if the boom is indeed lowered, she will be able to scream that she is being persecuted by the 'good old boy' network because she's a woman.
Horseshit.
No, wait. Horseshit would be a step up.
If you took Ms. Karpinski's gender out of the reports , it still shows the same damned thing - a complete, total, and utter failure on the part of a field grade officer in the United States Army, and the apparent liklihood that she just didn't give a rat's ass, because she had her stars!
I've read and re-read Badanov's comments and can see nothing anti-female officer in them. She screwed up, she knew it then and knows it now, and now she is deseprately trying to blame everyone and everything else possible for her mistakes, instead of taking the ultimate responsibility.
She is a General Officer in the United States Army. She failed at her most basic responsibilities. Male or female, anyone who has f**ked up as thoroughly and completely as Ms Karpinski has deserves to lose their stars at the very least.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/20/2004 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#41
I would add also that very few generals would be up to the task, because General Karpinski's unit had far too people, training and resources for the assigned mission.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#42
Do you, Robert, think that this weak "no-comment" statement really justifies Badanov when he replies as follows? Do you, Badanov, think that the BBC is on the side of the terrorists who behead Americans?
Yes. BBC are a known outlet for enemy propoganda. The brutal beheading of Americans should have sparked even more shock and anger, but not to the Beeb. We know which side they are on. And Gen. Karpinski.
You are combining different answers I made to different questions to one of your questions to make it look like I posted something I did not. Why are you dong this?
Game, set, match to OldSpook. Okay boys, tournament's over, let's all move on
With all due respect, Steve, you're not the one whose words are being twisted and Old Spook isn't the one underfire in this thread.
Badanov, I agree with everything you wrote in #36. I would add that blame should also be placed on the officers in charge of the military-intelligence unit. .
#43
Re #39: Taguba: What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce basic standards and principals among its soldiers.
General Taguba placed a lot of the blame also on the officers in the military intelligence unit and also on general confusion about acceptable treatment of prisoners.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 13:43 Comments ||
Top||
#44
#40: Mike Kozlowski: I've read and re-read Badanov's comments and can see nothing anti-female officer in them.
Mike, ask Badanov to tell you his opinion about women officers and see what kind of response you get (ref: #35).
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#45
Badanov:
You are combining different answers I made to different questions to one of your questions to make it look like I posted something I did not. Why are you dong this?
Because Mike's devotion to enlarging the Abu Ghraib story requires demonizing anyone who disagrees with him. To do that he routinely lies.
General Taguba placed a lot of the blame also on the officers in the military intelligence unit and also on general confusion about acceptable treatment of prisoners.
Why, yes, he did. And the MI officers need to be held responsible, too, at least to the extent they are responsible.
As for "confusion about acceptable treatment of prisoners", you do realize that he places blame for that specifically on Karpinski? She failed to ensure her unit got the necessary training, and failed to react appropriately to earlier cases of abuse.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/20/2004 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#46
Mike, ask Badanov to tell you his opinion about women officers and see what kind of response you get (ref: #35).
Sylwester, #35 was a dishonest "have you stopped beating your wife" type of question. Hell, it wasn't even a question -- it was an assertion that you KNEW he had a beef against women officers.
I'd say I'm amazed at your dishonest, but I'm really not anymore.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/20/2004 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#47
Mike Kozlowski: I've read and re-read Badanov's comments and can see nothing anti-female officer in them. Mike, ask Badanov to tell you his opinion about women officers and see what kind of response you get (ref: #35). .
I guess you really are obsessed with Abu Ghraib. My posting that was to ridicule your obsession with this event.
Mike, it is over. A dangerous general was removed from command, should take the hint and retire, and forces who really did go overboard are being disciplined.
And to your question what I think of female officers in the military: I have answered that.
My whole reason for psoting and remarking on this is that General Karpinski should just shut up and leave the military. She spoke to a known dissiminator of enenmy propoganda. She has no judgement on military matters and she should admit it.
#48
Re #45: Badanov: You are combining different answers I made to different questions to one of your questions to make it look like I posted something I did not. Why are you dong this?
Anybody who reads your third fisk and your comment #11 can see for himself that I combined your two statements fairly. That is the idea you communicated and obviously intended to communicate.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 13:56 Comments ||
Top||
#49
Re #45. Robert, I do agree with much of what Badanov says when he cools down. For example, I agree with everything he wrote in #36. I have never said Gen Karpinski was free of blame nor that she should have remained in command. She should have investigated and intervened, no matter what the consequences for her career. If, however, she indeed had investigated and intervened, I think she would have been removed from her command anyway, basically for interfering.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#50
Re #47: Badanov: And to your question what I think of female officers in the military: I have answered that.
Where? When?
Do you think the US military should have female officers? What is your general opinion about female officers?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 14:05 Comments ||
Top||
#51
Re #47: Badanov: She spoke to a known dissiminator of enenmy propoganda.
Badanov, would you apply your rule to a male officer who spoke to a BBC reporter?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
#52
I deal with people like yourself all the time, Mike. Folkks who would much rather tell lies and twist facts as we know them than to admit they are wrong.
For the final time, my views on Abu Ghraib:
1) A Brigadier general was in command of the prison Abu Ghraib.
2) That general lost control of her command so completely, she knew nothing about what was going on until the day CID walked through the door.
3) That general was subsequently relieved of command.
4) Being relieved of command in a war zone is a career ending event. I am not even going to delve into the seriousness of losing control of your troops during wartime. I am simply talking about what has happened and what should be done, not what should have been done. Big difference.
