Oh, this is just too damned good.

Before the Iraq War started, two Democratic dopes went to Iraq and spoke to us about how painful it would be for the Iraqi children. They appealed to us to not do anything and just leave the status quo in place.

Newly opened documents, however, show that the trip was underwritten by Saddam Hussein.

Please, contain your shock.

Saddam Hussein’s intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

The three anti-war Democrats made the trip in October 2002, while the Bush administration was trying to persuade Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. While traveling, they called for a diplomatic solution.

Prosecutors say that trip was arranged by Muthanna Al-Hanooti, a Michigan charity official, who was charged Wednesday with setting up the junket at the behest of Saddam’s regime. Iraqi intelligence officials allegedly paid for the trip through an intermediary and rewarded Al-Hanooti with 2 million barrels of Iraqi oil.

The lawmakers are not named in the indictment but the dates correspond to a trip by Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California. None was charged and Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said investigators “have no information whatsoever” any of them knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam.

“Obviously, we didn’t know it at the time,” McDermott spokesman Michael DeCesare said Wednesday. “The trip was to see the plight of the Iraqi children. That’s the only reason we went.”

You didn’t know it at the time?

Are you fucking with me?

I don’t know a single soul in this country other than the ones who were drooling over the seditious and treasonous comments they made while they were there that didn’t believe the damn thing was bought and paid for by Saddam as an appeal to the anti-war idiots who riddle this country.

The fact that they were unaware of that at the time proves that none of them should be involved in the operation of our government. If you miss something that obvious, you’re too damn stupid to serve in it.

Case closed.

One of the things I like about Hillary Clinton is that when the time came to do the right thing in Iraq, she did it. She voted for the war, ignorning the nutbars in her party and instead following the desires of over 70% of the country who were demanding something be done.

What went down afterward notwithstanding, it took a great deal of courage for all the Democrats who voted for the Iraq war to do what they did. Oh sure it was the popular opinion, but they followed it at great risk to their political career. While people like Bonior and McDermott were coddling Saddam Hussein and riling up the anti-war left, some Democrats had the spine to do what needed to be done (81 in the House and 29 in the Senate) based on the information we had at the time.

Some have looked back on that decision and tried to spin it. Knowing what we know now, and how little was found in Iraq (not counting what mysteriously and unaccountably vanished according to UN inspection chief and god-of-the-left Hans Blix), it’s easy to look back and say we shouldn’t have gone, but the one thing that isn’t so easy is admitting you’re wrong without flip-flopping on it.

Barack Obama has based most of his candidacy on the fact that he has been “against” the Iraq war from the beginning, bringing up on numerous occasions that he spoke out against it and would never have voted for it. Many of his supporters have latched onto that as proof that he has some kind of amazing vision and is destined to be President because he’ll make the right choices for America.

I’m not impressed, though.

It takes exactly zero courage to speak out against the war when there are no political consequences for doing so. As much as Barack Obama and his army of mindless supporters trumps up his disagreement with the war, there was not even a potential cost in him doing so. If the Iraq war succeeded or failed, people in Illinois were not voting for Barack Obama based on his position on Iraq.

It really is that simple.

Secondly, when 70% of the country wants something, as a representative for those people, you’re almost obligated to do it. Save for a few exceptions, this country was solidly behind the war in the lead up to it. Voting against it would be a direct contradiction to the will of the people that put you there. Obama would’ve stood directly against the will of the people of this country because of his own personal objections. He didn’t have the benefit of Federal government intelligence (no matter how right or wrong, he didn’t base his judgment on it because he never saw it) and he didn’t base it on briefings by generals and other officials because, again, he wasn’t in the Federal government. Instead, Barack Obama proudly admits that he would’ve stood up against the war, based on nothing but media reports and such, in direct contradiction to the desires of his country.

Is that the guy you want running the country?

You’ll understand if I don’t get all giddy about that.

I’ve been cringing every time I hear it… There’s a horrible story out of Iraq proving the kind of savages these folks are capable of being (and by these folks I mean the “insurgents,” “terrorists” or as Patty Murray would call them, “Freedom Fighters)…

More than 90 deaths in Baghdad are being blamed on two suicide bombers.

The were women who are believed to have been mentally retarded and may have been unwittingly used for the killings. Authorities say both had been strapped with remote-controlled explosives.

