Steve Schacher

CNN used to be called the Clinton News Network for several reasons: 1) their favorable treatment of Clinton, 2) Rick Kaplan (CNN President) was an FOB and Clinton operative. Now, calling them the Communist News Network is probably due to CNN: 1) suppressing bad news in Cuba in order to maintain the only western news bureau in the country, 2) suppressing bad news in Iraq in order to maintain the only western news bureau in the country, 3) recognizing that their new business model emphasizes their overseas reporting more than their domestic reporting, especially when getting beaten by FNC in the ratings.

The truth will be in the coverage. If the media suddenly goes silent on it, then the military was right and it was an insurgent camp. The media will NOT cover anything that makes President Bush look good.

quote:If only there was a more independent source to collaborate the story.Try this blog: The Wedding Party 2. I'll check tomorrow if it rolls off and update the link with its archive version.

US Dept. Of Defense Newsletter: No Wedding Party, Children's Deaths Indicated, Military Spokesman Says quote:By Rudi Williams American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, May 22, 2004 ÔÇô There are no indications a wedding party took place at a remote desert site in western Iraq near the Syrian border where U.S. forces are accused of killing about 20 people May 19, including women and children, a senior military spokesman said today. "Contrary to media reports, there was no wedding tent and no nuptial tent in the area," Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy operations director for Multinational Force Iraq said during a Baghdad news conference. "To the allegation that there was a wedding going on, there was no evidence of a wedding," Kimmitt reiterated. "There were no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration and no gifts. "The men were almost all military-aged, no family elders that one would expect to see at an event of this type," he said. To help substantiate his comments, the general showed reporters slides of items found at the site, which included a significant number of weapons, battery packs used to power improvised explosive devices and a host of other non-wedding-related items. "What was interesting is that the building seemed to be somewhat of a dormitory," Kimmitt pointed out. "There were more than 300 sets of bedding gear in it and about 100 sets of prepackaged clothing. It's suspected that when foreign fighters come in from other countries they change their clothes into typical Iraqi clothing sets. "We also found a significant number of identity cards, ID-making machines, the capability to make exit visas for Iraq and a couple of passports," the general noted. "And we found a waist-high medical table for examination and treatment." Highlighting some other intelligence found at the site, Kimmitt said, "There were a couple of other items we found to be quite interesting. None of the bodies had any identification of any kind ÔÇô no ID cards, no wallets, no pictures. They had watches, and that was about the only way you could identify one person from another. "We feel that that was an indicator that this was a high-risk meeting of high-level anti-coalition forces," he said. Kimmitt pointed out items found in the victims' pockets, "including a lot of telephone numbers to foreign countries -- Afghanistan, Sudan and a number of others." He said the site was purported to be a ranch, but there was no indication of ranching activities. "Most homes in remote desert areas support sheep ranching operations," Kimmitt noted. "But there wasn't any evidence of livestock at that location. There were large farm trucks present, but no indication that they'd ever been used for ranching." "There were also a number of terrorist training manuals (and) suspected forged Iraqi IDs," he said. Kimmitt said there may have been some kind of celebration going on at the said, but not a wedding. "Bad people have celebrations too," he noted. "Bad people have parties too. It may have been that what was seen as some sort of celebration may have just been a meeting in the middle of the desert by some people that were conducting either criminal or terrorist activities. That's the conclusion we're continuing to draw the more we look at the material, intelligence, post-strike, and follow-up intelligence." Kimmitt said the coalition believes "a handful of women" could have been present. "We believe six were killed, and we acknowledge that in all of our reports," he said. "But there are still not reports of any children being killed." Kimmitt said a videotape distributed to the media showing at least a dozen bodies, including small children, wrapped in blankets for burial, being unloaded from a truck doesn't look like the video taken at the site of the attack. "None of the geography in those videos match the geography of this open area," he noted. "But there are still some inconsistencies. We still remain opened-minded about this. We'll continue to look into everything that's provided to us in the way of evidence." The general said the area was attacked based on significant multiple sources of intelligence that came in the night of May 18 and morning of May 19. "That caused us to launch a quick-reaction force to that area," he said. Air and ground element were dispatched to the area. "We got into the area and our soldiers took fire and they responded," Kimmitt explained. "As soon as they finished sweeping the objective, they went back to their bases." Could the media have lied to us in their rush to oust President Bush from office?

