[ekm]100x100[ekm].jpg)
« Queen's Tomb Discovered In Mayan Ruins In Guatemala | Main | Imagine This As The View From Your Bedroom »
May 06, 2004
U.S. Troops Said to "Mistreat" Elder Iraqi
Why do troops "mistreat" when the victim is a woman and "torture and abuse" when the victim is a man?
U.S. Troops Said to Mistreat Elder Iraqi
From Associated Press: "U.S. soldiers who detained an elderly Iraqi woman last year placed a harness on her, made her crawl on all fours and rode her like a donkey, Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal human rights envoy to Iraq said Wednesday." [via TalkLeft.]
This war has to stop.
It's time for Rumsfeld to go, for our troops to be removed from Iraq, and for Bush to get impeached.
Posted on May 6, 2004 at 10:37 PM | Permalink
Comments
and why is "detain[ing] an elderly Iraqi woman last year plac[ing] a harness on her, ma[king] her crawl on all fours and r[iding] her like a donkey" just "said" to be mistreatment? is there any serious question whether this reaches the mistreatment threshhold?
Posted by: upyernoz at May 7, 2004 10:58:59 AM
Trish were you aware of these comments?
The buck stops where?
Amid calls for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's removal over allegations of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military personnel, some conservative pundits have their own ideas of who is responsible. Media Matters for America has identified at least four groups who have been blamed: women, feminists, Muslims, and the academic left.
Women
Ann Coulter, right-wing pundit and syndicated columnist, said:
I think the other point that no one is making about the abuse photos is just the disproportionate number of women involved, including a girl general running the entire operation.
I mean, this is lesson, you know, one million and 47 on why women shouldn't be in the military. In addition to not being able to carry even a medium-sized backpack, women are too vicious.
[FOX News Channel, Hannity & Colmes, May 5]
Linda Chavez, syndicated columnist and FOX News Channel political analyst, wrote:
But one factor that may have contributed -- but which I doubt investigators will want to even consider -- is whether the presence of women in the unit actually encouraged more misbehavior, especially of the sexual nature that the pictures reveal.
[The Heritage Foundation's website Townhall.com and The Baltimore Sun, May 5]
Feminists
George Neumayr, managing editor of The American Spectator, wrote:
The image of that female guard, smoking away as she joins gleefully in the disgraceful melee like one of the guys, is a cultural outgrowth of a feminist culture which encourages female barbarians. GI Janes are kicking around patriarchal Muslims in Iraq? This is [Feminist Majority Foundation president] Eleanor Smeal's vision come to life. Had Thelma and Louise gone off to Iraq -- and sexually humiliated some of Saddam Hussein's soldiers as payback for abuse to Jessica Lynch a few cities back -- the radical feminists could make a sequel. ...
Feminists are good at creating a culture that produces "equal-opportunity abusers," Donnelly says. What happened at Abu Ghraib is also happening in feminist America, she adds, pointing to an Associated Press article from last month on a "disturbing trend around the country. Girls are turning to violence more often and with terrifying intensity." ...
Perhaps in the eyes of feminists this isn't a crisis but a potential social program and these girls deserve ROTC credits.
[The American Spectator, May 5]
Posted by: peon at May 7, 2004 11:56:26 AM
yeah, what peon said. i just blogged about it this morning. the links are on my site (and i ripped them from atrios)
Posted by: upyernoz at May 7, 2004 12:06:52 PM
I'm aware of it now, Peon. :( I'm so fried with all the bad news I've put a moratorium on reading political blogs for the weekend. Blaming feminists and women for this? Blame The Feminist Majority? Oh, for crying out loud, The Feminist Majority has done more than most groups when it comes to bringing attention to and stopping human rights abuses against Afghan and Iraqi women.
Noz, I'm disgusted with all of it. There's a lot of attention being paid to one woman who, with her male U. S. soldier cohorts, tortured male Iraqi prisoners, and what little attention that has been paid to ONE Iraqi woman who has been abused by U. S. troops has been brushed off as being "said" to be only "mistreatment."
Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 7, 2004 12:13:08 PM
If you are expecting reasonable punditry from Ann Coulter, you are sure to be disappointed. I may be on the same political "wing", so to say, as her, but I recognize political hacks on both sides for what they are, political hacks trying to yell the most obnoxious thing they can so as to gain more noteriety than the other political hacks. Ultimatley, Ann Coulter's main interest is not bringing down feminism - or any "ism", it is selling more books, which for her, requires being as controversial as possible (compare her statements about needing to convert muslims to Christianity post 9/11).
Look - the sad thing is that the act was so horrific that it should not suprise you if nearly EVERY group, feminists, masculists, leninists, nudists, ad nauseum gets accused of causing it.
At some point, and I have reached that point, you just stick your head in the sand and hope for the best. Regardless of who is to blame, the US looks like a bona-fide hypocrite to the rest of the world. Personally, I have never been more ashamed to call myself an American.
Posted by: souraaron at May 7, 2004 12:23:04 PM
I agree with you about political hacks on both sides, souraaron. I've heard them called "barking heads," and the imagery fits.
I feel the same way you do. I'm ashamed to be American, and I never thought I'd ever feel that way. I'm angry, too. I looked at the photos at The Memory Hole once and I couldn't look at them again. It's all just too much. I can't take anymore.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 7, 2004 12:39:10 PM
I was impressed that Bush actually apologized on an international level, instead of just masking regret with more rhetoric. Rummy, on the other hand...
Don't worry. My good impression won't last. Not as long as this shit is allowed to continue.
Posted by: Lauren at May 7, 2004 12:41:07 PM
You people disgust me. Why do you blame rumsfeld? Why should GW have apologized? for what? I wish he hadn't...He was simply bowing to the left is the only reason he did..Do you think he personally felt he should? I bet not. You people will claw and scrape at any freaking story you can to blame the man..and for what ...political power. Dont play stupid about it. Just admit it's a big freaking game. You people dont care about a fetus but you care about how some prisoner of war is treated? Gimme a flippin break! Get your head's out of your ass and be proud to be americans would you. I certainly am not ashamed to be american..if you are...guess what..in america you have the freedom to buy a plane ticket to wherever you feel you will be appreciated. have at it!
If a policeman kills another policeman who is to blame? the president? donald rumsfeld? who who i ask...THE POLICEMAN PERHAPS????
Posted by: "proud redneck american" at May 7, 2004 2:51:26 PM
If you want something to whine about ..why dont you whine about real atrocities.
There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed, in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones, I conducted harassment and interdiction fire, I used .50-caliber machine guns which were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages," Kerry said in 1971.
Your hero...JFK. LOL stick that in your righteous pipe and smoke it
Posted by: "dave" at May 7, 2004 3:31:33 PM
PRA,
If a policeman kills another policeman who is to blame? the president? donald rumsfeld? who who i ask...THE POLICEMAN PERHAPS????
normally the chief of police is held responsible for abuse under his command. many police chiefs have lost their jobs in such circumstances.
rumsfeld is the chief of the military and the president is commander in chief. they are ultimately responsible for what goes on with the people under their command. to make matters worse, the pentagon discovered this abuse months ago, and sent a report about it to rumsfeld in february. bush was advised of the allegations later that same month. but nothing came of it until 60 minutes 2 broke the story and showed us the pictures. bush and rumsfeld had the chance to do the right thing, but they chose to sit on the allegations and do nothing. i am sure a police chief in a parallel situation would be forced to resign in disgrace.
"dave,"
Your hero...JFK. LOL stick that in your righteous pipe and smoke it
don't assume that i believe kerry is a war hero. in my mind he didn't become a hero until he came home and publicly spoke out the bits you just quoted. kerry was responsible for atrocities and then owned up to it. i wish bush was willing to do the same thing.
Posted by: upyernoz at May 7, 2004 4:07:44 PM
LOL..."normally the chief of police is held responsible for abuse under his command. many police chiefs have lost their jobs in such circumstances" really..i would like one example please.
"in my mind he didn't become a hero until he came home and publicly spoke out the bits you just quoted. kerry was responsible for atrocities and then owned up to it. i wish bush was willing to do the same thing. REALLY??? i think you are full of it. Bush didnt personally do anything that you are holding him responsible for. i know you know the difference. its about political power and you know it. So from what you are saying is that if bush owns up to something he didnt do you will do what? vote for him? lol...right...
