rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Oct 1, 2006 16:22:06 GMT -5
I heard several apologists seated at varying round tables this morning suggest that Congressman Foley (R-FL) has done nothing that several Democrats haven't done. Moreover, one peculiar-looking, right-leaning pundit indicated that the consequences of Foley's actions may actually serve to help the Republicans this November. His rationale is supported, he says, by the fact that Dems routinely remain in politics after engaging in similar scandals (Clinton, Barney Frank), unlike Republicans who summarily dismiss themselves when caught with their pants down.
What a monumental crock.
Foley was corresponding with minors. He engrossed himself in explicit sexual dialogue with minors. The kicker is that Foley has co-sponsored legislation that declares such activity a felony. It remains to be seen as to what his Republican colleagues knew of his activities. In all fairness, I'll avoid rapping on their heads in this writing.
This piece of crap is a hypocrite of the first order. You and I would be serving jail time for the same offense. Foley is a filthy character that will, mark my words, be practicing law in the private sector by early 2007.
Like I said in the old site, America is in dire need of a statesman. We have none in a time when we need one most. We elect bums. They sit on both sides of the aisle, fat, well paid, and mindful of personal interests. America’s interests are quite secondary, or so it would seem.
RMN, AKA RMNixon, AKA Checkers (Poor mutt: His butt still hurts from GK's boot)
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Oct 1, 2006 19:51:35 GMT -5
Oh, I don't know. I've read some of the explicit emails (yikes), and I'm guessing that news of this matter will not help Republicans, even with Foley's resignation. Just wait until some of the teenagers he approached start appearing on television. I'll bet this isn't the October surprise that Karl Rove had in mind.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 1, 2006 21:27:32 GMT -5
rmn — have you ever heard of Gerry Studds. He was the Representative from the 10th district of Massachusetts. He did not send explicit e-mails to a page. He invited a male page to his apartment, where he plied him with "Cape Codders," a mixture of vodka and cranberry juice and made sexual advances to him. I don't recall how far he got. When the news broke, Studds was impenitent, and the voters of his district returned him to office several times, until he decided on his own that he wanted to retire.
I can't resist the sarcastic comment that if he had been a Republican or a Catholic priest, what he did would have been unforgivable; but since he was a Democratic politician, it didn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Oct 1, 2006 22:07:08 GMT -5
I will wait patiently for our Democratic friends to come to the support of Foley with: 1.) It is his personal life, which should not be taken into account for anything. 2.) Everybody does it so it is excusable. 3.) Nobody died so it is forgivable.
Any one of these or you can make up your own new situational moralality excuses.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Oct 1, 2006 22:24:12 GMT -5
Of course, if the Democrats were now in charge of the House and had ignored for months, perhaps years, a Democratic House member's inappropriate advances toward Congressional pages, the Republican minority would be howling from one blazing red corner of Fox News to the other about "Democrat morality" and "Democrat pathology." You literally would not hear the end of it. By comparison, the Democratic exploitation of this Republican scandal will, I'm confident, be a feeble imitation of what the GOP would gin up. The Republicans are so, so good at white noise. ;-)
As for the Catholic scandal, you've picked an apt comparison. The real crime here, as it was there, will concern the cover-up by those in authority.
As for Gerry Studds, the Democratically-controlled House of Representives voted to censure him, 420-3.
Folely's questionable actions likely pre-date internet laws designed to prevent or punish them. He probably won't be charged with a crime. Thus, he'll skate.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 1, 2006 22:47:43 GMT -5
PT — you are probably right that the Democrats will not make as big a deal of it as the Republicans would have if the perpetrator had been a Democrat.
I'm not sure what you mean about a cover-up. If there have been news accounts indicating that one had gone on in this case, I hadn't noticed them.
As for the priest scandal cover-up, one factor to bear in mind is that the cover-up was enabled by a lot of people: police who were hesitant to investigate and charge clergy; district attorneys who avoided prosecuting them; laity unacquainted with the victims, who paid no attention to rumors and didn't want to hear about such things. Also, there was the mistaken, but apparently sincerely held, belief that if you got the priest away from the boy(s) he had been molesting, he could make a fresh start and avoid doing it again. So quietly relocating him was thought to accomplish two good things: protect the victim from further abuse; and help the priest stop abusing children. As I say, clearly, this belief was erroneous; but I don't think the "cover-up" was usually malevolent or intended to enable continued abuse.
