If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sky.com)   Jessica Lynch says Pentagon full of liars   (sky.com) divider line 848
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

45238 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Nov 2003 at 10:38 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



848 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-11-09 09:20:28 PM  
razor9edge:

"At the end of the day, America loves a hero and thats the story that the media will try to spin"

I completely agree, I also hope that you agree that if the hero story is partly or wholly untrue, that this is wrong. We don't need lies to make heroes, there's plenty of those to go around without resorting to deception.

"I still do not buy that the Pentagon has distorted the facts, since I have seen no official comments from them."

I agree, they certainly never lied, they always qualified the information given as unconfirmed. They also went out of their way (centcom that is) to report unconfirmed rumors over and over again to the media, such as the "facts" that she had been shot, stabbed, etc. You condemn the media for taking leaks at face value, why not condemn the Pentagon for holding press confernces based on uncoroberated, unreliable information?

Also, the fact that they sent a FILM CREW along with the rescue force pretty much proves to me that the Pentagon and the direct planners of the mission were WELL aware of the propaganda value of the operation, and wanted to take full advantage of it.

"Regarding the rape of Ms. Lynch, I truly believe that it should be a matter for her family at this point. The point was that the rape was disputed, not that it is true or untrue."

I agree, that should be considered a personal matter, not a political tool. I wish they had never even mentioned it.
 
2003-11-09 09:20:35 PM  
Thread about Lynch:

White House staffers are dropping like flies. Once again, why? They have the most important jobs in the world.

Halliburton got military contracts without bidding. Wonder how that happened?


I farking hate the internet
 
2003-11-09 09:23:36 PM  
Pocket Ninja:

I stand corrected.
 
2003-11-09 09:24:21 PM  
Hey Chelsea

RING RING!!! It's the clue phone, and it's for you!

Which would explain why Dubya is trailing an unknown democrat in the polls. OK.

wow, now you're really trolling. but that's to be expected from a democrat.


Polls from just a couple of weeks ago showed exactly that. They were further broken down my individual candidates, and Bush would lose to both Dean or Clark.
 
2003-11-09 09:25:59 PM  
my = by
 
2003-11-09 09:27:11 PM  
Lost_in_Korea Oh my GOD! You're from Korea! Do you want us to pull our troops out????
 
2003-11-09 09:29:18 PM  
zOmega26

No. I think that this administration went after the wrong target in the "axis of evil."
 
2003-11-09 09:29:57 PM  
"Polls from just a couple of weeks ago showed exactly that. They were further broken down my individual candidates, and Bush would lose to both Dean or Clark."

Totally untrue (sadly). Bush has no chance of losing to Dean, Clark, or any of the other nitwits running. There are only two Democratic candidates in the country right now who could beat Bush, and both of their names end in Clinton (and one of them can't run again).

The reason? Simple. MOre than any other president, Bush has perfected the art of selling the presidency. His entire presidential policy consists of raising enough money to get elected again. He's not even bashful about it, giving his donors cute pet names so they can pretend to be the stupid frat boys they never really stopped being at all.
 
2003-11-09 09:30:05 PM  
Nuts, forgot to close the tag.
 
2003-11-09 09:31:17 PM  
Lost_in_Korea

We needed a base, you should understand that. Kim is shiating in his pants.

Damn-- what time is it there, I forgot.
 
2003-11-09 09:31:54 PM  
No more Carrot Top.

Works every time, paste a sentence of their senseless drivle into Google and as soon as they have been exposed as PLAGERIZING PHONIES that are incapable of being original....poof, they vanish.
 
2003-11-09 09:32:38 PM  
Omega, do you have a newsletter and, if so, may I subscribe to it?

I'm sure you have a reason for believing that, but it doesn't seem like a plausible way to push the agenda on either side of the women-in-military fence. Surely there have been male servicemembers that have been rescued before, and I don't remember it ever creating a groundswell of "men are unfit for military duty" sentiment in the Pentagon. And if the pro-female soldiers pushed the Lynch story, it would only highlight the fact that, in reality, she really didn't do too great of a job of not getting captured.
 
2003-11-09 09:32:43 PM  
i have one question for all of you;

how does it feel to be used?

sheep, youre all sheep

BAAAAA,BAAAAAAAA, BAAAAAAAAAA
 
2003-11-09 09:36:49 PM  
"Works every time, paste a sentence of their senseless drivle into Google and as soon as they have been exposed as PLAGERIZING PHONIES that are incapable of being original....poof, they vanish."

