I'd get shot again, if it meant we could hunt together for another day.

====================
Honestly I stopped reading when I read this line ...turned to my
left.. and looked at my gun rack and zeroed in on the 2 Shotguns and 3
rifles that were my Dads.... and smiled...

ALL I CAN SAY... is.

DAMN RIGHT... I would too...

Miss the old man AND I will never forget him...

Liberals, NeoCons... whatever... Dads are special.. especially mine
may he rest in peace..

Bob G.

Sentiments fully understood.


"Bob G." wrote in message
...


I'd get shot again, if it meant we could hunt together for another day.

====================
Honestly I stopped reading when I read this line ...turned to my
left.. and looked at my gun rack and zeroed in on the 2 Shotguns and 3
rifles that were my Dads.... and smiled...

ALL I CAN SAY... is.

DAMN RIGHT... I would too...

Miss the old man AND I will never forget him...

Liberals, NeoCons... whatever... Dads are special.. especially mine
may he rest in peace..

Bob G.

Not only have you not fired the weapon, but you don't hunt flying birds. How
do you folks think about passing judgement when you aren't quail hunters, or
pheasant hunters or any other flushing prey?

Got to be a bit bent left IMHO, otherwise it's a hunting accident that
****ed off the big news agencies cause they didn't get the news early enough
to make the ratings game.

Nothing more, nothing less.


"Steve Peterson" wrote in message
link.net...
Lets boil this down a little. Cheney has admitted that he pulled the
trigger. He hasn't yet said anything about the fact that he aimed the
shotgut. That is the key to this. If he were seriously hunting quail,
they are small targets, moving fast. He should have been seeing his
target before he shot; the presence of a large man dressed in orange
should have obscured the target. New media keep saying he "accidently"
show Whittingon; what they should be saying is he "carelessly" shot
Whittington. I can think of some other modifiers.

Too bad he missed out on basic training.

Steve

wrote in message
oups.com...
Last Saturday, Vice President Dick Cheney, an experienced hunter, was
hunting quail with several well-heeled Republican acquaintances,
including Texas lawyer Harry Whittington. The two men had been drinking
throughout the afternoon, and at one point began to quarrel about a
business venture of mutual interest which had gone awry. The argument
became heated. Whittington sneered at Cheney?s declining public
standing and the most recent disclosure, by Cheney?s former chief of
staff Lewis Libby, that Libby had leaked classified information to the
press at Cheney?s direction. When Cheney responded with an
obscenity-laced remark, Whittington, a man who knows where many bodies
are buried in Texas politics and business, suggested he might arrange
for certain facts of a sensitive nature to become public knowledge.
Cheney, enraged, stormed away, then turned, lowered his shotgun and
discharged it, hitting Whittington?s face and upper body.

Is that what happened on February 14 at the Armstrong Ranch in southern
Texas? We have no idea, but it is no less likely than the official
explanation. And the ?angry drunk? scenario would more plausibly
explain both the long delay in reporting the event?which made it
conveniently impossible to perform the blood alcohol test that would
otherwise be routine in such an incident?and the obvious disarray in
the White House for days afterwards.

For all the media attention to the Cheney affair, it is remarkable that
with virtual unanimity the official claim that the shooting was
accidental has been uncritically accepted and reported as though it
were established fact, despite the lack of any serious investigation or
public presentation of the actual circumstances in which the vice
president of the United States shot and seriously wounded another man.

Until the migration of one of the shotgun pellets lodged in
Whittington?s body triggered a heart attack on Tuesday, the incident
was largely dismissed with joking references to the ?gang that
couldn?t shoot straight? or criticism of a poor White House
communications strategy. Even after the shift to a more serious tone,
the major daily newspapers and the television networks continue to
refer to the incident as an ?accidental shooting,? without either
interviewing eyewitnesses or investigating any alternative theory of
what took place.

