Show Comments Here (32) |

Hide Comments

Come bella la veduta! Il ciampo di Santi, e la campenile a Pisa. Molto pittoresco. eh?

Posted by John Byrnes at October 4, 2005 09:37 PM

I hardly ever do a double posting anywhere I go. This will be a rare exception, because the recruiting thread looks like it'll soon drop off the page.

--------

Apparently the military knows something that Mudville Gazette doesn't know, because they've just cut their recruiting standards again:

http://w3t.org/?u=5yd

Note: It's an article from the L.A. Times, which requires free registration to read.

Excerpt:

Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey announced that the Army would allow up to 4% of its recruiting class to be Category IV recruits — those who scored between the 16th and 30th percentile in the battery of aptitude tests that the Defense Department gives to all potential military personnel.

The Army until now allowed no more than 2% of its recruiting class to be from the Category IV level, fearing that letting too many low-achieving recruits into the Army might dilute the quality of the nation's largest military branch. ...

Harvey said the Army would also ease the service's requirement that at least 67% of every recruiting class be made up of recruits who scored in the top half (50th percentile or above) on the aptitude tests. The new threshold would be 60%, Harvey said, in accordance with Defense Department benchmarks. ...

The Pentagon benchmarks were established to prevent the military services from meeting recruiting quotas by accepting too many people with low IQs. Despite these parameters, the Pentagon allows each service, if it wishes, to set more rigorous standards.

Until the last fiscal year, the Army had few problems staying below the 2% threshold for Category IV recruits. According to data provided by the Army, Category IV recruits comprised less than 1% of the 2003 and 2004 recruiting classes.

(But of course the Army says it's no big deal)

Harvey insisted that the Army was not lowering its standards but merely conforming to Department of Defense guidelines that allow up to 4% of each military service's recruiting class to be Category IV troops.

"We had sort of an artificial system. When I asked the question how we got there, I never got a straight answer," Harvey told reporters Monday. "They really weren't standards. They were just kind of guidelines," he said.

(Well shazaam, shazaam, shazaam, Sgt. Carter!!)

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 4, 2005 09:47 PM

Hello,
I'm an Army LT stationed in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq - not a nice place to be right now. Anyway, I'm a writer, a husband, a father of two, a citizen soldier, and I'm loving the fact that so many of us are blogging. My site is www.wordsmithatwar.blog-city.com These are tough days for some of us deployed right now, but good days for the future of blogging and instant publishing.
I use Blog City, and it doesn't want to cooperate well with the MilBlog banner I tried to add. It only showed the actual code on my page. Any thoughts?
Thanks for all you do!

Posted by Lieutenant K at October 4, 2005 09:49 PM

Question: Is Mudville Gazette a leisure-time servicce of the Republican Party? To judge from the headlines and commentary on this site it would appear that way.

But maybe I'm wrong, so let's see what people here have to say about the new Senate candidate in Ohio, a Democrat who is an Iraq War veteran. Will you smear him as unpatriotic? Ignore him like you're ignoring the West Point captain being held incommunicado by the Army for having voiced his misgivings about torture? Just curious.

http://w3t.org/?u=5yn

http://w3t.org/?u=5yo

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 4, 2005 10:15 PM

Lt K.

While I in no way speak for this website, I am a regular vivistor and poster. Perhaps I can address some of your concerns.

What is it that bothers you most? That it reflect a conservative political outlook? Surely as an Offficer you have noticed that the military itself has a conservative streak. But the Greyhawks are pretty fair. The Open Post site is in fact OPEN. I have seen enough posts that reflect liberal POVs to be confident they are not editing content.

Is it that the word military attaches itself to the site with it's slant? Again the hosts are up front about being unrelated to any official DOD activity or policy. But the soldiers and vets posting and visiting are mainly conservative.

You are always free to browse elsewhere sir. I can recommend Opreation Truth for a similar collection of contributions from a liberal soldier and veteran's perspective.

As to your worry that the Ohio democrat will be assailed as unpatriotic, I think I speak for most of the Mudville community when I say that depends on what he says. If he comes across as unpatriotic I will not hesitate to say so. If he comes across as a better candidate then his republican opponent I'll say that too. I listened carefully to Wes Clark, as a candidate. And I was prepared to weigh his policies fairly had he won his party's nod.

