I fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan and I haven't murdered anyone. Neither has anyone I served with, that I know of. Don't know if that makes anyone feel any better. Just take it for what it's worth.

1/24/2008 11:13:18 PM

that's because you are like the 99.98% of the approx. 750,000 Iraq/Afghanistan veterans discharged as of the end of 2007: none of y'all have committed murder. And likely never will.

gg.

but the fact is, the Times was trying point out the tragic issue of untreated PTSD.

From a VA fact sheet dated November 2006: "About one-third of these combat veterans who seek care from VA have a possible diagnosis of a mental disorder . . . including PTSD."

Extensive medical "studies ... have established links between combat trauma and higher rates of unemployment, homelessness, gun ownership, child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse--and criminality." Furthermore, in cases "where PTSD is a factor, it is highly treatable. . . . [but for those that] don't get it treated, it is a serious risk factor for violence."

Even the Bureau of Justice statistics bear out that, when comparing incarcerated criminals, those that are veterans "were somewhat more likely than incarcerated non-veterans to have committed violent crimes, and far more likely to have committed violent crimes against females or minors."

          -- from hooksaw's own "supporting" evidence:
          http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/592buqao.asp

someone needs to tell hooksaw that the NYT, raving nest of lunatic moonbats that they are, don't hate the military. They actually are trying to get the military servicemembers necessary healthcare that they need and deserve, despite the fact that the Bush Administration has done more than any other administration in history to gut the VA and reduce critical funding for services.

1/24/2008 11:51:23 PM

^^^

Quote :

"Crying Wolf? A study by two self-described nonprofit journalism organizations accuses President Bush and his advisers of 935 false statements about the threat from Iraq in the two years following the 9-11 attacks. But a large number of those were drawn from repeated assertions that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction — a concept nearly universally accepted by most of the world's intelligence services at the time. For example — President Bush said of Hussein — 'He has weapons of mass destruction. He's used them before. He's used them on his own people before.' In fact we know now that Hussein had chemical weapons. He was being tried on charges of killing 5,000 Iraqi Kurds with chemical weapons when he was executed for other crimes. The study was done by the Fund for Independence in Journalism — which is an arm of the Center for Public Integrity — which is heavily funded by Bush critic George Soros [emphasis added]."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325034,00.html

Why didn't this "study" go back further than 2001 to a time when Bill Clinton said the following:

Bill Clinton - State of the Union Address (January 27, 1998)

Quote :

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them [emphasis added]. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (APPLAUSE) And when I say to him, you have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again [emphasis added]."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/index2.html

That was some weak shit you posted, HUR--as usual. Better luck next time.

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

1/25/2008 2:14:01 PM

Quote :

"In fact we know now that Hussein had chemical weapons. He was being tried on charges of killing 5,000 Iraqi Kurds with chemical weapons when he was executed for other crimes. "

hey that was in the 1980's and Reagan was not all that "concerned" about it. Hell we were still selling him weapons and giving him money because he was our buddy trying to fight the Iranian Axis of Evil. Too many people forget this. Only when our relationship w/ Iraq change post Gulf War were our leaders harping on the "evil Saddam" gassing the kurds story.
OMG FLIP-FLOP
This much parallels our obsession with the holocaust during WW2 but we will easily overlook Stalin's purges which killed 3x as many people b.c Stalin was our ally in fighting the nazi's.



[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 2:20 PM. Reason : a]

1/25/2008 2:18:48 PM

So, hooksaw: it's right because Clinton said so? How revealing...

1/25/2008 2:20:16 PM

^^ Worthless.

^ You can read, right?

Quote :

"But a large number of those were drawn from repeated assertions that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction — a concept nearly universally accepted by most of the world's intelligence services at the time."

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

1/25/2008 2:21:01 PM

Yet, despite that, you feel it necessary to invoke Clinton to support your case. Rather telling, don't you think?

1/25/2008 2:26:42 PM

^ No.

1/25/2008 2:29:28 PM

^^^ That's not really a true statement.

people from the beginning were questioning the validity of Bush's evidence...

3 months before Iraq war

Quote :

"Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Yury Fedotov was quoted by ITAR-TASS news agency as saying no-one could provide the slightest evidence that Iraq represented a terrorist threat."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/26/1040511119119.html

54 days before Iraq war

Quote :

""I think the more evidence that is placed on the table, if there is some, the better," Blix said. "But there is some evidence that has been placed on the table that has been put into doubt, like evidence about the aluminum tubes. So the more on the table, the better.""