You are right about the bi-partisan censure of Studds. It is also true that the voters did not hold his misconduct against him at the ballot box. I hope the voters in other states are not as "understanding". Actually, I hope that today the voters in the 10th would not let a Gerry Studds stay in office; and I presume that he would be facing jail time unless he could convince a court that his congressional immunity applied.
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Oct 2, 2006 9:43:50 GMT -5
//rmn — have you ever heard of Gerry Studds?//
Yes sir, he was a scoundrel. Perhaps I should have reviewed my post with greater scrutiny, as my intention was not to castigate Republicans and provide favor to Democrats. We are witnessing an absence of morality in the whole of our leadership. JoeW., I'd like to fire the entire lot, save a good Representative from Colorado, and start anew. Well, that's my wish for the day. Now back to reality.
Take care, sir.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 2, 2006 10:44:10 GMT -5
Actually, rmn, I see that you said something like that in your first post, but I read too quickly to notice it and focused only on the "what does it do to the Republicans?" aspect.
|
|
rmn
![](http://emoticons4u.com/dressed/bek038.gif) Sleepy Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Oct 2, 2006 12:51:33 GMT -5
//Folely's questionable actions likely pre-date internet laws designed to prevent or punish them. He probably won't be charged with a crime. Thus, he'll skate.//
He might skate through the legal processes, PT, but he's lost everything. This guy will be looking over his shoulder for the remainder of his life. He has detroyed everything he was and dug a hole for his family as well. He's a lost spirit, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Oct 2, 2006 13:55:08 GMT -5
But once he's out of rehab (and "cured"), won't he be welcomed back with open arms? Who knows? I hear that Mel Gibson is doing just fine.
BTW, is this Foley guy married and is Mrs. Foley standing by his side?
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Oct 2, 2006 20:01:23 GMT -5
I am really having a hard time putting a partisan spin on this and the accusation that Democrats would be making excuses if the shoe were on the other foot is like, yucky. I'm still stuck at the notion of these young people having to deal with this and the creep's family, and the fact that someone in the party thought an investigation could be concluded merely by asking the person in the position of power if he was coming on to kids.
"Naughty emails," Snow called it today. Rules are for other people?
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Oct 2, 2006 21:30:57 GMT -5
No, Folely isn't married. My sense is that these "naughty emails" will soon lead to the resignation of the Speaker of House; perhaps that will illustrate their true gravity.
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Oct 2, 2006 21:57:05 GMT -5
All the back-and-forth about this or that person's socio-sexual immaturity-illness may appear to be important, these behaviors are symptoms of major underlying imbalances. Looking a little farther, we can see the socio-sexual thing as part of a bigger pattern:
1.Epidemic of "rogue male" behavior in USA and planetwide a. Adult-on-child sex/porn industry & mental contagion b. "Adult child" warmongering dramas victimizing whole communities and regions and some whole populations 2.Moral rot (sexual, social, and financial) among politicians on both sides of the aisle 3. Huge imbalance, still, of gender participation in politics. Far too few females are in office at the national level, compared to all other "developed" countries. 4. Lack of common-sense social policy for the very young, very old, pregnant, and disabled - certain things should be "givens" across the board. Our commission from the Creator, which is called by some cultures "Natural Law," instructs the strong to care for the weak. Here are the "shoulds:" a. Health care b. Nutrition c. Housing
My deal is not that government should be expected to handle all this via horrendous burocratic tangles - I would just like to see the polemic crap cleared away so everyone understands this principle, and we all work from this base in whatever way we agree on.
So anyway - back to the topic at hand - clearing away Mr. Foley will be a "fix" but not a solution. I'm glad people are interested enough - uncomfortable enough - to desire a change - but I wish we would quit settling for fixes and dig in for some real solutions.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 6, 2006 3:27:00 GMT -5
Now, what I heard was...
The whole Foley thing is a carefully devised plot by the republicans to avert peoples attention from the war. And... when the smoke clears, just about the time that people are heading off to the voting booth... the whole situation with be given a new spin (by the republicans) that has the democrats more concerned about a sex scandal than about national security.
Anyway, that's what I heard.
|
|
|
Post by carolion on Oct 6, 2006 20:32:44 GMT -5
Well give us a new name - "manipulatees."
