[Ninong]

Just a couple of weeks ago Vice President Cheney assured us that the insurgency in Iraq was "in the last throes." Now we have a "senior administration official" telling us that things are getting worse and "the worst is yet to come." http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...news-headlines


P.S. -- Does anybody know how long a throe is supposed to last?

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Just a couple of weeks ago Vice President Cheney assured us that the insurgency in Iraq was "in the last throes." Now we have a "senior administration official" telling us that things are getting worse and "the worst is yet to come." http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...news-headlines


P.S. -- Does anybody know how long a throe is supposed to last?

3-4 weeks.

P.S. I just read the article, and boy am I confused.
Someone is really off message.

[WHOSYOURDADDY]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Just a couple of weeks ago Vice President Cheney assured us that the insurgency in Iraq was "in the last throes." Now we have a "senior administration official" telling us that things are getting worse and "the worst is yet to come." http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...news-headlines


P.S. -- Does anybody know how long a throe is supposed to last?

I don't think that it has to do with "making up their minds" as it does with the importing of insurgents into Iraqi through Syria and Iran. In an attempt to keep this newly elected Iraqi goverment from being able to gain stability and function on its' own, without the assistance of our military.

[Ninong]

"Making up their minds" is a sarcastic reference to the lies spewing forth from the Vice President. He reminds me of Baghdad Bob. Who can forget Baghdad Bob telling us that the Republican Guard was destroying the invaders while at the same time we were viewing live coverage of our tanks rolling practically unopposed through the streets of downtown Baghdad.

You're not supposed to mention the fact that virtually all of the suicide bombers are outsiders. And you are especially not supposed to notice that most of them are radical Saudis. The only thing fairly new in that department is that a lot of North Africans have recently been discovered fighting in Iraq.

We can all take comfort in the knowledge that our Secretary of Defense, the one who insisted that we were going in with more than enough troops to do the job, is on top of things. Too bad he didn't listen to his Army Chief of Staff who testified before Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to pacify the country after the fall of the regime. He and his deputy, Wolfie, insisted that we would be greeted with flowers and kisses. I guess they actually believed the bogus intel they were paying Chalabi to create.

It would have helped immensely if we had had enough troops to secure all those ammunition and high explosives storage sites that we passed on our way to Baghdad instead of allowing them to be looted like we allowed the looting of virtually everything in Baghdad with the notable exception of the oil ministry building. What was his famous line? Oh, yeah. Something about seeing the same vase over and over again in the trunk of somebody's car.

This has been the most poorly planned and poorly supported military enterprise in our country's history and the blame lies with the civilian leadership in the Pentagon. More than two years into this exercise in nation building and we still don't have sufficient manpower on the ground to hold territory. We control nothing except the immediate area where our troops are at the time and the Iraqi forces are woefully inept and unwilling to take on the responsibility of putting down the insurgency. It is the responsibility of the victor to restore order and maintain it. The conquering power is responsible for the welfare of the citizens of the conquered country. We made no plans whatsoever for the restoration of civil authority in Iraq. We were absolutely convinced that the invasion would be a cake walk and that there would be no resistance following the fall of Saddam. The mayhem that is taking place today is the result of that lack of planning.

[Ninong]

Surely by now the Pentagon has straightened out the supply issues that plaqued the early months of the war in Iraq, right? Wrong!

Article yesterday (June 18, 2005):

John Tod of Mesa had been prepared to face Father's Day worrying about his son's pending date with the war in Iraq.

Then Uncle Sam stepped in with more disappointing developments.

Marine Pfc. Jeremy Tod called home with news that his superiors were urging him and fellow Marines to buy special military equipment, including flak jackets with armor plating, to enhance the prospects of their survival.

The message was that such purchases were to be made by Marines with their own money.

"He said they strongly suggested he get this equipment because when they get to Iraq they will wish they had," Tod said.

Total estimated cost: $600.

Tod said his son's call about two weeks ago from the Marine Corps Air Station-Yuma was a sobering reminder that the military is not prepared to equip Pfc. Tod and fellow Marines with the best equipment.

