CNN is reporting that two American soldiers were killed in Mosul today, in a coordinated attack on their car - the soldiers were shot and their throats were slit, and then a crowd looted both the car and the bodies. The military is confirming two deaths and that the soldiers were shot, but has not commented on the rest of the reports. CNN talked to witnesses that saw a child run away with a hand grenade, another with a watch.

If this is true, not only is it horrific (and with at least one good friend in the Gulf, personally frightening), but it seems it was clearly meant to send a gruesome message to our soldiers, to ratchet up the threat level against them.

All politics aside, I really am worried about the path we are taking in this occupation. News reports also have the military leaders claiming they are winning against the insurgents because the insurgents run away at every battle - and that the US can't be beaten militarily in this battle.

It is certainly true we can't be beaten by this rag-tag band of former Iraqi military men, foreign fighters and outright terrorists - but they aren't trying to win a military victory - they are trying to make the political and social cost of being in Iraq so high we will leave, and then they can regrab power, being seen as the liberators of Iraq.

And we play right into their hands when we announce we're going to crack down on the insurgents - so we look more and more like a military power trying to control a country, not rebuild it. That just feeds the arguments the insurgents are making, and with unemployment rates of 70% and loose weapons lying about, it is pretty easy to them to gather more recruits.

I don't know how to fix the mess, but I just wish I heard something from the Administration or the military leadership that would lead me to believe they are at least considering the possibility our tactics are wrong.

If the insurgents are trying to make the political and social cost of being in Iraq so high to make us leave, then it's pretty simple: we shouldn't leave. We should continue to fight them.

The only other response is not to, and that's not an option. We created the situation in Iraq as it is today; it's our duty to spend time, money and lives to get it in order. The administration is intent on it; getting Americans to understand why we should be committed, and the extent to our commitment, is more difficult.

Our military is better equipped, better trained, better in every aspect. Hey, we're American--we can do whatever we resolve to do. It will dangerous for our troops, of course, but that's expected. We removed a power structure that had been in place for 30+ years. There are a number of people, families, military units, parts of the country who lived in Saddam's favor, and their salaries, their lives, their power is gone. Some will deal with it. Others will fight back. I don't think there's anything surprising at all in the amount or the ferocity of the resistence. But that's all it is: pockets of resistence. We won the war. We'll defeat these insurgents.

If the insurgents think that, if we leave, they can grab power and be seen as the liberators of Iraq, well, then they're delusional. We didn't go into this to lose. We haven't lost. And we won't lose. We're just too powerful for them to even think about somehow taking back the country. We've spent too much to give up, and we won't.

We are trying to rebuild the country. Insurgents attack us. You want us to not attack them back because somehow that will mean we're not rebuilding the country? That doesn't make sense. We can continue to rebuild the country AND we can attack insurgents.

I doubt it. Most Iraqis just want to get on with lives. They don't want to join some rag tag group of suicidal Saddam loyalists. Their chief aim is to get a job, make money, and live a free life. The Saddam loyalists will run out of cash at some point. We know this. We also know that the sooner we turn over the policing of Iraq to the Iraqis, the more unpopular these insurgents will become if they're reduced to attacking their fellow Iraqis. We just have to hurry up getting structures in place that will help their economy and local governments function.

So, rebuilding the country, as they have been doing around the clock, and responding to insurgent attacks by is somehow wrong? Cause that's all that's going on. I guess the only other tactic is to get more UN and international approval, but we sure f**ked that up in the rush to war. No one is in a rush to replace us there now, so we have to go at it on our own until their people are trained and able to do it on their own.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an admission that not securing UN and international support before the war meant more risks for just our soldiers. It would have been a different Iraq if the UN had been there from the get go. Having seen the UN in action abroad compared to the US, the UN--to me at least--does a much better job communicating with local people and setting up development programs and transition teams. Take your average American and put him in a foreign land to help set something up--not always the best person for the job. We need experienced, patient people to rebuild Iraq.