As for your incarcerated friend, perhaps you could use the aforementioned Open Post to share with us his story. Please be as accurate and substantiate as much as possible. If it is truly a case of injustice, under the current law, I for one would be happy to help with his case.

Sgt John Byrnes

Posted by John Byrnes at October 4, 2005 10:48 PM

The comment didn't come from the military blogger, it came from me. Thanks for clarifying that this is a Republican military blog, John. It's good to know that, in your view, the U.S. military is a partisan organization. I hadn't known.

As for the military man being held incommunicado for reporting torture, he is Capt. Ian Fishback. West Point graduate, devout Christian. Tried for 17 months to get his chain of command to respond to his concerns about torture, and finally went to Human Rights Watch and Sens. John McCain and John Warner.

That made the Army sit up and notice. Now they're holding him incommunicado until they can figure out what to do with him. Meanwhile, they're trying to make him identify two enlisted men in hopes that that all three can be have their lives destroyed.

http://w3t.org/?u=5yu

http://w3t.org/?u=5yw

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 4, 2005 11:05 PM

How do you get your blog to put the links in automatically ?

TIA,

Noah

Posted by Noah Bawdy at October 4, 2005 11:59 PM

Re: picture; Bout time SOMEONE straightened up that thing.

Posted by Lucifer at October 5, 2005 12:16 AM

Mr. Kolb sorry for the ID mix up, but now you are mixed up. I didn't say the military was a partisan organization. I said there was a majority POV in one direction. How is that problematic? Does it bother you that over 98% of college professors teaching in the USA are registered as democrats, liberals, or socialists? Why do you object to this site being populated with bloggers who have military ties and concerns and happen to be Republican/conservatives? You still haven't made that clear. As to Captain Ian Fishback, I am now more familiar with the case you refer to. Is he being held incommunicado? Or is he under legal restrictions for his disobedience to a lawful order? His superiors cannot investigate allegations without knowing where they came from. The military is not the media. There are no confidential sources, he made an error of judgement, however well intentioned, when he offered his troops anonymity. He is bound by his oath as an officer, and by the laws of UCMJ which he contractually obligated himself to. If he feels that he is obligated to some higher code, that is his perogative, but there are consequences to such an act. And there are good reasons for wanting those individuals names. First there is the process of conducting a real investigation into the allegations, which requires checking facts and sources. But additionally the military like civilian courts and any fair process requires an accused be allowed to confront the witnesses against him. Since he is refusing to follow orders, he is in a similar status to an indicted felon held without bail. He is not being held incommunicado without any due process.

Posted by John Byrnes at October 5, 2005 01:34 AM

John, in a prior posting you mentioned Operation Truth. It discusses only military issues, while and Mudville Gazette, Blackfive and other right-wing military blogs are flogging a variety of Republican causes.

In the interest of truth in advertising, I think some names should be changed. Mudville Gazette should become Mudville Republican Gazette, and Blackfive should become Blackfive Rightwing Site. This would be an honest presentation, given that they come exclusively from a partisan point of view.

As for Fishback, if he is being prevented from communicating he is being held incommunicado, but because he's not following your party line I suspect you completely approve of it. Are you waiting for direction from the politburo, er, Fox News, before you can form an opinion on then case?

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 5, 2005 05:40 AM

John, it looks like the right-wing "patriots" will have not one, but six Democratic veterans of the Iraq War to smear in next year's elections. Who knows, maybe the Army will release Capt. Fishback unharmed and he can become #7?