Dont even put him in the same category as a scumbag that would shoot little innocent vietnam kids and burn villages...THE man admitted to buring a freaking village. ITS OK though in your book if he just admits he was wrong and goes on?>??? I dont want to live in your world sorry.
"rumsfeld is the chief of the military and the president is commander in chief. they are ultimately responsible for what goes on with the people under their command."
last week at least 600,000 men masturbated that were in the military. IT's all gw's fault..lol thats what you are saying? you lawyers and your lack of accountability..keeps you in business i guess ..but honestly man...how do you freaking sleep at night?
Posted by: at May 7, 2004 4:25:34 PM
i would like one example please
how about one from your own home town (see the fourth paragraph). every time there is an accusation of abuse in a police department, people call for the firing or resignation of the chief. sometimes they get their way. why is that so hard for you to believe? it happened in chicago too after the police department was found to have tortured suspects in the 1980s.
Bush didnt personally do anything that you are holding him responsible for.
sure he did. he started this useless war in iraq. his decision to go to war has caused the deaths of thousands.
ITS OK though in your book if he just admits he was wrong and goes on?>??? I dont want to live in your world sorry
personally, i think it's better than refusing to ever admit you have made any mistakes (see bush's last press conference for example). i admire whistle-blowers. obviously it doesn't make what kerry did in vietnam right, i think that was criminal. i think it was heroic of him to later come forward. just because someone is a hero does not also mean he hasn't committed crimes. so no, it obviously doesn't minimize his crimes.
last week at least 600,000 men masturbated that were in the military. IT's all gw's fault..lol thats what you are saying? you lawyers and your lack of accountability..keeps you in business i guess ..but honestly man...how do you freaking sleep at night?
what a truly ridiculous example. are you serious? mastubation is not a crime. there's nothing wrong with 600k soldiers doing it, so there is nothing to hold anyone responsible for. if 600,000 people in the military did something criminal, like raped a bunch of people, i would absolutely hold the military leadership responsible. i think most people would.
do you actually think your example makes any kind of point? i don't hold the military leaders responsible for all the t.v. watching that goes on in the military either.
Posted by: upyernoz at May 7, 2004 9:05:37 PM
how about one from your own home town. Thats not even the same. A bunch of bad cops harassing blacks. It was brought to the attention of the chief and he chose to do nothing..show me how this is the same. dont play games noz ...you know its only about politics. dont try to justify it when you can justify kerry killing veitnamese and simply saying its ok..because he said oh im sorry...the presidnet said he was sorry..in your view that was enought..was it not??
sure he did. he started this useless war in iraq, YES HE STARTED IT. with the help and backing of jfk..he did vote yes for military action...or did you forget.
(see bush's last press conference....So you blame bush for 911 too? thats what you wanted him to say int he last press conference...What dont you get about accountability? the freaking terrorists did it. Are you ignorant?
so no, it obviously doesn't minimize his crimes.
its a crime..when is he going to pay for it? thats your world there..crime and paying for it mr lawyer.
what a truly ridiculous example. are you serious. i think you understand the point . dont play stupid
do you actually think your example makes any kind of point
yes. point being ..the president isn not responsible for what some group of dumbasses does in iraq....they are. CAN YOU NOT GRASP THAT? I KNOW YOU CAN.
By your theory. every time a group of individuals in the military decide to break the law..the president should be impeached. thats pretty stupid.
Posted by: at May 8, 2004 8:36:56 AM
"i admire whistle-blowers. obviously it doesn't make what kerry did in vietnam right, i think that was criminal. i think it was heroic of him to later come forward. just because someone is a hero does not also mean he hasn't committed crimes."
So by your theory there. charles manson is a hero
Posted by: at May 8, 2004 8:38:06 AM
hey dave, learn to use quotation marks. it's really hard to follow your ramblings when you quote me and then comment without indicating where the comment begins
actually, that's not the only problem. you're not really making a rational argument anymore, just flitting from point to point. but i will try my best to address this mess you have thrown at me:
-obviously there are factual differences between what happened in indianapolis in the link i gave you and what has happened in iraq. but that wasn't the point. here's a quick review:
1. in response to PRA i wrote "normally the chief of police is held responsible for abuse under his command. many police chiefs have lost their jobs in such circumstances."