Last night, one of the biggies at CentCom said, "The military chooses not to discuss the details of this attack and I think the media should do the same." Being a communications graduate, it made my skin crawl to hear that. I guess they'd rather talk about giving away soccer balls instead of the kid running thru the streets holding a grenade he stole from one of our dead soldiers.

They would rather spare the family and friends of the dead soldiers from hearing details (including pictures from the scene) about just how gruesome the attacks were, and what the kids did to the bodies from the media. Makes sense to me.

Besides, we know their throats were slit, we know they bashed their faces with cinder blocks. Don't think there's anything skin-crawling about CentCom not wanting the media to replay the images from the scene over and over again like it's the play of the day or anything.

What would be troubling is if they said they didn't want to discuss it at all and didn't want the media to discuss it at all. All they said was please leave out the details.

[ November 24, 2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

You guys are too easy to read, you must be outraged that you cant see the pictures of these guys so that you can post happily to say all is a failure...

However, when does your common sense come into play? I mean this is a war isnt it? No matter what you say or how you twist facts... did you not expect this? People die in a war, some good guys some bad guys. You cant proclaim something as a total loss cause a country was not rebuilt over night... nor can you call it a success either.

Here is a a thought for all of you... Considering many of these guys are those al queda guys and the gung ho towel heads running over to Iraq fighting... well, wouldnt we rather have them fighting our miliary than blowing up building here in america?

That seems to the point that is lost here folks, like it or not W has taken the fight TO THEM and away from us. Now the countries who have chosen not to fight these guys are finding out... ie the bombings in turkey, S arabia ect...

So go ahead you lefties and post in joy when a soldier dies and proclaim all lost... that is why all your candiates are unelectable.

Do me a favor, Philly Fan: don't use the term "towel heads." Your politics are odious enough without having to pepper them with racial slurs.

posted by Phillyfan:
I have NEVER posted in joy about the death of one or more of our soldiers and never will - one of my best friends is currently in Kuwait and regularly travels to Bagdhad - every time I hear about a Blackhawk shooting or an incident like this I have to pause and wonder whether my own phone will be ringing in a few hours.

My point is/was - this is NOT a military situation. Sure we can outgun the insurgents, sure we can beat them in a fair fight. But the point of guerilla warfare is that it is not a fair fight - there are no strongholds to take, no army to defeat.

I have no doubt we must respond, it is the type of response that gives me pause. I keep thinking about the situation as it played out in VietNam - certainly there was a military power and army we were fighting, but it was the guerilla warfare that really tripped us up. We responded by destroying forests, burning villages - casting a wide net to find sympathizers. That simply made more people ticked off at Americans.

It seems like something similar is happening here. As many analysts have pointed out, the military is simply not trained or equipped for ongoing security detail - they are trained to fight a battle and win it, which means "collateral damage."

But Iraq is not really in a war, nor is it at peace - and the insurgents are not simply attacking us, they are attacking fellow Iraqis who help us, in a desire to destabilize as much of the country as possible. Without stability, people will sour on Americans very rapidly.

Again, I don't know the solution, but I wish there were someone in command who was at least admitting that there is a problem.

Don't hold your breath. It's a difficult situation. No one has anything to gain from admitting it's a problem--but war is always frought with problems. The only thing to do is work at resolving it. Which is what they are doing.

PF is right about how pointless all this gnashing of teeth over the situation in Iraq is. Of course it's a military situation. But they're losers, and we won. And in time, things will be alright. And better that they attack troops who are equipped and trained to fight than attack us.

And if they continue to attack Iraqis who help coalition forces, well, good luck to them. $87 billion can buy a lot more friends and influence than anything those goons have. The US will not be cowed by hoodlums.

Really? Saddam and Osama are on the loose and WE are the winners? Think again, chump.

Yeah, those two are real lords of whatever cave they're hiding in.