http://w3t.org/?u=626

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 5, 2005 06:23 AM

Mr. Kolb
Operation Truth may deal in military issues, but it has a very narrow and partisan slant. The Open Post here is truly open. But why should bloggers need to include their POV in their page name. Nobody expects the NY Times to start calling itself the "NY, America bashing, Republican hating, Liberal Times!" What is your case that blogs must advertise their slant up front? You still haven't nailed down your objection. I'm guessing you just don't like conservatives expressing their opinions, at least not in public. Sorry, but... well no I'm not sorry. Tough Ti**ies is more like it. Mudville is what it is. If you want to debate some particular issue, please let's, but if all you want to do is harp on the fact hat this site is a conservative one and you don't want it to be one, just go on to Reikhoff's site already.
As for Capt. Fishback I'm not sure what you keep implying. Are you seriously trying to make the case that the Army may torture him, or hold him without some cause and process? The Army offers it's soldiers comparable rights to yours. These include right to c ounsel, trial, silence, witness confrontation, etc. Captain Fishback may not be happy, but again he is in a dilemma of his own creation. And as for smearing Democrats, I'm not aware that I've smeared anyone. I have presented facts and analyses of politicians statements and actions, but that is about it. Again if any of these Army Democrats are running in a district that interests me I will listen to their platform and respond as I see fit. That may include support or opposition, that depends on what they say. Ain't democracy great?

Posted by John Byrnes at October 5, 2005 04:15 PM

I doubt that the Army will torture Capt. Fishback. The use of torture by the U.S. military, while now a matter of government policy, is still new and controversial. Plus Fishback is an officer with sterling credentials and, to my knowledge, a strong military record.

Capt. Fishback worries about the enlisted men whose identities he is protecting. The Army has a track record of abusing its enlisted personnel in service of covering up its torture policy. I think the captain is correct to resist the Army's desire for their names, absent guarantees that the Army will not retaliate against them for having talked with Human Rights Watch.

All of that said, it's worrisome that the Army is holding Capt. Fishback incommunicado, without charges, at a military base. The military has demonstrated its willingness to abandon a longstanding tradition of respecting human rights, so anything could happen even though I doubt that torturing Capt. Fishback will be part of the mix.

I think what's more likely is a series of threats and intimidation, carried out in secret.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 5, 2005 07:12 PM

My what a paranoid fantasy life you have. I've spent quite a bit of time in the military, fourteen years in all if you coun t IRR time. The Army does not have a toture policy. I spent ten months in Iraq and detained numerous suspected insurgents. While it was surely not pleasant they were always treated with as much dignity and respect as the situation could allow. Further, many of my friends served in the larger prison dtention facilities, any abuses are NOT part of a general policy but are a localized abherration.

Why is Captain Fishback worried about these men. Unless they are guilty of participation there is no reason for it. He made a promise to them that was beyond his authority as a military officer and beyond the limits of common sense. Full investigations require a full and transparent process. Exactly what value is this officer serving? He's disobeying a direct order. He's impeding an investigation, and it appears he may be an accomplice after the fact, if his sources were participants.

You obviously know very little of what it takes to run a military organization. You are entitled to think the Captain is correct as a matter of opinion. But as a matter of fact a Captain who disobeys orders is guilty of insubordination. Insubordinate officers aren't much value as leaders. But you've been to busy criticizing the Army to bother signing up and finding out.

Posted by John Byrnes at October 5, 2005 08:55 PM

I was wrong about Capt. Fishback being held incommunicado. According to the New York Times, he was in Washington yesterday, where he has forwarded more reports of detainee abuse to Sen. McCain and others in Congress who are investigating the U.S. policy of torture in Iraq.

Apparently, now that Capt. Fishback has stepped forward to tell the truth, the dam is starting to break. So, John, are you still waiting for the politburo at Fox News to tell you what to think about all of this?

Insubordination, you say? Capt. Fishback spent 17 months pursing the matter through his chain of command, which did nothing.

http://w3t.org/?u=65v

Excerpt:

An Army captain who has reported new allegations of detainee abuse in Iraq met Tuesday with Senator John McCain and staff aides on the House Armed Services Committee and gave them additional accounts of abuse in Iraq that other soldiers had sent him in recent days, Congressional aides said.

The officer, Capt. Ian Fishback, in a brief interview after his half-hour meeting with Mr. McCain declined to describe the new information he gave the senator or, in a separate meeting, to the House aides. But Captain Fishback said that since he and two other former members of the 82nd Airborne Division last month accused soldiers in their battalion in Iraq of routinely beating and abusing prisoners in 2003 and 2004, several other soldiers had contacted him and asked him to relay to lawmakers their own experiences.