Besides the essential flak jacket with steel "trauma" plates, the shopping list for the young Marine included a Camelbak (water pouch) special ballistic goggles, knee and elbow pads, a "drop pouch" to hold ammunition magazines and a load-bearing vest.

Tod, 45, is picking up the tab for a son who blew most of his savings on a new pickup truck. And dad says he is tempted to forward the bill to the Pentagon. "Or maybe I can write it off in taxes," he said with a grin.

It's not the cost that concerns him, even though the self-employed home repairman will have to dig deep for the cash.

"We're supposed to have a professional army," he said, "the best in the world. And we're not providing them with the type of gear they need to protect themselves as they do their jobs."

Marine Maj. Nat Frahy, a spokesman in Washington, said the military issues equipment, but it's possible that young Tod's commanders told him that it was perfectly OK to buy equipment that would help him on the battlefield.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/column...ason18Z10.html

[WHOSYOURDADDY]

To play the game here - is insurgents being imported through Syria and Iran? I believe that this is the source of the problem. Right or Wrong?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by WHOSYOURDADDY

To play the game here - is insurgents being imported through Syria and Iran? I believe that this is the source of the problem. Right or Wrong?

Yes! That's my whole point. The Pentagon can't close the borders to infiltration. As a matter of fact, we're engaged in an operation right now along the Syrian border. This has been going on since the very beginning of the war. It was unexpected and unplanned for because Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were convinced that there would be no resistance after the fall of Saddam.

As far as the Vice President's remarks are concerned, he made that comment within the past three weeks, long after the situtation had deteriorated. This is not something that has just happened in the past couple of weeks. Things have been getting worse for the past year. The administration is continuing to lie to the American people just as they lied to the American people prior to the war.


"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq." -- Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) to U.S. News yesterday! He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes."

P.S. -- A former assistant cabinet secretary in the Reagan administration called for Bush's impeachment about three months ago, before the Downing Street memos were made public, on the grounds that he misled the nation into war. I won't bother to look that one up because the guy's just a disgruntled conservative who is upset that the neocons and theocons who are running things are not real conservatives like him. He's even more upset about the deficits than he is about the lying.

[WHOSYOURDADDY]

Then let me ask this how do you close thousands of miles of desert border in a country that's not ours?

Obviously we could use our military strength and invade Syria and Iran but would that be politically correct? Again its not our decision anymore remember that Iragi had an election and they now have a governing body that is calling the shots at what we can and cannot do. Until they decide (Sunni, Kurds and Sheits)

Here is a quote form an Iraqi citizen:
"Remember the days when every time you hear an Iraqi talk on TV you had to remember that they are talking with a Mukhabarat minder looking at them noting every word? We are back to that place.


You have to be careful about what you say about al-Sadir. Their hands reach every where and you don't want to be on their sh*t list. Every body, even the GC is very careful how they formulate their sentences and how they describe Sadir's Militias. They are thugs, thugs thugs. There you have it.


I was listening to a representative of al-sadir on TV saying that the officers at police stations come to offer their help and swear allegiance. Habibi, if they don't they will get killed and their police station "liberated". Have we forgotten the threat al-Sadir issued that Iraqi security forces should not attack their revolutionary brothers, or they will have to suffer the consequences.


Dear US administration,
Welcome to the next level. Please don't act surprised and what sort of timing is that: planning to go on a huge attack on the west of Iraq and provoking a group you know very well (I pray to god you knew) that they are trouble makers.


Oh and before I forget.........Help please.
"
Are we to abandon these people and let the thug mentality take over? When the tatics change in war then our military has to adapt as well. It's not changing their minds its adjusting to the changing of tatics in Iraq to disrupt the new governing body.