Do you think they are hiding and playing Scrabble? No, they are plotting their next moves (not necessarily together, either). I'm afraid that in the near future, we're going to be knocked down a few notches for the things our misguided leaders are doing.

So you mean to say that if sadaam is killed tomorrow you proclaim the victory? Or do you just move on to the next thing to bitch about?

Oooh, we should be scared! After all, Saddam could not even save his own sons. Why, the power he must wield, and the devilish plots he must be hatching in his hole in the ground...not!

Bobby, it's a good thing you're not any closer to the battle. You'd shit your pants.

[ November 24, 2003, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

Said the ultimate Chickenhawk on this board.

raze?

The casualties are beginning to mount big time in Iraqnam. I think what would help is if there was an honest acknowledgement of this fact by the Administration. In addition to the dead, there are thousands more wounded - many seriously. What is our objective in Iraq anyway? Is it the same as it was at the beginning of the war?

arf!

The comments by PhillyFan above show why it is often hard to take anything he says seriously especially when the things he writes are often based in ignorance. The military has found that only a handful of the people they have killed or captured are foreign fighters. As pointed out in this reprinted NY Times article: Source: Few Signs of Infiltration by Foreign Fighters in Iraq

As the above suggests, there aren't all these terrorists flooding into Iraq to attack our troops, and I think to suggest that if we weren't in Iraq right now fighting all these former Iraq regime members that they would all hop on a ship or something and attack us here in the U.S. is absurd. But it's a nice post hoc attempt at justifing the war.

The new york times via a communist website... i dont know which i take LESS serious...

Tell me, which facts were made up, and by whom? Get back to me.

[ November 24, 2003, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

Speaking of communists...yesterday the American-puppet government in Baghdad kicked out an Arab news network and has threatened CNN and the BBC with the same action if they air "inciting" broadcasts in the future. Now, who is the communist here? Is this the freedom and democracy our soldiers are dying for?

Huh????

Bobby:

1. They don't have freedom of press US style...yet. But they're certainly a lot more free than they were during the Saddam era. Saddam would have dealt with it by imprisoning, torturing and possibly killing local journalists who broadcast something against him. So, much as you may long for the good old days, they weren't so good for them. And they're certainly better now--thanks to the good old U.S. of A!

2. I suspect our soldiers will be v. happy to know that the transitional govt is doing all that it can from having pro-Saddam/anti-coalition incitements to violence broadcast in what is a fragile time. They're already feeling threatened. The last thing they need is Saddam videos being broadcast urging people to attack them.

3. But that's my take on it. You see it differently. Maybe you should write to the troops telling them you don't like how "the American-puppet government in Baghdad" is looking out for them by telling journalists not to air "inciting" broadcasts. I'm sure it's just the kind of support they need right now to feel good. Don't forget to give them your name and address so that they may stop by if/when they get back so they can tell you in person how grateful they are for your insight into this situation!

[ November 25, 2003, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

I admit that journalists should be careful what they report, but concern should not stop them from reporting VALID news (how many LIES did conservative talk shows report about the Clintons?). Bush and his puppet cronies should not pick and choose whom they deem worthy of reporting NEWS from Iraq. Allow ALL journalists to DO THEIR JOBS or kick them all out--even Bush's bitch-station Faux News. It's as dumbass as him saying he loves going to London to where people are free to speak their minds and protest whereas if you do it in this country, you CAN be labeled a terrorist accoring to the patriot act. It's all about this cowboy-"you're either with us or against us"-mentality...and a lot of Americans are getting sick of it. Oh, yeah, it's only 343 days until our regime change.

William Raspberry, who IMHO is one of the best columnists out there, had a piece in yesterday's Washington Post that I think really summed up my feeling on the whole strategy in Iraq. It is not that we shouldn't try to win there, but the question is whether we are entering a kind of downward spiral of violence and anti-Americanism. Raspberry makes the case that Israel, and not Viet Nam, is the best analogy for what is happening in Iraq:

And the rub:

Raspberry Column 11/24/03

You know, i would think that CNN would be used to this over there in Iraq... i mean, for years they were reporting whatever sadaam told them to report just to have their cameras there... So whats the big deal?

