Those pesky little things called facts.


In recent months I’ve had a fair amount of debates with disengenuous democrats and liberals on everything from the war on terror to Iraq, health care and gerbil warming. I have grown incresingly tired of  repeatedly putting together this concert of info time and time again. So what I’ve decided to do is put together and keep in place this list of facts that I have discoverd in my searchs to counter my past and future opponents claims. 

Whats most discouraging to find is that the facts I’ve dug up are not radical view points or facts that have been skewed by any radical agenda. These are all facts that are verifiable by reliable, believable and sane sources.

Too often  in our mainstream media ( which by all reliable accounts is dominated by a leftist bias) we see news that is confirmed and accepted by the general public only because of the sheer amount of times and the length of exposure the story gets. Misery, blood, hype, overdramatizations and sexed up presentations sell well.

 I’m going to present this post in a timeline that “I” consider relevant. Not so that it would presented in any bias form but because these will simply be the issues that have stood out the most since the war in Iraq began in regards to reference as important. I am a conservative but by all means the truth must be told once in a while if not always.

I’m going to begin this expose` with the Iraq war. I guess one of the first anti war activities lauched was that of the “human sheilds” I think after being asked to gaurd only what the Iraqi government thought was worth gaurding they decided they didnt want get their asses blown sky hi as opposed to standing and making a point, so they  dug out back to England. (thats my interpretation ) 

Human shield Britons quit Baghdad

Almost all of the first British “human shields” to go to Iraq were on their way home last night after deciding that their much-heralded task was now too dangerous.

Godfrey Meynell [centre] with other human shields at Baghdad South power station

Two red double-decker buses, which symbolised the hopes of anti-war activists when they arrived to a fanfare of publicity a fortnight ago, slipped quietly out of Baghdad on the long journey back to Britain.

Nine of the original 11 activists decided to pull out after being given an ultimatum by Iraqi officials to station themselves at targets likely to be bombed in a war or leave the country. Among those departing last night was 68-year-old Godfrey Meynell, a former High Sheriff of Derbyshire, who admitted that he was leaving out of “cold fear”. He had been summoned, along with 200 other shields from all over the world, to a meeting at a Baghdad hotel yesterday morning.



Human shields black bus, 25 January, 2003

Human shields black bus, 25 January, 2003 (Looks like a big hurse to me)

Kenneth O'Keefe, one of the primary organisers of the event

Kenneth O’Keefe, one of the primary organisers of the event

“In December 2002 a group of dedicated anti-war activists gathered in London and set out a plan to launch a new form of non-violent direct action. Frustrated that traditional forms of protest were ineffective, they developed the concept of the Human Shield Movement and on January 25, 2003 a group of 50 volunteers left London and headed for Baghdad with the intention of acting as human shields. The convoy travelled through Europe and Turkey by bus to pick up like-minded people along the way, totalling roughly 75 people. It has been estimated that 200 to 500 people eventually made their way into Iraq before the U.S. invasion in March.”

“Upon reaching Baghdad, a strategy was formed on the assumption that there would not be enough human shields to avert an invasion. This was to involve the voluntary deployment of activists to strategic locations throughout Baghdad, and possibly Basra, in an effort to avert the bombing of those locations. There was much internal debate about which locations were to be chosen.”

Human shields greeted as they cross the border into Iraq, 15 February, 2003

Human shields greeted as they cross the border into Iraq, 15 February, 2003

“Eventually volunteers deployed to Al Daura Electrical Plant, Baghdad South Electrical Plant, 7th April Water Treatment Plant, Al Daura Water Treatment Plant, Tejio Food Silo, Al Daura Oil Refinery and Al Mamun Telecommunications Facility.”

“During these deployments a small group of volunteers led by Gordon Sloan of New Zealand took on the job of vetting sites to ensure they were not in close vicinity to military facilities. This was to be the cause of some conflict with their Iraqi host, Dr. Abdul Razak al-Hashimi, Saddam Hussein‘s spokesman during the first Gulf War, and head of the Friendship, Peace and Solidarity organisation which was hosting the activists, under the authority of the Baathist government.”