[Ninong]

The invasion of Iraq was a misconceived and poorly planned military operation. The American public was misled by manipulated intelligence and outright fraud into believing that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he posed an immediate threat to the security of the United States. Planning for this invasion began more than a dozen years ago by people like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Perle. That was long before they ever got back into power. The first item on the agenda in January 2001 was a discussion of how to initiate a regime change in Iraq. It was agreed from the very beginning that an invasion would be necessary. People in the oil industry in Houston were talking about the spoils to be had in the oil fields of Iraq within weeks after Bush was elected. It was common knowledge long before 9/11 that the administration planned to invade Iraq.

The military people in the Pentagon (as opposed to the civilian appointees) were horrified to learn in November 2001, while they were still engaged with fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, that the Bush administration had illegally diverted $700 million that had been appropriated for the war in Afghanistan to planning for an invasion of Iraq. We should have been concentrating on getting Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Instead we contracted that out to warlords who sold us out. The administration was always much more interested in invading Iraq than they were in fighting terrorism.

The invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and not in the best interests of our country. It is not our job to invade every country that has a repressive dictator, especially when we supported that dictator with arms and money for years when he was "our dictator."

It's not so much the fact that we invaded Iraq that is killing us but it's the way we bungled the job and the way we have turned the rest of the world against us with revelations such as the Abu Ghraib mess. This is the fault of the civilians in the Pentagon and the White House. It is not the fault of the U.S. Military at all. They are being asked to do a job that is impossible to do given the manpower restrictions they are working under.

As far as Iran is concerned, we are providing them with an excuse to proceed with nuclear weapons planning because they can claim that their security is threatened. The sad fact is that we are making it that much more difficult for the moderate elements in Iran to take over because they cannot be seen as being too friendly with "the great satan." If things get out of hand, we will probably get the Israelis to bomb their nuclear facilities just as we got them to bomb Iraq's. It won't take much encouragement on our part because there is no way that Israel will tolerate another nuclear power in their backyard. Iran was close to a democratic revolution before 9/11 and in some ways they still are but the conditions there are more difficult now for the moderates. Demographics are on our side because the younger generation wants nothing to do with the religious courts that control the government. Iran will probably go democratic within the next ten years.

As far as Syria is concerned, they will probably keep a low profile as long as we have troops in their neck of the woods.

Getting back to the situation in Iraq. We should never have disbanded the entire Iraqi army. That was a mistake. Cancelling all military pensions was another mistake. That just created an opposition force. Allowing looting to take place from the very beginning just showed the populace how much they could get away with without our intervention. We should have invaded with a minimum of 400,000 troops so that we could have secured all the military installations as we captured them instead of leaving them open to looting. Immediately after the fall of Baghdad, we should have tried to bring in the U.N. and countries like France and Germany to assist in the reconstruction and pacification of Iraq. Instead we issued a proclamation that all reconstruction would go to companies from coalition countries and we told the U.N. we weren't interested in their help. Paul Bremmer admits that he can't account for $8 billion in reconstruction funds. He said he did the best he could under the circumstances. Money was flowing like water but it wasn't actually being used to turn on the water or the electricity. Basic services should have been restored more quickly.

We cannot now abandon the people of Iraq. That would only make matters worse. Unfortunately it looks like we will be there for a very long time, probably at least five to ten years. In the meantime, this will continue to be a drain on our treasury in spite of the assurances of Paul Wolfowitz that Iraq's oil production would more than pay for its own reconstruction.

[Ninong]

"In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

That's the opinion of Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, former commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. He made that statement in an interview last year.

[Ninong]

Why can't we just tell the truth about what we're doing? Why do we always have to lie about everything? If we're using napalm, then admit it. If we're not comfortable admitting it, then don't use it. It's really quite simple.

[Ninong]

This morning on Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked if “the Bush administration fairly [can] be criticized for failing to level with the American people about how long and difficult this commitment will be?” Rice responded:

[T]he administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq.

That’s not true. To build support for the war the administration told the American people that the conflict in Iraq will be short and affordable.

Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03: [M]y belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly. . . (in) weeks rather than months

Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/03: It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

Former Budget Director Mitch Daniels, 3/28/03: The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid…

How did we go from "relatively quickly," "a matter of weeks rather than months," and "Iraq will not require sustained aid" to "a generational commitment."

