Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You
Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research

Without Honor

sobek Nov 12, 2003 09:19 AM

Without Honor
William Rivers Pitt, November 10, 2003

Very nearly 40 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the month of November began. 33 more were killed in October, and 16 more died in September. The total losses, to date, creep towards 400. Few American citizens are aware of this, because the Bush administration has made it policy to deliberately hide these honored dead from the media. No cameras are allowed inside the Dover, DE facility that receives the ruined bodies of our troops.

No cameras are allowed inside Walter Reed Army Medical Center to film the thousands of soldiers who have been catastrophically wounded in Iraq, nor are cameras allowed inside the facility at Ft. Stewart in Georgia where the wounded await treatment in conditions they have described as inhumane.

No Bush official has been to a single funeral for any of the fallen, because that would bring unwanted publicity onto the ruinous casualties we have suffered. The Pentagon is doing its part as well. The term "body bags" was dispensed with during the 1991 Gulf War for the kinder, gentler euphemism "human remains pouches." The term has been changed again by the Pentagon. Today in Iraq, soldiers killed in the line of duty are placed inside "transfer tubes" for their anonymous, unnoticed trip home.

American soldiers killed in Afghanistan were roundly filmed as they returned home, and the images of their flag-draped caskets were broadcast all across the country with broad and honored fanfare. President Clinton was present to welcome home the coffins of soldiers killed in Kosovo. Pictures of the coffins carrying sailors killed in the bombing of the USS Cole were also widely broadcast. President Bush Sr. was on hand to welcome the caskets of soldiers killed in Lebanon and Panama.

The men and women killed in Iraq are afforded no such honor. They are a dirty little secret, hidden from view lest they cause political discomfort to the administration that got them killed.

The Bush administration has taken to hiding from even the most obvious signs that, once upon a time, this war served their propaganda purposes. When George W. Bush declared an end to combat operations in Iraq aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, his televised image was framed by a massive banner that read "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." At the time, the administration was more than happy to take credit for the banner.

Full and specific credit, at the time, was given to Scott Sforza, a former ABC producer hired by the administration to work for the White House Communication's Director. Mr. Sforza can be credited for those snappy backdrops draped around Bush when he speaks, the ones with the catch-words repeated ad nauseam. Sforza spent several days "embedded" aboard the Abraham Lincoln to organize the event for full media effect, going so far as to hand-pick the Navy personnel to be displayed, and to choose the color of the clothes they would wear.

Once it became clear that the only mission that had been accomplished in Iraq was the looting of the American Treasury, the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of American troops, the unnecessary maiming of thousands more, and the ruination of our reputation around the world, George W. Bush himself went out of his way to disavow any involvement with the braggadocio of the banner. In an October 28 press conference, Bush said, "The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished."

And so the military, again, is left holding the bag for Bush, who has fled even from the presence of the memory of the fallen.

Let us remember a few things. George W. Bush and his administration pushed for this war based upon the premise that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction, and that he would give those weapons to Osama bin Laden for use against us. The public record for this is clear and unequivocal, as is the fact that this administration, day after day, connected the attacks of September 11 to the war on Iraq as a means to frighten the American people into supporting the war.

There is, in fact, a page on the White House's own website (whitehouse.gov) entitled 'Disarm Saddam Hussein.' It can be found with a simple search, and contains the administration's central argument for why war was necessary, and necessary now, and necessary even without the support of the international community. Again, the claims on this page are clear and unequivocal.

According to 'Disarm Saddam Hussein,' war with Iraq was necessary because Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, as well as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX gas. For those of you without your calculators, 500 tons equals 1,000,000 pounds. Along with this, Iraq was in possession of nearly 30,000 munitions capable of delivering these chemicals. Beyond this fearful armament, 'Disarm Saddam Hussein' claims that Iraq and Saddam Hussein enjoyed the company of a variety of al Qaeda terrorists.