The coordinated blasts, coming 20 minutes apart in different parts of the city Friday, appear to reinforce U.S. claims that al-Qaida-in-Iraq may be increasingly desperate and running short of able-bodied men to carry out such missions.

More cringeworthy than the story itself is the absolute idiocy I hear coming out of people’s mouths with regards to it being a “new low” for Al Qaeda. What? A “new” low? Let’s examine some of Al Qaeda’s handiwork over the past few years…

3000 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. Their crime? Going to work.

They were linked to the organization that did the Bali bombings at a resort that killed 202 people, most of whom were on vacation.

They killed 191 people in Madrid for being bold enough to ride a train.

224 people were killed in 1998 at various US African embassies.

Thousands more have been maimed and killed at the hands of Al Qaeda, most of them innocent people going about their daily business. Hundreds of men, women, and children were killed on 9/11 inside the planes, completely not counting the ones that died in the buildings.

After all those deaths of innocents, this is a new low?

Go fuck yourselves.

Why? Because they’re retarded? Have we gotten so lost in political correctness that we can call the death of two people “a new low” over the deaths of thousands of other innocent people?

Not for nothing, but I really hope someone has the balls to dare and tell me to my face this is a “new low” so I have an excuse to knock them the fuck out. Anyone who thinks that way is a moron and deserves a swift punch, so do your country and common sense a service. Introduce these idiots to your knuckles. My guess is they need to meet.

AP Photo

I know all the candidates said it, but I’m particularly interested in Edwards saying it for a specific reason…

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.

“It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,” added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“I cannot make that commitment,” said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Wait, what? You can’t make that commitment? You’ve been making that promise in every campaign e-mail you send out (well every campaign e-mail except for the ones where he’s exploiting his wife’s cancer, anyway) and now you can’t make that commitment? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not running on a platform of ending the war in Iraq, Senator, you are.

Here’s the wording he used in a more recent e-mail:

This election is critical to America’s future. We need to elect a president with the vision and courage to end the war in Iraq, stop global warming, provide universal health care for every American, and undo the damage that the Bush administration has done at home and abroad.

And here it is in one prior, released on 9/14:

Two powerful minutes—that’s what we saw last night. After President Bush made yet another argument for continuing the war, JohnEdwards spoke directly to the American people and told us, clearly and simply, why we need to end the war in Iraq now.

JohnEdwards is right—our troops are stuck between a president without a plan to succeed and a Congress without the courage to bring them home. JohnEdwards’ message is unambiguous. No timeline, no funding. No excuses.

No timeline, no funding, no excuses, and no commitment to actually back any of that up. Way to weasel out, Senator.

Now before you go jumping down my throat, you need to hear me out here. I wouldn’t expect any candidate with a brain to predict that they would be able to full withdraw troops by 2013. That’s just asking for trouble and setting a goal that will be the “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge of the modern era. But, with that being said, isn’t it odd that someone like Edwards who’s obsessed with proving how he’s going to end the war when pressed on actually doing it backs down?

If you don’t want to make that commitment in a debate, Senator, stop making it in your campaign e-mails. He can’t have it both ways. Either he believes his e-mails or he believes his debate posturing, but something tells me that answer at the debate was more to keep his opponents from lighting him on fire and making him look incompetent than something he actually believes.

Source

Technorati Tags: john edwards, iraq, democratic debate

Alan Greenspan, who just a few days ago was quoted as saying the Iraq war was indeed about oiiiiiiil, has now come back to “clarify” his statement:

“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, “I have never heard them basically say, ‘We’ve got to protect the oil supplies of the world,’ but that would have been my motive.” Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, “Well, unfortunately, we can’t talk about oil.” Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, “I talked to everybody about that.”

That’s an interesting “clarification” from what we had him saying last week:

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

He also “clarified” that this wasn’t an oil grab in his estimation:

Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel — far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week — and the loss of anything more would mean “chaos” to the global economy.

Given that, “I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.

“No, no, no,” he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of “making certain that the existing
system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will.”

Wow. That’s a lot of backpedaling, Mr. Greenspan. Seriously. I’m quite disappointed. If you’re gonna say something, stand by it. Instead, he had a bit of a shitstorm, and backed off. Truth is, it was a great comeback and explanation, but it looks like a whole bunch of spin when juxtaposed with his original statement.

via Slobokan

So now the right who loved him will now hate him and the left who hated him will now love him… You win some, you lose some…

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Oh man… Let the gnashing of teeth begin.