Good point PF. Didn't a CNN reporter write an op ed piece last year about how he didn't report on torture incidents throughout the Saddam era (details that he knew about) for fear of putting local CNN staff in danger (and for fear of losing access to info)?

Not knocking CNN, but it's funny how the Bobby types are all aflutter over the transitional govt warning stations not to broadcast anything that will incide locals to attack US troops as though rights are being trampled on. You guys have lost sight of who the bad guys are here.

This issue is NOT about good guys vs. bad guys. It's about HONEST, ACCURATE news not being allowed to be reported. It's also about media manipulation by a puppet governing body.

[ November 25, 2003, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Well CNN never reported what was actually going on when sadaam was there...

That little skanky chic (ahhhh-ma-poor) said that they were FORCED to report what W wanted them to report while major combat was going on...

I mean, why the change of heart guys? You should be used to being the pupet network. Reporting what you are told, when you are told, and how you are told....

Maybe CNN and the NY Times can "team up" for some real reporting.. they wont even have to send reporters over to Iraq.. they can just make it all up from home... wait, they already did that.. my bad.

CPT Doom--sure, an Israel-like situation is to be avoided, but I'm sure our military is mindful of that.

I disagree with this sort of position about "what Saddam wants":

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that someone who couldn't keep it together long enough to save his own sons (and the dumb way they were together when they were found) has the ability to have any sort of functioning plan beyond saving his own sorry ass.

Moreover, we now know that he never really had a plan to fight. He was told by the French and the Russians up until the last minute that we wouldn't actually attack. His military was a mess--each unit told something different than the other to keep them on their toes and to keep them from uniting against him.

Fantasizing what "Saddam Hussein intended" is pointless now. He will never come back to power. If he is in Iraq, we will find him and kill him. It's just a matter of time. No one is loyal to want to protect him forever.

Besides, what the hell use is chaos to him now? He's not profiting in any way from the current attacks. They will not result in restoring his power. All it will result in is us having to hit the insurgents back. That's it. So, if this is all part of his grand plan, well, it's about as smart as the plan his sons had for lasting out as long as they did.

He's old, in poor health, grieving for the loss of his sons, his power, everything. The "chaos" in Iraq now is of no real benefit to him (it may make him happy, but it's not a step to a comeback of any sort).

I would bet money that they only thing he's concerned with now is making sure the few people he trusts to be around him don't rat him out for $25 million. And that's it. He has no command station. He has no troops. His cash will run out someday. Any banker/person holding money for him is soon going to realize that they can "nationalize" those funds for themselves and tell him to take a hike. He's toast. Some pundits need to realize this and lay off the "it's all part of what Saddam wanted/wants."

[ November 25, 2003, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

Bobby, do me a favor and bump up the posts where you expressed outrage when news services like CNN and the BBC failed to provide "HONEST, ACCURATE news" because they didn't want to lose access to info inside Saddam's govt.

Which is worse: not reporting on torture during the Saddam era (as they did, and admitted as such), or being cautioned not to air messages from Saddam and other inciting locals to attack coalition forces?

What side are you on, really? You think there's something important about Saddam messages being aired for Iraqis? Or are you concerned about not getting info from the man you fear? Go on the al jezeera website--I'm sure you can get the info you're worried that is not being given to Iraqis.

Your pretense at being on the side of honest and accurate news is just that--a pretense. You're only making waves about it when it's a message that you (bizarrely enough) think is one that DEMANDS and DESERVES to be heard.

The transitional govt, fearing for the safety of the troops, think otherwise. Bless them for it.