With Cheney?s interview Wednesday evening on Fox television, two
conflicting accounts of the shooting have now been given. Kathleen
Armstrong, daughter of multimillionaire ranch owner Anne Armstrong, a
former ambassador in the Reagan administration, contacted a Corpus
Christi, Texas newspaper Sunday to report Whittington had been shot
accidentally. She put the responsibility for the incident on
Whittington, indicating that he had wandered off the line maintained by
his hunting partners and failed to announce himself when he returned
from retrieving a quail.

Three days later, Cheney abandoned the ?blame the victim? story and
told Fox interviewer Britt Hume that he was the one responsible because
he had pulled the trigger.

Cheney also admitted to having a drink earlier that day, although he
said it was only a single beer at lunch, five hours before the
shooting. He denied that any alcohol was being consumed on the hunt.

Cheney made an even more damaging admission, remarking that he
?didn?t know until Sunday morning that Harry was going to be all
right.? This throws a different light on the decision not to make
public any information about the shooting for nearly a full day.

During that period, when Cheney and his aides could not be sure whether
the vice president might be facing involuntary manslaughter charges,
there were undoubtedly discussions about how to handle the
story?perhaps even consideration of whether someone else might have
to take the fall for the shooting. Only after Whittington was out of
immediate danger was the press contacted with the news that Cheney had
been the shooter.

The police were also kept away during the first critical half-day.
Secret Service agents contacted the local sheriff?s department
immediately to report a shooting accident, but there is no indication
that they supplied any details or identified the shooter.

A captain in the sheriff?s department went to the ranch Saturday
evening but was told the victim had been transported to a hospital in
Corpus Christi. He left without interviewing any eyewitness.

Two local policemen also arrived at the ranch, after learning of the
shooting, but they were denied admission by ranch security guards, and
went their way. Finally, at 8 a.m. Sunday?after Cheney had been
assured that Whittington would survive?the vice president was
interviewed by a sheriff?s deputy and made his first declaration that
he had pulled the trigger.

What is known about the circumstances of the shooting cast some doubt
on the accident theory, especially given Cheney?s long experience as
a hunter and the relative rarity of such incidents?only a handful
during the most recent Texas hunting season.

According to the account Cheney gave to Fox, Whittington was partially
obscured because he was standing in a gully lower than the ground on
which Cheney was standing. This suggests that Cheney, in order to hit
Whittington, would have had to fire his blast either level or slightly
downwards?a strange angle for shooting at a flushed quail rising into
the sky.

Press accounts suggest that Whittington was hit by as many as 150 to
200 pellets, meaning that he received nearly the full charge of
birdshot from a single blast. This fact and the nature of the wounds
seem to confirm the reports that Whittington was standing about 30
yards from Cheney when the vice president opened fi any closer, and
the wounds would have been far more serious; much further away, and
dispersion would have caused many of the shot pellets to miss.

There are other aspects of the incident which appear to undercut the
?pure accident? theory. How could such an accident occur when the
vice president was accompanied by his normal entourage of Secret
Service and medical personnel?

The role of the Secret Service is particularly puzzling: if Whittington
was in range of Cheney?s gun, then Cheney was likewise in range of
Whittington?s. How could the Secret Service have been unaware that a
man armed with a loaded shotgun was approaching the vice president from
an unexpected direction? If they were aware of Whittington?s
movements, how could they have allowed the vice president to open fire
on him?

Whittington?s turn for the worse on Tuesday morning raises the
possibility that he could suffer long-term physical consequences from
the shooting, or even death. In either event, Cheney could be liable
for criminal charges involving at least negligence and recklessness, or
even involuntary manslaughter, a felony charge never before brought
against so high-ranking a public official. His continuation in office
under such circumstances would be in question.

The press, however, has been virtually silent on this possibility. It
has focused almost entirely on the subsequent handling of the public
relations fallout, not on the underlying event in which a man was
nearly killed by the vice president.