5) The BBC is a known diseminator of enemy propoganda. They not only are known by their enemies, they also shamlessly admit they would rather pursue an agenda of getting soldiers killed than to tell the truth about the WoT.
6) Gen. Karpinski thought it would be a good idea to talk to the BBC. She not only talked about Abu Ghraib, she vilified her commanders and her own command all without taking responsibility for her lack of oversight at the prison. I would guess that many, many officers in the military, male and female, now feel betrayed by this outragous lack of judgement on Karpinksi's part. It is one thing to talk to Ed bradley on CBS, but to go to a foreign news service known to be against our missions in the War on Terrorism, known to diseminate enemy propoganda simply amplifies this officer's lack of judgement and her personal irresponsibility.
Now either Gen. Karpinski mentally broke down well before those photoes were taken or she was promoted to a position well beyond her abilities and capabilities.
But now, it doesn't matter. This most dangerous commander was removed from command. We go on to win the war.
7) The priciples of war are immutable. Some of them: maintaining good order and discipline, protection and security of command, awareness of the presense of enemy forces and all information relating thereto should be known reflexively by officers serving in every military in the world, especially in the USA.
Gen. Karpinski disregarded every one of those principles enumerated, and thereby endangered her command and the other commands as well.
Gen. Kaprinski was relieved and should do the right thing and retire without another word about the matter.
Now you can read this and re-read this but I will tell you: if you can find any anti-female officer bias in those words i have written here or elsewhere, I will kiss your ass at noon in front of the Baltimore City Hall.
#53
Re #43: Badanov: If MI got their info, they should get medals.
And what should MI get if it caused a huge scandal?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
#54
Now you can read this and re-read this but I will tell you: if you can find any anti-female officer bias in those words i have written here or elsewhere, I will kiss your ass at noon in front of the Baltimore City Hall.
What's your general opinion about female officers in the US military?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 14:29 Comments ||
Top||
#55
#52: The BBC is a known diseminator of enemy propoganda. They not only are known by their enemies, they also shamlessly admit they would rather pursue an agenda of getting soldiers killed than to tell the truth about the WoT.
So, if a male officer in the US military is interviewed by BBC, then that means the officer endorses BBC's agenda of getting soldiers killed? Would that interview show what side he is on, just like Gen Karpinski's being interviewed showed what side she is on?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 14:37 Comments ||
Top||
#56
Jeez, give it a rest, willa guys? Steve called "game over" almost 20 comments ago.
Or else chip in some extra for Fred's bandwidth.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/20/2004 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#57
Steve called the game in favor of OldSpook. Since Badanov stubbornly refuses to state his general opinion about female military officers, I conclude as follows:
Badanov's opinion about General Karpinski is based 90% on his opinions about female officers and 10% on his opinon that she is on the side of terrorists who behead Americans.
All discussion in this thread is now officially closed.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#58
First off: Females in the military? Fine by me as long as standards are not compromised, and the mission is not put at risk.
As to Gen K.'s unit not being given enough support/supplies, etc?
Well there's this thing called "Command" that field grade officers are expected to provide- and a "Command Staff" they use to assist them in providing it.
The General, were that person worthy of the Bird or Star, should have been personally tending to G-level staff and inspecting them all the way down the lines at the battalion level regularly, and periodically (at random) inspecting an individual squad or factility, on at least a weekly basis.
You cannot blame bad support on the G-3/G-4 or the element above, if the Commanding Officer was derelict in their duty. Its her staff's job to bring supply and morale issues to her attention, present her with plans for handling it, and execute her orders in consonance withthe commander's intent.
But above that, its the Commander's job to ensure that these things are accomplished - by getting staff reports, touring the units, inspecting them, and making sure that the facilities and equipment are all in proper order at "tip of the spear".
As an example, a combat unit commander that seldom did line inspections, never ensured that the junior officer's and senior NCO's knew the command intent and mission, mismanaged the brigade staff, allowed militarary order and disipline to deteriorate, and then allowed his unit to run out of ammunition would be in serious trouble. Then if he tried to blame the ensuing disaster on someone else, either echelon above him or his staff, he would be ripped to shreds. In light of that, General K is getting off easy.
The commander's job is to get the mission accomplished, and to provide the tactical unit leaders with the things they need to accomplish the mission. This includes supplies, training, morale/welfare of the troops, weaponry & ammunition, equipment, leadership by their junior officers and NCOs, and a clear direction of the commander's intent for the mission at hand.
General Karpinsky failed on all those accounts.
To be sure, so did her subordinte unit leaders. The Sgt Major that had his career justly ended was the one that should have been aware of the severe moral problems by way of his First Sgts. Same goes for the battalion commander whose career is effectively over now that the 2-star had hnaded down letters of reprimand in their permanent record.
The breakdown of military discpline and good order (as shown by the cessation of saluting, informal name use in the chain of command, lack of enforcment of uniform waer by regulation, etc) is indicative of a unit on the verge of collapse. A regular set of inspections and command visits would have brought this to the forefront because the NCO's would have seen to this before the General comes through on a meet-n-greet. They woudl ahve reported up to their Topkick, and from there the company and battalion commanders woudl ahve been aware. This was in fact done in some units - a few Lieutenants and Sgts did the right thing, but the command above them let them down, because there was no support for reporting such things to brigade level staff and command.
Yes, the subordinates failed, but they failed because their commander was a disaster and did not exercise the authority and leadership that a Field Grade position *demands* of the individual to whom it is entrusted. There are reasons that makign General rank is supposed to be limited; chief among them is that some people, although great commanders at the tactical level (company, and possibly batttalion), they simply do not have tha ability to manage a staff and still get out from behind the paperwork and staff to actively engage the tactical and small unit elements.