“With an invasion imminent, Hashimi became frustrated by Sloan’s explorations, called a meeting, and asked the activists to deploy to sites or leave Iraq. Hashimi’s meeting is said by some of the leading volunteers to have been a costly political mistake. It was the trigger of much anxiety among the volunteers and negative reporting in the media, including mis-reports that activists were being forced to deploy to military sites.  It was also at this point that some of the British volunteers were to return to London along with the two double-decker red buses and their owner, which were originally meant to have left soon after arrival.”

“The paranoia that rose up around Hashimi’s announcement and the reports that the buses were leaving Iraq slowed the influx of activists into Iraq, and caused some of those already there to leave Iraq, believing they had lost credibility through Hashimi’s actions. The Iraqi authorities, on the other hand, saw Kenneth O’Keefe, Sloan, and other organisers as constantly challenging Hashimi’s authority and being deliberately disruptive, and that some would-be shields were taking too long to deploy to sites. Five of the ‘trouble makers’ were then asked to leave the country.”

“Many activists stayed on, however, and continued to shield the chosen sites. It is claimed that eighty human shields stayed in the Baghdad area throughout the bombing campaign.”

 Analysis and effects of the human shields

Human shields meeting in Iraq, 1 March, 2003, at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, Iraq

Human shields meeting in Iraq, 1 March, 2003, at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, Iraq

“On February 26, 2003, Senior CNN Pentagon Correspondent, Jamie McIntyre, commented that the “Pentagon says they will try to work around human shields” as long as they were not deployed to military sites. Of all the shielded sites, only one—arguably a legitimate target under the Geneva Conventions—was eventually bombed, the Al Mamun Telecommunications Facility, one day after the human shields pulled out of it.”

“Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions, “Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Protocol 1),” appears to prohibit civilians such as human shields from being present, “to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations,” however, Article 52 specifically prohibits attacking civilian infrastructure unless it is of military value, and Article 54 specifically prohibits attacking food and water equipment, unless it is of military value and does not cause civilians to starve or be forced to move.”

“For violating a U.S. prewar travel ban, human shields from the U.S. faced fines, loss of retirement benefits, and/or imprisonment. On the day after the departure of the human shield convoy, White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, released a statement condemning the action and Fox News reported that U.S. leaders were considering prosecuting U.S. human shields for war crimes.”


“The Human Shield action was criticised for what many saw as being an overt act of aiding Saddam Hussein’s regime. Charges of the shields being “dupes” and “useful idiots” for Saddam were widespread in the U.S. The human shields countered that while various governments around the globe carry out acts of aggression, the human shield action saw fit to defend against this one.”

The botom line is this. The Iraqi government wanted these guys to put themselves in front of targets they knew we were going to nail.

In the gulf war of  1991 humans shields organizations claimed war crimes against the US for bombing civilian utilities such as food silos, pharmaceutical plants and food processing plants. What the human shields failed to mention was that the Iraqi military was concealing Iraqi soldiers inside these institutions. This same tactic was used by both parties in the initial invasion of 93.

                                  ” Misson Accomplished ”

When that banner went up the media was never really fair in explaining the true message that it carried. And the media proceeded to beat the crap out of Bush on this one , totally misconstruing the whole message. Leading just about every new organizations top anchors to ask; ‘Is the mission truly accomplished?” without ever giving proper description to what the mission actually was supposed to be.

Also , note the caption inside this photo ” How Bush misjudged the task of fixing Iraq”,9171,1101031006-490595,00.html    The article was written in Sept/2003. Only 6 months after the initial invasion.

The White House said on October 29, 2003 that it had helped with the production of a ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner as a backdrop for President George W. Bush’s speech onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln to declare combat operations over in Iraq. This file photo shows Bush delivering a speech to crew aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, as the carrier steamed toward San Diego, California on May 1, 2003. (Larry 

I’m sure we’ve all heard the numerous criticisms surrounding that statement but some were done on a very sly note, such as the caption under the photo above. It only says ” combat operations over in Iraq”. See the rest of the story here >

 Does anyone really believe that Bush was telling us the war was over ?  What it meant was that the Iraqi Government had been overthrown, that was the mission ! And that major combat engagement in itself was over.  Instead of offering support, morons like John Kerry took it as an opportunity to only bolster his perceived righteousness and campaign platform. And the media was only too happy to run with it. As


“Landing on an aircraft carrier and saying ‘mission accomplished’ didn’t end a war, and standing in the Rose Garden and stating that ‘Iraq is a dangerous place’ does nothing to make American troops safer,” Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said in a written statement Tuesday.