So, what does everyone think of the trial balloon that the Kerry campaign floated the other day about not accepting the nomination at the convention in order to buy more time to spend federal money on his campaign?

quote:4 years ago, the year 2000, a developer comes up to me and wants to buy my land to develop into a neighborhood, he offers me $10,000 an acre, well wow, after 20 years, he is offering me 20 times what I payed for it, $200,000. Not bad for just sitting on bare land for 16 years.Ah, here is the big flaw in your argument. Everyone knows that today's liberal city and county governments will just take your land by eminent domain and only offer you $10,000 for the whole lot. Local governments have been abusing eminent domain lately. Their argument is that the property is worth more to the "community" if they can get more tax dollars for it by developing shopping malls or high-density housing. Your little field with trees and animals may be generating some property tax to the local government, but it is not generating its true maximum potential as a revenue source for the city. Eminent domain was supposed to be for taking minimal amounts of land for highways and other civic uses when no other alternatives existed. This is the kind of logic that liberal governments are now using to abuse property rights and confiscate land that has been in many family's possession for generations.

Here's how a favorite columnist of mine used satire to put the losses in perspective: Don't count on Koppel for whole war story: quote:Likewise, the cost of war is a tragedy for the families of the American, British and other coalition forces who've died in the last year. But we owe it to the dead, always, every day, to measure their sacrifice against the mission, its aims, its successes, its setbacks. And, if the cause is still just, then you honor the fallen by pressing on to victory -- and then reading the roll call of the dead. If that doesn't quite have the sweeps-month ratings appeal ''Nightline'' is looking for, since Ted has now established himself as a $6 million list reader he might like to remind people of the comparative costs of war. At two seconds per name, to read out the combat deaths of the War of 1812 he'd have to persuade ABC to extend the show to an hour and a quarter. To read out the combat deaths of the Korean War, he'd need a 19-hour show. For World War II, he'd have to get ABC to let him read out names of the dead 24/7 for an entire week. If he wants to, I'd be happy to fly him to London so he can go on the BBC and read out the names of the 3,097,392 British combat deaths in World War I, which would take him the best part of three months, without taking bathroom breaks, or indeed pausing for breath. As Stalin said, one death is a tragedy, 1 million is a statistic. The fact that America's dead in Iraq are not yet statistics, that they're still small enough in number to be individual tragedies Ted can milk for his show tells you the real cost of this war. In Afghanistan, the numbers are even lower, which is why ''Nightline'' hasn't bothered pulling this stunt with America's other war. Yes, the dead are husbands, wives, fathers, daughters, best friends, and for those who knew them in that capacity the loss is grievous. But Americans know them only as warriors, and they should honor them as such. Those British losses in the Great War reached deep into every family in the land. By contrast, in a nation of 300 million, the vast majority of families are personally untouched by military deaths, and that, paradoxically, makes it easier for the defeatists to exploit the small number of the dead as evidence of the hopelessness of our cause. The historically low rate of combat fatalities amplifies each one.

quote:Yeah, it's coldhearted, but it's either us or them, and innocents who are being used as shields are going to have to be sacrificed...They can always rise up and say ENOUGH! Some may still get killed, but for a better cause.

quote:the Reagan administration tore the livin crap out of the boom of the 70's Would that be the boom that led Jimmy Carter to coin the phrase "malaise factor?"