In a rare exception, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, in a
commentary Wednesday devoted to the exposure of illegal NSA spying,
remarked in passing: ?Nobody died at Armstrong Ranch, but this
incident reminds me a bit of Sen. Edward Kennedy?s delay in informing
Massachusetts authorities about his role in the fatal automobile
accident at Chappaquiddick in 1969. That story, and dozens of others
about the Kennedy family, illustrates how wealthy, powerful people can
behave as if they are above the law.?

The comparison is an apt one, not only in its implicit questioning of
the credibility of the account given by Cheney, but in its reference to
the seeming immunity of the top echelons of American society from all
normal legal and social constraints. There is indeed one law for the
masses of ordinary people and quite another for the financial and
political elite. If anything, this is more the case in the far more
socially polarized America of 2006 than it was nearly four decades ago.

Cheney?s four-day silence demonstrated the vice president?s
arrogant indifference to public opinion. His eventual decision to give
an interview with Fox News expresses both contempt for the public?s
right to know and personal cowardice?Cheney is willing to be
questioned only by a network which has repeatedly demonstrated a
slavish political loyalty to the Bush administration and its
ultra-right policies.

The rejection of accountability?for the 9/11 attacks, for the lies
which were used to engineer the war with Iraq, for the failures in the
response to Hurricane Katrina, for the devastating social and fiscal
impact of Bush?s tax cuts for the wealthy?is the hallmark not only
of an administration, but of the ruling elite as a whole.

In that sense, Cheney?s conduct at the Armstrong Ranch and its
presentation by the media provide a vivid example of the social
relations that prevail in contemporary America, ruled by a financial
oligarchy that feels itself as far above the common people as the
Russian Tsar or the French aristocracy before 1789. There is one set of
laws, one set of prerogatives for the modern equivalent of the ruling
estates of the feudal past, and another for the rabble.

"Dad" writes:

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
.com...
Perfection has nothing to do with it. It's basic hunter
safety. Something that when I was in Jr. High, all males
were required to take (northern wisconsin, early 70's).

While I disagree with Mr. Cheney on just about everything,
he did the right thing when he stated that he, and he alone
was responsible for the accidental shooting. He should be
admired for that.

scott
Never been Quail hunting, have you? You mean the politely correct
safety classes put on by the pussy's that want to cover their ass? If
you had to take one to handle a gun you shouldn't be allowed to have
one.

Excuse me? I hunted deer, pheasant, squirrel, quail and gopher[*]
from the age of 11 to 21. Never shot anybody, either. 12ga, 20ga,
..22cal and model 94 (in 30-30) depending on game.

scott
[*] got $0.50 a head from the county as a bounty. $2.00 for a beaver
tail.

"Rondo" wrote in message
news
Not only have you not fired the weapon, but you don't hunt flying birds.
How do you folks think about passing judgement when you aren't quail
hunters, or pheasant hunters or any other flushing prey?

Got to be a bit bent left IMHO, otherwise it's a hunting accident that
****ed off the big news agencies cause they didn't get the news early
enough to make the ratings game.

Nothing more, nothing less.


Who got shot ? some lawyer of no import to the country,was it accidental ?
yes, who shot him ? the VP. Is the VP OK yes he is fine, has it affected his
decision ability? no . Was it reported in a timely manner ? yes to the local
press but not to the White House press who were not at the scene.

Taking a similar situation, the head Dem Harry Reed had a stroke last year,
It took him 3 days to report it to the White Huse press, did it affect his
decision capabilities ? no ,they are just as idiotic as before .

"mike hide" wrote in message
...

"Rondo" wrote in message
news
Not only have you not fired the weapon, but you don't hunt flying birds.
How do you folks think about passing judgement when you aren't quail
hunters, or pheasant hunters or any other flushing prey?

Got to be a bit bent left IMHO, otherwise it's a hunting accident that
****ed off the big news agencies cause they didn't get the news early
enough to make the ratings game.

Nothing more, nothing less.


Who got shot ? some lawyer of no import to the country,was it accidental ?
yes, who shot him ? the VP. Is the VP OK yes he is fine, has it affected
his decision ability? no . Was it reported in a timely manner ? yes to the
local press but not to the White House press who were not at the scene.