Gen Karp. further compounds this by excuse-making instead of doing what any honorable commander would do; she is equivoating and trying to point fingers instaed of accepting responsiblity for the consequences of her own actions and inaction.
She should have presented her commander with her letter of resignation/retirement, as well as the resignation of every battalion level or higher officer in the chain of command between here and those criminals who abused the prisoners, as well as the Article 15 proceedings against all the Junior Officers and the NCO's in the enlisted chain of command from the squad leader all the way to the brigade Command Sgt Major.
Thats what Honor, Duty and Country demanded of her. And she is shirking that as surely as she shirked her responsiblites as a field grade officer in the US Military.
Now you know why the anger is there. Its not her gender, its her duplicity and lack of honor.
THAT is why there is so much venom directed against her. Not becuase she is female, but because she is shirking the duties, breaking the honor, and hurting the country that she is took an oath to uphold and defend as a Soldier.
#60
I still think Badanov is one of those people who doesn't think women should be in the military at all and that he is bouncing up and down on this problem in order to prove his point. Beyond that, Badanov insinuates that she is traitorous because she was interviewed by the BBC, which is on the side of the terrorists who behead Americans. Don't suggest to me that Badanov's position about Gen Karpinski or about the BBC is respectable, because it isn't.
I agree with everything you say, OldSpook, and I've always thought she failed in her position and should be removed. Unlike Badanov, I thought her failure involved more than her sex and her treasonous association with BBC.
I think that most generals placed in that position would have failed, although perhaps not as badly as she did. The situation was such that failure was almost certain. Keep packing the prisoners into a jail beyond the capabilities of the facility and staff, and probably there will eventually be a breakdown of order no matter how capable the general. Allow the prisoner-guard ratio to grow to five times the norm, and then go ahead and remove the general, but eventually something has to be done about that gross disproportion. There should also be some acknowledgement that the problem extends beyond the general's personal abilities.
Yes, Gen Karpinski should have insisted on a formal, written clarification of the changed command relationship that she alleges. She certainly must be kicking herself every day that she didn't. Despite the lack of documentation, however, it seems to me that the command relationship indeed was changed along the lines that she alleges. A decision was made at higher levels that the military intelligence unit should run those particular jail cells and should exercise a special control over the guards assigned there. Although not written, the new regime was plenty clear to Gen Karpinski, and she complied with it. If, in fact, she had started acting as you wisely say she should have, OldSpook, then she would have been removed anyway for insubordination to implied directives from above.
One more point, OldSpook. I think she perceived that no written directive would ever be forthcoming. In key areas, policies and responsibilities related to the treatment of prisoners simply were not going to be written down clearly. If she had insisted on a document declaring the true state of affairs, she soon would have been transfered to some distant inspectorate where she could wallow in documentation.
As it turns out, that's what she should have done. She chose to accept her situation too passively, and so her career ended in disgrace.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 18:27 Comments ||
Top||
#61
Now that's serious power.
Dog Bites Trolls think that Fred and I run Rantburg together as co-equals.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/20/2004 18:29 Comments ||
Top||
EFL, Read the whole thing
So we can now have the fundamental debate the country deserves: Does Kerry deny what the Clinton administration consistently maintained, what the Bush administration asserts, and what appears utterly clear--that Saddam Hussein had ties with terrorists and terrorist groups, including al Qaeda? That Saddam "created a permissive environment for terrorism," as a spokesman for British prime minister Tony Blair put it? No one else denies that the man who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center bomb, Abdul Rahman Yasin, came from and returned to Baghdad, where he lived for the next 10 years. Does Kerry? Does he think Saddamâs terrorist ties were so negligible that we could confidently pursue a war on terror without dealing with Iraq? Did the Bush administration simply "want" to go to war in Iraq, as opposed to believing it had a responsibility and duty to do so?
Furthermore: If Kerry had known in October 2002 when he voted to authorize that war what he now knows, would he have voted differently? Does he believe we would have been better off confining the "war on terror" to Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan? Does Kerry disagree with the conclusion of his fellow Democrat, Joe Lieberman, who argued last week that "to call the war in Iraq separate and distinct from the larger war on terrorism is inaccurate. Iraq today is a battle--a crucial battle--in the global war on terrorism"? Given the 9/11 Commissionâs account of ties between (Sunni) al Qaeda and (Shia) Hezbollah, and what we now know of A.Q. Khanâs nuclear proliferation network that encompassed Sunni, Shia, secular Islamic, and non-Islamic states, wasnât Bush more right than wrong to speak of an "axis of evil" and a network of rogue states and terrorist groups? And, finally: What really is Kerryâs view of the war against Saddam? Leave aside all the nonsense about a "rush to war." Does John Kerry now believe we would have been better off to have left Saddam in power in Iraq? Kerry has tried to avoid directly answering this question. But itâs hard to escape the conclusion that he believes the answer is yes.
#1
Read this on an electoral college blog (Run by Dems, who are deluding themselves, but thats a different story). Pays to know your enemy.
But there may be a weaking of Kerry support as soon as its shown that he is lagging Bush in electoral and popular vote. Some of them are looking for reasons to bail out (and go Nader or Green, etc).
The following commnet is a cut n paste of someones's reasons for wanting Kerry to dangle in the wind and lose, and set up for 2008. I wonder who has 2008 in mind... (read next comment)
#2
Fred: Pardon my cut n paste but I thought this might be interesting to us here.
my comment: Hillary, is this you posting?