News release from CENTCOM: quote:May 19, 2004 Release Number: 04-05-46 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE COALITION FORCES RAID SUSPECTED FOREIGN FIGHTER SAFE HOUSE NEAR SYRIAN BORDER BAGHDAD, Iraq -- At 3 a.m. May 19, Coalition forces conducted a military operation against a suspected foreign fighter safe house in the open desert, 85 km SW of Husaybah, and 25 km from the Syrian border. During the operation, Coalition forces came under hostile fire and close air support was provided. Coalition forces on the ground recovered numerous weapons, 2 million Iraqi and Syrian dinar, foreign passports, and a SATCOM radio.

quote:a couple of isolated shellsJust to reiterate my point, that "isolated shell" contained a gallon of Sarin. That could be a way of hiding in plain sight by storing Sarin in old shells to maintain plausible deniability. I wouldn't put it past someone who hides airplanes in the sand. quote:I hate being a grammer freakMe, too, but since you started it, it's grammar. Grammer is the actor on Frasier.

quote:I am just a little behooved, how the recent findings,(and the past findings) of a couple of isolated shells or small stock of "U.N. BANNED" items within iraq, can be stretched into this AWESOME classification as WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...Because the amounts that are found are sufficient to kill thousands, if not tens of thousands. The fact that they were found in a single warhead or salt block is irrelevant. If converted into individual doses, they are massively lethal.

quote:I am sorry, but there is a great difference between conventional missiles which COULD have been modified to carry wmd, and what an actual WMD is. This is not MY opinion, but the factual occurance of what has transpired. This is also the case with so called financing, and the so called links with AL Queada and IRAQ.They were also "COULD HAVE...MAY HAVE...MIGHT HAVe"The "could have, may have, might have..." argument is really about the "dual use" nature of equipment. When we find mobile laboratories, we hear about how they could be used for aspirin manufacture or some such innocuous civil purpose. But I say, in a country as impoverished as Iraq, with such a separation between the Have's and the Have Not's, show me the output of the dual use. Show me the civil result of the normal industrial use of what we find. And then, explain to me why it has to be mobile instead of as a standing infrastructure facility. quote:Now that is impressive..Shingen. We all KNEW he had mustard gas... prior to the original GULF WAR. Finding an OLD shell, is FAR from justifying the WAR on Iraq. Come on...Lets put some real perspective on this, instead of grasping at straws. Read this article, posted in this thread, posted before you joined us. Explain why a block of cyanide salts was found in a known terrorist's safehouse instead of in an industrial infrastructure facility. Furthermore, the person whose safehouse contained the cyanide was noneother than Abu Zarqawi, who is widely believed to be the person who beheaded Nicholas Berg.

On the lighter side of the news: Critics are complaining that the detainees at Abu Ghraib prison are not being afforded the rights and privileges of the Geneva Convention. We often think of the Geneva Convention as "name, rank, and serial number" only. However, Convention III Section II Art. 26 states in part: "The use of tobacco shall be permitted." So, people who live in New York City (or other locales that ban public smoking) are violating the Geneva Conventions.