"It's also about media manipulation by a puppet governing body." Yeah, makes one long for the good old days of free press in the Saddam era. Now, if only you and Sean Penn could find a time machine, you could go back in time to an era before this awful puppet governing body. Hopefully you could get stuck as permanent guests to your hero Saddam, champion of free press.

There was more than one commentator who noted before our invasion that this was EXACTLY the kind of war Saddam wanted - because he knew he would lose to the US militarily, so basically he folded quickly in order to set up a guerilla warfare campaign to simply outlast the Americans.

He does not need to be personally profiting from the chaos - he just has to make it as bad, or worse than, when he was in power. Add some religious fanaticism to the mixture (10:1 if Saddam does become public or semi-public again, he will be cloaked in Islam) and some already extant Anti-Americanism and you have a recipe for victory by Saddam.

I'm not saying it is inevitable, but certainly we are already moving toward an Israel-like situation. The Americans have to remove themselves from most Iraqi contacts, the Red Cross, the UN have both been largely driven out of the country, and the continuing uncertainty is going to make it VERY difficult to rebuild an economy. Uncertainty is the death knell for any economy, and business investment will quickly start drying up (particularly once the American Government grants are gone) and the Iraqis could very well find themselves far worse off than before.

Was it the same commentator who surmised that we would be in for a long and bloody house to house battle back in the spring?

Who cares what Saddam wanted, really. What he wanted was to stay in control, and he's lost that and will never get it back.

"Outlasting the Americans" is not an option for him--the minute he surfaces, we will kill him. So he can dream about outlasting us, but that's as far as it will go.

In the short term, maybe; in the long run certainly not. Growing pains. But they will be better off when the dust settles, that's for sure. It's in our best interest to make sure of this.

Besides, they're an oil rich nation--as soon as their own funds start going back into redevelopment (instead of to Saddam and his cronies), they will be a lot better off. American funds to prop them up will never run out. It hasn't for Israel, has it, and now Iraq is as important to our plans for the future as Israel is. Iraq is our gateway to influencing the spread of democracy in the region. We won't give up on it.

That's good, let's make him a martyr...that'll solve everything. Yeah, right. If Bushie will grow a brain cell or two, he will realize that the last thing we want to do is kill him.

As for me "bumping up posts" of me demanding fair and accurate news when CNN was exposed for not reporting tortures, I wasn't on this board at that time to voice my concern about that issue, too.

I know you don't trust any news that doesn't get the "fair and balanced" approval of Roger Ailes, but similar quotes from our military can be found in other news sources. Your previous post is misleading. We are mostly fighting former Iraqi regime members in Iraq not terrorists from other countries. Despite what the administration is feeding you through its unofficial news source Fox News, the war in Iraq has diverted us from fighting the real unfinished war on terror.

Also, I don't know anyone on the left that thinks CNN is one "our" side, or that it's a counter balance to Fox. The left probably has just as many gripes with CNN as you do.

In response to Phillyfan and Tomford..... Can we get away from the hyperbole and the gross exaggerations please?

First of all.. Phillyfan says that CNN "NEVER" reported anything negative about Saddam. (not true) and then TomFord says the following
This is a perfect example of how a little knowledge is a bad thing. It's also an example of how to take a little bit of the truth and mix it with some imaginative additions of your own and you get something that is absolutely insidious and proves your rightwing ideology.

To set the record straight... the man in question is Eason Jordan, CNN's vice president of news gathering operations at the time. (since demoted)
He wrote an op-ed piece in the Times about not reporting the torture of CNN EMPLOYEES in Iraq.

These were the only events that were not reported among the many many things Saddam was guilty of.

Please note the difference between what I have just said and "never reporting anything that was going on" or "CNN didn't report on (any) torture incidents"

CNN, in fact, did report on all the other horrible things done by Hussein. The only incidents not reported were those involving CNN's own employees only. That decision was based on the rationale (for right or wrong) that CNN reporting the torture on CNN's own people would result in retaliation against the families of these iraqi CNN employees. The decision was NOT made to preserve access in Baghdad (as CNN reporters were the first reporters to be kicked out of Iraq) It was made to keep employees' families from being killed.

