Former U.S. Detainee in Iraq Recalls Torment

Stories

Former U.S. Detainee in Iraq Recalls Torment – New York Times:

December 18, 2006 Former U.S. Detainee in Iraq Recalls Torment By MICHAEL MOSS

One night in mid-April, the steel door clanked shut on detainee No. 200343 at Camp Cropper, the United States military’s maximum-security detention site in Baghdad. American guards arrived at the man’s cell periodically over the next several days, shackled his hands and feet, blindfolded him and took him to a padded room for interrogation, the detainee said. After an hour or two, he was returned to his cell, fatigued but unable to sleep. The fluorescent lights in his cell were never turned off, he said. At most hours, heavy metal or country music blared in the corridor. He said he was rousted at random times without explanation and made to stand in his cell. Even lying down, he said, he was kept from covering his face to block out the light, noise and cold. And when he was released after 97 days he was exhausted, depressed and scared. Detainee 200343 was among thousands of people who have been held and released by the American military in Iraq, and his account of his ordeal has provided one of the few detailed views of the Pentagon’s detention operations since the abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib. Yet in many respects his case is unusual. The detainee was Donald Vance, a 29-year-old Navy veteran from Chicago who went to Iraq as a security contractor. He wound up as a whistle-blower, passing information to the F.B.I. about suspicious activities at the Iraqi security firm where he worked, including what he said was possible illegal weapons trading. But when American soldiers raided the company at his urging, Mr. Vance and another American who worked there were detained as suspects by the military…

Lawyer: Was there any relationship between the first World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks

Stories

TULLYVISION – Is the FBI doing its best to combat terrorism? Highest-ranking Arab-American agent says no.:

Lawyer: Was there any relationship between the first World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks?

Lewis: I’m aware of no immediate relationship other than all emanates out of the Middle East, al-Qaida linkage, I believe. Not something I’ve studied recently that I’m conversant with.

Army is unlikely to be able to meet the next rotation of troops in Iraq without undesirable changes in its deployment practices

Stories

HaloScan.com – Comments:

Didn’t hear anything yet in the mainstream media about this snippet from the ISG report:
“The Army is unlikely to be able to meet the next rotation of troops in Iraq without undesirable changes in its deployment practices. The Army is now considering breaking its compact with the National Guard and Reserves that limits the number of years that these citizen-soldiers can be deployed.”

The Weight On Conservative Bloggers:

Stories

PSoTD

It’s hard to imagine, all that weight they must carry. How often they’ve been wrong, on practically everything, as they supported Bush and the Republican Congress the past 4 years. And all the evidence that piles up, from almost everything related to the long-term disaster we’re in called Iraq, to Iran, to North Korea, to global warming, to national debt, to bad economic signs, to election results. The rest of the world says they’re wrong. Many of them still say the rest of the world is wrong. How very heavy that must be.

They really need a vacation, a long vacation, from blogging. For their own good. It has to be so much harder to blog when you know so much that you’ve said in the past has been disproved or is in the process of being disproven. It must be heavy. It must be sad. It must be tiring.

So… it’s time for America to recommend that many take a break. Instapundit, time to put away the blog for a few months. Althouse, time to write a book or something. Power Line… bon voyage. Take a break. Lift the weight.

Will Jonah Goldberg pay up?

Stories

Crooks and Liars » 2006 » December » 15:

Will Jonah Goldberg pay up?
By: John Amato
 02/05:

So, I have an idea: Since he doesn’t want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let’s make a bet. I predict that Iraq won’t have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I’ll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now). This way neither of us can hide behind clever word play or CV reading. If there’s another reasonable wager Cole wants to offer which would measure our judgment, I’m all ears. Money where your mouth is, doc. One caveat: Because I don’t think it’s right to bet on such serious matters for personal gain, if I win, I’ll donate the money to the USO. He can give it to the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or whatever his favorite charity is.

Cole was too smart to get sucked into a stupid bet on such an important issue and was repulsed by Jonah’s proposal.