Taking a similar situation, the head Dem Harry Reed had a stroke last
year, It took him 3 days to report it to the White Huse press, did it
affect his decision capabilities ? no ,they are just as idiotic as before
.
Fast recovery time. I have a feeling, though, that Reed isn't the one who
reported his stroke, if the stroke was of any import.

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:58:54 -0800, Enoch Root
wrote:

David wrote:

I thought that Whittington hadn't announced his return to the line from
retrieving a bird. yes? no? I'm not a hunter and am just repeating
what I remember from the news yesterday.

And of course Cheney is ultimately responsible, which he already admitted.

I look at it as being just like a car accident: there are always
degrees of fault. Cheney ran the light, and Whittington didn't look for
crazies while approaching it.


Given the story that Whittington hadn't announced his return to the line
(as he should have), the analogy is more appropriate that Whittington ran
the light and Cheney was the driver passing the intersection when
Whittington ran the light. Driver who hits the guy doesn't feel any better
that he is not at fault, believing there is probably something he could
have done to swerve, stop, or avoid the accident.

It was an unfortunate hunting accident, mistakes were made and events
converged such that someone was hurt.



er


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:58:54 -0800, Enoch Root
wrote:

David wrote:

I thought that Whittington hadn't announced his return to the line from
retrieving a bird. yes? no? I'm not a hunter and am just repeating
what I remember from the news yesterday.

And of course Cheney is ultimately responsible, which he already admitted.

I look at it as being just like a car accident: there are always
degrees of fault. Cheney ran the light, and Whittington didn't look for
crazies while approaching it.


Given the story that Whittington hadn't announced his return to the line
(as he should have),

If the hunters were standing in a line then it would be hard to shoot
the newly arrived person without shooting unacceptably close to
the ones who were already in the line.

the analogy is more appropriate that Whittington ran
the light and Cheney was the driver passing the intersection when
Whittington ran the light. Driver who hits the guy doesn't feel any better
that he is not at fault, believing there is probably something he could
have done to swerve, stop, or avoid the accident.


More like Cheney was waiting at a red light and when the light
turned green pulled out and hit a vehicle that had stopped in
the intersection. Cheney pulled the trigger when there was a
man in front of his gun. He has no trouble admitting fault.

I don't like the guy at all, but I don't find fault with his actions
after-the-fact.

It was an unfortunate hunting accident, mistakes were made and events
converged such that someone was hurt.

Yes, and the right person to determine when and what to say to
the press was Whittington or his family.

--

FF

NWO is bull**** invented by US elites to bum-steer the
Patridiots

To get USA back to No1.

The best way is to indict Cheney for doing 911 in The Hague, and the
american people making sure everyone of these *******s is brought
there.

The argument that there are other criminals in the world in need of
prosecution is easily countered with:

First clean your own home before you ask others to clean theirs.

Therefore the USA-citizens need to do it.

Just endorse the ICC in The Hague.
Doing that would be the first step. Because SIMPLY THE FACT THAT US
CITIZENS ACCEPT THE HAGUE will be the message (to act upon).

q.e.d.

wrote in message
oups.com...
NWO is bull**** invented by US elites to bum-steer the
Patridiots

Time for you to go to the dark closet, boy, are you loony toons!!

change of subject.

The BEST COUNTRY ON EARTH... the United States of ... Ah ... Armaged,
ah, Aggress.., ah Angst, ah Atrocities, ah, ah America... yeah that's
it.

Americans!! Americanos!