John Kerry was disingenuous in this statement. No one in Bushs cabinet said the mission ended the war and no one said the troops were any safer. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a war where all the combatants were guaranteed safety ?

From Dana Bash
CNN Washington Bureau“Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the “Mission Accomplished” banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it. ““During the speech in May, Bush said, “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on.”Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, defended the president’s assertion.“The banner was a Navy idea, the ship’s idea,” Chun said.“The banner signified the successful completion of the ship’s deployment,” he said, noting the Abraham Lincoln was deployed 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history. “Hopefully this will give some of you out there a little better perspective on this event and the misconceptions behind it. Now, lets move on to the oh so tiresome oil accusation.If you seriously belive we did it just for the oil, the list below will no doubt be bothersome for you.As a matter of fact Iraq’s oil is the base of its sovereignty , and the reason its government cant get its shit together is because they cant decide how to divide the revenues from ” THEIR” oil. Besides that it would of been a hell of a lot cheaper just to steal it or buy it. Besides that, after the Gulf war we could of applied sanctions that would of steered the oil our way.

“There are two flavors to this argument.  The first was popular before the war, and held that the United States would invade Iraq and take the oil.  Given that this didn’t happen, and that the Americans are helping to rebuild Iraq (against insurgent attempts to thwart the process by destroying pipelines and terrorizing the population), this is no longer believed by anyone except the most hopeless anti-American conspiracy nuts.”

“The more reasonable version of the argument is that Americas only interest in Iraq is to see that the country’s oil reaches the international market.  The problem with this theory is that the only thing keeping Iraqi oil off the market prior to the war was American-supported sanctions. “


“The sanctions wouldn’t have been there in the first place if Americans were only interested in oil.”  “Nor would America have gone to war over oil, since it would have been far easier to simply drop the sanctions if oil was really the issue.”

“As it turns out, the only people selling their souls for oil were the European opportunists, such as George Galloway, who were paid millions in oil allotments by Saddam to moralize against the war.  Fortunately for them, they aren’t American, therefore no one in Europe really cares.”

Bush lied in order to go to war. And George Washingtons teeth were made out of wood.

June 26, 1993 – Missile attack launched in retaliation against Iraqi plot to assassinate President Bush.  ( Clinton rattling his pocket knife)
Tuesday, 18 April, 2000, 13:19 GMT 14:19 UK
Iraqi rights abuses condemned

The Iraqi people suffer “all-pervasive oppression”

The United Nations has strongly condemned Iraq for its “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations” of human rights.
The UN Commission on Human Rights adopted a European Union-sponsored resolution criticising Baghdad’s “all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror”.

Thirty-two of the 53 Commission members voted in favour of the motion, with the remainder – including China and Russia – abstaining.

The resolution also condemned Iraq’s widespread and arbitrary use of the death penalty and its suppression of freedom of expression.

“On Feb. 5, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell came before the United Nations Security Council and laid out the Bush administration’s case against Iraq. As a hushed chamber listened intently, Secretary Powell detailed a web of evidence against Saddam Hussein’s regime.”

Powell’s argument could be divided into two main tracks. The first centered on the premise that Iraq had to face the penalties for having flouted numerous Security Council resolutions. “Last Nov. 8, this council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote,” the secretary said. “The purpose of that resolution was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years.”

“Iraq has now placed itself in danger of the serious consequences called for in U.N. Resolution 1441. And this body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately.”

While the Security Council has passed a series of resolutions concerning Iraq over the past 12 years, only one explicitly authorized the use of force. Resolution 678, passed on Nov. 29, 1990, authorized member states to “use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

April 16 2003.
Saddam was found to be violating oil for food programs by selling the food received in exchange for oil for cash. His country was starving so he could build anther mansion/palace.
This was a violation of peace treaties enacted after the first gulf war, it is also an act of war and justification for disbanding the Iraqi leadership.
More Iraqi violations…
found here.

Before the war, Syria was said to be receiving as much as 200,000 b/d of oil through the pipeline, paying as much as $1 billion/year to Iraq, making it the single largest source of revenue for Baghdad outside the UN’s oil-for-aid program.