Saddam Hussein was little more than the Mayor of Baghdad in the years, months and weeks before the war. He was trapped in his palaces, unable to launch even a single fighter in his own airspace, militarily emasculated by years of sanctions and weekly bombing raids by American forces, with vast regions to the north and south totally beyond his control. It is these northern regions that enjoyed the company of occasional al Qaeda fighters, in places where Saddam Hussein dared not show his face. To say that Hussein was working with these terrorists is the same as saying Bush was working with the September 11 terrorists in the weeks before the attack, simply because they all happened to be in the same country at the same time.

Beyond that, recall that Hussein was a secular dictator who spent 30 years killing every Islamic fundamentalist he could get his hands on. Osama bin Laden hated and despised Saddam Hussein, and called repeatedly for his death. The last of these calls came last February, when bin Laden publicly asked the Iraqi people to rise up and kill their Socialist infidel leader. The idea that Hussein would give any weapons at all to bin Laden is absurd on its face.

It is even more absurd to imagine this transfer when greeted with the reality that the reported 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 1,000,000 pounds of sarin, mustard and VX gas, and the 30,000 munitions to deliver the stuff has absolutely, positively failed to appear. Iraq has been invested by the U.S. military, scoured by UNMOVIC weapons inspectors, and scoured again by Bush's hand-picked inspector, Dr. David Kay. Nothing, but nothing, has been found.

Best of all is the fact that right now, as you read this, at this very moment, almost a year after the war began, claims that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger for the development of a nuclear weapons program remains on this White House web page. The Niger uranium claim has been proven to be utterly fraudulent, based upon crudely forged documents so laughable that America stands embarrassed before the world because Bush used them to justify his war. Yet the claim remains seated on his website, even now.

Not only has history proven this war to have been cynically contrived, but history has also proven beyond question that it was not necessary. Weapons inspectors could easily have determined that Iraq was not in possession of any weapons. A favorite talking point these days is that we had to invade because the United Nations was not doing its part. Hogwash. The Bush administration wrote Resolution 1441 from top to bottom, and pointedly included the words "Weapons Inspectors" in the text. The Security Council unanimously approved it.

Many believe the U.S. wrote 1441 fully expecting Iraq to reject it because of those inspections, but Iraq turned that thinking on its head and welcomed the inspectors in. Immediately, the Bush administration began denigrating the very inspections they mandated with 1441, and began denigrating the United Nations for expecting them to live up to the bargain they authored.

It was recently revealed that Saddam Hussein essentially surrendered on the eve of the war, throwing his country open to American forces in whatever capacity the Bush administration felt was necessary to guarantee that Iraq was not a threat. The Bush administration spurned this offer and rolled out the blitzkrieg, beginning a process that has killed hundreds of American soldiers, wounded thousands more, and consigned tens of thousands of civilians to die in the dust.

Veteran's Day is upon us. A just world would see a long parade of veterans wending its way past the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial, past the Korean War Memorial, past every statue and plaque commemorating the service, and that full measure of devotion, given to this nation by men and women beyond number. In a just world, the parade would halt on the ground that, someday, will bear the names of the men and women who have died, and will die, in this Iraq war. In a just world, George W. Bush would be required to stand upon this ground and be spat upon by every person in that long, proud parade.

In a just world, Bush would be made to visit the home of every American family who has had a beloved brother, sister, mother, father, husband or wife delivered to them in secret inside a "transfer tube." In a just world, he would be made to explain his lies, and further be made to apologize for using the wretched memory of September 11 against the American people in a process of criminal deception that got an incredible number of people killed.

Then again, a just world would have left George W. Bush in the dustbin of history as a thrice-failed oilman who lacked even the courage to complete his stint in the National Guard while better men went off to war in Vietnam to die in his place.

Replies (21)

FastEddie Nov 12, 2003 02:06 PM

As of yesterday, the death toll was 394. Of course the death of one US soldier is one too many on an any level. However, relatively speaking, 394 deaths is an extremely low figure. This figure attests to the high level of success that Bush has had. He certainly has nothing to hide!