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Nov 1, 2006 22:32:00 GMT -5
“Bush Owes Troops an Apology, not Kerry” SPECIAL COMMENT By Keith Olbermann, Anchor, “Countdown,” MSNBC 1 November 2006 On the 22nd of May, 1856, as the deteriorating American political system veered toward the edge of the cliff, U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina shuffled into the Senate of this nation, his leg stiff from an old dueling injury, supported by a cane. And he looked for the familiar figure of the prominent senator from Massachusetts, Charles Sumner. Brooks found Sumner at his desk, mailing out copies of a speech he had delivered three days earlier–a speech against slavery. Rep. Brooks matter-of-factly raised his walking stick in midair and smashed its metal point across Senator Sumner’s head. Rep. Brooks hit his victim repeatedly. Sen. Sumner somehow got to his feet and tried to flee. Brooks chased him and delivered untold blows to Sumner’s head. Even though Sumner lay unconscious and bleeding on the Senate floor, Brooks finally stopped beating him only because his cane finally broke. Others will cite John Brown’s attack on the arsenal at Harper’s Ferry as the exact point after which the Civil War became inevitable. In point of fact, it might have been the moment, not when Brooks broke his cane over the prostrate body of Sen. Sumner–but when voters in Brooks’ district started sending him new canes. Tonight, we almost wonder to whom President Bush will send the next new cane. There is tonight no political division in this country that he and his party will not exploit, nor have not exploited; no anxiety that he and his party will not inflame. There is no line this president has not crossed–nor will not cross–to keep one political party in power. He has spread any and every fear among us in a desperate effort to avoid that which he most fears–some check, some balance against what has become not an imperial, but a unilateral presidency. And now it is evident that it no longer matters to him whether that effort to avoid the judgment of the people is subtle and nuanced or laughably transparent. Sen. John Kerry called him out Monday. He did it two years too late. He had been too cordial–just as Vice President Gore had been too cordial in 2000, just as millions of us have been too cordial ever since. Sen. Kerry, as you well know, spoke at a college in Southern California. With bitter humor he told the students that he had been in Texas the day before, that President Bush used to live in that state, but that now he lives in the state of denial. He said the trip had reminded him about the value of education–that “if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you can get stuck in Iraq.” The senator, in essence, called Mr. Bush stupid. The context was unmistakable: Texas; the state of denial; stuck in Iraq. No interpretation required. And Mr. Bush and his minions responded by appearing to be too stupid to realize that they had been called stupid. They demanded Kerry apologize to the troops in Iraq. And so he [Kerry] now has. That phrase–“appearing to be too stupid”–is used deliberately, Mr. Bush. Because there are only three possibilities here. One, sir, is that you are far more stupid than the worst of your critics have suggested; that you could not follow the construction of a simple sentence; that you could not recognize your own life story when it was deftly summarized; that you could not perceive it was the sad ledger of your presidency that was being recounted. This, of course, compliments you, Mr. Bush, because even those who do not “make the most of it,” who do not “study hard,” who do not “do their homework,” and who do not “make an effort to be smart” might still just be stupid, but honest. No, the first option, sir, is, at best, improbable. You are not honest. The second option is that you and those who work for you deliberately twisted what Sen. Kerry said to fit your political template; that you decided to take advantage of it, to once again pretend that the attacks, solely about your own incompetence, were in fact attacks on the troops or even on the nation itself. The third possibility is, obviously, the nightmare scenario: that the first two options are in some way conflated. That it is both politically convenient for you and personally satisfying to you, to confuse yourself with the country for which, sir, you work. A brief reminder, Mr. Bush: You are not the United States of America. You are merely a politician whose entire legacy will have been a willingness to make anything political; to have, in this case, refused to acknowledge that the insult was not about the troops, and that the insult was not even truly about you either, that the insult, in fact, is you. So now John Kerry has apologized to the troops; apologized for the Republicans’ deliberate distortions. Thus, the president will now begin the apologies he owes our troops, right? This president must apologize to the troops for having suggested, six weeks ago, that the chaos in Iraq, the death and the carnage, the slaughtered Iraqi civilians and the dead American service personnel, will, to history, “look like just a comma.” This president must apologize to the troops because the intelligence he claims led us into Iraq proved to be undeniably and irredeemably wrong. This president must apologize to the troops for having laughed about the failure of that intelligence at a banquet while our troops were in harm’s way. This president must apologize to the troops because the streets of Iraq were not strewn with flowers and its residents did not greet them as liberators. This president must apologize to the troops because his administration ran out of “plan” after barely two months. This president must apologize to the troops for getting 2,815 of them killed. This president must apologize to the troops for getting this country into a war without a clue. And Mr. Bush owes us an apology for this destructive and