Muchas Gracias for your kind attention.



http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/abug-f21.shtml

US media drops Abu Ghraib torture issue

By David Walsh

21 February 2006

Horrifying images of systematic US military abuse of Iraqi detainees at
Abu Ghraib prison were aired last week on Australian television and
also published at Salon.com. The images of prisoners, naked, strapped
to apparatuses on the floor, hanging upside down, wounded, threatened
by snarling dogs, masturbating for their abusers, draped in women?s
underwear, forced to sodomize themselves, arranged in the most
degrading and painful positions, as well as photographs of dead bodies
and blood-smeared cells, have been in the possession of the US military
for several years and have been systematically suppressed. The Pentagon
has resisted efforts to have the photographs and videos made available
to the public.

And for good reason. The Abu Ghraib images demonstrate, in the first
place, the depraved and sadistic character of US treatment of
detainees. More than that, they help give the lie to the propaganda of
the Bush administration and the media about the motives for the Iraq
war and occupation and its essential character. How could such
barbarism be associated with the effort to spread ?democracy? in
the Middle East, to ?liberate? the Iraqi people? The conduct by the
US military prison guards is a telltale sign of a brutal, colonial
occupation. The occupying power resorts to terror and criminality to
suppress a population that opposes and despises its presence.

After a flurry of nervous commentary February 16, the day following the
Australian broadcast, the Abu Ghraib horrors have for all intents and
purposes been dropped by the American media. A few pious editorials
appeared over the weekend (for example, in the New York Times,
Philadelphia Inquirer and Baltimore Sun), none of which carried much
weight or conviction.

The Times editors commented that the pictures ?are a reminder that
the Bush administration has yet to account for what happened at Abu
Ghraib. No political appointee has been punished for the policies that
led to the atrocities. Indeed, most have been rewarded.? The
newspaper concludes on a pathetic note, urging Republican Sen. John
Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and one of
those leading the effort over the past two years to hide the images
from the American public, to ?keep his promise to dig out the truth
about Abu Ghraib.?

Of course publications like the Times, the Inquirer and the Sun are
hopelessly compromised in raising the Abu Ghraib issue by the fact that
they defend the occupation and subjugation of Iraq. Their position is
self-contradictory and untenable: they support the crime, but object to
certain of the criminal methods. This explains the unconvincing and
half-hearted nature of their criticism. They will editorialize limply
once, perhaps twice, then go silent again.

The US military responded to the appearance of the new images as any
powerful and thoroughly guilty party would: it denied, stonewalled,
dismissed the images or blamed the abuses on subordinates. Pentagon
spokesman Bryan Whitman said, ?There aren?t new allegations;
they?re old allegations. These aren?t new photos; they?re old
photos.? Whitman claimed that the original Abu Ghraib photos,
published in April 2004, had provided the impetus for the US military
?to take a look at our detention operations in a very broad and deep
fashion. And these abuses that have occurred have been thoroughly
investigated.?

Last Friday, before Congress, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
repeated the claim that the new images of abuse and torture were ?old
news.? He declared, ?I?m told that these photographs that are
coming out now are nothing more than the same things that came out
before, if not identical of the same type of behavior. That behavior
has been punished. The Department of Defense, from the beginning of
this conflict, has had a policy that prohibits torture. It is not
permitted, and we do not today. The people are trained to avoid it. And
there?s no question, but that there was conduct that was improper,
and people were court-martialed, and people have been sent to prison,
and people have been reduced dramatically in rank, officers have, and
punished for the behavior that was unacceptable.?

This statement is simply one lie or half-truth piled upon another.
First of all, no one in the media will challenge the very framework of
Rumsfeld?s comments. He and a select group of the political elite
have seen the images, while deliberately preventing the rest of the
American population from viewing them. He is speaking about suppressed,
banned material. It is not for Whitman and Rumsfeld to rule on their
content. Decisions to conceal proof of their own crimes?and then
declare their conduct irreproachable, without any independent party
able to make an evaluation?are made by police-state regimes, not
democratic ones.

In any event, the claim that the guards at Abu Ghraib acted against
Defense Department orders is a lie and everyone knows it. Torture and
abuse of prisoners have become official US policy under the Bush
administration.

