I meant their (I was wording it differently and then

oops

• Obama's grandmother and the media coverage - sm
  • I've always wondered the true family ties here - nm
  • Exactly my thoughts...... - not so easily fooled...........nm
    • You're overlooking a race more important than 2008 election. - Here's a hint....sm
      • You don't like the post, talk to the poster above - who posted it.............NM
        • BTDT. This is an equally offensive opportunity. - Stand by my original response to YP. nm
          • What really bothers you? The post or that someone - agreed with the post?
          • Whatever floats your boat - nm
  • In your rush to judgment, - did it every occur to you that....sm
    • I didn't rush my judgment, I have had - sm
      • As many of us have. So the scenario described in the OP - Would sound more plausible...sm
        • So you can't acknowledge there may have been - family considerations? Fine by me. nm
          • Family considerations? What, they're schedules - are too busy, too??
            • I meant their (I was wording it differently and then - edited) nm
        • I would feel the same about it either way. - nm
  • for 3 days he's been fixing to get there? - JoePlumberforPrez
    • This confirms our worst suspicions. Certain pubs factions - really are invaders from outer space...sm
  • I believe he did drop everything and go - gourdpainter
  • I don't know the whole situation, so won't judge his decision nm - nm
  • I agree with you. - Chele

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

Did the U.S. Use "Illegal" Weapons in Fallujah?

Media allegations claim the U.S. used outlawed weapons during combat in Iraq

The fighting in Fallujah, Iraq has led to a number of widespread myths including false charges that the United States is using chemical weapons such napalm and poison gas. None of these allegations are true.

Qatar-based Internet site Islam Online was one of the first to spread the false chemical weapons claim. On November 10, 2004, it reported that U.S. troops were allegedly using "chemical weapons and poisonous gas" in Fallujah. ("US Troops Reportedly Gassing Fallujah") It sourced this claim to Al-Quds Press, which cited only anonymous sources for its allegation.

The inaccurate Islam Online story has been posted on hundreds of Web sites.

On November 12, 2004, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a denial of the chemical weapons charge, stating:

"The United States categorically denies the use of chemical weapons at anytime in Iraq, which includes the ongoing Fallujah operation. Furthermore, the United States does not under any circumstance support or condone the development, production, acquisition, transfer or use of chemical weapons by any country. All chemical weapons currently possessed by the United States have been declared to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and are being destroyed in the United States in accordance with our obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention."

To its credit, Islam Online ran a Nov. 25, 2004, story carrying the U.S. denial.

In both stories, Islam Online noted that U.S. forces had used napalm-like incendiary weapons during the march to Baghdad in the spring of 2003. Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003.

The repetition of this story on Islam Online’s led to further misinformation. Some readers did not distinguish between what had happened in the spring of 2003, during the march to Baghdad, and in Fallujah in November 2004. They mistakenly thought napalm-like weapons had been used in Fallujah, which is not true. No Mark-77 firebombs have been used in operations in Fallujah.

On Nov. 11, 2004, the Nov. 10 Islam Online story was reposted by the New York Transfer News Web site, with the inaccurate headline "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah."

The headline was wrong in two ways. First, as explained above, Islam Online was incorrect in claiming that U.S. forces were using poison gas in Fallujah. Second, the New York Transfer News misread the Islam Online story to mean that U.S. forces were currently using napalm-like weapons in Fallujah. But Islam Online had never claimed this; it had only talked about napalm use in 2003.

The false napalm allegation then took on a life of its own. Further postings on the Internet repeated or recreated the error that the New York Transfer News had made, which eventually appeared in print media. For example, on Nov. 28, 2004, the UK’s Sunday Mirror inaccurately claimed U.S. forces were "secretly using outlawed napalm gas" in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror story was wrong in two ways.

First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003.

Second, as noted above, no Mark-77 firebombs were used in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror’s phrasing "napalm gas" is also revealing. Napalm is a gel, not a gas. Why did the Sunday Mirror describe it as a gas?

It may be that, somewhere along the line, a sloppy reader read the inaccurate New York Transfer News headline, "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah," and omitted the comma between napalm and gas, yielding the nonsensical "napalm gas."

Next, the Sunday Mirror’s misinformation about “napalm gas” was reported in identical articles on Nov. 28 by aljazeera.com and islamonline.com. These two Web sites, which are owned by the same company – AL Jazeera Publishing – are deceptive look-alike Web sites that masquerade as the English-language sites of the popular Qatar-based Arabic-language satellite television station al Jazeera and the popular Islam Online Web site, which is islamonline.net.

Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorous shells in Fallujah. Phosphorous shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes …." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.]

There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using "outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq.

And that you classify such thinking as wrong.

Perhaps you should spend some time thinking on that.

I never gave this a thought. The previous incumbent was so poor and Palin scared the bejesus out of me and McCain isn't that much of a maverick and doesn't know squat economically that I never let race enter into my voting decision. For me it was an obvious choice. (Not my first choice but by Nov. my only choice.)

If you read through this cnn.com article, you'll read that blacks who were innovative do feel they're or were held to different standards.

The very fact that this article is worthy of being printed surprises me.

=========================================

(CNN) -- Just days before he was sworn in, President Obama was giving his daughters a tour of the Lincoln Memorial when one of them pointed to a copy of Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address carved into the wall.