omnivorous presidency. We will not receive them, of course. This president never apologizes. Not to the troops. Not to the people. Nor will those henchmen who have echoed him. In calling him a “stuffed suit,” Sen. Kerry was wrong about the press secretary. Mr. Snow’s words and conduct, falsely earnest and earnestly false, suggest he is not “stuffed,” he is inflated. And in leaving him [Sen. McCain] out of the equation, Sen. Kerry gave an unwarranted pass to his old friend Sen. John McCain, who should be ashamed of himself tonight. Sen. McCain rolled over and pretended Kerry had said what he obviously had not. Only, the symbolic stick he broke over Kerry’s head came in a context even more disturbing. Mr. McCain demanded the apology while electioneering for a Republican congressional candidate in Illinois. He was speaking of how often he had been to Walter Reed Hospital to see the wounded Iraq veterans, of how “many of them have lost limbs.” He said all this while demanding that the voters of Illinois reject a candidate who is not only a wounded Iraq veteran, but who lost two limbs there, Tammy Duckworth. Support some of the wounded veterans. But bad-mouth the Democratic one. And exploit all the veterans and all the still-serving personnel in a cheap and tawdry political trick to try to bury the truth: that John Kerry said the president had been stupid. And to continue this slander as late as this morning [1 November]–as biased or gullible or lazy newscasters nodded in sleep-walking assent. Sen. McCain became a front man in a collective lie to break sticks over the heads of Democrats–one of them his friend, another his fellow veteran, legless, for whom he should weep and applaud or at minimum about whom he should stay quiet. That was beneath the senator from Arizona. And it was all because of an imaginary insult to the troops that his party cynically manufactured out of a desperation and a futility as deep as that of Congressman Brooks, when he went hunting for Sen. Sumner. This is our beloved country now as you have redefined it, Mr. Bush. Get a tortured Vietnam veteran to attack a decorated Vietnam veteran in defense of military personnel whom that decorated veteran did not insult. Or, get your henchmen to take advantage of the evil lingering dregs of the fear of miscegenation in Tennessee, in your party’s advertisements against Harold Ford. Or, get the satellites who orbit around you, like Rush Limbaugh, to exploit the illness–and the bipartisanship–of Michael J. Fox. Yes, get someone to make fun of the cripple. Oh, and sir, don’t forget to drag your own wife into it. “It’s always easy,” she said of Mr. Fox’s commercials–and she used this phrase twice–“to manipulate people’s feelings.” Where on earth might the first lady have gotten that idea, Mr. President? From your endless manipulation of people’s feelings about terrorism? “However they put it,” you said Monday of the Democrats, on the subject of Iraq, “their approach comes down to this: The terrorists win, and America loses.” No manipulation of feelings there. No manipulation of the charlatans of your administration into the only truth-tellers. No shocked outrage at the Kerry insult that wasn’t; no subtle smile as the first lady silently sticks the knife in Michael J. Fox’s back; no attempt on the campaign trail to bury the reality that you have already assured that the terrorists are winning. Winning in Iraq, sir. Winning in America, sir. There we have chaos–joint U.S.-Iraqi checkpoints at Sadr City, the base of the radical Shiite militias, and the Americans have been ordered out by the prime minister of Iraq . . . and our secretary of defense does not even know about it! And here we have deliberate, systematic, institutionalized lying and smearing and terrorizing–a code of deceit that somehow permits a president to say, “If you listen carefully for a Democrat plan for success, they don’t have one.” Permits him to say this while his plan in Iraq has amounted to a twisted version of the advice once offered to Lyndon Johnson about his Iraq, called Vietnam. Instead of “declare victory and get out” we now have “declare victory and stay indefinitely.” And also here–we have institutionalized the terrorizing of the opposition. True domestic terror: * Critics of your administration in the media receive letters filled with fake anthrax. * Braying newspapers applaud or laugh or reveal details the FBI wished kept quiet, and thus impede or ruin the investigation. * A series of reactionary columnists encourages treason charges against a newspaper [The New York Times] that published “national security information” that was openly available on the Internet. * One radio critic receives a letter threatening the revelation of as much personal information about her as can be obtained and expressing the hope that someone will then shoot her with an AK-47 machine gun. * And finally, a critic of an incumbent Republican senator, a critic armed with nothing but words, is attacked by the senator’s supporters and thrown to the floor in full view of television cameras as if someone really did want to re-enact the intent–and the rage–of the day Preston Brooks found Sen. Charles Sumner. Of course, Mr. President, you did none of these things. You instructed no one to mail the fake anthrax, nor undermine the FBI’s case, nor call for the execution of the editors of the New York Times, nor threaten to assassinate Stephanie Miller, nor beat up a man yelling at Sen. George Allen, nor have the first lady knife Michael J. Fox, nor tell John McCain to lie about John Kerry. No, you did not. And the genius of the thing is the same as in King Henry’s rhetorical question about Archbishop Thomas Becket: “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” All you have to do, sir, is hand out enough new canes. 2006 MSNBC Interactive
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Nov 1, 2006 22:59:10 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that column, J*.