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/28/sprj.irq.wrap/

51 days before Iraq war

Quote :

"Aldouri also pointed to quotes from U.N. chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, who have said they have so far found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction programs. Bush has said U.S. intelligence shows Iraq is engaging in prohibited weapons programs. "Iraq has implemented all resolutions related to disarmament issues," Aldouri insisted, adding that "we will go a step further and proactively cooperate with inspectors to prove these allegations are nothing but fabrications.""

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/29/sprj.irq.aldouri/index.html

52 days before Iraq war

Quote :

"However, the surprising mood of scepticism evident in the committee room was an indication that President Bush and Mr Powell still have work to do if they are to gain bipartisan support for their Iraq policy."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/2711253.stm

10 days before Iraq war

Quote :

"As the council debate intensifies over whether to go to war against Iraq, such findings have sparked heated arguments over the credibility and completeness of the evidence being used to decide whether combat is justified to disarm Saddam Hussein. Such a crucial decision requires solid facts. Too often, though, evidence presented by U.N. inspectors, Britain and the U.S. has been based on incomplete information or questionable conclusions."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-03-10-edit_x.htm

3 days before the Iraq war

Quote :

"Invoking the name of a Pentagon whistle-blower, a small group of retired, anti-war CIA officers are accusing the Bush administration of manipulating evidence against Iraq in order to push war while burying evidence that could show Iraq's compliance with U.N demands for disarmament."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81148,00.html

You could go further back in time easily, but at no point in time was the evidence against iraq so clear that Bush co. was justified in the absoluteness of their statements, as noted in the first post of this thread.

Clinton did end up bombing Iraq at the time (which may have actually been what caused Iraq to destroy or dismantle their weapons), but if you recall, that was at the height of the Lewinksky scandal. He was accused by many people of trying to wag the dog. It's a FACT that Iraq had no WMDs, and it's also a FACT that many people everywhere were calling the evidence against Iraq BS. You can look at any news article on Google from the time, and most of them express little certainty.

Anyway, I don't know why this turned in to a discussion of Iraq.

1/25/2008 3:07:37 PM

^

Quote :

"Anyway, I don't know why this turned in to a discussion of Iraq."

1. Because HUR took it down that road.

2. In conversations with liberals, all roads lead to Iraq.

1/25/2008 3:12:28 PM

Quote :

"Worthless."

the only thing worthless here are your posts.

I am not a fucking liberal just b.c i am not a tool bag that blindly follows whatever PR vomit is ejected from our politicians mouth and actually think while doing my own investigation into the issues. With the issue in this case being the justification and execution of the war in Iraq. A lot of my posts in other threads are very un-liberal in other threads.

According to you all GOP politicians are super heros that work night and day toward the perfection of society and never make mistakes, while all democrats are communist unpatriotic conspirators trying to turn the US into a liberal hippy paradise.

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 3:20 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 3:21 PM. Reason : a]

1/25/2008 3:18:22 PM

hooksaw, you are conveniently ignoring my post, which directly relates to the topic at hand.

maybe you can take a break from sugarcoating the Iraq boondoggle, and maybe address the direct refutation of your thread topic on how "The New York times hates the military"

Quote :

"but the fact is, the Times was trying point out the tragic issue of untreated PTSD. From a VA fact sheet dated November 2006: "About one-third of these combat veterans who seek care from VA have a possible diagnosis of a mental disorder . . . including PTSD." Extensive medical "studies ... have established links between combat trauma and higher rates of unemployment, homelessness, gun ownership, child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse--and criminality." Furthermore, in cases "where PTSD is a factor, it is highly treatable. . . . [but for those that] don't get it treated, it is a serious risk factor for violence." Even the Bureau of Justice statistics bear out that, when comparing incarcerated criminals, those that are veterans "were somewhat more likely than incarcerated non-veterans to have committed violent crimes, and far more likely to have committed violent crimes against females or minors."           -- from hooksaw's own "supporting" evidence:               http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/592buqao.asp the NYT, raving nest of lunatic moonbats that they are, doesn't hate the military. They actually are trying to get the military servicemembers necessary healthcare that they need and deserve, despite the fact that the Bush Administration has done more than any other administration in history to gut the VA and reduce critical funding for services."

I won't hold my breath waiting for a coherent and on-topic response, though

1/25/2008 3:40:12 PM

Why should you expect him to deliver what even you won't when the going gets tough?

