Major General Caldwell grilled about al zarqawi

from JoeUser Forums
The following shows the hatred the MSM has not just for President Bush but for our military and citizens.

This Briefing was on Fox News but the reporters came from a wide variety of news outlets.

Reporter: There are rumors al zarqawi was shot, is there any truth to this?

General: To my knowledge he was not shot.

Reporter: Has an autopsy been performed?

General: No not as of yet.

Reporter: So he could have been shot then?

General: we will not know till an autopsy is done.

Reporter: So if he was shot you would not know because an autopsy has not been done?

General; Yes that is right.

Reporter: so when will we find out where he was shot and by who?

General: We won't know anything till an autopsy is performed.

General: Next questions

Reporter: I heard that al zarqawi was alive when American troops arrived.

General: yes that's right.

Reporter: Why didn't you save his life?

General: He expired shortly after American troops arrived.

Reporter: So if you moved faster his life could have been saved?

General: As I said he expired shorty after American troops arrived.

Reporter: why wasn't a team of Doctors along in case someone lived through the bombing?

General; Doctors are not part of a strike team.

Reporter, So is is true that al zarqawi in your opinion was better dead than alive and put on trial?

General: I have no opinion one way or the other.

End of Questions.

In our moment of victory over this monster al zarqawi the MSM is looking for any kind of slant that will cast America in a bad light.

Somehow killing this mass murderer is not being looked on kindly by many of the leftist MSM.

California congressman Pete Stark {D} has called the killing of al zarqawi a STUNT, designed to take the heat off bushes obvious failures in the Iraq war. Senator Hanoi John Kerry says, now that we have eliminated al zarqawi we should bring the troops home by years end. What a jerk!
10,622 views 33 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reporter: So if you moved faster his life could have been saved?


This is a great example of our anti-American media. I can't believe people actually have sympathy for this terrorist.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, it is a valid question. I believe they did slap him on a stretcher and let him bleed to death, which is fine with me. The last possible thing we needed was another stunt trial like Hussein's. It would have been much better for Iraq and the world had he been killed in the advance.

The truth is, though, that if they did withold treatment and let him die, it goes against a lot of our and the world's standards. You can't expect people not to be upset about it, because some people put those ideals over the welfare and safety of even themselves. They demand these ideals be held to, or it invalidates any condemnation of other nations.

I don't see it that way, but that isn't because I am better than them, it is because I have a different, more realistic philosophy. I think I am right and they are wrong, but there's nothing but subjective belief to prove that. Before we start laughing them off, we should remember that there is nothing but subjective belief behind our problems with Iran or North Korea, either.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
#1 by Island Dog
Fri, June 09, 2006 10:33 AM


This is a great example of our anti-American media. I can't believe people actually have sympathy for this terrorist.


yes it is and shows the GREAT HATRED for Bush, I am sure if he was shot, it will become ALL BUSHES FAULT!!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
2 by BakerStreet
Fri, June 09, 2006 10:38 AM


No, it is a valid question. I believe they did slap him on a stretcher and let him bleed to death, which is fine with me. The last possible thing we needed was another stunt trial like Hussein's. It would have been much better for Iraq and the world had he been killed in the advance.




BAKER? He just has 2 500 pound bombs dropped on his head, I believe it when General Caldwell said he expire shortly after America troops arrived.

The truth is, though, that if they did withhold treatment and let him die, it goes against a lot of our and the world's standards. You can't expect people not to be upset about it, because some people put those ideals over the welfare and safety of even themselves. They demand these ideals be held to, or it invalidates any condemnation of other nations.


I agree if he could have been saved, he WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED! that's our way, to treat wounded combatants with respect and the finest of medical attention. But somehow these reporter are intimating we did not.
Before we start laughing them off, we should remember that there is nothing but subjective belief behind our problems with Iran or North Korea, either.


I think there is a little more than "subjective belief behind N.Korea, who has shown they care not for anyone but themselves. As for Iran, The simple minded claims they make are not subjective, "we will wipe Israel off the map" " the holocaust never happened" these two statement alone shows a dangerous rogue countries mindset.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Besides, it was a STRIKE TEAM.