---------
The facts are that in spite of the recovering but still poor economy, war disasters, the 9/11 report, etc, Bush and Kerry are still in a dead heat in the 2 states that will swing this election - Ohio and Florida. It just doesn't bode well for Kerry. Kerry should be far far ahead in all those polls, and yet is at best 1-2 points ahead, which is inside the margin of error for the polls.
If the best Kerry can do is a tie, with all the stuff going against Bush, then what will happen to him if things continue to improve? As noted Dukakis was well ahead of Bush the Elder at this point as well, and that was without the help of all the negatives piled up against the current Bush.
The problem is the nature of the Kerry vote: in the polls reporting, especially in key states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the Kerry vote breaks 60-40 For the candidate-against the opponent. The Bush voters usually break 80-20 for/against. Basically, Bush's people are more committed to him and his policies than are Kerry's. They worrisome part for Democrats is that the percentage is so large for "Anti" voters in Kerry.
"Anti" sentiments are notoriously fickle - historically they point to a fade in the weeks after the convention, when the focus neccessarily turns to policy. And that is where the recovering economy will really help Bush, plus the inadvertent timing of the 2 conventions and the Olympics between them. Also, the "break ahead" point for Jobs is supposed to come by late summer, giving Bush a net "add" of jobs during his term, taking away one of Kerry's major campaign weapons.
Plus the current efforts of the Republicans and conservative commentators have already laid in the "Kerry Flip Flop" image, much aided by Kerry's own words (still cringing over "Voted for it before I voted against it" - Kerry really put his foot in it there).
Add to that the Republican ability to use their large coffers of primary funds until Early September (think expensive adds during the Olympics), while Kerry is stuck using his limited federal funds from July 26 onward. and August could be a very very hard month for Kerry. Outspent, out advertised, overshadowed by the Olympics, losing his ability to club Bush with the economy/jobs, and with the typical "End of Summer" stock market rally at the end of August leading up to the Republican convention.
Combine all these with the breakdown of the voters For/Against in each candidates block, and this could spell an electoral meltdown in August for Kerry, which would be accelerated by Nader campaigning to pick up the disaffected votes.
Thats the big problem - unless Kerry can come up with policies that people believe in (and escape his very liberal voting record in the Senate -- which will work against him in non-liberal key states like Penn and Ohio), the "Anti-Bush" votes will bleed off to Nader - and it only takes 2% of the "Anti Bush" votes to leave Kerry for Nader to swing the election completely to Bush (or to simply not vote, which is the usual drop off in "anger" motivated votes).
Were I to run things, I'd simply let the presidential campaign flounder, and set up for 2008. Democrats should not want the Presidency over the next 4 years: the war on terror will be bloody and whoever is in will get the blame - and if its a Kerry, the whole Dem party will be used as a whipping boy and suffer (Remember Jimmy Carter?).
I'd concentrate on the trying to win the Senate this election, and picking up seats in the House to make a run at pulling within 2-3 seats in 2006, and then setting up for a majority of the whole Congress in 2008, which would help elect a Democrat President.
Think about it: assuming Bush is reelected, by the time 2008 gets here, either Bush will have screwed things up to the point where there will be a Dem landslide, or messed around and left a festering problem that will spill over in blame for Republicans for "failing to win decisively", or he will have done so well that the threat is gone. In all of those cases case, Cheney will not run as a presidential candidate, so there will be no Republican incumbent and at worst a neutral political situation, and quite possibly a very favorable situation for a Democrat candidate.
Think of it this way: Bush does a "Reagan (vs Communism)" on terrorism, that means the Democrat can run on "Its time to move on from war to social issues". Bush fouls it up "We need a new leadership - Bush/Republicans lost the war". Bush neither wins nor loses "The Republicans have had 8 years and have not finished things off - time for a change!".
So I'd say throw Kerry to the wolves. Reload for a full Democratic sweep in 2008, and regain parts of the Congress in 04 and 06.
#3
Pretty interesting, OS, but there are problems with it.
1) I think Al Qaeda has been and is being rocked on their heels. They are theatening us but shitting in their own pool. The only public acts of terrorism they have managed since 911 against Americans is in their home turf, and only against single unarmed civilians. I believe, even as bad things appear, we may well have already turned the tide in the WoT. Does anyone really think that Al Qaeda is ready for a coup in Saudi Arabia? Does anyone really think these recent beheadings are part of a plan, rather than a last grasp at straws?
2) There is no need to look forward to 2008 since it appears Bush may well be heading for a super-landslide in November. Who the hell on our side wants to come forward and take away or overshadow this possible victory for the right this year? I wouldn't want it and I doubt anyone with a view towards 2008 would want to do so until after 2004.
3) With Bush retired in 2008, will the left be able to unite? You bet they will, and they will sound strangely moderate when they start getting serious about 2008, and they will gain some ground. They will attack policies, an area they have always excelled in, and they will have some successes. But the one thing which we know always defeats the left is to make them define their own policy positions and proposals, and attack them from the right for what they are: socialist policies in the mask of some sort of twisted centrism.
4) Hilary will be a very strong candidate for the left in 2008 but only if the right allows her and her supporters to tiptoe passed their own socialist policies and proposals, if we fail to gut their supporters by attacking their ideas for government, and if we fail to raise the money we need to defeat them. That is one major reason why a super landslide in 2004 will go a long way towards blunting a successful political gain by the left in 2008. It will enable the right to further enhance their positions on issues which democrats seem to prevail on, but only prevail if the right fails to suit up for the game.