1/25/2008 3:43:45 PM

^^^

Quote :

"According to you all GOP politicians are super heros that work night and day toward the perfection of society and never make mistakes, while all democrats are communist unpatriotic conspirators trying to turn the US into a liberal hippy paradise."

That's laughable--as are most of your posts--and total horsehit.

^^

Quote :

"But the bizarre emphasis of the New York Times upon veteran violence without the provision of context can be understood by remembering that Arthur 'Pinch' Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the Times, once said during the Vietnam War that if a North Vietnamese soldier ran into an American soldier, he'd rather see the American soldier shot."

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/the_new_york_times_frags_veter.php

Yeah, the Times has a long record of loving the military--just as all leftists do.[/sarcasm]

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .]

1/25/2008 4:19:33 PM

Quote :

"That's laughable--as are most of your posts--and total horsehit"

pajamasmedia is a great credible source hooksaw

did you even pass ENG 101

Quote :

"once said during the Vietnam War that if a North Vietnamese soldier ran into an American soldier, he'd rather see the American soldier shot."

i don't get it....

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 4:27 PM. Reason : a]

1/25/2008 4:26:28 PM

^ Guess what? I don't care if you like the source or not--prove it wrong. And you don't "get" a lot of things.

1/25/2008 4:29:55 PM

maybe you can explain your position not just quote some random article as your premise without support.

company's web filter blocked me from reading the whole article btw.

1/25/2008 4:45:42 PM

^ It's not "some random article"; it's a specifically chosen reference that reflects a pattern of anti-military bias at the Times that has existed for decades. There is a reason that veterans had to be made a protected class.

The site's filter is not blocking you--it's your computer.

1/25/2008 5:05:51 PM

MY

Quote :

"company's web filter "

but the article makes no sense from my take it says if a N. Vietnamese guy runs into a US soldier he'll want him shot. why wouldnt they if a war is going on. is the N. Vietnamese guy gonna ask the us soldier for a cigarette or something.

1/25/2008 5:13:56 PM

Quote :

"pajamasmedia : all the news the MSM forgot to print"

lol




[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 5:22 PM. Reason : ]

1/25/2008 5:20:56 PM

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 10:46 PM. Reason : nm]

1/25/2008 10:46:26 PM

^^^ Jesus! Should I even try here?

"Pinch" Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the Times--and an alleged American--once said that he'd rather see an American soldier shot than an enemy soldier in Vietnam. Do you fucking get it now?

1/27/2008 3:37:37 AM

so he said this like 40 years ago, when he was ... a minor child.

it's too bad the statute of limitations has run out, and he wasnt prosecutable age, because maybe we could have had a case to send him to Guantanamo for expressing (albeit in a twisted way) his belief that Americans didnt belong in Vietnam.

I dont want to see *anyone* die, but we don't belong in Iraq either. The real question is: what makes 10 Iraqi citizens -- men, women, children, and babies -- worth less than one American?





[Edited on January 27, 2008 at 4:36 AM. Reason : ]

1/27/2008 4:21:10 AM

seriously though...we need clinton to get us back to the 1990's...w put us back to the 80's

1/27/2008 4:57:50 AM

^^ That post is ridiculous from top to bottom:

1. "Pinch" Sulzberger was born September 22, 1951.

2. I can't find the exact date that Sulzberger made the remark in question, but I think it was the early '70s, which would have made him a twentysomething.

3. Still more either-or fallacies of logic, schmoe?

4. "[W]e don't belong in Iraq either" is a normative statement--the liberals lost that argument before the war started and they have continued to lose that argument during the forty-plus votes to withdraw from Iraq that have come up in Congress. Enough already.

The fact of the matter is that we are in Iraq--like it or not. We need to make the best of it. And it appears from the absence of daily bad news blaring from the left-wing media that we are making the best of it.

5. As I indicated, the Times has a long record of loving the military--just as all leftists do.[/sarcasm]

[Edited on January 28, 2008 at 1:32 AM. Reason : .]

1/28/2008 1:32:12 AM

i'm a Gulf I vet.

and a "leftist"

so fuck you.

1/28/2008 1:34:22 AM

1/28/2008 1:38:20 AM

Heard about this on On The Media. Now I know hooksaw will cry about them being leftist but it brings an interesting angle other than "omg the New York Times hates the military/American". After hearing this I feel pretty confident that the article in question was intended to bring attention to this problem so the returning vets were not forgotten as they seem to have been by Bush & Co.

http://onthemedia.org/episodes/2008/01/25/segments/92557

1/28/2008 12:17:37 PM

Quote :

"and an alleged American--once said that he'd rather see an American soldier shot than an enemy soldier in Vietnam. Do you fucking get it now"

don't have to be a douche about it. Not everyone is as gifted to be the prodigy of foreign policy like you and Dick Cheney.