Now if only we could invent a way to make the idiots who are far less concerned with making intelligent, salient points than they are in proving they have a bigger dick than some other random poster on the board, we'd all be set.
 
2003-11-09 09:38:24 PM  
Pocket Ninja

I stand corrected...for now. I am certain that I saw some poll data 3 weeks or so ago that had Bush losing to "un-named Democrat." I am trying to find a source.
 
2003-11-09 09:41:10 PM  
From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/why/said.html

RUMSFELD
They have weaponized chemical weapons, we know that. They've had an active program to develop nuclear weapons.
--Press conference, Kuwait City, June 11, 2002

CHENEY
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
-- Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

BUSH
Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. . . . The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one.
-- Remarks to the U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

BUSH
We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September 11 Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
-- Speech in Cincinnati, Oct. 7, 2002

RUMSFELD
Iraq's weapons of mass terror and the terror networks to which the Iraqi regime are linked are not two separate themes -- not two separate threats. They are part of the same threat.
-- Speech to Council on Foreign Relations, Jan. 23, 2003

BUSH
Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein.
-- State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

POWELL
What I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network . . . Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al-Qaida. These denials are simply not credible. . . .
-- Remarks to U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

CHENEY
We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization.
--Meet the Press, March 14, 2003

WOLFOWITZ
There has been a tendency to emphasize the weapons of mass destruction issue. But . . . the real thing that has concerned the President from the beginning . . . is the connection between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. So in a way, that's always been the main thing.
-- Washington Post interview, May 28, 2003

RUMSFELD
The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder. We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11.
--Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, July 9, 2003

BUSH
We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.
-- White House briefing, Sept. 17, 2003

KAY
Despite evidence of Saddam's continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.
-- David Kay, Interim Progress Report of the Iraq Survey Group, Oct. 2, 2003

POWELL
What we now know as a result of David Kay's efforts confirms that Hussein had every intention of continuing his work on banned weapons despite the U.N. inspectors, and that we and our coalition partners were right to eliminate the danger that his regime posed to the world.
-- Washington Post Op-Ed, Oct. 7, 2003

RICE
The Iraq Survey Group is findingand recordingproof that Iraq never disarmed, and never complied with UN inspectors. . . . Let there be no mistake, right up until the end, Saddam Hussein continued to harbor ambitions to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction, and to hide his illegal weapons programs.
-- Remarks to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, Oct. 8, 2003
 
2003-11-09 09:41:39 PM  
TWX

Thanks you took the words right out of my mouth. Hopefully everyone else realizes that this is a no experience, no knowledge private that is talking trash about something she has absolutely no idea about.
 
2003-11-09 09:42:00 PM  
Don't trust polls, NEVER trust ANY poll. Has anyone here taken part in one of these polls? Imagine the type of person that sits at home and answers polls. NONE of them are accurate.

The questions are more often than not quite loaded and the method of choosing those to be polled, even polls said to be "random" are pretty suspect. You call at one time of day, all you get are retired and unemployed people, you call later you get a different demographic. etc, etc, etc, there are just too many vaiables that can be manipulated or overlooked for ANY poll to be accurate unless a HUGE numner of people are polled, a large majority of the population.
 
2003-11-09 09:42:52 PM  
zOmega26

It's 11:40 Monday morning.

As far as needing a base, which is more important? A base outside of Saudi Arabia, or a REAL, verified threat of WMD?
 
2003-11-09 09:44:32 PM  
"Now if only we could invent a way to make the idiots who are far less concerned with making intelligent, salient points than they are in proving they have a bigger dick than some other random poster on the board, we'd all be set."

How true. Or even better, the niwits that turn a story about liars at the pentagon into their own personal forum on who can, and can't get elected to the presidency.
 
2003-11-09 09:45:13 PM  
CaptainFatass I do have a newsletter, but I write it in such a way that not even I can understand it.

We're talking about two different things. The NOW gang wants women in combat; that's where I think the story about her fighting her ass off came from. If you read (don't do it, trust me) the thread, the 'pentagon' leaked that story. No way. The military realizes the liability of women in combat, and I think they saw a way to capitalize on the fact that a hottie was captured-- rescue her ass.
 
