Posted on 07/06/2006 10:52:41 PM PDT by churchillbuff
The full quote is less inflammatory.
Let the process go forward, as it has and is for others.
President Bush said IF true. He didn't say it WAS true.
ping
I say IF he is guilty of the crimes, he's guilty of the same crimes that Saddam's murderous kids were guilty of.
That isn't what people remember. He should have kept his mouth shut.
Garbage. Are you saying the President of the United States, when asked, should have said nothing? What he said was right. Tell me what part of what he said you are finding fault with?
And what did he say when PFCs Menchaca and Tucker were barbarically murdered?
Nothing.
Thank you for that one!
You did not refute my point. You did raise a (separate) good point, though.
What is your point...are you trying to argue that President Bush doesn't care about our troops?
This has nothing to do with the issue in question.
They died in the line of duty and the President like the rest of us mourn there passing.
But if a allied soldier British or American or any coalition commits a crime against a Iraqi civilian then they must be punished in full view of everyone.
Because not only have they disgraced there uniform and service but more importantly they have made the job that much harder for the rest of us out there.
If we are to win this war then we can only do it with the Iraqi population on our side.
Through our deeds and actions we show that we are the right side.
And we have had success with eliminating the foreign fighters through dividing them from the Iraqi people.
MAHMOUDIYA ping. Anyone wanting to be pinged to these stories, let me know in freepmail.
I agree with most of what you said, with just one "however"--I would have liked to have seen an expression of outrage for what was done to these men. When we make no official statement to that effect, it makes us look either uncaring about our own or weak--or both. Dying in battle is one thing--torture and mutilation (when we're castigated for putting panties on someone's head fer cryin' out loud) is quite another.
During the dark days of 1940, when there was a real or perceived threat of invasion by Germany, all over South England special stay behind units were set up. There role was to organize activity behind enemy lines.
One task was to waylay German soldiers sentries and such like, not just to kill them, but to mutilate their bodies.
In this way we would make sure that the German occupation was harsh, kill any cooperation and to frighten the enemy.
It is a recognized tactic.
If your President made mention of these privates, it would give heart to the terrorists that even the high command the President and Generals are recognizing the tactic.
Recognize a tactic but don't let the enemy know you recognize the tactic.
They must use the tactics that suit there aim the best.
We must use tactics that suit our aim the best.
Torture and mutilation are part of there tactics.
Winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people are ours.
It may have just been panties on the head but it sent the wrong message to the Iraqi people.
It showed us humiliating Iraqis who we controlled, whats that say about us controlling the whole of Iraq to the Iraqi people.
Yes Saddam and his organization was worse a lot worse, but we said we are better we are going to bring freedom democracy and most important of all stability.
Iraq is a important component in the WOT, we get this right we have almost won the whole war, and we can not let anyone get in the way that also means those in uniform such as those who ran the prison where the humiliation took place.
What are President Bush and Laura doing on Larry King anyway? Why support the Nielsen ratings for the mainstream liberal media elites?
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.