---------

And yes, the military does have a torture policy in Iraq. They just don't call it that. But torturers rarely admit it. They always find other ways to describe that they are doing and the United States is no exception.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 5, 2005 09:09 PM

Again you are wrong, like you were about the Capatain being held incommunicado. You are of course entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. You know very little aout the military, yet you pretend to know so much. How can you say the Army has a torture policy in Iraq? Have you been privvy to some policy meetings? Do you have evidence? No, you just have unsubstatiated allegations. Yes there has been abuse, and some of that goes to unit commanders, but that is not the same as an Army wie policy. The way the Army works is very simple. If you don't like what your caommand is doing then you are free to follow channels as Capt. Fishback has to communicate that. You are never free to disobey an order unless it is an illegal order. An order to provide the names of witnesses to investigators is a lawful order. Disobedience of a lawful order is Insubordination. This must be hard to grasp for someone who is unwilling surrender a whit of personal freedom so that he may serve others, but it is the Army way. When men place their lives in each others hands they NEED to know they can count on each other. This is the heart and soul pf military discipline. A Captain may follow his conscience, but if it leads him to disobey lawful orders he is not only suceptible to pinititve action, he has lost his moral authority to lead. I know to a touchy-feely type such as yourself this is counterintuitive. But in the Army willingness to follow lawful orders is a foundation for the authority to lead. Notice the Army didn't order this man to be silent. They didn't ask him to cover up the torture. Tney ordered him to provide names to there investigation. His promise to those men was improper. A good leader would have told them that they would at some point have to come forward. Again the only real reason for keeping their names secret is that they were participants.

Posted by John Byrnes at October 5, 2005 09:44 PM

The military has a torture policy because the same forms of abuse have been seen in widely varying places, and because the government had admitted the use of "pressure" tactics that are indistinguishable from torture. Not to mention the following article from Seymour Hersh, who right wingers hate because he has a habit of telling the truth.

http://w3t.org/?u=66

I remember when the politburo at Fox News was calling the torture merely a set of college fraternity pranks. No big deal, said Bill O'Leilly. Others on the right were calling Seymour Hersh a liar for his characterization of what happened at Abu Ghraib. Then, when the ACLU went to court to get the rest of the photos released, Mr. O'Leilly suddenly changed his tune and said it wasn't college pranks after all and that material should never be released.

I believe the Army wants the names of the enlisted personnel for the purpose of ruining their careers. There is obviously a deal to be struck, which is for the Army to agree not to retaliate against the noncoms in any way in return for their names. Unfortunately, the Army's willingness to cover up torture to this point makes such a deal necessary.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 5, 2005 10:15 PM

The only military torture policy that I've ever heard in 14 years with the Army and Marines is that it is against the law. You can believe whatever you like, that doesn't make it so. As for a deal, you obviously have still not considered the idea that these two men may be party to the abuse they reported and therefore criminally accountable. As you mention Abu Ghraib, it seems time to remind you that the Army itself uncovered that abuse, and proceeded with Courts Martial proceedings against those soldiers, BEFORE the story wound up in the media. Not exactly the actions of an organization trying to torture people. You seem to misunderstand that the American Army is full of American soldiers, almost all of whom find the idea of torture repugnant. It is also full of humans, many of whom are under severe stress and some of whom succumb to the temptations of jailers everywhere to become abusive. These abuses, are a well known psycho-social phenomenon, that occur in jails and prisons worldwide, and they all look pretty similar. Maybe the Trilateral Commission or the Gnomes of Bildeberg, or whomever it is that your dark liberal paranoia thinks secretly runs the world has a torture and abuse policy. Every prison system, every jail. Everywhere, has seen some abuses. This is unfortunate. And when the prisoners may have information that can save a fellow soldiers life some soldiers including their commanders have dishonorably succumbed. But you dishonor us too by asserting that the institution somehow wants or tolerates this willfully. Soldiers continue to be punished for prisoner abuse. Basically guy you just keep talking about things you have no idea about! But hey it seems to suit you.

Posted by John Byrnes at October 5, 2005 11:27 PM

I don't blame the non-coms for the torture that occurred. They were manipulated by their officers, who were implementing the orders from on high. It would have been admirable if some non-coms had refused to engage in torture, and in fact some of them did. But I regard this issue as mostly a sideshow.