In December 2002 Rumsfeld personally approved of a list of techniques
for the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that included putting
prisoners in ?stress positions? for four hours, hooding them and
subjecting them to 20-hour interrogations, ?fear of dogs? and
?mild, non-injurious physical contact.? The list was so severe that
military officers complained and the defense secretary was obliged to
order a high-level review of interrogation policy. In April 2003
Rumsfeld approved a new list, which included the use of at least six
techniques?including the use of dogs.

In August and September 2003, General Geoffrey Miller, the officer in
charge at the Guantánamo camp, was sent by Rumsfeld to Iraq with
orders to increase the brutality of the military?s treatment of
prisoners there, to ?Gitmo-ize? conditions. On one of these visits,
Rumsfeld accompanied Miller. On September 14, 2003, General Ricardo
Sanchez, at the time the top military commander in Iraq, issued an
order authorizing a number of techniques, including ?presence of
military working dogs? which will ?exploit Arab fear of dogs while
maintaining security during interrogations.?

?The use of dogs, however,? as we noted recently on the WSWS,
?was only one of a number of new methods introduced into Iraq, some
explicitly approved and some implicitly condoned by Sanchez, Rumsfeld
and Miller. Stripping prisoners naked and forcing them to wear
women?s underwear?part of a general policy of deliberate sexual
humiliation?were both practiced in Guantánamo Bay before being
transferred to Iraq. Miller was specifically cleared of responsibility
for the use of these methods in a probe into abuse at Guantánamo Bay,
on the grounds that they were approved military practice.?

(See http://wsws.org/articles/2006/jan2006/mill-j19.shtml ?Miller
takes the Fifth: US general withholds testimony in Abu Ghraib abuse
trial?)

The interrogators and guards were simply unleashed on the Iraqi
prisoners (most of whom were guilty of nothing whatsoever) and
encouraged to ?break? them by any means necessary. If some of the
guards ?improvised,? it was improvisation from a script written by
Rumsfeld, Miller and Sanchez.

The Abu Ghraib images are documentary proof of US government policy.
Here is the policy made manifest, in the form of humiliated, bruised,
tortured and dead human bodies.

The very fact that thousands of images were recorded of the
mistreatment and torture, complete with grinning or nonchalant guards,
is one proof of the official character of the conduct at Abu Ghraib. No
one thought he or she was breaking the rules; on the contrary, the
personnel had been instructed in these techniques.

As for the claims by Whitman and Rumsfeld that the crimes have been
investigated and the guilty parties have been punished ... a handful of
wretched, backward prison guards have been jailed. Neither Rumsfeld,
Miller or Sanchez has ever been the subject of an investigation, much
less a criminal charge. As Amnesty International notes, zero is the
?[n]umber of high-level military or civilian leaders held accountable
for policies or practices that lead to abuse of detainees and deaths in
custody.?

The practices in the Iraqi detention centers and elsewhere no doubt
continue. The occupation hasn?t changed its character. The US forces
are hated more than ever by the Iraqis. Former army interrogator Tony
Lagouranis, for example, in a segment of PBS?s ?Frontline?
program broadcast last October, described his experiences in Iraq from
January 2004 to January 2005, well after the first Abu Ghraib photos
appeared and the military promised to mend its ways. He commented,
?The worst stuff I saw was from the detaining units who would torture
people in their homes. They would smash people?s feet with the back
of an axe-head. They would break bones, ribs, you know. That was
serious stuff.?

Amnesty International in April 2005 reported that it continued to
receive reports of abuse of detained Iraqis. According to testimony
received by the group, ?US interrogators have participated in
questioning prisoners held at the Iraqi Interior Ministry, a location
at which detainees have repeatedly alleged torture and
ill-treatment.?

In any event, if the photographs and videos are ?more of the same,?
then why is the US government so ferociously resisting their release?
Defeated in court numerous times over the issue, the Bush
administration continues to appeal a federal judge?s decision last
September ordering their release. The government and military are
fearful because the images expose the actual, ugly and brutal face of
the US occupation of Iraq, the face that the administration, in
coordination with the media, is attempting to keep as much as possible
from the American public.