Sobek, you have taken something (the death toll) that very is clearly a positive for Bush, and you've attempted to twist it into a negative. The article you hide behind is a joke. When are you going to stand on your own two feet and make your own statements? Not that they would make any more sense than this garbage.

Ed

rearfang Nov 12, 2003 03:50 PM

I have to say...For the critisim of sobek to be effective you really need to supply some source material to back your disclaimer. Otherwise, it is just his charges against your opinion. He has supplied some strong evidence/charges that really need to be disproved by your own submission if you are going to make your point.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

rodmalm Nov 12, 2003 07:11 PM

You said Few American citizens are aware of this, because the Bush administration has made it policy to deliberately hide these honored dead from the media.

I, personally, don't know anyone that isn't aware that the death toll has risen this month. Certainly everyone in my family is aware of that fact, as should every one who ever hears talk radio, or television news, or reads the paper. If you are not aware of this fact, you must be hiding under a rock! To state that few Americans are aware of this because of a policy by the Bush administration is total nonsense. How were you able to find out about it? Did you have to do some exhaustive research or have a secret informant, or did you hear about it in the general media like everyone else!

The reason Bush isn't allowing the media to photograph everything isn't to hide the fact that some troops are dying. The military releases those numbers on a regular basis. If they were trying to hide anything, why would they allow the military to release the numbers in the first place? The reason is because he doesn't want the media "taking advantage" of the dead by making the story as sensational as possible both for ratings and thus also politicizing it.

There are a lot of Americans that think it is wrong to parade the dead just to try and advance their political view-in all cases, regardless of whether it helps the left or the right! It's obvious to me, that in this case, you want to do that because it does hurt the right. Announcing the numbers doesn't do this, while still accurately describing the situation, like photographing them would. I see a lot more honor in not letting a media circus take place, with regard to the bodies of our dead.

That seems to be a huge problem with the liberals today. They seem to care more about attacking the right than the good of the country. They care more about their party's power than they do the country, its citizens, its dead soldiers, or anything else for that matter. No one should every place their political party above the good of the country, ever!

Rodney

FastEddie Nov 12, 2003 10:36 PM

I made my point just fine, without your input Frank. Since you obviously haven't noticed, sobek didn't make one single point. He, once again, simply hid behind someone else's long anti-American blatherings. Why don't you tell us what's so great about those blatherings, since sobek dropped the ball.

Ed

rearfang Nov 13, 2003 06:02 AM

Making snide remarks proves nothing Ed. Answer what he has wrote then your answer wil bear some weight. It doesn't matter that he quoted someone else. The statements stand to be answered or discredited. That is how debate works. You should take a hint from Rodney who does his homework. Otherwise youcome across as someone who is just dodging answers.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

rearfang Nov 13, 2003 06:07 AM

I recall you getting on my case about proof... Making the blanket statement that it is "anti-American Blathering" does not constitute a response to the charges leveled.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

rearfang Nov 13, 2003 06:29 AM

I am not saying this because I favor one over the other in this debate...I am interested in the outcome and appreciate the intelligent combat of ideas.
The problem I see in your responses is you are unwilling to accept any form of proof that goes against your opinion (I fully recall...on earlier posts, that you could not even accept my status as a veteran (which is something I and my fellows feel really good about on Veterans day)and yet you expect us to accept anything you say on face value! If you are right..then supply proof...Just saying something isn't so is not proof. Calling people who disagree with you ant-American is just plain anti-American.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

FastEddie Nov 13, 2003 10:29 AM

Did you fail out of law school Frank? "charges leveled" - what's that all about? This is, and never will be, a court of law, and you certainly are no attorney. So please drop the illusion that YOU are somehow above all the riff-raff here. It's just a snake forum Frank. Get a grip!