It is entirely empty and without merit, like so much of the LibLeft.
Maybe now that the Dems are ditching Kerry, Longface John can become an Independent like Lieberman. Or maybe he could be unemployed like Gore and ... and....who was Kerry's VP choice?
Does not matter. There almost all gone now. Having gone from "Best of the Left" to oblivion in so very few years.
Keep up the good work!
_E_
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 1, 2006 23:34:29 GMT -5
If not utterly dishonest, it is at least highly disingenuous of you, Mr. Olbermann, to pretend that John Kerry's meaning was perfectly clear, when even Kerry claims that it was botched and members of his own party call the remarks inappropriate. It was botched because it was unclear. Now Mr. Olbermann, are you too stupid to understand that or, as is more likely, are you unwilling to let the reality of the situation get in the way of the premise of your rant.
BTW, sir, nice bit of sly innuendo to "admit" that the President did not do the things you complain of in your list at the end and still blame him for them. To put it in terms you will understand, sir: you, Keith Olbermann, are the Rush Limbaugh of the far Left.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 2, 2006 0:15:39 GMT -5
Well, Joe, you know it wasn't a sly admission in the way you imply. Of course, Bush didn't do those things. He has plenty of lackeys to act in his behalf.
Has anyone seen the full text of Kerry's remarks? I've only seen the short clip and don't know the context at all. I do think it should be obvious, though, that a man who enlisted voluntarily for active duty in Vietnam is unlikely to say people in uniform are stupid. Only men who did not serve or who hid in cushy stateside duty would suggest such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Nov 2, 2006 0:26:57 GMT -5
There is enough of the Kerry quote to establish the context. He was talking about Bush not the troops. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise, but considering the litany of bad acts, what is a little bad faith?
Olberman is right -- "There is tonight no political division in this country that he and his party will not exploit, nor have not exploited; no anxiety that he and his party will not inflame. There is no line this president has not crossed–nor will not cross–to keep one political party in power. He has spread any and every fear among us in a desperate effort to avoid that which he most fears–some check, some balance against what has become not an imperial, but a unilateral presidency."
He passes out canes and his minions start doing his blind bashing for him. Meanwhile, iceberg straight ahead. Giving in to your base instincts and checking your brain at the door in exchange for a dull loyalty pledge is stupid, if you want to talk about stupid.
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Nov 2, 2006 0:34:37 GMT -5
Yes, John Kerry and Keith Olbermann epitomize the evils of the world. Awful human beings. They speak truth to power.
Quote: There is no line this president has not crossed–nor will not cross–to keep one political party in power. He has spread any and every fear among us in a desperate effort to avoid that which he most fears–some check, some balance against what has become not an imperial, but a unilateral presidency.
Sorry folks. Olbermann has it right. This is a hegemonic, self-righteous administration, that believes it's own rhetoric, a rhetoric I find very similiar to the fascist. Things have gone seriously wrong in this country. If you really care about a bad joke from John Kerry, who is the last person who would disrespect our troops, and if you want to tell me different, then I will be sorely disappointed, then you have too much time on your hands. Get a life. And fear for our country. Franklin said and I'm paraphrasing, if you trade freedom for security, you deserve neither.