Technorati Tags: greenspan, iraq, saddam, war, oil

Original quote:

And let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down in spite of the Surge, not because of the Surge.

The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from Al Qaeda said to these tribes, “We have to fight Al Qaeda ourselves.”

And it now reads:

And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.

The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.”

Oh you coward. You sniveling slimy little coward.

I’d rather he stuck with the more damning version. At least if he did, he could say he’s a man that sticks by his convictions. Instead, he decides to change his quote to something significantly more sanitized because he realizes that his rhetoric could cost him in some fashion later on (although I live in NYC and I seriously doubt any locals hearing this were all that outraged about it).

It’s a good thing someone caught the original quote otherwise he would’ve just done what all politicians do. Deny, deny, deny.

Technorati Tags: schumer, surrender monkey

Stay the course.

President George W. Bush has insisted America can still win the war in Iraq, despite a bleak picture of progress in the war-wracked nation painted by a White House report.

As Bush tried to quell a Republican revolt and thwart rising Democratic demands to bring troops home, he argued there were still grounds for optimism, especially in the area of security.

‘I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must,’ Bush said at a press conference, ruling out any troop withdrawals based on souring public opinion on the war.

He said a pull-back before commanders recommended it was safe would be ‘dangerous’ for the Middle East and mean handing over Iraq to Al-Qaeda.

Yep. Stay the course.

The report found the Baghdad government had made satisfactory progress towards only eight of 18 benchmarks on political, security and military goals, set by the US Congress. Progress has been ’satisfactory’ on another eight benchmarks with uncertain results on two more.

The assessment revealed that efforts by Iraq to get its armed forces operating independently of US units — a key goal of the administration’s hopes to eventually cut US troop numbers, had made ‘unsatisfactory progress.’

Stay the course.

It found the Baghdad government has made ‘unsatisfactory’ progress on legislation explicitly endorsed by Washington as central to efforts to quiet sectarian violence.

There was more optimism on the situation in some regions, like Anbar province, where it echoed recent US statements that local tribal leaders had turned sharply against members of Al-Qaeda.

A senior US official, on condition of anonymity styled the interim report as merely a snapshot of the early stages of the operation announced in January.

‘The report came out as you would expect an interim report to come out, with security indicators leading and political lagging behind,’ the official said.

Security and political lagging behind what?

Seriously… This is why we need to think our Iraq strategy. Quickly. Setting up a self-defending government is the priority, not the after effect. If we can’t get that going and if the Iraqis are still there not trying to take the reigns of their own country, why the hell are we still there expecting it to happen?

Oh right.

Stay the course.

Which we were never actually about, according to the President.

Gen. Douglas Lute is not impressed with the Iraqi government’s non-action and thinks that we could motivate them to start acting like they have a backbone if we stopped

Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, a skeptic of the troop increase in Iraq and President George W. Bush’s choice to oversee the war, said withdrawing troops may pressure the Iraqi government to make needed changes.

Under questioning from Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, Lute said the Michigan Democrat may be correct in his long-held assertion that the Iraqi government will only work to end sectarian strife if it has to.

A withdrawal “ought to be considered,” Lute, 54, said during the committee’s hearing in Washington on his nomination as a coordinator of war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And then of course this:

“I registered concerns that a military ’surge’ would likely have only temporary and localized effects unless it were accompanied by counterpart ’surges’ by the Iraqi government and the other non-military agencies of the U.S. government,” Lute said.

The final troop-increase plan “took such concerns into account,” but progress to date is “uneven,” he said.

“We face persistent violence, insufficient progress in governance and the economy and unhelpful influences from Syria and Iran,” he said.

It’s amazing how everyone except for the man in the chair in the Oval Office sees what’s going on so clearly.

How long before General Lute’s out? That is indeed the question.

WASHINGTON - In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.

While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Democratic officials stressed the legislation was subject to change. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss provisions before a planned presentation to members of the party‘s rank and file later in the day.

You know what the worst part of this is? A timeline is the right way to go. It forces us to start making plans to leave, and forces the Iraqis to stick up for themselves. It gets our soldiers home, and stops the money suck that is the mismanaged Iraq war. All in all, Democrats stood up, for once.