The US government claims that it opposes the images? release because,
in the words of State Department legal advisor, John Bellinger, they
will fan ?the flames at a time that sentiments on these issues are
raw around the world.? No doubt Arab and Muslim public opinion is an
issue, although the US could hardly be viewed less favorably than it is
at present. Probably of more concern to the administration is
preventing the reality of the war from making its way to the population
in the US. Why else so assiduously suppress battlefront images and
photographs of coffins containing the American dead returning home?

Moreover, even the claim by Rumsfeld and Whitman that these are simply
?old photos? is false. As Mike Carey, executive producer of the
?Dateline? television program in Australia that exposed the new
images, told the media, ?Well, it seems to us that there?s a
quantum leap in the abuse, in the potential abuse: corpses, really
despicable sexual humiliation. As far as I understand, these have not
been investigated.? One of the corpses is a man who died during a CIA
interrogation; no CIA employee have ever been charged in relation to
crimes at Abu Ghraib.

Olivia Rousset, reporter for ?Dateline,? told Amy Goodman of the
Democracy Now! radio program: ?Obviously, a lot of it [the new
imagery] is the same as what was released before, from the same series
of events, the same torture and abuse, but there are new cases of abuse
that haven?t been seen before and some corpses of people who have
been either killed in riots or killed from mortars going over the wall
into the prison. But, to me, it sort of shows that there was pretty
widespread abuse going on.?

The lack of outrage in the American media about the Abu Ghraib torture
and murder, and the concealment of the images, is entirely predictable,
but nonetheless revealing. (Of course, the right-wing media is up in
arms?that the material surfaced at all. The thugs at Fox News, the
Wall Street Journal editorial page, the ultra-right talk shows, web
sites and so forth believe that the American military should be allowed
to carry out its crimes unobserved and undisturbed.)

What would be the response if the shoe were on the other foot, and
hundreds or thousands of US military personnel or civilians had been
systematically abused, tortured and, in some cases, murdered? One can
only imagine the blood-curdling headlines for days, weeks and months,
backed up by threats and plans for war! Sadism, blood and death in an
Iraqi prison, however, counts for very little in the US media, which is
a wholehearted accomplice in the invasion and occupation.

As a footnote, it almost goes without saying that leading figures in
the Democratic Party have had nothing to say about the new revelations
of crimes at Abu Ghraib. A search of the Democratic Party National
Committee?s official web site returns the revealing result: ?No
pages were found containing ?Abu Ghraib photos.?? No press
release was issued by the Democrats. No statement can be found by John
Kerry, Hillary Clinton or Howard Dean?s ?Democracy for America.?
These too are accomplices.

See Also:

The Abu Ghraib photos and the anti-Muslim ?free speech? fraud

http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/abug-f17.shtml

[17 February 2006]

Australian TV airs more photos of US torture at Abu Ghraib

http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/ghra-16f.shtml

[16 February 2006]

In article .com,
wrote:

change of subject.

The BEST COUNTRY ON EARTH... the United States of ... Ah ... Armaged,
ah, Aggress.., ah Angst, ah Atrocities, ah, ah America... yeah that's
it.

Americans!! Americanos!

Muchas Gracias for your kind attention.



http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/abug-f21.shtml

US media drops Abu Ghraib torture issue

By David Walsh

21 February 2006

Horrifying images of systematic US military abuse of Iraqi detainees at
Abu Ghraib prison were aired last week on Australian television

To a laugh track.

BFD.

The world is growing weary of sensitive muslms, screw 'em.

On 23 Feb 2006 21:39:19 -0800, wrote:

Bull**** deleted

What a thoroughgoing load of pure - uncomposted - crap.

In article .com,
wrote:

One of the persistent ideological teachings in the United States
is that our society is notably free of ideological teachings.

Ideology is something imported from alien lands
or brewed at home by allegedly sinister groups, as in
"Communist ideology."