I admit that I may not know how long a throe is supposed to last but a generation is usually given as 30 years!

[Ninong]

You can add John McCain's name to the list of Republican Senators who are in effect calling Cheney a liar and accusing the President of being less than forthcoming.

Bush needs to tell Americans that the nation faces "a long, hard slog" in Iraq, Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

On the same day, Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, said the White House is "disconnected from reality" in its optimism over the war.

McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: "Too often we've been told and the American people have been told that we're at a turning point.

"What the American people should have been told and should be told ... [is that] it's long; it's hard; it's tough. It's going to be at least a couple more years."


Let's see what we have so far:

• Relatively quickly, a matter of weeks, not months. -- Cheney, 3/16/03

• The insurgency is in the last throes. -- Cheney, 5/31/05
  
  
• I doubt six months. -- Rumsfeld, 2/7/03

• Mission Accomplished! -- Bush, 5/1/03

• At least two more years. -- McCain, 6/19/05

• Another 30 years or so. -- Rice, 6/19/05

[WHOSYOURDADDY]

I work for the DOD so pleae do not preach to me as to what you read in the commercial publications. That in most case, they themselves have been caught putting out false and misleading information for people to populate with conspiricy theories.

Personally, I felt it was wrong and a poor move for Powell to want to go through a totally waste of an organization called the United Nations. That as we have found out was more interested in lining their pockets with back door deals with the former dictator that as we know is currently in jail for the brutal way in which he killed Killed 100's of thousands of people in his own country.

Liberal's around the world need to get over themselves and their dislike for this administration and understand this problem started in the 90's under Clinton administration. It's Called "Wag the Dog" syndrome. Create a war "Bosnia". to diflect attention away from his personal problems. Clinton had absolutely no foriegn policy and treated Bin Laden as a personal friend.

I see raw footage of what is NOT shown on commercial TV that would disgust any civil human being. Everyday I thank the heros that put their lives on the line to defend what they believed in "Demoracy" and give that opportunity to those who have not had it before.
That is what Iraq is all about liberation of a repressed society by a brutal dictator. That in itself justified our military action. In addition even England, France, Germany and Russia all agreed that Sudaam was trying to acquire WMD - and as it turns out buying off 3 of those countries. Or have that part been conveniently forgotten with this crusade to justify a liberal position - that their right and everyone else is wrong.

I believe this country made its decision as to what leadership and direction that we wanted this country to go in and its is with the Bush Administration and not with Kerry and company.

All I need to is listen to people like Dean and Duregen and understand is that the only thing that matters to them is regaining the White house and the end justifies the means. With the spouting of false rumors and allegtions to what could be consider traitorous statements, that put the very lives of our military and civilian personal lives in jeapordy.

I live just down the road from "Blackwater Security" who have had 10 contractors killed over there. Have you forgotten how they were brutally murdered and hung off a bridge? Personally I have not, because I knew a couple of the those contractors. I have a friend and neighbor that is a former Seal that is considering going to work for them and go to Iraq. I as an amercian citizen do not appreciate the complications that members of congress (democratic party) specifically are engaged in that will make their time there that much more difficult.

Why are you not making one note or word about those individuals and their negative impact on the lives of those currently over in Iraq?

[Ninong]

What traitorous statements are you talking about? Are you accusing Gen. Anthony Zinni of making traitorous statements? Are you accusing Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf of making traitorous statements? Both of those men are former CENTCOM CICs. Their statements have been just as condemning as mine and I'm sure they are better informed.

It's not just Democrats who have expressed criticism of the way the country was misled into this mess. I can quote you two former Bush cabinet secretaries who have both said that the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein was the first topic of discussion after Bush's first inauguration. I can quote you a former Reagan assistant cabinet secretary who is currently a honcho at an extremely conservative think tank who is calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush based on his handling of the Iraq situation and his misrepresentation of the basis for going to war.