Ed

FastEddie Nov 13, 2003 11:31 AM

Ed

rearfang Nov 13, 2003 12:25 PM

I get the feeling that you are just plain jealous of anyone who has an education...Mine is not perfect (and I don't claim it to be). Attacking my grammar though really does nothing to prove sobek wrong so what is the point?
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

FastEddie Nov 13, 2003 10:26 AM

You speak as though you think you are the moderator here Frank. Why is that? You haven't been very impressive in your own "debates", why would I want to tailor my comments to conform to YOUR expectations for what the rules of debate should be? You are irrelevant! sobek, nor the anti-American article which he hides behind, has offered nothing worthy of debate. If you feel sooooooooo strongly about that article, let's here what YOU think is soooooooo convincing. Bring it Frank! I'd be happy to discredit you now, as I have in the past.

Ed

rearfang Nov 13, 2003 12:31 PM

Your judgement in reguards to "My presentation" is hardly worth the response but here goes....Maybe if you read something objectivly instead of merely looking for the next place to plant a barb you might answer yourself in a more credable manner. I guess it is a fault in your book to see charges met with facts in a debate (oops!! OH NO LAWYER TALK!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Don't be ridiculous...Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Ken Harbart Nov 19, 2003 08:04 PM

The burden should fall on Sobek to substantiate his anti-American rants, and not for others to disprove it.

As for the evidence already obtained, I'll just say that the "public record" is incomplete. In due time, the naysayers will have to find another issue to whine about.

rearfang Nov 13, 2003 01:34 PM

one minor correction is hardly discrediting the whole statement...Show us more.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

kick_baal Nov 14, 2003 10:07 PM

Interesting moniker: FastEddie, but it has rather a negative ring to it. I believe that is engendered by its use as a generic cartoon name for a used car dealer ...but I digress from my intended purpose. What I wish to convey is that you sir are out of line and your unintelligible rant is a disservice to conservatives everywhere. I submit my thoughts in response to several of your quotes listed below in no particular order in relation to the thread.

(Quote) However, relatively speaking, 394 deaths is an extremely low figure. (Unquote)

Other than statistic majors, for whom exactly is this a low number? Should the relatives of the dead take comfort that their loss was only 1 of X number? A cold comfort indeed and you demonstrate considerable callousness in regarding any amount as "good".

(Quote) Sobek, you have taken something (the death toll) that very is clearly a positive for Bush, and you've attempted to twist it into a negative. (Unquote)

As for me, there is nothing positive in blood shed needlessly. Here is what I believe to be an important excerpt from Woodrow Wilson's speech to Congress 4 days prior to our entry in WW1: "The choice we make for ourselves must be made with a moderation of counsel and a temperateness of judgment befitting our character and our motives as a nation. We must put excited feeling away. Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right, of human right, of which we are only a single champion."

All of the above appears to be lacking in our current military endeavor. Of course one who reads more of the article might be inclined to counter with the following section: "Our object now, as then, is to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and autocratic power and to set up amongst the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and of action as will henceforth ensure the observance of those principles. Neutrality is no longer feasible or desirable where the peace of the world is involved and the freedom of its peoples, and the menace to that peace and freedom lies in the existence of autocratic governments backed by organized force which is controlled wholly by their will, not by the will of their people. We have seen the last of neutrality in such circumstances. We are at the beginning of an age in which it will be insisted that the same standards of conduct and of responsibility for wrong done shall be observed among nations and their governments that are observed among the individual citizens of civilized states."

I am compelled to point out that this is actually represents an attack on aristocratic rule (see the glowing portion relative to support for the Russian Revolution) and the situation of that time is not in equal measure to what we are currently experiencing. Pres. Wilson's decision was made due to multiple savage attacks by the German navy against unarmed ships after all diplomatic means were exhausted. Even then, he referred to his call for war a "distressing and oppressive duty". All of this implies that no portion of the process was taken lightly. Again I hold this in stark contrast to the "make-it-up-as-we-go-along" attitude I perceive from our present government.