But in fact, we Americans are ideologically indoctrinated
into certain precepts about patriotism, elections,
world leadership, the self-made rich, and all that garbage
about the free market.

We also entertain notions about class, race,
and gender relations and about the democratic
distribution of power in our pluralistic society.

Well, most of these kinds of beliefs are themselves ideological.

Yet they're widely circulated and remain largely free of critical
examination, being seen as representing the natural
order of things.

These ideologies don't just emerge spontaneously and
full blown, they're disseminated through
the dominant institutions of society. They
serve as instruments of social control.

q.e.d.


Reynolds brand?

Greylock wrote:

What a thoroughgoing load of pure - uncomposted - crap.

It could be said that you just proved his point :-).

--
It's turtles, all the way down

cheney tried to commit suicide but he missed

wrote in message
oups.com...
NWO is bull**** invented by US elites to bum-steer the
Patridiots

To get USA back to No1.

The best way is to indict Cheney for doing 911 in The Hague, and the
american people making sure everyone of these *******s is brought
there.

The argument that there are other criminals in the world in need of
prosecution is easily countered with:

First clean your own home before you ask others to clean theirs.

Therefore the USA-citizens need to do it.

Just endorse the ICC in The Hague.
Doing that would be the first step. Because SIMPLY THE FACT THAT US
CITIZENS ACCEPT THE HAGUE will be the message (to act upon).

q.e.d.

In Ireland they were impressed, but
US-american republicans and patriots
dare not look the truth in the eye.

http://www.newstalk106.ie/noam-chomskys.html

these days ANGST is as american as AbuGraibh..

wrote in message
ups.com...

In Ireland they were impressed, but
US-american republicans and patriots
dare not look the truth in the eye.

http://www.newstalk106.ie/noam-chomskys.html

these days ANGST is as american as AbuGraibh..


I know I'm afraid. Afraid I'll puke.

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 07:49:39 -0500, "George" George@least wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...

In Ireland they were impressed, but
US-american republicans and patriots
dare not look the truth in the eye.

http://www.newstalk106.ie/noam-chomskys.html

these days ANGST is as american as AbuGraibh..


I know I'm afraid. Afraid I'll puke.


Yep, Chomsky is as genuine as a 3 dollar bill. Rails against the
pentagon and war machine while he built his fortune on research contracts
done for the pentagon. Rails against inheritance and the flow of wealth
from generation to generation, but, with a net worth of $2 million himself
has set up his own trust, assuring that *his* heirs get their share of
daddy's estate without that pesky interference from Uncle Sam's inheritance
taxes. Just like many on the left, when they say, "... must protect ...",
one always needs to append the words "for me" to the end of their
statements.

Now, why were we supposed to somehow listen with bated breath to what
Chomsky had to say?



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Uhuu.. your NEMESIS is arriving.

USA hubris ... kaboom!

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...11&ItemID=9963

Is this what happens when the gorfle doprets after the willerts?

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 13:41:50 GMT, "Gooey TARBALLS" wrote:

Now this is a great topic for wordsmiths.

Now, let's look at the other responses this topic generated.

and how many of you quoted every word of the original babble and cross posted
when replying...

It would be nice if people spent 10% of the time they take learning how to use a
saw to learn a bit about news groups and related software.. YMWV



Mac

https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis
https://home.comcast.net/~mac.davis/wood_stuff.htm

"Gooey TARBALLS" wrote in message
news:GvP_f.4996$wH1.2104@trnddc03...
"A fear of a common enemy (communism),"

I was looking for the reason the French were there.

RUBBER PLANTATIONS - Michelin Tire

We got there for the same reasons we refused to help the Russian people's
revolt; changed the Pledge of Allegiance to include the words "under God"
and supported a State of Israel and its tyranny against the peoples it
dispossessed. And, because we had created the Military Industrial Complex
Ike warned us about.

I knew it - when you're around kooks, it doesn't take long before one of
them starts blaming the Jews for something or other.