I cannot tell you how this paragraph hit me in the gut. I was nearly immobilized by disgust and grief. This man really does see Iraqis as playthings. He is proposing a wager on the backs of Iraqis…

That being said, will Jonah pay up and donate the 1000.00 bucks for just being a complete wanker? He could always just join the military—oh wait—I forgot—he’s a coward too:

George Will Distorts WaPo's Own Reporting To Smear Jim Webb |

Stories

TPMCafe:

George Will Distorts WaPo’s Own Reporting To Smear Jim Webb
By Greg Sargent | bioThis is one of the rankest displays of journalistic dishonesty I’ve seen in some time. In today’s Washington Post column, George Will assails Dem Senator-elect Jim Webb over his now-well-known confrontation with President Bush at a White House reception. To do so, Will badly distorts the reporting his own paper did on the episode, and it’s quite clear his distortions were entirely deliberate.

First, let’s check out how Will recounts the episode in his column.

Will writes:

Wednesday’s Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb “tried to avoid President Bush,” refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, “How’s your boy?” Webb replied, “I’d like to get them [sic] out of Iraq.” When the president again asked “How’s your boy?” Webb replied, “That’s between me and my boy.”

Will says the episode demonstrates Webb’s “calculated rudeness toward another human being” — i.e., the President — who “asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another.”

But do you notice something missing from Will’s recounting of the episode?

Here’s how the Washingon Post actually reported on the episode the day before Will’s column:

At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia’s newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn’t long before Bush found him.

“How’s your boy?” Bush asked, referring to Webb’s son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

“I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President,” Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

“That’s not what I asked you,” Bush said. “How’s your boy?”

“That’s between me and my boy, Mr. President,” Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

See what happened? Will omitted the pissy retort from the President that provoked Webb. Will cut out the line from the President where he said: “That’s not what I asked you.” In Will’s recounting, that instead became a sign of Bush’s parental solicitiousness: “The president again asked `How’s your boy?'”

Will’s change completely alters the tenor of the conversation from one in which Bush was rude first to Webb, which is what the Post’s original account suggested, to one in which Webb was inexplicably rude to the President, which is how Will wanted to represent what happened.

It’s virtually impossible to see how that could have been the result of mere incompetence on Will’s part. Rather, it’s very clear that Will cut the line because it was an inconvenient impediment to his journalistic goal, which was to portray Webb as a “boor” who was rude to the Commander in Chief, and to show that this new upstart is a threat to Washington’s alleged code of “civility and clear speaking” (his words). On that score, also note that in the original version, Webb said “Mr. President” twice — and neither appeared in Will’s version.

You’d think such an obvious misrepresentation would irritate the Post’s top brass. You’d think they would be annoyed with Will for sullying their pages with such journalistic misbehavior. Indeed, it’s kind of amusing to imagine what went through Will’s mind as he cut and pasted the Post’s original reporting and then hit the delete button to get rid of the inconvenient quote. Did he think to himself, “Yeah, this is bad, but no one will notice”? Or did he think, “What the heck — people will notice, but it won’t affect my professional or social standing, so who cares”?

Paging Howard Kurtz: Do you consider your colleague’s effort journalistically acceptable? I don’t. This was a really bad one.

The Uncovered War: Permanent Bases in Iraq:

Stories

The Uncovered War: Permanent Bases in Iraq:

Liberation and liberal democracy were never the real reasons for the war to begin with. Those were just inserted in as throw enough mud to the wall and see what sticks policy. Let’s go through the litany, shall we?

1. Weapons of Mass destruction 3. America was in imminent danger from attack by Iraq (unmanned arial vehicles) 3. Ties to terrorists groups, namely Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda 4. Alleged ties to the Sept 11 War against Terror 5. Remake the Middle East 6. Fight them there so we don’t fight them here 7. Liberate Iraqis from Saddam Hussein 8. Establish Democracy in Iraq 9. Stop terror groups from getting their hands on the oil in Iraq 10. Stop the Iranians from taking control of Iraq 11. Establish safety for the state of Israel

Must we go on? I am quite sure that there are about 100 more rationales rolled out since last night for this war on Bush’s list that I have forgotten to mention……………