2003-11-09 09:46:39 PM  
Nuts!! I could have sworn that I closed the bold tag that time.
 
2003-11-09 09:46:44 PM  
"Or even better, the niwits that turn a story about liars at the pentagon into their own personal forum on who can, and can't get elected to the presidency."

What are these "niwits" of which you speak? Sounds French. French! I think we have a traitor spy amongst us!
 
2003-11-09 09:48:22 PM  
OUI! I've been discovered!
 
2003-11-09 09:49:33 PM  
i hate bush
i hate his army
jessica lynch is a whore
 
2003-11-09 09:50:12 PM  
Pocket Ninja

Nice speech about how Bush can sell the presidency. We already knew that though, Halliburton bought it before the election even began.

I also read the article and saw the statistics that had Bush losing to an un-named Democratic contendor. The contendor does not exist yet, it would be whoever becomes the clear democratic contender.

Bush can hardly sell anything to anyone. His ratings have dived, the allies of the US are taking a back seat during his presidency and are even offering resistance to what he wants to do and everything else he has sold concerning the war turned out to be lies.

That line is about as sad as the current push from the right about how only a republican can lead the nation during wartime because democrats are no good at war. Democrats are skillful enough to achieve what they want without having to go to war but will when the need, real need, exists.

Politics was so much more interesting when it was less partisan. People from different positions discussed compromises that would make everyone within the country happy, except extremeists who are never happy. Now we have a push from extremist right wingers who are polarizing the situation and spewing only the most negative stereotypes about opponents to hold power. The republicans would have held power much longer if McCain had won.
 
2003-11-09 09:51:05 PM  
"jessica lynch is a whore"

What a stupid thing to say. A whore? Come on. A pawn, maybe. A tool of the administration, certainly. A piggy bank waiting to be plundered by media conglomerates, definitely. But a whore?

Jesus.
 
2003-11-09 09:51:35 PM  
Lost_in_Korea Take care of your weak side first, scare the crap out of Kim at the same time.

Don't forget-- </b :)
 
2003-11-09 09:51:48 PM  
Tomorrows headline: "Iraqi captors release Jessica rape video!".

I'd pay.
 
2003-11-09 09:52:07 PM  
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956255,00.html
 
2003-11-09 09:53:18 PM  
Xtremehkr

I have absolutely no clue what your point is. Are you disagreeing with me by agreeing with the sentiments of everything I said? Or do you have some other purpose too arcane for mortal man to comprehend?
 
2003-11-09 09:54:21 PM  
what the hell..

i'm moving to canada.
 
2003-11-09 09:55:26 PM  
While the Pentagon may, or may not, have pushed the story, they were at the very least duplicitous in its exaggeration and advancement. By publicly making "no comment" they also tacitly implied the truth of what the media was broadcasting. Much like, while President Chickenhawk never IMPLICITLY stated that Iraq was behind 9-11, the implications were there by continuously mentioning 9-11 in every speech on the threat from Iraq.
 
2003-11-09 09:56:31 PM  
I say simply this, the HERO tag doesn't need to be associated with any of these characters... You want to honor the hero of the situation, Pay tribute to the Master Sargent who grabed those bunch of morons and threw them in the hummer and died by enemy fire. No movie for him, no tribute for him, you want to give some credit to those who deserve it... screw these clownshoes.
 
2003-11-09 09:58:51 PM  
Xtremehkr

I voted for Gore as the lessor of two evils, but would have definitely voted for McCain, had he not been screwed by Bush and the political wing of the Pat Robertson Republican Army
 
2003-11-09 09:58:58 PM  
"Hero" is the most overused word in the American vocabulary. We lump it on everyone...sports figures who get paid for playing a game, fire fighters who are simply doing a job they're paid for, soldiers who've done nothing but follow orders and got shot at. The word has become so diffused I suspect that few out there would really, truly have a fittingly powerful word to use if the need ever arose to describe someone who actually did something, um, heroic.
 
2003-11-09 09:59:45 PM  
jdave34
zipbeep, you mistakenly called Jessica Kelly a couple of hours ago.