#4
badanov: I wish I were as confident as you about Hill's demise; it seems to me that she's done a very good job distancing herself from the liberal lunacies of -this- election cycle, leaving the other ones reeking of 9/10-era old news (unless we unexpectedly win the war completely, which won't happen within 4 years). This is just too much of a war election -- does Bush even have any other initiatives? wth happened to SS privatization? -- for a Kerry wipeout to eliminate more than the dovish France-ism of the Democratic party.
The Republican party is too cowardly (or microeconomics-ignorant) to puncture the disasterous and immoral drug-reimportation idea; who the hell is going to come forward by 2008 and take the battle to Clinton2? Furthermore our wartime spending profligacy leaves us with some serious house-cleaning before we can stand on the idea of small government again...
Dropping Cheney for Rudy would be interesting, but I think he's our best candidate only if war issues are as or more pressing then than now.
Too good to EFL. Hat tip: Misha
By Mike Adams, Townhall.com, June 14, 2004
I think we ran a link to this when it was fresh...
Authorâs Note: the following editorial contains mildly offensive language. Given the subject matter, the author is sorry that it does not contain highly offensive language.
Lately, Iâve been hearing a lot about the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. The pictures of those âabusedâ prisoners have been plastered all over the front pages of papers around the country. Some of my conservative friends have interpreted the excessive coverage as proof that papers like the New York Times are actually rooting against America in its current war on terror. Even those who arenât willing to go that far say that such coverage is helping the enemy to recruit a new generation of terrorists to inflict harm upon our troops. Despite these views, I have decided to make a formal public apology to the entire Arab world in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib. It is my hope that the following apology will help bring some clarity to the situation and, who knows, maybe even lasting world peace:
Dear Arabs,
I am truly sorry that Americans decided to take up arms and sacrifice their own youth in the defense of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the first Gulf War. After we clear up this mess in Iraq, we will refrain from any such activity in the future.
I am truly sorry that I did not hear any of you call for an apology from Muslim extremists after 911. After all, the hijackers were all Arabs.
I am truly sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships throughout the Middle East. I am also sorry that the âleadersâ of these nations drive their citizens into poverty by keeping all of the wealth in the hands of a select few.
I am also sorry that these governments intentionally breed hate for the U.S. in their religious schools while American schools do the exact opposite.
I am sorry that Yasir Arafat has been kicked out of every Arab country and has attached his name to the Palestinian âcause.â I am also sorry that no other Arab country will offer nearly as much support to Arafat as we offer to them.
I am sorry that the U.S. has continued to serve as the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arab nations while wealthy Arab leaders blame the U.S. for all of their problems.
I am sorry that left-wing media elites would Rather (pun intended) not talk about any of this, thereby perpetuating your anger towards us. Itâs probably really bad for your blood pressure. I am also sorry that most of you lack the medical resources to measure your blood pressure. And, of course, Iâm sorry that few of you have indoor plumbing. Thatâs bad for your health, too.
I am sorry that the U.N. cheated so many poor people in Iraq out of their âfood for oilâ money so they could get rich while the tortured, raped, and poverty-stricken citizens of Iraq suffered under Saddam Hussein.
I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers after their children are blown to pieces in pursuit of Arafatâs âcause.â
I am sorry that these homicide bombers have as little regard for babies as the local office of Planned Parenthood.
I am sorry that so many people are unable to differentiate between the gang rape rooms and mass graves of Saddam Hussein on the one hand, and the conditions of Abu Ghraib on the other.
I am sorry that our prison guards do not show the same restraint that Arabs show when their brothers in arms are killed. By the way, you shouldnât be sorry about that.
I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state. I am sorry we have not yet dropped at least 100 Daisy cutters on Fallujah in order to stop that effort.
I am also sorry that cleaning up the mess in Iraq is taking so long. It only took Saddam Hussein about 30 years to accomplish all he did in the realm of human rights. Come to think of it, thatâs about ten years less than the duration of our War on Poverty in the U.S. Come to think of it, Iâm sorry we havenât sent all of our gang bangers from South Central Los Angeles to Fallujah.
I am sorry that every time the terrorists hide, it just happens to be inside a âHoly Site.â
I am sorry that Muslim extremists have not yet apologized for the U.S.S. Cole, the embassy bombings, and for flying a plane into the World Trade Center, which collapsed in part on Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which is one of our Holy Sites.
I am sorry that we have not taken a portion of the diet of Michael Moore and shipped it to one of your starving villages in the Middle East. You need it Moore (pun intended) than he does.
I am sorry that your only supporters are professors, journalists, and other assorted leftists who also support homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, partial birth abortion, and everything that you abhor in this world. I am sorry that everyone else in America is against you.
Finally, I am sorry that I am going to have to end this apology by asking you to kiss the right side of my conservative butt. Iâm probably just having a bad day.
For that I am truly sorry.
Mike S. Adams is an associate professor at the University of North Carolina - Wilmington.
Finally! An apology to the Arabs I can get behind!
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/20/2004 12:56:29 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Come to think of it, Iâm sorry we havenât sent all of our gang bangers from South Central Los Angeles to Fallujah.
The thought of the possibilities just keeps me grinning.
Posted by: Charles ||
06/20/2004 1:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Let's see, our bangers against your bangers?
I like the odds.
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/20/2004 1:37 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Question, if you give a crip an AK-47 will he hip shoot it like a third world hardboy who learned about firing from Rambo, or will he shoulder site and fire the weapon so he can hit his target?
That distinction alone means all the difference in the world.