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Nov 2, 2006 0:42:11 GMT -5
And for your edification, a "nice" story about our occupation in Iraq:
THIS IS A TRAGEDY MADE WORSE BY THE COVER UP.
Revealed: U.S. Soldier Killed Herself After Objecting to Interrogation Techniques The true stories of how American troops, killed in Iraq, actually died keep spilling out this week. Now we learn, thanks to a reporter's FOIA request, that one of the first women to die in Iraq shot and killed herself after objecting to harsh "interrogation techniques."
By Greg Mitchell , Editor & Publisher
(November 01, 2006) -- The true stories of how American troops, killed in Iraq, actually died keep spilling out this week. On Tuesday, we explored the case of Kenny Stanton, Jr., murdered last month by our allies, the Iraqi police, though the military didn’t make that known at the time. Now we learn that one of the first female soldiers killed in Iraq died by her own hand after objecting to interrogation techniques used on prisoners.
She was Army specialist Alyssa Peterson, 27, a Flagstaff, Az., native serving with C Company, 311th Military Intelligence BN, 101st Airborne. Peterson was an Arabic-speaking interrogator assigned to the prison at our air base in troubled Tal-Afar in northwestern Iraq. According to official records, she died on Sept. 15, 2003, from a “non-hostile weapons discharge.”
She was only the third American woman killed in Iraq so her death drew wide press attention. A “non-hostile weapons discharge” leading to death is not unusual in Iraq, often quite accidental, so this one apparently raised few eyebrows. The Arizona Republic, three days after her death, reported that Army officials “said that a number of possible scenarios are being considered, including Peterson's own weapon discharging, the weapon of another soldier discharging or the accidental shooting of Peterson by an Iraqi civilian.”
But in this case, a longtime radio and newspaper reporter named Kevin Elston, unsatisfied with the public story, decided to probe deeper in 2005, "just on a hunch," he told E&P today. He made "hundreds of phone calls" to the military and couldn't get anywhere, so he filed a Freedom of Information Act request. When the documents of the official investigation of her death arrived, they contained bombshell revelations. Here’s what the Flagstaff public radio station, KNAU, where Elston now works, reported yesterday:
“Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokespersons for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed….”
She was was then assigned to the base gate, where she monitored Iraqi guards, and sent to suicide prevention training. “But on the night of September 15th, 2003, Army investigators concluded she shot and killed herself with her service rifle,” the documents disclose.
The Army talked to some of Peterson's colleagues. Asked to summarize their comments, Elston told E&P: "The reactions to the suicide were that she was having a difficult time separating her personal feelings from her professional duties. That was the consistent point in the testimonies, that she objected to the interrogation techniques, without describing what those techniques were."
Elston said that the documents also refer to a suicide note found on her body, revealing that she found it ironic that suicide prevention training had taught her how to commit suicide. He has now filed another FOIA request for a copy of the actual note.
Peterson's father, Rich Peterson, has said: “Alyssa volunteered to change assignments with someone who did not want to go to Iraq.”
Alyssa Peterson, a devout Mormon, had graduated from Flagstaff High School and earned a psychology degree from Northern Arizona University on a military scholarship. She was trained in interrogation techniques at Fort Huachuca in Arizona, and then sent to the Middle East in 2003.
The Arizona Republic article had opened: “Friends say Army Spc. Alyssa R. Peterson of Flagstaff always had an amazing ability to learn foreign languages.
“Peterson became fluent in Dutch even before she went on an 18-month Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints mission to the Netherlands in the late 1990s. Then, she cruised through her Arabic courses at the military's Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif., shortly after enlisting in July 2001.
“With that under her belt, she was off to Iraq to conduct interrogations and translate enemy documents.”
On a “fallen heroes” message board on the Web, Mary W. Black of Flagstaff wrote, "The very day Alyssa died, her Father was talking to me at the Post Office where we both work, in Flagstaff, Az., telling me he had a premonition and was very worried about his daughter who was in the military on the other side of the world. The next day he was notified while on the job by two army officers. Never has a daughter been so missed or so loved than she was and has been by her Father since that fateful September day in 2003. He has been the most broken man I have ever seen.”
An A.W. from Los Angeles wrote: "I met Alyssa only once during a weekend surfing trip while she was at DLI. Although our encounter was brief, she made a lasting impression. We did not know each other well, but I was blown away by her genuine, sincere, sweet nature. I don’t know how else to put it-- she was just nice.….I was devastated to here of her death. I couldn’t understand why it had to happen to such a wonderful person.”