Well, now they’ve rolled right back over. They got pressured into changing tunes, and proceeded to give up when their “patriotism” was called into question. Apparently letting troops root in a desert is much more patriotic than doing whatever you can to bring them home.

So the next time a Democrat either lectures you about not standing up against the war, or berates the President for stubbornly “staying the course,” have a good laugh at them because they’re most likely as responsible; particularly if they voted for this bill.

Technorati Tags: war, iraq

Amongst all the ill-will created by the President’s move to withhold funding from the troops in Iraq, we’ve lost sight of one thing. The funding of the Iraq War will not go on endlessly without an endgame in site and that the same funding will not just be a bottomless pit of money without some hard progress being made.

Of course the President vetoed this.

We’ve been stuck in Iraq for a long time now, and part of the reason is that there’s been unbelievably poor leadership during the time we’re there. Instead of doing the job right, getting it done, and leaving, we’ve engaged in attempted nation building on a scale that’s incomprehensible considering the country, and improbable considering the various ethnic hostilities there. Instead, we just keep saying, “Oh this will work…” and we add more soldiers, more money, and more lives into a burning pile that isn’t getting us any closer to being able to actually leave.

I understand progress is being made. Yes there’s a constitution. Yes there is the makings of a police force. Yes we even have some cities that are okay. But none of that is a positive move toward us leaving Iraq, which is what most of America wants right now. Mr. “It’s never been about stay the course” seems to want us to believe that if we just stay the course, things are going to heal themselves.

Anyone who buys into that is a moron, and I don’t care what side of the political fence you build your outhouse on.

There are a few simple facts as they relate to Iraq right now…

1. A bunch of our allies have already decided that it ain’t working and left or have plans to do so soon.

2. Iraqis still aren’t defending themselves and we’re still doing much of the heavy lifting with regards to security.

3. We’re sinking more money into Iraq on a daily basis without any signs that there’s an endgame in mind for leaving or what would constitue a finished job.

4. At the same time we’re being told things are better, we’re told that things are bad and we need to supply the troops with what they need.

5. At the same time we’re being told we need to supply the troops with what we need, the bill that gives them that was just vetoed by a man who looks utterly clueless sitting in the Oval Office.

Was the bill poisoned purposely so the President would veto it? Fucking duh. If you think otherwise you’re a moron, too. But, the fact that it was doomed to failure simply because it said you can’t have a bottomless supply of money and this war can’t go on forever is proof positive that the guy in the oval office is just as politically motivated as the guys who meet with Howard Dean to know what urinal to take a piss in.

Enough of this win / lose machismo bullshit. Thousands upon thousands of lives later, there’s no way to walk out of Iraq saying “We won.” That opportunity passed a long time ago. The best thing we can do is to take the soldiers who sacrificed so much to be there and bring them back where they belong.

Home.

I don’t want to see another soldier’s life wasted because our President doesn’t want to be called a war-loser, and I certainly don’t want to see the war go on indefinitely just so after a few thousand more deaths we can just say, “See? We stayed the course.”

I guess we can drop the whole “we support the troops, not the war” bullshit.

In Washington, counterprotesters also converged on the mall in smaller numbers, but the antiwar demonstration was largely peaceful.

There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq.

Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

Capitol police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters.

“These are not Americans as far as I’m concerned,” Mr. Sparling said.

Look, I’m no happier with the war than anyone else. Frankly, I think it’s become a mismanaged mess combined with a stubbornness contest run by a man who once thought staying the course meant never changing and who later came on and said the plan was never to stay the course.

A mess. A disaster. A mismanaged clusterf**k.

That being said, I still don’t think anyone mislead the country and I certainly don’t think anyone was “fooled, tricked, or lied to.” I think we were wrong. Plain and simple. I also think that because the President has tried so hard to fight a soft mushy nicey nice war (shock and awe my ass), he didn’t get the job done when it could’ve been months ago. He didn’t go in strong enough to the areas where people like Muqtada al Sadar were running the show and take people like him out.

Bad move.

He also didn’t pressure his generals or the Iraqi government to get their people to take control quicker. It almost seems that if we leave at any point, that country will fall into even worse chaos than it’s in now.

All that taken as a package, I still don’t blame our troops for it. Spitting at our troops and calling them babykillers, etc., does nothing to solve the problem that exists in Iraq or the question of how we can, at some point somewhere, make a strategic exit (you have to leave at some point unless you plan on making Iraq the 51st state, folks; be realistic).