India and Pakistan agreed Sunday to extend a nuclear testing ban and to set up a hotline between their foreign secretaries aimed at preventing misunderstandings that might lead to a nuclear war. And in that part of the world, it wouldnât take much.
Delegations from both countries concluded talks with a joint statement that outlined several "confidence building measures" that include direct communications over the hotline and the testing ban. "Each side reaffirmed its unilateral moratorium on conducting further nuclear test explosions unless, in exercise of national sovereignty, it decides that extraordinary events have jeopardized its supreme interests," the joint statement said. Soooo....nothing has changed.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/20/2004 10:11:47 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nuke hotline for India, Pakistan
Side A: Hello. Is anybody there? Just wanted to say that we launched twenty minutes ago.
No, itâs not Scrappleface - but itâs just as funny. Severely EFL.
By Rand Simberg, 6/20/04
LOS ANGELES (APUPI) June 20, 2004
Standing in front of the Los Angeles Times building on Spring Street and surrounded by aides, President Bush put forth a new and long-overdue proposal today, to the cheers of thousands of long-suffering readers of that paper, to start to repair the tragic situation with the American journalism system. He called it "No Reporter Left Behind."
"For too many years have we seen the sad evidence accumulating that our nationâs media outlets and journalism schools simply arenât achieving what they must for our nation to maintain its first-place ranking in freedom of speech and a properly informed public," he declared. "Compared to journalists of a few decades ago, todayâs reporters show an increasing inability to comprehend simple English or basic statistics, to exercise logic, or to even recognize that theyâre Americans."
"Now, many accuse the media of bias against my administration, but I donât believe that. Iâm here to change the tone in Washington and the nation, and I refuse to engage in such accusations. Iâm sure that journalists are well meaning. As a compassionate conservative, itâs clear to me that they simply havenât been given the education and training that they so desperately need, ainât that the truth!
and we need to help them and their hardworking editors"...
Others, though, were skeptical. "Itâs not a problem that can be solved by just throwing money at it," said one editor. Another woman in attendance, a professor at the USC School of Journalism, expressed concern that budding reporters would be "taught to the test," and unable to properly focus on critical areas such as Lacanian metacontexts of transgressive gender oppression.
No reporters from the LA Times seemed to be present, having all been assigned to dig up fresh dirt on Governor Schwarzenegger. In response to a question from the LA Daily News as to whether he thought that this seeming attack on Californiaâs largest newspaper might cause them to further increase their support for Senator Kerry and damage his electoral prospects in the fall, the president replied, "I donât know. You might want to ask Governor Davis about that."
Ouch
Hysterically funny, and it fits, too. Read the rest at the link.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/20/2004 8:52:09 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Fred - please delete the second post. I got a "would not display" page the first time I hit the Accept button, and didn't think it had gone through.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/20/2004 20:58 Comments ||
Top||
It was an engineering success on the order of stringing the first cables for the Brooklyn Bridge or coaxing the first glimmer of starlight through some giant telescope to unravel the structure of the universe. But when it occurred late last month, the achievement remained cloaked in absolute secrecy, marked only by a quiet celebration among participants who may remain forever unknown to history. Raw sewage was treated in Baghdad. But enough about Saddamâs upcoming trial ...
The stream of treated water that eventually found its way into the Tigris River was hardly more than a trickle, roughly 20 million gallons a day from a city that produces raw sewage at something like 10 times that rate or more. But the accomplishment is all but epoch-making in a city where the sewage plants are in such disrepair that for the last 10 to 15 years, every drop of that muck was poured untreated into the river, fouling everything from boat landings to drinking water systems downstream. Successes like this one were just what Congress envisioned when it appropriated billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq, hoping the improvements would convince ordinary Iraqis of America's good will. But for what those in charge of the work, the U.S. Agency for International Development and its major contractor, Bechtel, called security reasons, the sewage breakthrough remained secret... The development agency and Bechtel said the breakthrough occurred in a dangerous part of Baghdad where any publicity could make the project a target for saboteurs. That argument, and the bizarre concept of a secret sewage project, has generated frustration among some of the engineers, who say that secrecy defeats the original purpose of the work. This is the first sewage treatment in Baghdad in 15 years but "we can't get the word out," said one U.S. government engineer on the project. To the suggestion that publicity could lead to bombings and the like, the engineer said: "Well, guess what. We're getting bombed anyway."
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/20/2004 14:46 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The thing that amazes me about sewage treatment in the Middle East is the number of cities in rich oil producing states that never really treat their sewage. But maybe that is due to the fact that there is no treatise of the subject in the Koran.
Well, I hope that the Baghdad sewage treatment system works and stays on line. The Marsh Arabs downstream have been taking s**t both literally and figuratively from Baghdad for decades.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/20/2004 21:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
To the suggestion that publicity could lead to bombings and the like, the engineer said: "Well, guess what. We're getting bombed anyway."
But enough about their office parties ...
[rimshot]
AP, while I understand what you are trying to convey, there must be some bizzare effect that petro-dollars have on national leaders. Look at Nigeria, Mexico or several other oil producing countries.
The petroleum revenues can be millions of dollars per day, yet somehow the producing nation as a whole will still rank among the poorest on earth. What's more, these corrupt entities manage to gull the international community into providing foreign aid (instead of a decapitating air strike).