The fact that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator has never been in doubt. That does not justify starting a war. Don't forget who supported him for the previous two decades. We are not the world's police force. We can't afford to invade every country that has a brutal dictator in charge. Don't assume that people who are not presently employed by the DOD haven't seen the same pictures that you have because there are a lot of those pictures on the web and yes, they are brutal. Extremely brutal!

We did NOT go to war with Iraq because Saddam was a brutal dictator. We went to war with Iraq because he posed an immediate threat to the security of the United States. I can find you at least two dozen retired general officers who will tell you virtually the same thing that Anthony Zinni did. That the administration lied and twisted the intel to suit their agenda. What about Gen. Shinseki (sp?)? He testified that it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq and retain order but he was derided by a former Navy lieutenant commander and retired shortly after his testimony.

If you work for DOD, then surely you know that Rumsfeld's views are controversial, to say the least. The majority of the uniformed military do not agree with his approach to Iraq and never have.

As far as Bosnia is concerned, there was genocide going on over there. Intervention wasn't popular with certain elements in the American political system because the genocide involved Christians against Muslims. I think Clinton did the right thing. (Too bad we didn't do the right thing in Rwanda.) And that was a NATO operation. For all the talk about a coalition in Iraq, it is virtually a one-country show with strong support from the U.K. We're putting up 85% of the troops and more than 85% of the money. This was not the case in the first Gulf War when almost ALL of the money was covered by other countries. And there were a total of about half a million allied troops in that war.

The U.N. is not a perfect institution but it's all we have. It would be better to work within it than to leave it.

[WHOSYOURDADDY]

What good does the UN do? I quess the latest scandal has not gotten to your desktop yet NINONG involving another of those highly asteemded countries called Russia and payoffs through the "Father and Son" connetions.

Re-read Howard Deans and Duregen comments and then apply the critiria the the definition:

Main Entry: trai·tor
Pronunciation: 'trA-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English traitre, from Old French, from Latin traditor, from tradere to hand over, deliver, betray, from trans-, tra- trans- + dare to give -- more at DATE
1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
2 : one who commits treason

By the 1st definition the statements coming from members of the DNC and demorcratic party (Duregen) could be considered treacherous

1 : characterized by or manifesting treachery : PERFIDIOUS
2 a : likely to betray trust : UNRELIABLE <a treacherous memory> b : providing insecure footing or support <treacherous quicksand> c : marked by hidden dangers, hazards, or perils
synonym see FAITHLESS
- treach·er·ous·ly adverb
- treach·er·ous·ness noun

Now lets take a look at Faithless
1 : not true to allegiance or duty : TREACHEROUS, DISLOYAL <a faithless servant>
2 : not to be relied on : UNTRUSTWORTHY <a faithless tool>
- faith·less·ly adverb
- faith·less·ness noun
synonyms FAITHLESS, FALSE, DISLOYAL, TRAITOROUS, TREACHEROUS, PERFIDIOUS mean untrue to what should command one's fidelity or allegiance. FAITHLESS applies to any failure to keep a promise or pledge or any breach of allegiance or loyalty <faithless allies>. FALSE stresses the fact of failing to be true in any manner ranging from fickleness to cold treachery <betrayed by false friends>. DISLOYAL implies a lack of complete faithfulness to a friend, cause, leader, or country <disloyal to their country>. TRAITOROUS implies either actual treason or a serious betrayal of trust <traitorous acts punishable by death>. TREACHEROUS implies readiness to betray trust or confidence <a treacherous adviser>. PERFIDIOUS adds to FAITHLESS the implication of an incapacity for fidelity or reliability <a perfidious double-crosser>.

This is why I stated what I did. Duregen and Dean have both taken allegence to this country - statements like the ones they have made in recent weeks only undermine the stability of Iraq and enhance the terriosts motivation to continue killing anericians and anyone that corporates with them. aka inciting more aggression against us in what could be considered a treacherous act by definition. In other words their words are directly killing people in Iraq.

The question comes down is why would they be making statements they now are not true?