The important issue is that there was a policy of torture approved at the very highest levels of the U.S. government. Not that it will ever happen, but in a truly just world there would be war crimes trials, and Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush would be defendants. So would the senior generals who went along with their orders.

The only reason that you're so comfortable with all of it is because the torture was ordered by Republicans. This doesn't surprise me, given that you're a Republican making comments on a website organized to advance the Republican agenda in the disguise of patriotism.

I think there should be a single standard of human rights everywhere. Torture is always wrong, and those who order it are always guilty. I am especially outraged that Americans ordered it, because it is grossly at variance with this country's moral and political values, which you and your kind clearly do not share or respect.

It doesn't surprise me, but it does sadden me. This country was supposed to be better than Saddam Hussein. The American military wasn't supposed to simply reopen Saddam's rape rooms under new management, and the Republican Party isn't supposed to exist to give it the stiff-armed salute on command. You and the others here who defend it -- either by justifying on grounds of atrocities committed by others or by wilfully minimizing or denying its existence -- should be ashamed of yourselves.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 6, 2005 03:00 AM

If you don't think America is any better than Saddam's regime, I'm sure no one reading here will miss you, if you split.

I've been on the ground in Iraq. I've seen the aftermath of Saddam's policy of torture. I've never seen anything that ever comes close from Americans. But then I don't have some deep seated pathological need to hate my own country. It might surprise you, if you ever got to know soem of us that both soldiers and republicans are thoughtful and compassionate people. Of course that would shatter the illusions that you have built,

I don't know how many real Army officers you are familiar with, but obviously many of them are democrats. Not a majority but enough to put forth a number of candidaes next year. Do you really believe that all or nearly all of these people are part of some vast conspiracy? I guess you do. That's pretty sad, since they've all sacrificed alot because they care about you as an American citizen.

The rape charge is particularly repugnant as I've known know several victims of Saddam's rape campaign. Can you substantiate these claims, nay hinted allegations of rape, by American's. Probably not. You Have criticized the administration, the military, the Republican Party and Fox News for dishonesty. All the while you continue to spout unsubstantiated accusations. When asked for details of a secretly detained Army officer, he appears before congress. You have yet to make a single one of your accusations stick.

You think there should be a single standard of Human Rights everywhere? You're probably right there. So do almost of the soldiers who are fighting for that kind of world. How do YOU think that's going to happen? Oh that's right holding hands at Berkley and Cambridge or down in Crawford and singing Kumbaya, So far that's worked out great.

BTW if you think that anyone still following this debate here is tempted to agree with you, you really have slipped into orbit? My guess is that any Mudville regulars still following this thread are just tuning in to see what howler you slip in next. But keep it up, I'm still laughing.

Posted by John Byrnes at October 6, 2005 03:43 AM

When the U.S. military reopened Saddam's rape rooms under American management, it acted just as badly as Saddam did at that moment. If you don't think so, then you should be writing to your friend Bill O'Leilly and telling him he absolutely wrong to want to keep the Abu Ghraib tapes and photos secret.

Let's see, you asked for evidence of rape. Well, we know that the U.S. military has videotapes of rapes at Abu Ghraib that they are trying to hide. They were shown to the U.S. Senate a year ago, and senators confirmed that the tapes showed rape and murder.

Of course, being a good Republican who hates America and what it used to stand for, you will deny it. But some other Republicans uncharacteristically, for a brief moment, told the truth a year ago.

http://w3t.org/?u=67u

By the way, I don't necessarily believe you were ever in Iraq. I suspect that many of the postings and identities here are invented by Republican operatives who have never seen a day in Iraq.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 6, 2005 04:09 AM

For once -- just once in your life -- try standing up for what is right instead of standing up for what you deem politically expedient at the time. I know that's an impossible wish, but what the hell is the Internet for if not to give voice to impossible wishes?

If, as I increasingly believe will happen, the U.S. suffers an outright defeat in iraq, make no mistake about where the blame will lie: It will be with the incompetence and moral bankruptcy of this country's senior leadership who tragically believed that they could defeat depotism and savagery by imitating it.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 6, 2005 04:13 AM

Self righteous to the end eh? Is that our problem? Et tu brute?