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will go to Germany on Sunday to have surgery the following day for a slipped disc. Mubarak, 76, has delayed several meetings with important visitors this month amid rumours about his health. He put off a meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom because of a sprained ankle, an official source said at the time, and a meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie last week also took place later than expected. But state television showed the president in apparently good health on Wednesday, standing and talking to reporters about Egyptian plans to help the Palestinians with security.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/20/2004 1:22:41 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Can't understand why he wouldn't want an Egyptian behind his back with a knife...
Minister for Religious Affairs Ijaz-ul-Haq told the National Assembly on Saturday that minorities in the country had full freedom and protection. âIf there are incidents where minorities were unjustly treated, they will be investigated and necessary action will be taken against the culprits,â said Mr Haq in response to the call attention notice raised by MNAs Gian Singh, Sher Akbar Khan, Devdas and Chaudhry Haroon Qaiser, in which the issues of violence against minorities and the desecration of holy places in Karachi, rural areas of Sindh and Toba Tek Singh were mentioned. The minister said that this matter should be referred to the ministry for minorities but that the government strongly believed in upholding minority rights.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/20/2004 1:03:19 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Minorities have freedom.
Try telling that to your (nonexistent) Jewish population.
Bugtis Unidentified men fired more than a dozen rockets at the biggest natural gas fields on Saturday, wounding a paramilitary soldier, but no damage was done to the installations, police said. Police said at least 15 rockets fell in different parts of the Sui natural gas fields, 280 kilometres southeast of Quetta.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/20/2004 12:54:18 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Rwandaâs foreign minister said Saturday that neighboring Congo has massed thousands of troops on the border and is preparing to attack his country. Foreign Minister Charles Muligande said the troops include Rwandan rebels who fled to Congo after playing a central role in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. "This heavy deployment of Congolese soldiers and Rwandan rebels is a big threat to the security of our country," Muligande said. "Certainly we shall not sit back and watch these developments."
Congoâs Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Henry Mova Sakanyi dismissed the allegations as "fabrications" and repeated claims that Rwandan troops were in Congo in violation of a peace deal. Earlier this month Congo accused Rwanda of backing renegade Congolese troops who seized control of the strategic eastern city of Bukavu for a week. Rwanda denied the charges. Rwanda sent troops into Congo in August 1998 to help Congolese rebels oust then-President Laurent Kabila. Rwanda accused Kabila of supporting Rwandan insurgents involved in the slaughter of at least 500,000 minority Tutsis and political moderates from the Hutu majority. Rwanda withdrew troops from Congo in November 2002 after Congo agreed to disarm Rwandan insurgents based in the country and hand them over to Rwandan authorities. Rwanda has since complained that Congo has failed to keep its side of the peace agreement.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/20/2004 10:56:06 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
by Chris Hastings and Charles Laurence, London Sunday Telegraph. EFL. Bill Clinton loses his temper with David Dimbleby during a BBC television interview to be broadcast this week when he is repeatedly quizzed about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Almost reason enough to upgrade the cable service so you get BBC America.
The former American president, famed for his uncontrolled priapism amiable disposition, becomes visibly angry and rattled, particularly when Dimbleby asks him whether his publicly declared contrition over the affair is genuine. His outrage at the line of questioning during the 50-minute interview, to be broadcast on Panorama on Tuesday night, lasts several minutes. It is the first time that the former President has been seen to lose his temper publicly over the issue of his sexual liaisons with Ms Lewinsky. The President initially responds to Dimblebyâs questions by launching a general attack on media intrusion. "Iâd have gotten away with it, too, if it wasnât for those meddling kids!"
When the broadcaster persists with the question of whether the politician was truly penitent, Clinton directs his anger towards Dimbleby. "Insolent lackey! How dare you ask penetrating questions in an interview! Donât you know who I am?"
. . . One BBC executive who has seen the interview, which took place in a New York hotel last Wednesday, said: "He is visibly angry with Dimblebyâs line of questioning and some of that anger gets directed at Dimbleby himself. As outbursts go, it is not just some flash that is over in an instant. It is something substantial and sustained. It is memorable television which will give the public a different insight into the Presidentâs character. It will leave them wondering whether he is as contrite as he says he is about past events." Iâm not surprised Clinton isnât contrite, Iâm surprised he lost his composure and let it out. Iâm also surprised it was Auntie Beeb that set him off.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/20/2004 9:02:32 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If only Clinton punched out the BBC dweeb. That would have been must see TV.
Posted by: ed ||
06/20/2004 9:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Clinton was probably pissed because he thought he was in friendly territory. Had it been FOX asking these questions, he probably would have handled them easily.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
06/20/2004 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Zpaz - not for me. Interesting the things learned in EMT training. :-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/20/2004 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I smell a set-up. This is Clinton going for attention. He's like the class clown in grade 3, the kid who would do anything to be noticed. Just the way he intruded his "wounded feelings" into Reagan Week, he'll do anything to get people to think about him and buy his book. Best strategy - ignore him.
Posted by: Patrick ||
06/20/2004 10:56 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Wait till someone (er, not me) asks him about poor Juanita Broaddrick.
It's fairly rare, usually painful (though in Clinton's case probably not, but his "priapism" is more of the hound-dog-in-constant-heat variety, rather than a medical condition), and we were taught about its existence along with other serious-but-rare conditions I've never seen, such as epiglottitis.
I don't think it's life-threatening, but it's quite painful and, if untreated, could probably lead to impotence - not sure. And no, I've no idea how it's treated; probably drugs of some kind. (They probably said more back when I took the class, but I didn't store more info than I needed to recognize the problem & know the patient would need transport; it doesn't affect me personally, after all. Sorry.)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/20/2004 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#9
It just reminded of a legend passed on by a med student friend: A group of students were dissecting a cadaver. The cadaver had an erection. A male student took a scalpel and sliced the offending member down the center splitting it in two. The female student stood mesmerized for several minutes. Finally, the male asked her if anything was wrong. She thought for a minute more, then asked, "Where's the bone?"