But the US action put an end to that arrangement, ending Washington’s formerly benign policy towards Syria’s illicit imports of Iraqi oil.

Posted on 11/18/2007 9:15:32 AM PST by Son House

Iraqi Firings: Since 2000, Iraqi forces have fired on U.S. and British pilots 1,600 times. In 2002, Iraqi forces fired on U.S. and British pilots406 times. Since September 18, just hours after Saddam promised to “allow the return of the United Nations inspectors without conditions” and expressed his desire “to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction,”

1. Elected Democrats like Reid and Pelosi have no loyalty to the Current Military Personal who are in harms way, or they would make sure they have funding no matter what.
2. President Clinton had little loyalty to the Military, or Iraqi forces firing on U.S. Pilots would not have continued into the 2000.

3. Iran attacking our Military Personal is not acceptable.

Revisiting these historical facts should drive home the point that Saddam was in violation of the terms under which we spared him after liberating Kuwait — with or without WMDS and with our without ties to Al Qaeda.
Clinton would have been well justified to invade Iraq at just about any time during his second term — problem is Clinton lacked the courage to do what really needed to be done (and instead attacked Yugoslavia.)

No-Fly Zones, the Iraqi Violations.

Operation Northern Watch enforces the no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel in Iraq and monitors Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687, and 688. The United States and the United Kingdom provide about 45 aircraft and more than 1,400 personnel to support the operation.

Operation Southern Watch enforces the no-fly zone south of the 33rd parallel in Iraq and monitors compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687, 688, and 949. The United States and the United Kingdom provide about 150 aircraft and 6,000 forces to support the operation.

All of the above were acts of war and aggression against the U.S.
Not even mentioning the thousands og human rights violations taking place on a daily basis.

All were violations of peace treaties enacted after the first gulf war/Kuwait invasion.

George W. Bush never claimed to have been to Iraq.  Rather, both he and Tony Blair deferred to intelligence reports and, at the same time, complained that their sources were limited by the fact that Saddam would not allow inspections under the agreements that ended the Gulf War; nor would he respect numerous UN mandates to allow unrestricted monitoring.

Though rare, there are some in the world who allege that Bush knew the reports were wrong (in some mysterious fashion), but went to war under false pretenses anyway.  This would certainly qualify as a lie, but it also defies common sense and probably speaks to the ignorance, delusion, or dishonesty of the person making such an assertion.

Saddam was also paying Palestinian suicide bombers families $25,000 ea. to go into Afghanistan and blow up Americans, this was most definitely an act of war. ———————————————–,2933,48822,00.html

Saddam Pays 25K for Palestinian Bombers

Tuesday, March 26, 2002


Saddam Hussein is paying $25,000 to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers — a $15,000 raise much welcomed by the bombers’ families. In Tulkarm, one of the poorest towns on the West Bank, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council handed out the checks from Saddam. The payments have been made for at least two years, but the amount has suddenly jumped up by $15,000 — a bonus for the families of martyrs, to reward those taking part in the escalating war against Israel. Paul McGeough, reporting from the West Bank, was the only foreign correspondent in the hall Monday night when a Palestinian official handed out the checks. McGeough’s story in today’s Sydney Morning Herald describes a very hellish twist on the Academy Awards: The men at the top table then opened Saddam’s checkbook and, as the names of 47 martyrs were called, family representatives went up to sign for checks written in U.S. dollars. (Story continues , click on the link )Below are some more obtrusive notes that never seem to hit the mainstream medis. Written in Dec 2006. Does anyone recall seeing this on your evening news ? But I’m sure you got a good shot of all the mourning mothers screaming over the body of their son that was killed by some insurgent, and I’ll bet you’ve seen your share of crying babies on  Baghdad sidewalks.