2. you wrote: "LOL...really..i would like one example please"
3. so i posted an example from your own city. it wasn't supposed to be exactly the same as what happened in iraq. that's not what you asked me. you asked for one example where the chief of police is held responsible for abuse under his command and loses his job over it. so i gave you one.
are you really having this much trouble following our discussion here?
-"sure he did. he started this useless war in iraq, YES HE STARTED IT. with the help and backing of jfk..he did vote yes for military action...or did you forget."
no i didn't forget. did i ever say i had?
look, you seem to assume that just because you are a fanatical supporter of bush and believe that he is right on everything that i feel the same way about kerry. i have mixed feelings about the man. the only reason i support kerry in this election is because supporting him may get bush out of office.
you have to learn to argue against actual human beings, not some stereotype of who i am.
-"its a crime..when is he going to pay for it? thats your world there..crime and paying for it mr lawyer."
you obviously have little idea of what an lawyer does :)
(yes, that's an evasive answer, but you're getting so snarky, i can't resist)
-"i think you understand the point . dont play stupid"
i don't think you made a point. not being able to convince me is not "playing stupid" it's you being unconvincing. rather than resorting to name calling, why not address my response. here's another review to help you out:
1. i wrote: "rumsfeld is the chief of the military and the president is commander in chief. they are ultimately responsible for what goes on with the people under their command."
2. you replied: "last week at least 600,000 men masturbated that were in the military. IT's all gw's fault..lol thats what you are saying? you lawyers and your lack of accountability..keeps you in business i guess ..but honestly man...how do you freaking sleep at night?"
3. i replied: "what a truly ridiculous example. are you serious? mastubation is not a crime. there's nothing wrong with 600k soldiers doing it, so there is nothing to hold anyone responsible for. if 600,000 people in the military did something criminal, like raped a bunch of people, i would absolutely hold the military leadership responsible. i think most people would. do you actually think your example makes any kind of point? i don't hold the military leaders responsible for all the t.v. watching that goes on in the military either."
so, to summarize my point if you couldn't follow that: masterbation is not a crime. military commanders are responsible for crimes committed by their subordinates on their watch. the problem with the masterbation example is there is no crime there.
is this really such a hard concept for you to get? the problem with abu ghraib prison is not that military people walked around in there, it's that they committed crimes there. the military has a chain of command where superior officers are responsible for the actions of their subordinates. what exactly are you missing from this?
-"By your theory. every time a group of individuals in the military decide to break the law..the president should be impeached. thats pretty stupid."
i never said that bush should be impeached for abu ghraib. where did you get that from? he should take responsibility for it and fire rumsfeld for sitting on this report for 3 months. bush is not willing to take any responsibility for it. he waited 4 days to make any statement at all. then he went on arab t.v. and did his best to show remorse without apologizing. then, after 24 hours of outrage in the arab world, bush claimed, that he did apologize in a private meeting where there were no cameras with king abdullah of jordan (i don't know if he did, but how is apologizing to one arab is equivalent to apologizing to iraqi torture victims or their families? he didn't even get the leader of the right country). bush has done all he can to not take any responsibility for this. but taking responsibility is part of what a leader does and bush doesn't.
(there's also a practical reason for bush to do more. if he wants to have any hope of success in iraq he has to do something dramatic immediately to show iraqis that he is taking this seriously. his t.v. appearance failed pretty badly. if he wants to try to undo the damage heads have to roll over this. and fairly high level ones too. rumsfeld should go even if we ignore his 3 month cover-up of the abuse story, just as a matter of political strategy)
once again, i'm not saying he should be impeached for abu ghraib (he should be impeached for the war in iraq, but that's another story). try arguing against what i say, not what you think i believe.
-"So by your theory there. charles manson is a hero"
how does that follow, exactly? did manson ever blow any whistles? did manson do something heroic that i just never heard about? you're not really making sense here.
Posted by: upyernoz at May 8, 2004 9:32:07 AM
hey dave, learn to use quotation marks. it's really hard to follow your ramblings when you quote me and then comment without indicating where the comment begins
too bad..if you dont like it dont respond. i could care less what you think anyway.
it wasn't supposed to be exactly the same
yes it was
military commanders are responsible for crimes committed by their subordinates on their watch
im sorry but that is simply not true. As a matter of fact it is rediculous.