That post came out wrong. I was making fun of myself. I know I posted it earlier. The Bears were winning when I posted 'Kelly' Lynch and that threw me. They went to lose, so all is right with the world again. :D
 
2003-11-09 10:00:08 PM  
I dunno, Omega, I think the Pentagon had adequate motive to pump up the story as heroic from the start, as that sort of tale boosts support for the war among the folks at home. And, aside from this board, I haven't heard of anyone using the Lynch story to pump up support for women in the military. I think someone posted a supposed quote from NOW further up on this thread, though I can't speak to the authenticity of the quote as I hadn't heard it anywhere else. Honestly, in all of the hullabaloo about the Lynch story, using it as proof of the wisdom of having women in combat did not emerge as a discernible movement, at least not to my ear. And even if some random wench from NOW made such a statment (which would have been pretty isolated), who the hell listens to NOW anyway?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You DO like the latest Outkast single though, don't you?
 
2003-11-09 10:00:50 PM  
actually cazman....
chelsea was being a farkface with his apology. He deliberately quoted Clinton. I knew what he was doing. Not to defend his dumbass ass, but He was deliberately quoting Clinton and passing it off as his own....
 
2003-11-09 10:02:06 PM  
sshhhh, jdave. It's much more funny when they don't get it.
 
2003-11-09 10:02:52 PM  
Zipbeep:

So I'm not the only one who was wearing his Chicago Bears hat and jersey today? WOOHOO!!!!!

Captain Fatass:

You must be psychic...I was gonna ask people their opinion of the new Outkast earlier......i LOVE both singles.....
 
2003-11-09 10:03:22 PM  
It's pretty sad when we can trust a corrupt regime in another country more so than the corrupt regime in our own

It's pretty sad when some people actually think George W. Bush really IS worse than Saddam.
 
2003-11-09 10:03:27 PM  
Pocket Ninja

It didn't seem that oblique, just pass on the bits you can't work out and I will dissemble them for you.

It easier terms. Bush is bullshiat, in polls (or a poll, one of many polls) he was shown to be in a position to lost to whoever is nominated as the democratic contender.

The rest was about how partisan this has all become, which leads to less discussion and more effort about proving who is wrong rather than finding the merits in what people are saying and constructing a system based on the best of everyones ideas.

Lastly, I would have been more worried about McCain becoming president if I were strictly against a republican being president, McCain is moderate enough to meet the needs of a whole lot more people than Bush or say, Kucinich.
 
2003-11-09 10:03:32 PM  
garthm

TWX

Thanks you took the words right out of my mouth. Hopefully everyone else realizes that this is a no experience, no knowledge private that is talking trash about something she has absolutely no idea about.


Except for one thing. This story happened to HER. So, I guess she would know whether or not she went in (guns blazing!) and shot several Iraqis.
 
2003-11-09 10:04:47 PM  
FlakMonkey

right back at you:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
 
2003-11-09 10:05:08 PM  
oops....sorry ninja.....
 
2003-11-09 10:06:45 PM  
LAST POST!
 
2003-11-09 10:07:15 PM  
Chelsea

Remind me again....which one of those Dems sent troops to their death for no good reason?
 
2003-11-09 10:07:16 PM  
Uh, nice "dissembling", xtrem (ah, screw it, i'll just call you x).

"Bush is bullshiat, in polls (or a poll, one of many polls) he was shown to be in a position to lost to whoever is nominated as the democratic contender."

Sure. In fantasy land. Here in the real world the rest of us live in, Bush has, at a minimum, five times spending money *right now* than his closest competitor. And the real fundraising season hasn't even started. Anyone who thinks winning a presidential election isn't about who's got the deepest coffers is, um, misguided. To be polite.

"The rest was about how partisan this has all become, which leads to less discussion and more effort about proving who is wrong rather than finding the merits in what people are saying and constructing a system based on the best of everyones ideas."

Yeah? Old news, there. Your point?

"Lastly, I would have been more worried about McCain becoming president if I were strictly against a republican being president, McCain is moderate enough to meet the needs of a whole lot more people than Bush or say, Kucinich."

Hm. McCain isn't running. Again, the point?
 
2003-11-09 10:08:01 PM  
CaptainFatass: I've been an absolute geek for the past 5 years. WTF is Outkast? I used to listen to music. What's the name of the song? I'll go on IRC and get a copy. (yeah, try to find me doing it, "FBI". I get my DirectTV for free too. Eh, mang? :)
 
Displayed 50 of 848 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report