Thursday, December 21, 2006 ( almost a year ago )

List of Iraq successes

BDE3TACP on AOL posted this:

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1……(that was the “mission accomplished banner) The first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty.
… Over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.
… Nearly all of Iraq’s 400 courts are functioning.
… The Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.
.. On Monday, October 6, power generation hit 4,518 megawatts, exceeding the prewar average.
… All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.
… By October 1, Coalition forces had rehab-ed over 1,500 schools – 500 more than scheduled.
… Teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.
… All 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.
… Doctor’s salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.
… Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.
… The Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraq’s children.
… A Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq’s 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.
… We have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production.
… There are 4,900 full-service telephone connections. We expect 50,000 by year-end.
… The wheels of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.
… 95 percent of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.
… Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.
… The central bank is fully independent.
… Iraq has one of the world’s most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.
… Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.
… Satellite TV dishes are legal.
… Foreign journalists aren’t on 10-day visas paying mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for minders and other government spies.
… There is no Ministry of Information.
… There are more than 170 newspapers.
… You can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner.
… Foreign journalists (and everyone else) are free to come and go.
… A nation that had not one single element — legislative, judicial or executive — of a representative government now does.
… In Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils. Baghdad’s first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.
… Today in Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.
… 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq’s history, run the day-to-day business of government.
… The Iraqi government regularly participates in international events. Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.
… Shiva religious festivals that were all but banned, aren’t anymore.
… For the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.
… The Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.
… Uday and Queasy are dead – and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing Iraq’s soccer players for losing games, or murdering critics.
… Children aren’t imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree with the government.
… Political opponents aren’t imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.
… Millions of long-suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.
… Saudis will hold municipal elections.
… Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents.
… Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms.
… The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian
— A Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for democracy and for peace.
.. Saddam is gone.
… Iraq is free.
….Terrorists are being drawn to an arena in which our military can kill or capture them
Sovereignty is restored to Iraq”

Since Gen. Patreaus gave his report to Congress on the results of the recent surge in forces completed in Sept of this year you cant help but see it all over the news. And I mean “ALL OVER!” By listening to Harry Reid in Sepy 2007 you would of not thought this at all.

Apr 19 02:45 PM US/Eastern  

View larger image

The war in Iraq “is lost” and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.”I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week,” Reid told journalists.

 When CNN and the rest of the liberal media are showing success stories coming out of Iraq on a daily basis it means the its only so obvious even the most bias reporting cant hide it.. Below I will list links and testimonials from those who are actually their and didnt just here about this over the phone.

  • THE IRAQ SURGE:WHY IT’S WORKING‘I WALKED down the streets of Ramadi a few days ago, in a soft cap eating an ice cream with the mayor on one side of me and the police chief on the other,… – 44k – Similar pages


    NO ‘NIGHTMARE’. WHY ‘SURGE’ IS WORKING (The term “surge” is far too simplistic, as it implies simply throwing more forces at the problem, when Petraeus’… – 41k – Similar pages

  •… The Surge is Working::By Patrick Ruff…Early indications are that the troop surge into Baghdad is working. It hasn’t been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down… – 169k – Similar pages

  • The ‘surge’ is working– Los Angeles TimesAs recently as a month ago, it appeared that Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker would be running into a withering fusillade of rhetorical,0,… – 40k – Similar pages,0,1085443.story?coll=la-opinion-center

  • The Surge is Workingat HansMast.comThe Surge is Working. The Financial Times:. Violence in Iraq has fallen at a rate that has surprised military commanders and even one of the architects of
  • And as far as the bias one sided liberal media goes I feel I should include this story that displays how generals who have commanded in Iraq are incredibly disatisfied with the medias slanted portrayal of the situation in Iraq.
  • Gen. Sanchez Hits Biased, Agenda-Driven Coverage of Iraq War

    By NB Staff | October 15, 2007 – 12:53 ET

    The former top U.S. military commander in Iraq, Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, addressed the annual conference of Military Reporters and Editors on October 12. While his condemnations of what he called “a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership” have been widely reported, his criticisms of the media’s Iraq coverage has received far less attention. Here is an excerpt of Sanchez’s speech:

    As all of you know I have a wide range of relationships and experiences with our nation’s military writers and editors. There are some in your ranks who I consider to be the epitome of journalistic professionalism — Joe Galloway, Thom Shanker, Sig Christensen, and John Burns immediately come to mind. They exemplify what America should demand of our journalists — tough reporting that relies upon integrity, objectivity and fairness to give accurate and thorough accounts that strengthen our freedom of the press and in turn our democracy.