1/28/2008 12:28:43 PM

^ Yeah, I know. One could benefit from nepotism--just like "Pinch."

1/28/2008 4:27:33 PM

wtf is pinch

1/28/2008 4:51:50 PM

who really gives a flying fuck about Pinchy McSaltburger, and what he may or may not have said Forty Fucking Years Ago

oh, yeah, i know, right... anyone who dares question the wisdom of Captain Bush and Commander Cheney's "war of choice" are leftist whackjobs who "hate the military"

if you want to know who "hates" the military, look at who is sending more and more soldiers to the their deaths, disabilities and disfigurements, yet refusing to adequate funding for the VA to deal with the soaring caseload.

1/28/2008 6:48:54 PM

^ Why does it matter? Well, this:

Quote :

"As I indicated, the Times has a long record of loving the military--just as all leftists do.[/sarcasm] "

In any event, I do like the "Pinchy McSaltburger" line. May I use it?

1/29/2008 12:51:18 AM

come on, man. you cant quote yourself to prove yourself.

are you that stupid? or do you just think I am?

but yeah, you can use "Pinchy McSaltburger" ... but only if you include it with his picture

1/29/2008 5:10:33 AM

bttt by request

5/2/2008 5:54:08 PM

Even then-President Johnson--a Democrat--saw The New York Times as anti-military newly released tapes reveal:

Quote :

"[LBJ] also blamed the New York Times for a leaked 'scare story' about a possible escalation of troops in Vietnam, calling the newspaper 'the root of all this trouble.'"

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hK4W1xDkGuEm6Yq5YAck5P90bt4gD90D90700

5/2/2008 6:06:04 PM

yeah i saw that yesterday...i wish they would release more...i like hearing how the presidents really talk when they are not in front of cameras....very interesting stuff

5/2/2008 6:08:30 PM

oh no. look what the NYT did 40 years ago. oh no.

yeah, hat was worth btting this thread.

as if we dont have enough batshit liberal conspiracies being hammered out already.

5/5/2008 3:16:59 AM

^ No wonder JoeSalisbury loves the Times.

Quote :

"The paper, like many news organizations, has often been accused of giving too little or too much coverage to events for reasons not related to objective journalism. One of these allegations is that before and during World War II, the newspaper downplayed accusations that the Third Reich had targeted Jews for expulsion and genocide, in part because the publisher, who was Jewish, feared the taint of taking on any 'Jewish cause.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times

Preemptive "GODWIN'S!"

5/6/2008 4:14:57 AM

Quote :

"The paper, like many news organizations, has often been accused of giving too little or too much coverage to events for reasons not related to objective journalism."

isnt that like communism?

5/6/2008 4:16:47 AM

Quote :

"[LBJ] also blamed the New York Times for a leaked 'scare story' about a possible escalation of troops in Vietnam, calling the newspaper 'the root of all this trouble."

1) How is this a scare story? Depending on when in '68 it was published, it was either dead-on, or only partially inaccurate.

2) How is this an example of hating the military? Reporting on troop levels is anti-military?

3) It doesn't even show bias. LBJ (D).

5/6/2008 4:41:26 PM

1. Intent.

2. Intent.

3. Anti-military bias (see OP). And the Times will go after a Democrat, too, if the paper believes that he or she is not liberal enough in policies and positions--and for circulation.

5/6/2008 5:23:15 PM

Intent to do what?

Tell the truth?

That certainly is an attribute that distinguishes them from Fox

5/6/2008 5:25:09 PM

"FAUX NEWS! FAUX NEWS! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. . .WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!1"

STFU.

5/6/2008 5:33:57 PM

So were you going to defend your point?

5/6/2008 5:40:20 PM

NC State should be embarrassed that they admitted you as a graduate student.

5/6/2008 5:40:41 PM

^

Quote :

"I'm not an academic, actually."

LostClues



[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 6:20 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2008 6:19:54 PM

I'm gonna go masturbate while thinking of Hooksaw enaging in some light play with Salty McPinchburger.

5/6/2008 6:49:13 PM

Pinchy McSaltburger.

5/6/2008 6:52:18 PM

Quote :

"I'm gonna go masturbate while thinking of Hooksaw. . . ."

JoeSodomy

I fucking knew it!



BTW. . .