What makes you think I don't believe in the things I stand up for? Don't talk to me about expediency. Your concept of standing up for things is to sit at home and flame conservative blogs. Whoa what a brave man you are! When I stand up for my ideals, I risk more then a scornful anonymous reply on the internet.

Yes what is the internet for? Like all liberals you believe this medium, like the others is the one which will allow you to proselytize your ideology. And like all of Marx's little grandchildren you keep expecting the world to somehow conform with the theory you have decided is correct.

But your wishes are impossible wishes. Hence your rhetoric is foolish and irrelevant. You really have know idea of the extent that liberal democractic reforms have been implemented in Iraq. How hard soldiers and commanders have worked to be fair. How far we've gone to protect the rights of the accused. Of course acknowledging such things would complicate your preconcieved theory. It doesn't fit your conspiratorial view of the world.

You see I am a pretty liberal person. Not by your standards obviously, but by the historical definition of liberal. I believe in free speech, due process, women's rights, rule of law, equal protection, and all the other hallmarks of liberal democracy. I just don't live in a fantasy world about how these things come about, and about where the real threat to them lies. But I haven't been able to afford those fantasies. I've been pretty busy dealing with the real threats first hand. That way you can stay home and dream little Trotsyite dreams.

And for the record I served in Iraq with the Army National Guard's 2-108th Infantry, Attached to the Army's 1st ID. My service is a matter of public record. But it doesn't surprise me that you have a proble rcognizing the truth, that's become obvious.

Posted by John Byrnes at October 6, 2005 02:13 PM

John, I don't know what you are, but I know this: You're not much of an American in my book, because Americans don't believe in torturing people. Americans are certainly capable of torture like an human being is, but torture is against what real patriots in this country stand for.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 6, 2005 06:45 PM

I actually think I've been pretty clear that I'm against torture. Where, in my writing, not in your delusions do you hear me supproting torture? Now I know why you think the Army is pro-torture. You pay no attention to facts and merely begin to believe your own unfounded accusations. First I wasn't in the Army. But since I took that away from you now I'm pro-torture. Funny for a guy who styles hinself a liberal, and is obviously on the far fringe of the left your pretty much of a McCarthyite when it comes to debating. I've taken away all of your rhetorical fire so you accuse me of being an un-American torturer. Have you no decency. I've never tortured anyone. Never condoned it, approved of it or accepted it. I've personally helped capture Iraqi Baathists guilty of the most horrible tortures you could imagine. Well maybe not you. The most horrible torture you can imagine is probably to be forced to say the pledge of allegiance, and include the words under god. But I collected many of the witness statements that are being used in Saddam's trial in two weeks. Stand against torture. Yes I stand against it. Been shot at and bombed while I stood there. Gave up a year of my life and postponed my goals. Stood there while a far better man than you bled to death a few feet away. But hey we're not Americans because you say so? And then you accuse me of torture? Whatever guy. You really are a McCarthyite clown.

Posted by John Byrnes at October 6, 2005 08:07 PM

John, you're not arguing with someone who fell off the turnip truck yesterday. Why of course you are against torture. But you're all in favor of doing the things that constitute torture as long as it's not called torture. Where I come from, that's a distinction without a difference.

Oh, and dry those crocodile tears because I have never accused you of torture. I accuse you of supporting torture.

As for the charge of self-righteousness, when it comes to the United States implementing a policy of torturing enemy troops and civilians, I'll take the risk of being self righteous. Torture is wrong. It is wrong at all times, in all places regardless of who does it.

It is especially wrong for the United States to engage in torture because it is in blatant conflict with everything this country ought to stand for. See, in the final analysis it is not our wealth or our power that we offer to the world, it is the promise of individual freedom.

When George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld decided that our military would become torturers, and when top military commanders implemented that policy, in my opinion they committed an act of treason that will reverberate through the centuries. I can't think of any crime that any American has committed that exceeds that one.