    On the other hand, unfortunately, I have issued ultimatums to some of you for unscrupulous reporting that was solely focused on supporting your agenda and preconceived notions of what our military had done.

    I also refused to talk to the European Stars and Stripes for the last two years of my command in Germany for their extreme bias and single minded focus on Abu Ghraib.

    Let me review some of the descriptive phrases that have been used by some of you that have made my personal interfaces with the press corps difficult: “Dictatorial and somewhat dense,” “Not a strategic thought,” Liar, “Does not get it,” and The most inexperienced LtG.

    In some cases I have never even met you, yet you feel qualified to make character judgments that are communicated to the world. My experience is not unique and we can find other examples such as the treatment of Secretary [sic, FEMA Director Michael] Brown during [Hurricane] Katrina.

    This is the worst display of journalism imaginable by those of us that are bound by a strict value system of selfless service, honor and integrity. Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self aggrandizement or to advance your individual quest for getting on the front page with your stories!

    As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front-page stories you have written, and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed. This is much like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the “collateral damage” you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.

    Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground, the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry. An Arab proverb states – “four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity.” Once reported, your assessments become conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change.

    Other major challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by “high level officials” who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to strengthen their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda-driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment. All of these challenges combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice to America.

    Over the course of this war, tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved. We realize that because of the near real-time reporting environment that you face it is difficult to report accurately. In my business one of our fundamental truths is that “the first report is always wrong.” Unfortunately, in your business “the first report” gives Americans who rely on the snippets of CNN, if you will, their “truths” and perspectives on an issue.

    As a corollary to this deadline-driven need to publish “initial impressions or observations” versus objective facts, there is an additional challenge for us who are the subject of your reporting. When you assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground on a story because we have not responded to questions you provided, it is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics. One of your highly repected fellow journalists once told me that there are some amongst you who “feed from a pig’s trough.” If that is who I am dealing with then I will never respond otherwise we will both get dirty and the pig will love it. This does not mean that your story is accurate.

    I do not believe that this is what our forefathers intended. The code of ethics for the society of professional journalists states: “…public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.”

    The basic ethics of a journalist that calls for: 1) Seeking truth, 2) Providing fair and comprehensive account of events and issues, 3) Thoroughness and honesty.

    All are victims of the massive agenda-driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war.

    My assessment is that your profession, to some extent, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on TV, what they read in our newspapers and what they see on the web. For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own pre-conceived notions, biases and agendas.

    It is astounding to me when I hear the vehement disagreement with the military’s forays into information operations that seek to disseminate the truth and inform the Iraqi people in order to counter our enemy’s blatant propaganda. As I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled. There is no question in my mind that the strength our democracy and our freedoms remain linked to your ability to exercise freedom of the press — I adamantly support this basic foundation of our democracy and completely supported the embedding of media into our formations up until my last day in uniform. The issue is one of maintaining professional ethics and standards from within your institution. Military leaders must accept that these injustices will happen and whether they like what you print or not they must deal with you and enable you, if you are an ethical journalist.

    Finally, I will leave this subject with a question that we must ask ourselves: Who is responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of the profession in order to ensure that our democracy does not continue to be threatened by this dangerous shift away from your sacred duty of public enlightenment?

  • As you can see General Sanchez’s case is rock solid evidence that you just cant get a real story more than half the time.                     
  • And then theres Hollywood

  • Why are idiots like Rosie O’Donnel allowed to say on national TV that there are 600,000 Iraqis dead because we are the terrorists ? And get away with it ? And how many today believe this, still ?

  • Heres the facts,

  • See here>

  • Documented civilian deaths from violence in Iraq compiled from numerous sources and then averaged out

    77,333 – 84,250

    Deaths in each week from 2003–2007 Deaths per day from vehicle bombsDeaths per day from vehicle bombs
    Deaths pre day from gunfire / executionsDeaths per day from gunfire / executions

    To be continued…




  1. This is an awesome collection of facts on Iraq, man. It’s just sad that the party of failure refuses to see this. The lunatic leftists out there, following their jackass of a leader, Harry Reid, are determined to see failure at all costs. How can anybody, especially the Senate leader, run a political party that is so based on a policy of failure? They take their power from failure – failure in Iraq, economic failure, national security failure – and when things go well they get pissed. How screwed up is that?