(Quote) When are you going to stand on your own two feet and make your own statements? (Unquote)

He did make a statement - his own. Are you discounting his opinion because he paraphrased other sources which he genuinely believes to be true? I ask you Eddie, how much of our lifetime of accumulated knowledge is gained from secondary sources? For example, I read once that the air I breathe is 78.08% Nitrogen, but I've never actually tested it. Does that imply that it's untrue? Yet I can verify the following statement by Sobek: "Osama bin Laden hated and despised Saddam Hussein, and called repeatedly for his death. The last of these calls came last February, when bin Laden publicly asked the Iraqi people to rise up and kill their Socialist infidel leader".

This was on one of the tapes from Osama bin Laden that was played by Aljazeera shortly before Bush began drawing a rather shaky line from Saddam to 9-11. Osama stated that he supported the Iraqi people but not the Baathist regime. CNN cited this several times and perhaps that's why I disappointed that 7 in 10 Americans polled think Saddam bombed us with Osama's help. I can guess with relative certainty that you are squarely among the seventy percentile.

(Quote) [Sobek] once again, simply hid behind someone else's long anti-American blatherings. (Unquote)

Please define "anti-American". If that means speaking out against perceived excesses committed by the government, then I must quote the Patriot, James Otis, "It is the duty of every good citizen to point out what he thinks erroneous in the commonwealth". According to him, Sobek is fully American in his bearing, so what exactly does that make you?

(Quote) The Bush-bashers have no interest in anything positive about the war, which is just about EVERYTHING! They simply want Bush out of office so that their socialist agenda can be pursued. Bush 2004! (Unquote)

If you have time, please clarify "EVERYTHING". You are welcome to employ charts and graphs as required. Also, would you please elaborate in detail the Socialist Agenda you mention and its purveyors. I would care to hear its impact however subtle upon our society so please provide me with your deeply endowed view on this after you have dedicated careful thought to my inquiries and musings. I look forward to hearing from you.
-----
Who is like Set...

1.1 Vietnamese Blue Beauties
2.0 Taiwan Beauties
2.3 Cave Beauties
0.1 Bull Snake
1.0.0 Argentine Blk & Wht Tegu
2.5 Box Turtles

FastEddie Nov 13, 2003 10:18 AM

The Bush-bashers have no interest in anything positive about the war, which is just about EVERYTHING! They simply want Bush out of office so that their socialist agenda can be pursued. Bush 2004!

Ed

FastEddie Nov 13, 2003 11:49 AM

Good question!

Ed

kick_baal Nov 15, 2003 12:24 PM

Yawn.
-----
Who is like Set...

1.1 Vietnamese Blue Beauties
2.0 Taiwan Beauties
2.3 Cave Beauties
0.1 Bull Snake
1.0.0 Argentine Blk & Wht Tegu
2.5 Box Turtles

kick_baal Nov 15, 2003 04:57 PM

BTW, I'm not Rear_Fang. Did you have a hard confusing day at the fry-cooker?

This just demonstrates that you have the emotional and intellectual bearing of a ninth-grade dropout. If you can't defend your beliefs then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. For future reference, don't engage your betters.
-----
Who is like Set...

1.1 Vietnamese Blue Beauties
2.0 Taiwan Beauties
2.3 Cave Beauties
0.1 Bull Snake
1.0.0 Argentine Blk & Wht Tegu
2.5 Box Turtles

Rearfang Nov 15, 2003 08:08 PM

Uh...excuse me. How did I get pulled into this mess? sobek?...Is this our two missing vunderkinds?
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

SOBEK Nov 15, 2003 09:18 PM

>>Meanwhile, sobek has said zero, as per usual.

Sorry little dude, I HAVE A LIFE, I might not be able to spend time with you everyday. Don’t be so clingy.

Any way. As for my post below "Without Honor” I don’t have to follow up on it at all. It spoke for it self. It’s very apparent that holding a conversation is something you are not yet capable of doing.

I am willing to bet that you have not researched any of these matters. Your responses indicate that you only listen to one side of the story, and refuse to question it.

I wish you the best of luck on your slow crawl to maturity.

Site Tools