You, on the other hand, couldn't care less about what this country is about. Your patriotism is phony and it shows. Say whatever you want, but you don't fool me for a microsecond.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 6, 2005 09:11 PM

OK lose another round wil and change the accusation again, but make sure you don't dig up any facts! We're all still waiting for those. I'm not going to continue to deny your accusations because they're preposterous. Here you are calling a serving NCO in the US Army, a veteran of Iraq and Somalia before that. Someone who's fourteen year of commitment to his nation's service in uniform unpatriotic. Why? Because I question your lack of evidence!! Yeah that's right I don't care about democracy because I don't believe YOU! LOL!

Posted by John Byrnes at October 7, 2005 01:15 AM

I'm not the one who called it torture, Mr. Byrnes. The International Committee of the Red Cross and the FBI did that. You support torture. Your service was a career but it is not a mark of patriotism or honor. You have shown that you have no loyalty to this country or what it stands for. You would be better to openly declare your loyalty to our enemies rather than to advance their cause by advocating that the United States throw away its strength by torturing people.

Repeat: You are not a patriot. You hate your country and everything it stands for.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 7, 2005 03:47 AM

I've never been interested in "my career" if I was I could have made other choices. Sorry but my patriotism, my honor, and my condemnation of torture are all on the record. But now you're baiting me by calling my service disloyal and dishonorable. Only soldiers who leave the service and become democrats are loyal and honorable. Saying that just being in the Army means I support torture? You know the rwal story is you just compeletely ran out of other lies. You say I hate my country? Because I disagree with you? I'm sorry, did someone set you up as commissar? Have we entered into a 1984 style dictatorship of Wilson Kolb? Did I miss the announcement that we lost the cold war after all? You really have no case, no decency, no honor, and no real contribution to make. You sit back in the safety of your basement and cast aspersions on the folks who bust their asses to ensure your safety and freedom. I'm not always right, and neither are they. But we're making an honest effort. We do the really hard jobs. You really have no idea what that takes do you? We disagree with you Mr Kolb. That's our right as Americans. You just really are frustrated that no one's buying your fantasies aren't you. And they've become more and more perverse. First it was, The Greyhawks shouldn't be allowed to have a political view on their website. Then the Army is secretly holding a Captain prisoner. Then I was never in the service. All wrong! I'll say this, I've rarely seen someone so determined to be WRONG. You certainly are consistent. Totally out of your mind, and out of touch with the American people, but consistent. Your last round of accusations against me is evidence of some severe disturbance, maybe its stress? You have my sympathy!

Posted by John Byrnes at October 7, 2005 05:32 AM

John, take your meds and/or read more carefully.

I know nothing about your Army career, so I have no basis to call it disloyal and dishonarable. I mean, even Lee Harvey Oswald managed to serve in the Marine Corps without getting kicked out. Not that they liked him much, but his exit wasn't an ejection; they gave a hardship discharge to help his mother.

Any of that aside, I am calling YOU disloyal and dishonorable not on the basis of your military record, whatever it is, but because you think so little of America that you'd support the use of torture. It's the most unamerican action imaginable; in my opinion, anyone who supports torture as you do hates this country and what it stands for.

I never wrote that Greyhawk, Blackfive and that ilk have no right to shill for the Republican Party under the guise of patriotism. They can say and write whatever they please. All I'm doing is pointing the finger, no more and no less.

As for the captain who I said was being held incommunicado, well, at least I corrected the error forthrightly and honestly. When was the last time you ever saw a Republican right-wing blowhard here or anywhere else do that?

Facts: They're what's for dinner.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 7, 2005 06:02 AM

"The International Committee of the Red Cross." Helpful hint for the idjit W Kolb: Never trust any organization that has the word "international" in its title.

Mr. Byrnes, thanks for doing what you do (and I don't mean explaining complicated things to idjits).

Posted by RickZ at October 7, 2005 10:37 AM

RickZ, that's a typically ignorant right-wing Republican comment. The ICRC is the entity that invented the inspection of POW camps. Without the ICRC, among other things American troops would have never gotten visits and packages in German custody during World War II. It is a very carefully run organization with a 100+ year track record of doing their job with complete impartiality.

The idiot is you.

Posted by Wilson Kolb at October 7, 2005 04:59 PM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(32) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)