  2. Everyone needs a purpose.

  3. One question remains unanswered: if overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime was so important, why did George H. W. Bush fail to do so? And why did George W. Bush wait and attack even though Iraq had not provoked anyone?

    I won’t go so far as to say failure in Iraq is inevitable, but things are being poorly handled (and poorly reported). Success in Iraq relies completely on the Iraqi government and people cooperating with us. Unfortunately, the government is nearly-powerless and the people are too busy dealing with the collateral damage caused by bombs targeted at American soldiers.

    Iraq needs to take up the reins in running itself. We can’t stay there forever.

  4. HW didnt fail, it wasnt his intention. He just wanted him to fucking leave the Kuwaitis alone. The next decade gave reason to ouster his ass. And Monica had Clintons balls, one in each cheek looking like the socialist squirrel bitch that she is.
    I forgot to mention at the tail end of this post that there is much much more to come.
    As in “to be continued”
    I better include that now so not everyone thinks that this is all there is.

  5. The surge is working, period. The facts display this.
    But I do agree that the Iraqis are a dead fuck. But we cant just leave them. Nor do we ever have any intention of doing so. That is the pill that the public cant swallow. Which why Bush junior had use to another valid case for going in.
    After 911 we had to set up camp somewhere in Ithe middle east. And with all of Saddams violations it was the perfect excuse.
    Hearts and minds ! My ass !
    We went in because we needed to have a watch tower. We are presently building an embassy in Iraq larger than any college campus in the United States. That in itself should explain everything.

  6. Wow, fast response. Anyways, I know HW went in with the intention to protect Kuwait, but there were many opportunities to justifiably depose Saddam. Considering how much trouble the man was giving us, it would have been easier to get rid of them while we had an excuse everyone agreed with.

    Also, I don’t really buy into the “watch tower” idea. We’re already well-established in Saudi Arabia. Of course, I suppose it might make more sense to have a base in another country, since the Saudis aren’t the most trustworthy of allies.

  7. The action against Saddam had to appear to give him the benefit of the doubt and apply a little diplomacy so that when he does fuck up really bad we had a just reason for removing him. The world was different animal in the 80s and 90s before 911. Kuwaut was a diplomatic benfit of the doubt and the Jihadist threat was not what it was today. Gassing the Kurds, shooting at our jets hundreds and hundreds of times, and paying suicide bombers to go to Afghanistan was the three last straws.
    But like I said, Clintons a fucking pussy. I will give Bill credit in certain areas, but not defense. Bush is picking up after him and in my opinion his father also and as far back as Carters administration. We should of bitch slapped these assholes a long time ago.

    As far as the Saudis go, you kinda explained the purpose of the Iraqi bases and embassy for me with that one.

  8. That’s alot of words, and I have the ADD, so bottom line it for me:

    Humans do or do not make good shields?

  9. Its seems only when I’m trying to fuck their girlfriends has it ever worked.
    On a more serious note, I think the stats are against them, so far. Especially when the country being attacked tells them to gaurd military instalations instead of targets important to sustaining the population. Thats when its fucking time to leave, which they did. A few stayed. When all hell broke loose they split also.

  10. Humans are too squishy. They make better shrapnel.

  11. Soon as I sober up I’m going to read this post and say something intelligent about it.

    Lent is in the spring, right?

  12. Always go right

  13. Been a while since your last post, eh?

  14. Yea, been reaming moonbats asses over at Black Tygrrr. Also some comedy for a new blog Grizzly put up.

    Got tired of answering the same questions for every misguided and uninformed squirrel out there. So I decided to start putting together a sort of data bank with the most relevant topics since the war started.
    The next installation will be up in a week or so.
    If I type for more than an hour I start seeing triple and my own voice rings in my head.
    Ontop of my ass falling asleep

  15. I am going to cut and paste this for my boyfriend. He’ll love you for this (he’s hardcore Republican).

    I on the other hand don’t have time to read it all just yet. The gym prevails.

    As an aside though, can you write about the absurdity of celeb support for that murderous thug/death row convict? Thanks.

  16. Tell your old man to keep up the good fight, I’ll look into the thug.

  17. Don’t forget to mention Tookie Williams, either.

    Another “lost” cause celebre~

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s