Another major difference between the above situation involving CNN and how FoxNews and the W.Bush Whitehouse responds is this...

When there is a mistake made... or even a perception of a mistake as was perceived by Eason... CNN and its executives admit it, own up to it and even go as far as to write it up in the Times. Things that they did NOT have to do. and certainly had they chosen to remain silent, none of you guys would ever have known. The only reason you guys know this is because CNN decided to admit this without any outside pressure to do so.
This is called "responsibility"

So far FoxNews, Ann Coulter, The W.Bush White House etc... none of them have owned up to gross mistakes and/or lies regarding nuclear weapons in Iraq, Other weapons of mass destruction, the amount of troops and money needed to stabilize Iraq, how soon Iraq would be ready to self-govern as a democracy, the White House leak of the name of a CIA operative, The use of forged documents to convince the country to go to war.

Dude, don't get all coup de la with me. I actually like CNN (or used to, I don't watch it anymore) and don't have much use for Fox (too strident/cheesy).

My point was: to complain that the transitional govt is bearing down hard on journalists is a bit fresh considering the (far more severe) corners CNN and other were forced to cut during the Saddam era. I'm sure Fox cut corners too.

Moreover, I agree with the transitional govt: stop broadcasting stuff that will incite people to attack the troops. For real. Those are American men and women out there, getting attacked left right and center. You can take your concern for freedom of press in light of the dangers they are facing and shove it up your...okay, got carried away there for a moment, I meant, "you're entitled to your opinion and I respect you for it."

[ November 25, 2003, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

btw, the Pentagon *denies* those soldiers' bodies were mutilated. SURELY that ends the discussion.

[Pssst ...other posters... ignore them.}

Yeah, cause it's the discussion that's really important, not concern for their relatives and friends. Much more important for the military to be concerned about chatter for chatterers than for giving possibly misleading info to worried relatives and friends of service people. f**k an autopsy, f**k an investigation, let's just get the word out there because it helps with a certain side's upcoming election. That's far more important than concern for their own people.

TomFord,

I'll quote something you wrote
I'm not sitting here huffing and puffing, Dude.

But when a distortion and/or a lie is allowed to go unchallenged (see Ann Coulter) more and more people will repeat it and pretty soon, everyone assumes it to be the truth. That's why I am "aller au coup du mec con" Tu piges? Dude?

AH, didnt we just know that the CNN cheerleader would come out to defend this joke of a news network.

I simply state that there is only one news network out there.. who not just once came out and said..."uhhhhhh, we didnt reports something we knew was going on"...

what about the crybaby reporting of the arab loving chic? She came out and said, they "couldnt" report the truth of the war... which sorta sounds like the "we didnt report what was going on in Iraq" under sadaam.

So, CNN you just have to wait about 6 months to find out what really happened.

GOOD JOB GUYS! Glad you still have your CNN pom poms out buddy.

Oh My God! What a joke!

Your statement is somewhat correct. Christiane Amanpour did bitch about being prevented from reporting certain things. But what is a total 180 from what you say is that she wasn't bitchging about CNN not reporting things about Saddam.

She was bitching about not being able to report on things deemed ANTI-BUSH. You see, CNN was worried that had they reported everything thay had during the war and since, people like you, Phillyfan, would instantly start to call them "traitors" and "unpatriotic".

But it's ok. Just one more distortion and halftruth/untruth from you and your posts. We all know the score by now.

But again, that goes back to the idea of differing perspectives. Surely with you, Phillyfan, at the helm of CNN the same decision to not air stories critical of the USA would have been made. Right? So then... is that editorial decision? or is that censorship? and what Amanpour complained of is the exact same thing that Fox, CBS, ABC and all else have done.

as far as her being an "arab loving chic". what you have to understand, girl, is this. She is married to a jew. Do you understand the implications of that statement, sweetheart?