Frankly, spitting on the troops is more of a gesture of F*** You and disrespect than anything else.

You wanna debate policy? Let’s! Please! Let’s have this discussion you guys are so anxious to have. I’d love to have people come up with real solutions to the problem we face in Iraq. I’d welcome a dose of thought rather than a cup of rhetoric from both sides.

Spitting is not a discussion, and the people doing it to our returning troops (particularly those who lost a limb) are not worth talking to to begin with because, quite frankly, I don’t think a debate is what they want.

Stop chanting “Bring our troops home!” if this is what you’re going to do to them when they get here.

Story quoted from Wizbang and my favorite conservative writer, Kim Priestap

Technorati Tags: iraq, army, soldier, protest, moonbats, idiots

$5 to the first liberal who makes the obvious point that executing Saddam will not end the fighting in Iraq.

It’s very interesting how we’ve now gotten our hands on some of Saddam’s archives and the kind of information we’ve found in them. It’s also interesting, however, to see how little buzz is generated around them. The information found in these documents is a goldmine, and the only thing I can think of as to why they aren’t plastered up in everyone’s face is that they actually bolster the Bush administration’s case for the war in Iraq.

We can’t have that…

One of the revelations as reported by ABC News is that Osama bin Laden did actually meet with a Saddam official, with Saddam’s blessing…

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein’s government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested “carrying out joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam’s presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further “development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what’s open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation.” The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

If you’ll remember, the meetings were questioned from the second they were mentioned, and now here’s Saddam’s own archive talking about the very meetings. Does this prove that Saddam financed 9/11? Of course it doesn’t, but it does prove that the links and meetings between the two were more than just some fabrication that Bush used to justify a war in Iraq.

It’s worthy of note, however, something ABC has in the paragraphs following this revelation:

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct “joint operations against foreign forces” in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.

Another document revealed in the article is even more troubling, however, than anything else.

Two Iraqi documents dated in March 2003 — on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion — and addressed to the secretary of Saddam Hussein, describe details of a U.S. plan for war. According to the documents, the plan was disclosed to the Iraqis by the Russian ambassador.

The first document (CMPC-2003-001950) is a handwritten account of a meeting with the Russian ambassador that details his description of the composition, size, location and type of U.S. military forces arrayed in the Gulf and Jordan. The document includes the exact numbers of tanks, armored vehicles, different types of aircraft, missiles, helicopters, aircraft carriers, and other forces, and also includes their exact locations. The ambassador also described the positions of two Special Forces units.

The second document (CMPC-2004-001117) is a typed account, signed by Deputy Foreign Minister Hammam Abdel Khaleq, that states that the Russian ambassador has told the Iraqis that the United States was planning to deploy its force into Iraq from Basra in the South and up the Euphrates, and would avoid entering major cities on the way to Baghdad, which is, in fact what happened. The documents also state “Americans are also planning on taking control of the oil fields in Kirkuk.” The information was obtained by the Russians from “sources at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar,” according to the document.

Russia is directly responsible for any deaths that occured before the regime fell. It amazes me the side of the world the Russian scumbags are on. They fed information to Iraq. They, along with China, are openly opposing action against Iran. They’ve benefited from the Oil for Food program scandal.

Anyone starting to see a pattern here with these bastards?

It amazes me how much information has come out of these archives. It also amazes me how little has been said about them.

Archives via ABC News

Technorati Tags: iraq, archives, war, al qaeda, russia

I was going to sit down and write a thoughtful longwinded post about the new images of torture from Abu Ghraib.

Yes, I called it torture.

Smeering feeces on someone is torture.

Hooking electrical wires to someone’s naked body is torture.

Beating someone to the extent that is done in these pictures is torture.

Tying people to door handles or to jailcell doors while they squirm in pain and cry in pain is torture.

What we don’t know is when exactly these pictures happened, and who exactly was performing these acts and under what authorization. What we do know is that it’s just as indefensible now as it was when it happened. This is a disgrace, and the people responsible for doing it, authorizing it, and turning a blind eye to it all need to be punished severely.

We don’t sit around when other animals do it to us; we shouldn’t sit around when our animals do it to others no matter who they are.

Technorati Tags: abu ghraib, torture, war, iraq

I knew that if something happened in the George Galloway libel appeal, Stageleft would be the first site to have the goods.