The whole purpose of an army is to kill people. Doctors and police and engineers are all incidental to the core business of killing people and blowing stuff up.

They're not rushing in to rescue anybody who didn't die in the explosion. They're rushing in to make sure nobody survived the explosion. And not in a "because if they did survive, we have to save them" kind of way, either, but rather in a "because if they did survive, we need to shoot them" kind of way.

Because they're a strike team. The doctors only get put in harm's way if someone on the strike team needs medical attention.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Eh, no, by the general's admission there was no attempt to save him, and there wasn't any medical folks there. Granted, that's fine with me, but you can't say he couldn't be saved, because you really don't know one way or the other. We may very well find that he could have been saved.

I'm not arguing their position, only saying that it is to be expected, and that there's really only subjective belief seperating the two positions. They WILL pursue this, and it will cause people to doubt our sincerity when we talk about China's treatment of prisoners, or North Korea's barbarity, etc.

That's one thing this government has never been good at. If they had a story about this on the day they announced it, it wouldn't seem as though some muckraker "uncovered" it. No one cares whether he bled to death or was shot in the back of the head except people who are fishing for ammunition to use in the press. Now, because we didn't head it off at the pass, they'll have it.

It should have been immediately addressed at the first press conference, and a good cover story should have been presented to at least make it harder for these people to complain. It wasn't. The "hold your butt and hope they don't ask" syndrome continues, evidently.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now, because we didn't head it off at the pass, they'll have it.


That was my problem with the answer to the "was he shot" question. It's a simple question, yes, "shot" has many connotations, but even at the basic level - did he have a hole in him? It can be answered. An autopsy would determine if he died from the gunshot wound but you can generally tell if someone has a bullet hole in them.

I would think that had they had medical people there, he would have been given treatment, but the team was in a dangerous place and had to be careful. It was reasonable to think that there could be a counter-attack and that taking time for medical care was not safe.

Also, his injuries coudl have been beyond repair.



IG
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was not a Q&A.  It was badgering.  Frankly, the first duty of the strike team is to secure the area, not to hold Zarqawi's hand.  Frankly whether he could have been saved or not is immaterial.  I guess if they had flown a medivac in instead of a strike team, he could have been.  But that is both fool hardy and stupid to expect it.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree, but that is what we have to deal with. The reason we can't get help from nations like Europe is because we don't plan ahead to deal with people like that, because people who want to get elected in Europe have to deal with them.

I'm not saying we should have saved him, nor am I saying we should have had a medical team, etc. Hell, I'd have been fine if they had said "We found him alive, and laughed at him while he bled to death". The problem is they leave the questions blank and then let the press make everyone think they've "uncovered" something nasty and secret.

They could have easily said that any special forces strike team has members that are trained for rudimentary medical aid, and that he was "stabilized" but died before an ambulance could get there. They could have had ANY cover story. Standing there acting as if you are trying to divert attention away from it just invites badgering.

This is the kind of thing this administration does very poorly, and we are suffering for it. Hell, it's the government... LIE for God's sake, and just let the conspiracy theorist babble on about it. Once the issue is settled, they are the only ones who care. This doesn't leave the issue settled, though, now we are waiting for an autopsy, and on and on and on.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
General: Is there a single brain cell to share between all of you reporters?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
They aren't stupid, ParaTed. It's their job to dig for dirt that the government would rather not be known. You'd have to be stupid not to take that into consideration from the beginning, if you ask me. ANyone who has stood there knows that the people in that room are antagonistic and looking to hamstring you at any given opportunity.

You can bet that somewhere, sometime before this information was released, some aide or minor player looked up and said "You know, someone is going to ask if we gave him a band aid..." You can bet on it. They, as always, opted not to deal with it ahead of time, and let the reporters look like they are getting a scoop.

Why does this have to happen every single time? There is always some small detail that they leave out that any moron could predict coming to light. Instead of dispelling it, it will have a life of its own.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
*laughs*

That is un-F-ing believable...

*shakes head in disgust*

That just takes the cake...

~L
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
BakerSteet:
They aren't stupid, ParaTed. It's their job to dig for dirt that the government would rather not be known. You'd have to be stupid not to take that into consideration from the beginning, if you ask me. ANyone who has stood there knows that the people in that room are antagonistic and looking to hamstring you at any given opportunity.