[ November 25, 2003, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

Assuming that this silly point is worth debating: You think being married to a Jew precludes her from being Arab-loving.

It doesn't.

Not that there's anything wrong with being Arab-loving, Jew marrying, or anything.

Enough with this CNN argument. You get the point:

There was no freedom of press in Iraq in Saddam's era. CNN and other journalists were tortured and some were killed. CNN has admitted that it did not tell the whole truth in its reports for whatever reasons (valid or not).

Now, this transitional government has warned the media not to air stuff that would incite attacks at coalition forces. They have valid reasons for doing this, and it is an action that will help protect our troops.

Compared to the lack of freedom of press in Saddam's era, and given the PURPOSE for this warning to the media, it is patently ridiculous for left wing johnnie come latelies to hue and cry that this "puppet government" is clamping down on all freedom of press.

Besides where were you when Saddam was torturing and killing people? How come you weren't marching then?

Oh, NOW I get it. The suppression of truth and manipulation of the media for political purposes when done by Saddam and his regime = BAD, while the suppression of truth and manipulation of the media for political purposes when done by GWB and his regime = GOOD. Thanks for the clarification, TomF!

I'll speak slowly this time:

torture and kill = bad
not marching/complaining when torture/ killing was going on = bad

warning = not bad at all.
warning to save lives of troops = damn good
acting like a pathetic bitch whose 1st amendment rights have been trampled on because of a warning = incorrect and pathetic (i.e. the natural state of a lot of you)

Got it now? Good.

Now, let's talk about Right-Wing Johnny Come Latelies, the newfound lovers of the Iraqi people, who were willing to sell them down the river to finance and arm Saddam when he was fighting against the Great Satan, Iran under Khomeini, killing not only Iranians but also Iraqis, yet now throw up their hands in suprise and say, oh my God, look at how many people he slaughtered! Who would ever have thought this? Well, hello? The same people who are now so stunned, who engineered this war to depose him (or rather, displace him) knew exactly what he was up to 10, 15, 20 years ago. You can bet your bottom dollar on it! They aided and abetted his murderousness, and, as always, if they want to see the fruits of their labors elsewhere, they should go dig up mass graves in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Zaire...we can keep on going if you'd like. But instead, go on and choose to believe the staged and sentimental "eureka" moments, but more than a few people with a sense of history see right through them.

Oh, and by the way, I did protest the butcher Saddam, and HW's failure to take him out, back in 1991. Where were you?

A form letter you can send Joe and Jane Troop

Tom, buddy, time to cut back on the 'roids!

Thanks for the nicely prepared form letter, but I usually prefer to think for myself (although I may file away the "puppet govt" and "unjustified war" parts for future reference). Will this form letter campaign of ours be in response to those letters recently "written by" Joe and Jane Troop to the media back home? Great minds think alike, I guess.

Neither do you have to speak more slowly for me; I heard you the first time. I still don't agree with you, but the personal insults are always a nice added touch. And I don't know where you get the idea that I want US troops (or Iraqis, for that matter) to die. I never wrote, or thought, any such thing. I guess when I wore my "Pathetic Bitch" t-shirt (with the Bleeding Heart logo on the sleeve) it must have thrown you. Sorry to confuse you. War is hell, ain't it?

More logs to add to the fire. Keeping a close watch over Iraqi media while things are very dangerous over there is one thing, but how does one justify the intimidation of American media? From: 30 Media Outlets Protest Treatment in Iraq

Tom, it looks like you stole the idea from the Bushie regime's fake-soldier form letter that appeared in many papers across this country last month. So, who has misrepresented things more: Bushie and his drones or CNN? Well, we don't need the Supreme Court to know that the chimp-ass punk wins in that contest hands down over CNN!

[ November 26, 2003, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]