You may recall the flurry of (Right)WingNut rhetoric that followed George Galloways’

“I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns.”

– in front of a US Senate committee hearing… truly folks, the levels of outrage at these “horrible lies” spoken when Galloway not only refused to roll over but stood up to the Senate committee rose to near the levels usually only reserved for “Bush lied” statements.

I remember a flurry of something, but it wasn’t right-wing rhetoric. I think the proper term would be orgasmic left-wing circle-jerking.

A British Appeals court has backed a lower court ruling in a libel suit against the Daily Telegraph over allegations that Galloway illegally took money from Hussein, now if only he’d launch the same suit against the (Right)WingNuts who took such offense over his statements but completely ignored the fact that

US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

It’s funny that my good friend should bring up the idea of ignoring facts, but I guess someone so darned tootin’ good at it would recognize it the easiest when it happens.

You’ll probably recall Stage’s amazingly orgasmic proclamation about Galloway’s original testimony (post dated May 18, 2005):

I saw a bit of George Galloway and the US Senate committee while on the gym treadmill yesterday evening and I gotta tell ya, the urge to clap and cheer was heavy upon me…. if I hadn’t been quite so winded from the workout itself I might have,
for verily I say unto you, from what I saw he did well and truly kick their asses.

Hey may have, but it’s easy when you’re playing fast and loose with the facts. The UN investigation by Paul Volcker turned up the following, according to the Times (not the Telegraph which is the paper being sued for libel):

Days after a US Senate committee tracked a $150,000 (£84,000) payment to the MP’s now estranged Palestinian wife, the UN inquiry reported that Amina Naji Abu Zayyad had earlier received a series of transfers totalling $120,000.

The revelation increases the pressure on the vocal anti-war politician, whom the report says was nicknamed “Abu Mariam” by the Iraqis, a reference to his anti-sanctions campaign, the Mariam Appeal.

The Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow already faces a parliamentary ethics inquiry and possible criminal charges for making “false or misleading” statements during his celebrated confrontation with US Senators in May.

The new details of Mr Galloway’s alleged involvement in the oil-for-food scandal were contained in a 620-page report issued at the end of an 18-month UN inquiry by a panel led by Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the US Federal Reserve.

You’ll notice that while Stageleft is still proud that Galloway “verily kicked ass” in the Senate hearings, he has never once reported on the fact that the investigation by the UN has already found $270,000 worth of Iraqi cash being funnelled to Galloway. Not only did he not kick ass, he lied about his involvement.

I wonder how Stageleft missed that whole part of it…

Technorati Tags: galloway, anti-war, iraq, oil for food, scandal

Remember this?

Well, he’s at it again…

One year since honoring the American service men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ted Koppel and ABC News “Nightline” will again pay tribute to the fallen by devoting an extended broadcast to reading the names and showing the photographs of more than 900 service members who have been killed in those countries over the last year. Entitled “The Fallen,” the special “Nightline” broadcast will air Memorial Day, Monday, May 30, 2005 at 11:35 p.m. ET on the ABC Television Network. ABC News Radio will air excerpts of the program.

Aren’t May Sweeps great?

Source: Drudge

Saddam lawyers to sue British tabloid over photo
1 hour, 14 minutes ago

DUBAI (AFP) - Lawyers representing
Saddam Hussein plan to sue the British tabloid that published intimate photos of the deposed Iraqi dictator, it was reported, quoting the head of the defence team.

The photos in The Sun, one of which shows Saddam wearing only his underpants, are a “violation of human rights and in contravention of the Geneva Convention” on treatment of prisoners, Ziad Khassawneh was quoted by Al-Jazeera television as saying.

Doesn’t make it less funny though. The US has already come out against the photos. The people responsible should have the crap punished out of them.

But I’m glad they were shared because they were quite amusing.

Source: Yahoo

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Murderer…

Killer…

Tyrant…

Bastard…

And underwear model…

In it, Stageleft admits that he has evidence that Iraq had WMD’s.

So the question… Stageleft, does Iraq have WMD’s?

…As I understand it… the answer is yes… everything from Iraqi WMD, to airborne drones capable of spreading chemicals over America…I’ve stated my reasons for considering the claim credible…the basement bunker will continue to follow the story

Wow.

That’s an actual quote folks!