Shortly after a roadside bomb killed a U.S. Marine in a western Iraqi town, American troops went into nearby houses and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a 3-year-old-girl, residents say.
The military is investigating possible misconduct by the Marines and confirms there is a video, which Time Magazine says shows the aftermath of the Marines' assault.
Residents contacted by The Associated Press described what happened after the Nov. 19 roadside bomb in the town of Haditha, 140 miles northwest of Baghdad, as "a massacre."
Khaled Ahmed Rsayef, whose brother and six other members of his family were killed in the incident, said the roadside bomb exploded at about 7:15 a.m. in the al-Subhani neighborhood. A U.S. Humvee was badly damaged.
The military acknowledged Monday it was investigating the incident after it was approached by Time with accounts from residents, officials and hospital authorities in Haditha as well as a videotape purportedly showing the aftermath of the incident.
Blind, I want to add one more thing. Go back and read all of the statements from the Democrats in Congress about why they voted to give the president authorization to take action in Iraq. Not one place does anyone say it was because Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Not one person said that force might be used against Saddam because he was in cahoots with Bin Laden. They all said that it was because of Saddam's weapons capabilities, which was the same capabilities being voiced all over the world by many different intelligence organizations. So your whole premise is pointless anyway, except for the fact that you guys say all of that was a lie too. It doesn't really matter who said what, you guys would still find collusion, drama and conspiracy because that is what floats your boat.
Blind, I take things at face value. If you want to read things into all of that, then that is your prerogative. I am not so stupid that I can't think critically and decifer what is said. The fact is, however, I accept people and their words and actions exactly as they are and don't look for underlying drama and evil intent. I learned, a long time ago, in AlAnon, that trying to read underlying motives into other's words and actions is first, a lesson in futility, second, a lesson is controlling thinking on your part, third, a lesson in a disturbing way of life and fourth...wrong.
I call myself blind, but you must be both blind and deaf. The whole point of my post was that Bush carefully avoided saying that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 but kept over and over again mentioning 9/11 and Saddam in the same speeches, as did Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, etc etc.
The intentional omissions of bin Laden and inclusion of Saddam in those speeches was designed to create the impression among the public that Saddam had been involved in 9/11. And it worked. At one point, 50% of the people in the country thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
It is simply not true that Saddam was allowing Al Qaida to train in Iraq and I seriously doubt that Saddam ever met bin Laden at anything more serious than a photo op. There were individual members of Al Qaida in Iraq with Saddam's knowledge but that's a far cry from the training camps that they ran in Afghanistan.
But I return to my larger point. Read any of Bush's speeches during the run-up to the war and you hear, over and over, "9/11..Saddam" "9/11...Saddam". It was pure propaganda and to pretend otherwise is shameful.
The war against Serbia did meet its objective of deposing Milosevich with minimal costs in American lives. Nevertheless it was a war waged without UN approval, a war waged in violation of the NATO charter, a war waged mainly against civilian targets, and a war started on false pretenses about the extent of ethnic cleansing going on in certain parts of Serbia.
In other words it was a war that violated every principle that Liberals claim was violated in Iraq:
1) The USA shouldn't impose regime change on other countries.
2) The USA shouldn't attack countries that don't pose a threat to us.
3) The USA shouldn't go to war on false pretenses
4) The USA shouldn't go to war without UN authorization
5) The USA shouldn't wage war against civilians.
You are saying that the war against Serbia was OK because even though it violated every one of the principles you claim are sacred, we were able to achieve our objective without loss of U.S. life.
I guess you think that it is OK for the U.S. to go to war to bully around small countries like Serbia that can't hurt us, but that we should not go to war with more formidable enemies like Iraq that do have the potential to hurt us. That does not seem to be a rational approach to protecting the country.
Blind, give me the quote where he said that Saddam and Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. We have been through this on this board over and over and nobody has ever produced that statement. The fact is that Bush promised that any country aiding the enemy would pay the consequences. Bush said that Saddam was allowing Al Quaida to train in Iraq and had met with Bin Laden, two facts which have been proved. That isn't even close to saying that he had anything to do with 9/11...that is, except in the mind of the liberal media which has perpetuated the false impression. Saddam was really stupid because he got hit on two fronts..one, he was allowing Al Quaida training and two, he was playing poker with a hand that indicated a full house of WMDs. He wouldn't show his cards and so he got shot for cheating. It really gets old having to point these things out over and over. If people aren't smart enough to listen with objectivity and really hear what is actually said (without conspiracy expectations or evil undertones), then there is nothing that can be done to keep them from spewing propaganda. In Z's words, Oh Well.
However, Bush did deny ever tying together Iraq and 9/11 which is a truly preposterous rewriting of history. It requires a suspension of disbelief far greater than that required to believe that Clinton never had sex with that woman to think that Bush didn't milk 9/11 for every ounce of connection, real or imagined, to the Iraq invasion.
Once he had decided to invade Iraq, virtually every public statement he made on terrorism omitted mention of Osama bin Laden, referred to the events of 9/11 and contained multiple references to Saddam Hussein. It was classic advertising, putting two images together over and over again, without ever saying that one was actually related to the other. It was no different in principle from selling cars by draping beautiful sexy women over the hoods. And Bush's defense of his conduct is equivalent to GM saying "Our ads never said you would attract a hot babe if you bought our cars." True, but utterly irrelevant.
The Bush administration used to be masterly at this kind of non-logical propaganda but facts have caught up with them and the public just isn't buying it any more.
I wasn't there and didn't know the man, so I can't say whether he endorsed them or not. I can say that he allowed it to happen and nobody was held accountable. As I have said over and over..nothing is new under the sun.
So far all you've told me is that fascists won the war. I agree, but not with Roosevelt (he died, yoiu know). Left out of your brief but illuminating prose is that US maretime insurance companies sold their p[olicies on the worl market where Bermany could find out which ones carried supplies for England, and the courses that they would follow. provided a dandy hit rate for the U-boats. Roosevelt also knew that the idea of allowing JEWS into the country was unpopular and as a result, quite a few refugees were doomed.
So are you saying that Roosevelt endorsed these attitudes, or would it be more honest to say that he had to find ways to work around them?
Hey Lucky, have a GR8 evening. I gotta git outta this hole!