quote:Care to try #3? What's an army?Sure. From How Are Army Divisions Numbered?: quote:How Are Army Divisions Numbered? By Phillip Carter Posted Friday, March 28, 2003, at 3:18 PM PT Anyone watching Iraq war coverage has seen a stream of numbers go by, identifying particular Army divisionsÔÇöthe 101st Airborne, the 3rd Infantry, etc. What do these numbers mean? And if there's a 101st Airborne, what happened to the 100th and 102nd? The first thing to know is that the Army's divisions were numbered in the order they were created. So the 1st Division was actually the first division; then came the 2nd, 3rd, etc. There are, of course, gaps in the sequence. Today's Army has eight infantry divisions: the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, along with the 10th, 25th, 82nd, and 101st. What happened to the rest of them? Well, the military has cyclically expanded in wartime, creating lots of new unitsÔÇöduring World War II, for example, the Army's had infantry divisions running all the way up to the 106th. But during peacetime, most of the war units are deactivated, which accounts for the holes. How does the Army pick which divisions to keep? Each unit has its own customs and history, and the Army basically preserves the ones with the most glorious lineage. Take the 101st Airborne Division, which has been part of the Army since 1942. During World War II, the "Screaming Eagles" parachuted into Normandy and fought their way across Europe, making a heroic stand at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge. The Army has kept the division on active duty ever since. During the same war, the Army's 100th and 102nd Divisions served no less bravely but somewhat less famously. Both were shuttered for good after the war. TV coverage of Gulf War II also refers to various Army regiments (notably the 7th Cavalry Regiment, which has already tangled with Iraqi forces); but forget about trying to understand that numbering system. For a while, the Army issued regimental numbers in sequence. But the system gave out during the Civil War, when states raised and numbered their own regiments, and became further muddled during World War I, when newly formed federal regiments tried to reclaim the numbers of their Civil War forebears. To make things more confusing, the Army has a habit of combining many regiments in the same unit. The 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, for example, includes parts of the 7th Infantry and 69th Armor regiments. It also includes a number of support units, whose numbers often bear little or no relation to the number of the combat unit they support. Bonus Explainer: Division, regiment, battalionÔÇöwhat's the difference? Divisions have 10,000-to-15,000 soldiers divided in three-to-five combat regiments and a number of support units. Regiments have 3,000-to-5,000 soldiers and include several combat and support battalions. Each battalion has three-to-five line companies of 100-to-150 soldiers apiece. Companies break down into three-to-five platoons of 20-to-40 people, which in turn break down into squads of eight-to-12.

Berg's father is quoted as saying, "I am sure that he only saw the good in his captors until the last second of his life," Berg said. "They did not know what they were doing. They killed their best friend." Why would his father say that Berg was a "best friend" of the terrorists?

quote:Steve, I think that no one will comprehend your observations, and that you will be consigned to the realm of "conspiracy theory fanatic", as I have been.Don't worry. I'm one of the old-timers from the very early days. I won't be consigned to anything. And don't worry about yourself, either. Give the people here a little credit. We've been at this for quite some time. These debates are like repeats of Friends to us.

Previously posted by me on this thread. Coalitions have been forming, disbanding, and reforming all throughout history. One could make the argument that all the modern era's troubles actually stem from the sibling rivalry between England and France. Consider history: France and England were the dominant empires in the Western world. They had the navies. In the Americas, France and England were fighting their colonial wars here. The French-Indian wars of the early 1700's were the French hiring mercenary Indians to attack British colonies. The American Revolution against England: America won largely because of France's navy. France was willing to help because it despised England. After the American Revolution, England and France were again at war. American neutral shipping to Europe antagonized England, which was blockading France, and was a tool for France, which was blockading England. Because America was still trading with both the English and the French, the English decided to begin capturing US merchant ships, confiscating them and their cargo so their supplies could not be used to support the French. In addition they also began impressing US merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, giving the "reason" that those merchant sailors were "former English citizens", no matter that the US had been an independent nation for almost thirty years by that point. This angered the American government, and along with other reasons caused the US to eventually declare war against England in 1812. Napoleon Bonaparte led the French Army on attacks across Europe and northern Africa in the late 1790's, ending in Egypt. He was ultimately defeated at Waterloo (Belgium) by Wellington of England in 1815. The Opium Wars of the mid-1800's, between England and China (1840's), and then England/France and China (1850's) led to long-lasting anti-Western sentiment in Indo-China . The French Foreign Legion was created for French colonialism of Western Africa during the mid-1800's, especially in Morocco and Algeria. The Boxer Rebellion in China in 1898 was an attempt to oust Western influence in China. After the Opium Wars, the Chinese were forced to grant commercial concessions to England and France, and then Germany and Russia. Feeling weakend by European encroachment, the Chinese rebelled, but failed, and put themselves deeply in debt to the West, becoming in effect, a subject nation. The Boer War in Southern Africa in 1898 was an attempt to oust British colonialism in Africa. England had been working its way south into Africa when gold was discovered. This resulted in a great influx of British into South Africa. The Boers (Dutch) had already settled those areas and rejected British attempts to control the commercialization of the area. They fought back and won sovereignty, leaving much bitterness with the English. During all of this, America was a small, but growing, country. We were still focused on Manifest Destiny, the march westward toward the Pacific. We were not a super-power. The 1900's saw World War I and World War II, both mostly European conflicts, and both ended by American might. World War II saw the emergence of the United States as a super-power. With this chronology in mind, one can argue that America is paying for the sins of England and France (and the ill-will they left behind) from the 1700's forward.