Quote :

"While The Times was aggressive with its coverage on the Web, it was slow to fully engage the Wright story in print and angered some readers by putting opinion about it on the front page — a review by the television critic of his appearances on PBS, at an N.A.A.C.P. convention and at the National Press Club — before ever reporting in any depth what he actually said, how it squared with reality and what it might mean as Democrats ponder Obama as their potential nominee."

--Clark Hoyt, Times' Public Editor

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04pubed.html

And this:

Too Much Reverence for the Reverend?

Quote :

"I do feel that there were not enough questions asked and some that were asked came across as too reserved and too soft, considering the volatility of the charges. For example, after replaying at length a Wright sermon delivered the first Sunday after 9/11— in which Wright invoked America's role in slavery, taking the country from the Indians, bombing Grenada, Panama, Libyan leader Gaddafi's house, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Iraq, plus state terrorism against Palestinians and black South Africans to conclude that the 9/11 attacks were 'America's chickens are coming home to roos'" — Moyers asked: 'When people saw the sound bites from it this year, they were upset because you seemed to be blaming America. Did you somehow fail to communicate?' As Howard Kurtz wrote in The Washington Post afterwards: 'Thought he was blaming America? Where did anyone get that idea?' It would be hard to formulate a more delicate way to put a question to Wright about that sermon without challenging any of its content. Moyers did seek to draw Wright out about his 'God damn America' statement, and he called Wright to task, still rather gently, about Louis Farrakhan. But others of those inflammatory, and inaccurate, statements that Moyers himself laid out at the top of the program went largely unchallenged and those that did come up didn't really get addressed until well into the hour-long program. Some comments, such as the HIV accusation, didn't get addressed at all, nor were other questions asked about whether, for example, the U.S. should have invaded mainland Japan at the cost of countless lives, American and Japanese, rather than dropping two atomic weapons. One of the more curious aspects of that sermon right after 9/11, in which Wright clearly blames America's policies, is that he wrapped this whole idea that 'chickens are coming home to roost' as something that other people have said. He referred specifically to a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Edward Peck, and an appearance that Peck had made on Fox News just a day earlier on Sept. 15, 2001. Wright said: 'America's chickens are coming home to roost! Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred and terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y'all, not a black militant.' Actually, Peck never used the phrase about chickens coming home to roost. His answers were more nuanced. There is, apparently, no transcript available of that interview with Peck so I can't link to it. But Fox News did provide a video copy of the interview to me and I include a portion of a transcript that we made here so you can read what it was, exactly, that Peck said during the interview with Fox's David Asman. ASMAN: Ambassador Peck, you know, I'm thinking of a man named Chamberlain back in the 30s who had such a strong adherence to the orderly world and the rule of law, etcetera, that he had become accustomed to that he lost sight of precisely what it was a madman like Adolf Hitler was doing. And, unfortunately there were too many people like him, who in order to adhere to those specific rules of law, allowed Hitler to get away with an awful lot. Some people are saying the same thing is happening now with not only Osama bin Laden, not only those in Afghanistan who support him but people like Saddam Hussein, too, because of adherence to these specific little rules, is able to get away with murder. PECK: Well, you know, the specific little rules are what we base our entire conduct on. ASMAN: But there comes a point in which, and we came to that point Tuesday, Ambassador, in which those rules have to be looked at again and have to be taken in context with massive, massive loss of human life and a change of the rules in effect, wasn't it a very significant change of the rules that took effect last week? PECK: They came to do to us what they perceive, it doesn't make them right, but what they perceive is we've been doing the same thing now for a long time in various parts of the world. It doesn't make them right or us wrong. Don't misunderstand me. But the only thing anybody has to ASMAN: I just have to stop you. We've been doing the same thing around the world? PECK: Yeah. You want a list of the countries that we've bombed and invaded over the last 25 years? ASMAN: What country, in what country have we rammed a plane loaded with fuel through a known civilian center such as was done this week? Excuse me, Ambassador, but I can't think of a precedent for this week anywhere in the world, certainly not one committed by the United States. PECK: Certainly not, we've never had to do that because we have, you know, untrammeled military force. These people are terrorists. They resort to that because they can't take us on, head on, nor should they even, well they can't. But the point is that some of the things that we have done in the firm, honest belief that we are advancing the cause of justice, human rights, and freedom and all of that are not perceived that way by the people that we bomb. I offer you Panama. I give you Haiti. Take Cambodia. What about Iraq?"

--Michael Getler, PBS Ombudsman

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2008/05/post_13.html

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 10:11 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2008 9:59:28 PM