Posted on 07/03/2004 10:22:12 AM PDT by Roamin53
U.S. General Says Met Israeli Interrogator in Iraq
LONDON (Reuters) - The U.S. general who was in charge of Baghdad's notorious Abu Ghraib prison said on Saturday she had met an Israeli interrogator in Iraq, a controversial allegation likely to irritate many in the Arab world. A U.S. military spokesman in Washington said he had no information and an Israeli official denied Israel was involved.
Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski, who was responsible for military police guarding all Iraqi jails at the time prisoners were abused by U.S. troops there, told the BBC she met the Israeli at a Baghdad interrogation center.
"He was clearly from the Middle East and he said: 'Well, I do some of the
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
She really is an idiot, isn't she?
God, I hate this woman. What a waste of oxygen.
How anyone that made the rank of General would do this to the troops is beyond treason. It is childish, idiotic and very demeaning to other woman in the military. She is acting like a revengeful wife.
This begs the question: How the hell did this piece of female scum get promoted at all, let alone all the way to General?
Karpinski was the commander in charge of Abu Gharub prison. Anybody that has served knows she is on the line for charges if she is guilty of malfeasence. She is in the process of protecting herself. If she is making stories up without documented evidence, she is in serious trouble. I tend to think that she has the goods to back up her stories or she would have been charged by now.
Protecting oneself in court does not mean firing up the arab press and arab feelings by unnecessarily using the J-word (jew).
PC is all it takes
The only problem arises when the statement is true. I imagine she was asked a question regarding outside contractors and individuals involved in questioning prisoners.
If true, she is most definitely putting our troops in danger by doing what she is doing in public, AND in other countries.
She is a disgrace
You make the assumption that she had some justification for putting our troops in danger in order to protect her self interest. I make the assumption that if she ever merited being a US general, it would be extremely difficult to find sufficient reason to endanger the troops or to attempt to motivate an already fanatical, crazed and brainwashed enemy.
Reassign her to front line duty in Iraq, wait for her to say one word aiding the enemy and assemble the firing squad.
What was any unknown person doing within her command that could have compromised the unit's mission? She has as much as admitted that she was an ineffective commander. I'm beginning to think she expects to be brought up on charges, and she is trying to make it a political issue instead of a military justice issue.
Why does she always wear civilian attire when appearing in public? Is she not on active duty? What exactly is her status?
I'd say "was given" the rank of General rather than "made" the rank of General...
Also Israeli interrogators would stir them up. Were there Israelis at Abu Garib? She says they were and has not been charged for falsifying the truth. Until she is, reality tells me that she is probably telling the truth. Reality also tells me if there were Israelis doing the interrogations and the Arabs are upset, the person that sent Israelis to Abu Garib prison is responsible for the consequences if it upsets Arabs, not the General.
None of this was in the Taguba report when she was being intervewed. Why? She is now muddying the waters and her statements are not under oath so she can say anything at all. This is CYA in the realm of public opinion. What she has to worry about is what she says while UNDER oath. IF this is true, why didn't she say so in her previous testimony to the investigators?
"I assumed nothing."
Did you reall say that meenie?
"I tend to think that she has the goods to back up her stories or she would have been charged by now."
This is called an assumption!
"I imagine she was asked a question regarding outside contractors and individuals involved in questioning prisoners."
This is also called an assumption!
"that she is probably telling the truth."
This is also called an assumption!
Now it is time for me to make the assumption that you either know this traitorous general or have some other vested interest. How you can make these ASSUMPTIONS in defense of the totally indefensible opens a reasonable question.
I can make the assumption that you have no idea of the facts in the case. I can also make the assumption that you stated that "I assume" and now you deny it. Some gremlin must have written your post.
Excuse me....when did I say you said you assume? When did I deny anything? I just demonstrated in my previous post that you are making assumptions without basis. So obviously you are trying to take the side of this woman who has just shown that she has no compunction about endangering American troops by irresponsibly syaing things to the news media that are inflammatory and destructive (whether true or not, and they have been denied by multiple sources, although that is actually irrelevant). She shows utter disregard for the troops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.