quote:Doesnt anyone ELSE find this whole situation concerning berg...just a little bit disconcerting?There are other oddities: 1. His company, Prometheus Tower, is not registered in Pennsylvania. 2. His father was a signer of the International A.N.S.W.E.R March 20 Call to Action. ANSWER has since removed his name from their site. 3. Nick Berg did not enter Iraq through normal direct means. He entered via Jordan. He was also carrying radio and electronic equipment. The situation is perfect for conspiracy theories. Was Berg there to help the Iraqis rebuild there radio infrastructure, or was he there to help the insurgents build a radio network? Was he trying to contact the insurgents on behalf of ANSWER? Why didn't he enter with the proper credentials instead of entering via Jordan and traveling on his own? Why didn't he take the American offer to fly away from Baghdad?

It was interesting to see Kerry avoid the beheading story the other day. He seemed absolutely afraid to speak of it. He gave canned stump speeches all day and refused to mention it. He finally made a TV appearance late in the evening to make a statement. The man will have to learn that, as president, you don't have the luxury of choosing the events that overtake you. It is how you handle them that sets you apart from the rest. Kerry failed that test. Yesterday, he failed to show up in Congress to cast a deciding vote for extending unemployment benefits, an issue that he's been running on. The vote was 59-40, and Kerry's would have been the 60th vote. Because the vote was to overturn a tax limit (or something like that), it required 60 votes to pass instead of the usual 51. Kerry's argument was that he was told that if he did vote for it, the Republicans would reverse a vote and it would lose anyway. So, it seems that Kerry was going to vote for it before he decided not to vote for it.

quote:Street, Your call buddy, but I would advise you to remove that picture from your profile ASAPThis is disturbing. Derek prides himself on running a family-friendly site. Someone who posts a picture of Hitler in a "my picture" section is sending a disturbing message, if not glorifying him. Street may have meant it as a bad-taste joke; we'd have to see when he altered his profile to add the picture. If it coincides with this debate, then I'd agree that it was an attempt at a joke. If it was an original entry, then we have a problem here. Debating about Hitler is one thing. Glorifying him is another thing. Posting Hitler's picture as one's own picture sends a message that cannot be defended to the casual observer of a time-lag bulletin board, which leads the observer to draw his own unanswered conclusion. I trust that this is not what Street intended to do. NEVER FORGET.