Finally, Daryl K. Tabor of Ashland City, Tenn., who had met her as a journalist in Iraq for the Kentucky New Era paper in Hopkinsville: "Since learning of her death, I cannot get the image of the last time I saw her out of my mind. We were walking out of the tent in Kuwait to be briefed on our flights into Iraq as I stepped aside to let her out first. Her smile was brighter than the hot desert sun. Peterson was the only soldier I interacted with that I know died in Iraq. I am truly sorry I had to know any."
***
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Nov 2, 2006 7:02:25 GMT -5
Thanks, dan. My follow up was going to be just that. Sure Olbermann's piece is an opinion piece but the basis for most of his opinions can be found on the ground and by opening up a newspaper and that is the difference between an opinion and an informed opinion.
I have yet to see any of Bush's defenders here pick up one of his blovated speeches and render the same criticism where we are truly talking bald opinion and blatant, shameless emotional appeal. Rush is a bag of gas, acknowledged as such by most of the planet, and who is showing up to endorse him and be endorsed? The Great Decider. Bag of Gas, II. "I never said we were going to stay the course. [Go find your own 40 exact quotes where he said just that] We're flexible, we're adapting and we're staying the course."
Meanwhile, in Baghdad, . . .
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Nov 2, 2006 7:06:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gracie on Nov 2, 2006 10:03:56 GMT -5
Julia....
I can't exalt you as much as I'd like to...the board will only let me do so once per hour. Perhaps I shall set a timer every 60 minutes.
Thank you for posting that. Wonderfully written.
It's no wonder that in our house GWB is known as Hail to the Thief, the Idiot-in-Chief.
I know we'll never all agree with politics anywhere, certainly not on this board, but I keep thinking that something is very very wrong when someone is determined to further his own agenda so badly that we are in the 3rd year of a war, no end in sight...and that someone did everything he could to avoid serving his country with honor. The way he is serving us now brings no honor whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 2, 2006 11:08:58 GMT -5
Okay, I've finally got it straight: when Democrats and their supporters in the media engage in criticism of Republicans they are speaking truth to power, and when Republicans and their supporters engage in criticism of Democrats they are sowing division and "handing out canes." (BTW, does anybody know why no one came to the aid of Sen. Sumner? Was there no one in the Senate Chamber to restrain Rep. Brooks?) It is shameful that the Republicans are trying to stay in power, and we must do everything possible to defeat those mini-Hitlers with their exaggerated, hate-filled rhetoric.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Nov 2, 2006 11:25:34 GMT -5
Some of the Olberman piece leaves me wondering ....
If Olberman can read minds as he claims, devine the thoughts of persons he never met and know vital facts without evidence, why is he not assisting the government in the War Against Terrorism instead of producing hack articles for a low rated cable network.
IMHO these awesome powers he claims to have should be used properly, whilst wearing a cape, mask and skin-tight spandex.
_E_
|
|
|
Post by Gracie on Nov 2, 2006 11:30:58 GMT -5
Joe, I understand what you're saying, but as for me, it isn't about party lines. Never has been.
Some of my political beliefs are more Republican, some more Democrat, if you must label them as such; I guess I could just as easily say conservative or liberal, but even those terms can be, and often are, imbued with undertones of hatred.
I am disgusted with our current administration NOT because it is Republican but because I believe that it came into being based on deception and trickery, and I believe that we are at war for all the wrong reasons. Does that mean I don't support the soldiers? Absolutely NOT. But blind patriotism doesn't support them, either.
I believe in free speech and I believe also that we have every right to disagree. I also believe what I've said before, "you can dazzle me for five minutes, but after that you have to KNOW something." In other words, stand up for what you believe and be passionate about it. I am, and I do, and I'll never be a lukewarm person, no matter what the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Nov 2, 2006 15:29:34 GMT -5
Gracie — I agree that we have a right to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Nov 2, 2006 18:55:24 GMT -5
Hi, Gracie.
You don't have it straight at all, Joe. Truth is truth where there is some substance behind it -- which is why Olbermann's words resonate and Bush's ring hollow. One can't call bashing democrats speaking truth to power because, well, look around. They aren't in power.
|
|