Trust me i know the ucmj. and it does not say that if i as a subordinate commit a crime..my commander is responsible in any way. THAT is not true and you can not prove your worthless theory. Your whole argument hinges on it and it just crumbled counselor.
but taking responsibility is part of what a leader does and bush doesn't.
" Bush told Jordan's King Abdullah II: "I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families.
"I told him I was as equally sorry that people seeing those pictures didn't understand the true nature and heart of America," Bush said, standing in the Rose Garden ALONGSIDE Abdullah.
he should be impeached for the war in iraq
are you going to impeach kerry too and all the dems who voted in favor of military response..who at the time had the same access to any intelligence on iraq. PLEASE PLEASE deny that...lol
did manson do something heroic that i just never heard about?
I dont really understand your definition of a hero if you say john kerry is one. FOLLOW THAT!!
Posted by: at May 8, 2004 3:52:05 PM
y'know dave, i actually thought you were capable of rational argument at one point. but whenever i try it always seems to reach a point where you start to get insulting rather than constructive and also either start playing stupid or totally missing my point. which is it?
nevertheless, i am going to try, once again, address what you're saying. let other's be the judge of who is making the most sense here:
too bad..if you dont like it dont respond. i could care less what you think anyway.
then what is your point of arguing with me? i think you do care. otherwise, why would you bother
it wasn't supposed to be exactly the same
yes it was
is that an argument? i spelled it out for you above and rather than addressing anything i said you did the equivalent of "is not!" if that's all you can come up with, i will assume you can't come up with anything better and are conceding my point. i'm giving you another chance though. i am reposting what i wrote above. your job (if you can do it) is to tell me where exactly i am wrong:
1. in response to PRA i wrote "normally the chief of police is held responsible for abuse under his command. many police chiefs have lost their jobs in such circumstances."
2. you wrote: "LOL...really..i would like one example please"
3. so i posted an example from your own city. it wasn't supposed to be exactly the same as what happened in iraq. that's not what you asked me. you asked for one example where the chief of police is held responsible for abuse under his command and loses his job over it. so i gave you one.
just to spell it out for you even more clearly you asked for "one example" of where "the chief of police is held responsible for abuse under his command" and "lost [his] job in such circumstances." i gave you an example of racial abuse allegations in your own home town that resulted in the resignation of the police chief. explain exactly how that isn't what you asked.
Trust me i know the ucmj. and it does not say that if i as a subordinate commit a crime..my commander is responsible in any way. THAT is not true and you can not prove your worthless theory. Your whole argument hinges on it and it just crumbled counselor.
when did i mention the ucmj? i didn't. my argument does not hinge on that. i never said rumsfeld should go to prison for abu ghraib (at least not under the facts that have emerged so far), only that he should lose his job over it. whether or not a secretary of defense keeps his job is not addressed in the ucmj. it simply is not relevant to the discussion. if you are really so familiar with the ucmj, you really should have been able to figure this out youself.
one more time: i'm not talking about charging rumsfeld with any crimes. that idea appears to have spontaneously generated in your own head. sec. of defs. have always been held responsible for things that go wrong under their watch. considering that rumsfeld was notified of these problems at least as far back as february, and considering that abu ghraib was part of the international prison network that is outside of any oversight which was rumsfeld's own brainchild, there is more than enough grounds to call for his resignation or termination, as i, and many others have. (e.g. the pro-war-in-iraq economist magazine)
" Bush told Jordan's King Abdullah II: "I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families.
"I told him I was as equally sorry that people seeing those pictures didn't understand the true nature and heart of America," Bush said, standing in the Rose Garden ALONGSIDE Abdullah.
first, i congratulate you on using quotes. second, how does that disprove what i said? i wrote
bush is not willing to take any responsibility for it. he waited 4 days to make any statement at all. then he went on arab t.v. and did his best to show remorse without apologizing. then, after 24 hours of outrage in the arab world, bush claimed, that he did apologize in a private meeting where there were no cameras with king abdullah of jordan (i don't know if he did, but how is apologizing to one arab is equivalent to apologizing to iraqi torture victims or their families? he didn't even get the leader of the right country). bush has done all he can to not take any responsibility for this. but taking responsibility is part of what a leader does and bush doesn't.
does your quote from bush contradict any of the things i said above? does it:
-indicate that bush did not wait 4 days before making any statement?
-indicate that he did not go on arab t.v. without apologizing?
