[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Mookie - your link talks about the internal sunni/shia feud that took place in 2006. It has nothing to do with the topic - being the start/cause of war.

So what. They still lied. One documented example of a history of lies.

Now lets look at the article. The Samarra bombing took place on 22 February. The article claims by link that Gen. Casey lies about sectarian violence. However, in the article it links to - this is stated clearly:



The article is dated March 19th, and states General Casey "recently" toured Baghdad. Even if he had visited the area 2 weeks prior to the article, on 5 March, the sectarian violence was mostly over by 27 Feb.
To claim that Casey somehow should have "seen" firsthand the bodies in the streets during days when he wasn't present is idiocy.

Defending these treasonous bastards is idiocy.

On to Rumsfeld - you state he lied.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_al...WikiLeaks_data

So Rumsfeld based his view not on the info from the grunts (which he can't interview em all ya know), but on official information from the Iraqi Health ministry. Did he lie? Or did he in good faith repeat information that he was given from an official Iraqi source? Given the date of his statement - there is no way that the on the ground data would have been confirmed and then forwarded up the chain to his level by then. So what is the man to go on?

Again, one example in a track record of lies.

Then you state Bush and Cheney as well are "traitors to the nation and should be hung as such". Funny - nothing in your article related to either of them. Nor have you provided anything that shows they knew ahead of time that the intel they were given was false, nor what they would gain by stating falsehoods. How did they commit treason?

Because screw them, that's why. These things happened on their watch, and source after source has shown that it was with their knowledge and complicitness. If you have to ask that question at this point, you're either willfully blind or a partisan. Either way, it's not worth wasting time rehashing now.

Also - can you pick a less left leaning source than the Daily Beast? I mean, their causes are the environmental impact of oil drilling and plastics, immigrant and gay rights. That's like half of the left's agenda right there. I was suprised I didn't find more anti-capitalism stuff to go with it.

Don't attack the source. Attack the statement.

Actually, don't. You're not changing my mind on this, and it's clear I'm not changing yours.