Obviously that was a story from more innocent days.
#15
I've seen Panorama on BeebUSA a couple times - there are still occasional days when they're mainlining Changing rooms or What Not To Wear. But to me it's all worth it for just one all-day Blackadder or Keeping Up Appearances marathon...
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/20/2004 20:01 Comments ||
Top||
(Friggin Vichy clone (Barnier), may he be with Yassir one his time arrives..)
On the eve of the first regional visit by newly-appointed French Foreign Minister Michael Barnier, Israeli officials expressed regret that the French continue to court Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. Barnier will leave Paris on Sunday for his first official visit to the Middle East, going to Egypt and Jordan. A week later, Barnier will go to the PA for two days for meetings with Arafat, PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, and PA Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath.
Barnier will not come to Israel, apparently because of the governmentâs policy of not meeting foreign officials who meet Arafat. A French Foreign Ministry communiqu said that Barnier hopes to make a visit to Israel "after the summer." Israeli diplomatic officials said that foreign officialsâ policy of going to see Arafat is "unwise," and has done nothing to move forward the cause of reform in the PA. Barnier would have done better, the officials said, had he heeded the example of half-a-dozen other foreign ministers who have visited Israel recently without paying a call on Arafat. The officials said that no visit by Barnier to Israel has yet be finalized.
Barnierâs visit to Arafat comes at a time of increasing international pressure, especially from Egypt, on the Palestinians to take some power from Arafat and streamline the PAâs security forces. Israeli diplomatic officials have said in the past that the visits of foreign dignitaries to Ramallah embolden Arafat with the feeling that he still has international support.
In its statement, the French Foreign Ministry said the purpose of Barnierâs visits to the region will be to "reiterate the determination of France and the European Union to seek solutions to break the current impasse in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The minister will reaffirm our commitment to the road-map and discuss the new opportunity that may come from the prospect of Israelâs withdrawal from Gaza, to which Egypt is making an important contribution."
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/20/2004 12:47:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It occurs to me that France is acting more and more like an Arab country instead of merely a third rate country.
#2
France is an enemy of all that is moral and decent in the world. Period. Their Arabization is strategic and completely intentional. In a sense, they would rather rule in Hell (as a spearhead of the Arab invasion of Europe) than serve in Heaven (as part of the Western alliance). More's the pity.
#7
French Nazis serving the Vichy pro-Berlin government gleefully assisting in sending thousands of French & French based refugee Jews to their deaths by pushing these poor souls into the death trains heading for extermination death camps.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/20/2004 2:56 Comments ||
Top||
Burkina Faso continues to reap the financial rewards of cutting diplomatic relations with China 10 years ago in order to establish links with Taiwan instead. The two countries signed an agreement on Thursday that provides for Taiwan to grant the West African country nearly US$14 million for water supply, irrigation and rural development projects over the next three years. Most of the money will be used to sink 1,000 boreholes to provide clean drinking water in villages and build 25 reservoirs to improve irrigation in rural areas. The remainder will be used to improve the roads in five provincial towns. Burkina Faso broke off diplomatic relations with China in 1994 and established formal ties with Taiwan instead. Since then it has received a steady flow of aid from the island state, which China regards as a renegade province of its own territory. The latest $14 million aid agreement on Thursday represents the first tranche of a $32.5 million Taiwanese aid package agreed last year to cover the period 2004-2006.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/20/2004 10:38:25 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/20/2004 00:10 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Everything about this enterprise is amazing, including Rutan's sideburns. Consider the testosterone level of the pilot who's going to deadstick this ship down from 62 miles high. I hope he gets the acclaim that Lindberg got.
#2
The fuel used, specially developed by US firm SpaceDev, is called hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB). It is a mix of rubber and nitrous oxide, commonly known as laughing gas.
This could make a launch accident a lot less stressful.
#3
The fuel used, specially developed by US firm SpaceDev, is called hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB). It is a mix of rubber and nitrous oxide, commonly known as laughing gas.
This could make a launch accident a lot less stressful.
#5
As usual the media stories about this miss at least half the story. The X-Prize requires two flights in a two week period with a pilot and two passengers or their weight equivilant. If Rutan has enough weight on board and is successful this flight it would open up the possibility of a 4th of July second flight. But as far as this becoming a commercial success as far as the space tourism business goes I'd give either EXOR or Bristol Spaceplanes a better chance as they will have simpler operating systems provided they can get the engines sorted out.
#6
cheaderhead, I thought that the contestant had to inform the X-prize organisers if they were making an attempt for the prize? I could be wrong, but I've been following things via several other blogs and this is the first I've heard of an actual attempt tomorrow.
Apart from all that though, this is a truly amazing adventure! - not least because it shows you *don't* need a shedful of cash from the 'Gummint' (I've seen Rutan on the TV and he pronounces the word in that way ;) to get off the ground.
Certainly if he does do another trip on 4th July that would be fantastic!
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
06/20/2004 9:47 Comments ||
Top||
#7
#5 Cheeseboy "As usual the media stories about this miss at least half the story. The X-Prize requires two flights in a two week period with a pilot..."
Go and reread the article, they cover that detail nicely.
#6 "...making an attempt for the prize?"
Tomorrow is a dry run attempt at the target altitude. If they make it, you can expect an attempt for the prize within 4 to 6 weeks.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