-indicate that he did not wait another 24 hours?
-indicate that he did not apologize to abdullah in private where no cameras were around and then tell the press about it second hand?
-indicate that, in fact, bush apologized to any iraqi people? the victims? their families?
-indicate that abdullah is the leader of iraq not an entirely different country?
your only point seems to be that abdullah was standing next to bush at the time that he spoke to the press. but that doesn't contradict a single thing i said. am i to take that as an admission that you have no substantive response? that's what it looks like to me. if you want, try again. give me your best shot. if the past is any indication, i got nothing to worry about.
are you going to impeach kerry too and all the dems who voted in favor of military response..who at the time had the same access to any intelligence on iraq. PLEASE PLEASE deny that...lol
how many times do i have to go over this. i am against kerry's vote for the iraq resolution. how does that address my point? if kerry were president and did the same thing as bush in iraq, yes, i would call for kerry's impeachment. but how is that relevant again?
"did manson do something heroic that i just never heard about?"
I dont really understand your definition of a hero if you say john kerry is one. FOLLOW THAT!!
note, you didn't answer my question. another admission perhaps? one more time: kerry is heroic when he came home from vietnam and reported the atrocities he saw and took part of to the press and congress. that took guts and i admire that. i don't admire what he did in the war before he came home. why is that so hard to understand? and i honestly can't understand why you are so fixated on kerry. i've told you time and again that i am not a major fan of his, i am just a major fan of getting rid of bush
and i see you dropped the masturbation argument. could that mean that the crime vs. non-crime distinction has sunk in? at least we're making some progress.
Posted by: upyernoz at May 8, 2004 6:16:43 PM
Great post upyernoz... *sigh*... wish I had that kind of patience.
Posted by: spicy at May 8, 2004 6:32:44 PM
me too
Posted by: upyernoz at May 8, 2004 8:19:39 PM
" the military has a chain of command where superior officers are responsible for the actions of their subordinates. what exactly are you missing from this?"
this is why i brought up the ucmj. you made a statement about officers being responsible for crimes of subordinates. This is not a true statement. you know not what you blab about.
You are trying to say that the chain of command is responsible for subordinates actions. that is wrong as well. your example of a police chief resigning is not the same. that would be like blaming janet reno for the deaths at waco. Im sure i could make the same point you are in that circumstance. Im sure you can think of a few similar example's when your world was full of happy thoughts of the clinton's running your life.
Put down your bong and wake up man. its not about this insignificant crap..its about POLITICAL POWER...thats all it is man..Lets see who can bring down the other guy. Im sure part of it is an ego thing. but in the end you are smart enough to know what this is about.
Posted by: at May 9, 2004 1:39:00 AM
your example of a police chief resigning is not the same
it's not my example. it was PRA i've already repeated that point twice.
that would be like blaming janet reno for the deaths at waco
but i do hold janet reno responsible for the deaths at waco. just because you're strictly adhering to a party line, doesn't mean everyone who disagrees with you is. i think for myself. give it a try sometime.
happy thoughts of the clinton's running your life.
see above. can you really are not capable of addressing what i write. you're just responding to some imaginary version of what you think i think.
so, in summary, you didn't address any of my actual points from either of my previous comments. you're not addressing anything i actually said, but rather incorrectly guessing what i would think about other, unrelated issues. the most illuminating bit (perhaps the only bit with any meaning) is when you refer to the incident as "insignificant crap." it's really sad that you view this tragedy that way.
Posted by: upyernoz at May 9, 2004 1:54:45 AM
In March 2004, personal income increased 0.4 percent
In the fourth quarter, real
GDP increased 4.1 percent.
Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments) increased $81.4 billion in the fourth quarter
A springtime surge in hiring rumbled into a second month as employers added nearly 300,000 jobs in April, lowering the unemployment rate to 5.6 percent.
In a second dose of good economic news Friday, congressional budget forecasters predicted this year’s federal deficit will be smaller than they had expected.
The Labor Department reported that payrolls have risen for eight months in a row, with almost 900,000 jobs created so far this year
SHHHHHH DONT TELL ANYONE SNOZ...THE ECONOMY IS IN A REAL SHAMBLES..BETTER VOTE KERRY IN SO HE CAN FIX IT...LOL.....GOOD LUCK IN NOV SNOZ....