No, it is their job to get information and report on it. It is by choice that they have made themselves antagonistic. That is what has killed journalism as a profession.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
". That is what has killed journalism as a profession."


Well, then perhaps it was dead before it was born, because it has always been that way. There have been good journalists here and there, but the majority have always been the folks you see asking these questions.

Assuming the best of the media is self-destructive. To walk in and not have an airtight story ready for when they ask if we just let him die was irresponsible. Say whatever you want, but say something. Skirting questions just makes you look ashamed or evasive, and they eat that up.

You can defend them if you want, but I am personally sick of doing their job for them, and you should be too. People demand explainations of US policy from us all the time, and we have to explain them over and over. I think they should be doing that themselves.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is by choice that they have made themselves antagonistic


Anytime you try to obtain information from a person that is not willing to provide it, you have to be slightly antagonistic. An investigator or reporter at times has to provoke people with thier quesrtions. You want them not to be antagonistic. Tell the truth the first time.

Yes, he was alive when we got there. No, we did not have the time to request medical treament before he died.

People will acept the truth or (as Baker has said) accept a well constructed lie. But be forthright in your answers.

IG
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
5 by stutefish
Fri, June 09, 2006 11:11 AM


Besides, it was a STRIKE TEAM.

The whole purpose of an army is to kill people. Doctors and police and engineers are all incidental to the core business of killing people and blowing stuff up.


on the real side if he was alive and saveable, even a strike team has the obligation to render aid as soon and the combatent is out of action. I would say having two 5oo pound bombs dropped on your head qualifies as "out of action"
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
7 by InfoGeek
Fri, June 09, 2006 11:33 AM


That was my problem with the answer to the "was he shot" question. It's a simple question, yes, "shot" has many connotations, but even at the basic level - did he have a hole in him? It can be answered. An autopsy would determine if he died from the gunshot wound but you can generally tell if someone has a bullet hole in them.


it/s not that easy to find a bullet hole in a shrapnel riddled body.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
#11 by ParaTed2k
Fri, June 09, 2006 0:13 PM


General: Is there a single brain cell to share between all of you reporters?


the reporters knew exactly what they were doing, not asking questions as much as making veiled statements.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would say having two 5oo pound bombs dropped on your head qualifies as "out of action"


True, but then the question is how secure was the perimmeter. The Team could have ben on guard against attack and did nothave the time for medical assistance at the time.

It was reasonable to assume that there could have been other terrorists in the area.

IG
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
#9 by little-whip
Fri, June 09, 2006 11:51 AM


some people put those ideals over the welfare and safety of even themselves. They demand these ideals be held to, or it invalidates any condemnation of other nations.


Our desperate desire to cling to this notion (and it is just a notion, because in spite of our efforts a lot of people see us as the bad guy) that will be our undoing.

Being right, being morally superior, and doing the 'right thing' doesn't mean squat when you're dead.


the left and there mouth pieces the MSM are not going to let Bush have a victory out of this, if they cannot find a scandal they will invent one.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
if they did withhold treatment and let him die

This is pure speculation and the MSM knows it, in their heart of hearts... oh wait, that's why.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: singrdavePosted: Friday, June 09, 2006if they did withhold treatment and let him dieThis is pure speculation and the MSM knows it, in their heart of hearts... oh wait, that's why.


they want anything to take away from America, and their desperation shows by the way the keep asking the same questions, slanted differently, hoping to catch Caldwell in a lie.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
That exchange beggars belief.

I have no problem with "evading" stupid questions, no matter how easy the press is to predict.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
#24 by Daiwa
Fri, June 09, 2006 4:17 PM


That exchange beggars belief.

I have no problem with "evading" stupid questions, no matter how easy the press is to predict.


GENERAL Cadwell was as forthright as he could be, after all he was not there, and the final accounts and reports have not been finished yet, I mean its less than 48 hours since Abu found out heaven is run by JEWS! hahahahahahahah
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I was rather hoping he ended up in somewhat "warmer" climes, where 72 pigs in heat awaited his arrival.