quote:THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO! AL QUEDA CONNECTION WITH OUR ACTIONS IN IRAQ!!!! again POINT ME TO YOUR INFORMATION SOURCE!!!!!The Saddam-9/11 Link Confirmed Excerpt: quote: Important new information has come from Edward Jay Epstein about Mohammed AttaÔÇÖs contacts with Iraqi intelligence. The Czechs have long maintained that Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official, posted to the Iraqi embassy in Prague. As Epstein now reports, Czech authorities have discovered that al-AniÔÇÖs appointment calendar shows a scheduled meeting on April 8, 2001 with a "Hamburg student." That is exactly what the Czechs had been saying since shortly after 9/11: Atta, a long-time student at GermanyÔÇÖs Hamburg-Harburg Technical University, met with al-Ani on April 8, 2001. Indeed, when Atta earlier applied for a visa to visit the Czech Republic, he identified himself as a ÔÇ£Hamburg student.ÔÇØ The discovery of the notation in al-AniÔÇÖs appointment calendar about a meeting with a ÔÇ£Hamburg studentÔÇØ provides critical corroboration of the Czech claim. Epstein also explains how Atta could have traveled to Prague at that time without the Czechs having a record of such a trip. Spanish intelligence has found evidence that two Algerians provided Atta a false passport.It's a conservative magazine, so you may be critical of the source. quote:NOT one IRAQI killed ANY AMERICAN, until after we killed THOUSANDS of IRAQI!!...FACT!If a husband doesn't kill his wife, but rather, hires a thug to kill his wife, can one say that the husband didn't kill his wife? If Saddam Hussein funded terrorists, and provided safe haven and training facilities for the terrorists who did kill Americans, is that not the same as the husband who hires a thug to kill his wife? Here's an interesting little tidbit from a recent news story, Terror Suspects Charged in NATO Bomb Plot: quote:A Turkish court filed terrorism charges against nine suspects Monday in connection with an alleged plot to set off a bomb at a NATO summit in Istanbul next month that President Bush is scheduled to attend. Private CNN-Turk television said three of the suspects had been plotting a suicide attack on Bush and other Western leaders at the summit, but officials could not confirm the report. Authorities detained 16 alleged members of Ansar al-Islam on Thursday in the northwestern province of Bursa, Gov. Oguz Kagan Koksal said. The suspects also planned to attack a synagogue in Bursa and rob a bank to raise funds, Koksal said. Notice how, since Saddam has been captured, terrorist groups like al-Islam are now forced to rob banks to raise funds? Previously, they were funded by Hussein, but that source of money has dried up.

For comparison, I ask some people to do an internet search on the Corcoran Prison in the California Penal System. In 1994, the guards were caught staging yard fights between rival gang members and betting on the outcomes. They would contrive a matchup if a prisoner gave them a bad look or angered them in any way. Needless to say, the fights were to the death. When the government found out what was going on there, they sent in the FBI to investigate. The FBI conducted a secret investigation with some insiders. Finally, the guards found out about the investigation. The insider whistle-blowers fled the prison with documents, and were chased at high speed for 45 miles down I-5 by the Corcoran guards until they were safe inside the Federal Building in Fresno. The point is, it can and has happened here, and for no other reason than that there are bad seeds everywhere. p.s. The Corcoran guards were acquitted at trial.

I would take all my cast iron cookware. If a rag-tag gang is going to form a la Mad Max, then they're going to have to eat, and I can cook. The trick will be learning how to cook cats and dogs.

From the locked Kerry - Treason thread: Posted by me: quote:The rumbling about Kerry's "decorations" are out there, but both sides of the partisan media seem to have agreed to not make an issue of it. The issue is that of medal inflation. Kerry received a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. Kerry left Viet Nam due to the three Purple Hearts, which are awarded for receiving injuries in battle. Apparently, three Purple Hearts allows one to have been sent home. The question is how Kerry, on a "Swift Boat" on the rivers of Viet Nam, acquired three Purple Hearts in his short four months "in country," routinely patrolling up and down the rivers. Also of interest is the fact that Kerry, while being awarded three Purple Hearts, also recorded no lost time from duty. Alas, I can't provide cited sources because the media of both sides are giving this one a pass. All I can point to are anecdotal stories of others from the same era who performed under similar circumstances and question the propriety of the stories being presented today given the situation of the time. This may be one reason why Kerry won't release his medical history.Posted by Race: quote:You guys have finally reached the absolute heights of partisan blindness and wanton wrong headed stupidity. Kerry was only in country four months? SFW!!!! So its a question of medal inflation? Was he under fire? did he not recive the medals in question? Would we even be having this discussion if his and Bush's position were switched? It looks like the question of Kerry's medals is back in play, now that he's released some of his war records. From the Washington Times, Records on medals spark questions. An excerpt: quote:The military records that Sen. John Kerry posted on his Web site yesterday raise new questions about the actions he took to earn several prestigious war medals and whether he deserved them. The Navy awarded Mr. Kerry three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star in just four months of commanding a gunboat along rivers in Vietnam. It's an extraordinary record, say many veterans, and one that raises questions on its face.