Posted by: at May 9, 2004 1:58:46 AM
Put down your bong and wake up man. its not about this insignificant crap..its about POLITICAL POWER...thats all it is man..Lets see who can bring down the other guy. Im sure part of it is an ego thing. but in the end you are smart enough to know what this is about.
I GUESS you cant respond to the real deal huh
Posted by: at May 9, 2004 2:01:56 AM
trajedy that pow's were treated poorly...AWEEEEEEEEEEEE pooor wittew pow's ...You are right its sad you care more about some iraq pow's being mistreated than you do the admitted pillage by your trusty hero j. kerry..
Posted by: at May 9, 2004 2:05:51 AM
i saw that dave had three more responses and so i was looking forward to arguing with him again this morning. but i was wrong. nothing he said was responsive at all. apparently, he has stopped even pretending to address what i write. i guess he realizes that he lost on the merits.
dave, i accept your implied concession. it wasn't exactly gracious, but it will do.
Posted by: upyernoz at May 9, 2004 9:20:24 AM
Taking this conversation in a slightly different direction. I was reading the newspaper yesterday, the USA Today, May 7-8 edition, and the news article there mentioned that Spc. Charles Graner, who is the person in the photos with Pfc. Lynndie England (and the one who impregnanted her)has a past history of domestic violence. The reporter interviewed his ex-wife, with some graphic quotes from her, and also researched and discussed the three temporary orders of protection that she had gotten against him over a four year time period.
quote (skipping much as I type very slowly, you might want to get the actual article)
In an affidavit for the first order, Staci Graner saind Charles Graner threatened to kill her ... A judge ordered the couple to conduct their child custody exchanges at the police station. ... For the 1998 order ... her affidavit said that Charles Graner "set up a video camera in my house without my knowledge and showed me the tapes." ... In 2001, Staci Graner filed a five-page, handwritten affidavit. She said that Charles Graner had come to her house and "yanked me out of bed by my hair, dragging me and all of the covers into the hall and tried to throw me down the steps." ... Her ex-husband was not charged in connection with her complaints.
Well, that gives some background perspective! A typical batterer, who has committed violations and abuses but never had to face his responsibilites by being charged with his crimes. And, to top it all off, his civilian job is working in a prison system! I feel for any prisoners whom he might be supervising.
Thought you might be interested in this, Trish.
Posted by: Lee at May 9, 2004 1:17:55 PM
dave, i accept your implied concession. it wasn't exactly gracious, but it will do.
do whatever you like..you are still wrong and have yet to prove anything
Posted by: at May 9, 2004 3:11:04 PM
bush has done all he can to not take any responsibility for this. but taking responsibility is part of what a leader does and bush doesn't.
thats your opinion not mine.anything you have said above i simply discount. and it's a matter of personal opinion..you are welcome to yours.
Posted by: at May 9, 2004 3:13:55 PM
Well, that gives some background perspective! A typical batterer, who has committed violations and abuses but never had to face his responsibilites by being charged with his crimes. And, to top it all off, his civilian job is working in a prison system! I feel for any prisoners whom he might be supervising.
Thought you might be interested in this, Trish.
trish wont be interested..she isnt interested in blaming the person who actually commmited said attrocities..only the president and sec of defense is responsible
Posted by: at May 9, 2004 3:15:54 PM
Thanks, Lee. I found the article. I'm going to post some of it in a second.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 9, 2004 4:45:33 PM
you are still wrong and have yet to prove anything
then why can't you seem to rebut my arguments? instead i respond to you and you come back with unrelated things about waco, etc. if you're so right, you should be able to answer my points.
anything you have said above i simply discount.
exactly. if i cite facts (like the circumstances of bush's "apology" you don't actually say i'm wrong, or point out alternative facts, or explain why that doesn't matter. you change the subject or say "i simply discount" what i say. that is not arguing. in fact, it is a tacit admission that you can't answer
i love this part.
dave: "trish wont be interested"
immediately followed by:
trish:
"Thanks, Lee. I found the article. I'm going to post some of it in a second."
wrong again dave!
\
Posted by: upyernoz at May 9, 2004 5:02:30 PM
Did Dave say something? ;)
Posted by: Trish Wilson at May 9, 2004 5:20:57 PM