[schrocat]

I'll see your Dean and "Duregen" comment...

...and raise you a "Downing Memo".


anyway, a post at prospect sums me up on this somewhat.

"Nowadays, every time somebody raises the topic of immoral torture-related policies undertaken by the Bush administration the instant conservative reaction is to transform the conversation into a debate about the appropriateness of the critics' rhetoric. Every time, the point of the defense is not to defend the conduct in question, but simply to note that someone, somewhere, at some time has done worse things. We're better than Saddam Hussein! Our prisons aren't as bad as Auschwitz! People may be detained arbitrarily without hearings, appeal, due process, or POW status, but it's no Gulag!"

[WHOSYOURDADDY]

And I raise your the "Volker Report", where now one of the key witnesses in that report is being investigated for "potiental business conflicts" With regards to the Downing Memo they obviously had questions regarding an exit stratigy and rightfully so. At the same time we are not fight a traditional enemy as we have been accustomed in the past. When terriorist are more than willing to kill themsleves and and anyone else then we need to adapt and granted this has been a slow process.

Question what to do to resolve the problem that we and the world face in dealing with people that simple do not care about their own life and more than willing to kill as many people as they can to justify their "Holy War" - military or civilian life does not matter to them?

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by WHOSYOURDADDY

Question what to do to resolve the problem that we and the world face in dealing with people that simple do not care about their own life and more than willing to kill as many people as they can to justify their "Holy War" - military or civilian life does not matter to them?

Ask Eric Rudolph.



Oh...and the Downing Memo has much more to offer than "it held no exit strategy".

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by WHOSYOURDADDY

What good does the UN do? I quess the latest scandal has not gotten to your desktop yet NINONG involving another of those highly asteemded countries called Russia and payoffs through the "Father and Son" connetions.

Yes, I am aware of it. Politicians everywhere seem to be on the take. We have a lot of those down here in Louisiana. In fact, that's the only kind we have down here.

I believe that an organization like the United Nations serves a useful purpose. It provides a place for all of the nations of the world to get together and talk things over. Hopefully they will agree to take collective action from time to time to defuse volatile situations and enforce the peace. I would rather work through an organization of some sort than try to go it alone.

I realize that the Bush administration does not really want the U.S. in the U.N. or the U.N. in the U.S. but I don't think that opinion is shared by the majority of Americans. That was a plank in Gov. Bush's 2000 Texas Republican Party platform, in case you missed it. That and the abolition of the Federal Reserve System and whole bunch of other nonsense like phasing out Social Security. If I remember correctly, George W. Bush ran on a platform of privatizing social security in 1978 when he was defeated in his attempt at a congressional seat. He predicted then that social security would be bankrupt within 10 years and it needed to be abolished as a federal program and reformatted as something like today's 401K plans. But that was back in his youth before he "became a mature person at the age of 40." Back in his crazy days, as it were, before he had that little walk and talk with Billy Graham.

Re-read Howard Deans and Duregen comments and then apply the critiria the the definition:

Main Entry: trai·tor

Who is "Duregen?" Do you by any chance mean Sen. Durbin of Illinois? If you do, I have read his comments and all I can say is that he should have realized ahead of time that certain people in this country are incapable of understanding nuanced English language. Certain people delight in misreading things on purpose. He was not comparing our treatment of prisoners with the Nazis or the Stalinists. He was making the point that any torture is reprehensible. If you read his full statement for yourself, you should be able to see that. Naturally people on the radical right have chosen to read it differently.

I don't condone torture. George W. Bush does. He has made that very clear. I don't believe we should be chaining people in stress positions for 24 hours or more while we blast them with ice cold air from air-conditioners and assault their eardrums with extremely loud rap music for 18 - 36 hours or more non-stop. I don't believe they should be forced to defecate and urinate on themselves while chained in such positions for as long as 36 hours. That is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and, even if it weren't, it's not something this country should engage in. BTW, that description came from an FBI agent's report of his own observations in an email to his superiors.

The question comes down is why would they be making statements they now are not true?