Obama's 7-year-old daughter, Sasha, told her father that Lincoln's speech was really long. Would he have to give a speech as long? Obama's answer was completed by his older daughter, 10-year-old Malia.

"I said, 'Actually, that one is pretty short. Mine may even be a little longer,' " Obama told CNN recently. "At which point, Malia turns to me and says, 'First African-American president, better be good.' "

The story is light-hearted, but it touches on a delicate question: Will people hold Obama to a different standard because he is the first African-American president?

Americans appear split by race on that answer. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 53 percent of blacks say the American public will hold Obama to a higher standard than past presidents because he is black. Most whites -- 61 percent -- say Obama's race will not matter in how he will be judged.

The question divided several people who were racial pioneers themselves.

Alexander Jefferson was one of the first blacks allowed to become a fighter pilot. He was a member of the Tuskegee Airmen, a group of black pilots who escorted bombers in World War II.

"We had to be twice as good to be average," he says.

Obama won't face the same pressures he did because his presidential predecessor was so inept, Jefferson says.

"No, the world is ready for him," he says. "The [George W.] Bush debacle was so depressing."

Jefferson was shot down by ground fire on his 19th mission and spent a year in German prison camps. He wrote about his POW experiences in "Red Tail Captured, Red Tail Free: Memoirs of a Tuskegee Airman and POW."

Jefferson says he dealt with the pressures of being a racial pioneer by drawing on the strength of black leaders who opened doors for him.

"I sit on the backs of everyone who came before me," says Jefferson, who attended Obama's inauguration with other Tuskegee Airmen.

Jefferson says he would have emotionally imploded if he'd thought too much about the pressures of representing all blacks and dealing with the racism he encountered when he returned home to a segregated America after the war.

"I did what I had to do so I didn't go stark-raving mad," he says. "There wasn't all this self-analysis and back and forth. I was too damn busy with a wife, a child and a mortgage."

Michele Andrea Bowen couldn't avoid a bout of constant self-analysis. She was one of the first African-American students admitted to a doctorate program in history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

"I know Obama is going to be held to a different standard," says Bowen, author of "Up at the College" and books such as "Holy Ghost Corner," which celebrate black faith and culture.

Bowen says she faced relentless scrutiny, and so will Obama.

"You know that it was hard for you to get in it, and you know they're watching you," Bowen says. "And you know that they're judging you by a critical standard that's sometimes not fair."

Bowen says a white classmate, her partner in dissertation, once confided to her that he received the same grades as she did, even though he knew his work was inferior.

"It toughened me up," Bowen says. "It can give you headaches and stomachaches. I learned you have to be thankful that God blessed you with that opportunity. At some point, you stop worrying, and you trust God."

'Would Bush have been president if he were black?'

Perhaps Obama will avoid those stomachaches because of the massive good will his election has generated. But that could change quickly if Obama makes a controversial decision or a mistake, says Andrew Rojecki, co-author of "The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America."

Rojecki says people who say Obama isn't going to be held to a different standard because of his skin color didn't pay attention to his campaign.

He says Obama had to deal with challenges that other candidates didn't have to face. Obama's run for office was almost ended by his association with his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose incendiary sermons shocked many.

But Republican presidential nominee John McCain's relationship with the Rev. John Hagee, who was accused of anti-Semitism, never threatened to end his campaign, Rojecki says.

"Obama was held responsible for what his minister said, and McCain was associated with Hagee, but somehow that didn't stick," says Rojecki, a communication professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Even people who regard themselves as the most progressive, open-minded supporters may subconsciously hold Obama to a different standard, Rojecki says.

He says several academic studies show that it often takes people longer to associate good qualities to blacks when different faces are flashed across a screen.

"They have these stereotypes buried in their subconscious," he says. "That's why people cross the street when they see a young black man. They'd rather not take a chance."

Obama virtually had to be perfect to overcome those stereotypes, Rojecki says. He was the first black Editor of the Harvard Law Review, he has an Ivy League-educated wife and adorable daughters, and he ran a great campaign.

"He's the perfect symbol of achievement," Rojecki says.

White candidates for office don't have to have an uninterrupted life of achievement to be considered for the Oval Office, Rojecki says.

"If George W. Bush were black, do you think he would be president?" Rojecki says.

Jefferson, the Tuskegee Airman, says Obama should have at least one consolation. The problems he confronts now are so immense that anyone, even someone who was considered by many to be perfect, would not be able to escape withering judgment.

"If the president was Jesus Christ, '' Jefferson says, "they would still debate if he's qualified."

He should have said "no comment" first thing when he addressed the American people - when he said the whole "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" thing.  At that point he was not obligated to comment, and he shouldn't have.

I am not a "Clintonite" or whatever you said.  I just think he was a more intelligent person than Bush.  Although I despise Bush, I really do like his wife Laura.  I think she seems like a very caring, very genuine person.

I do NOT plan to vote for Hilary.  I plan to vote for Barack Obama if he makes it that far.  I think he could really improve the health insurance crisis in America.  I never hear Republican candidates talking about making healthcare more affordable, and therefore I will probably vote for a Democrat.

What I meant was that I hope he has the opportunity to serve out the full four years and/or that this election isn't contested for some reason resulting in the involvement of the Supreme Court.  For example, I see the GOP is filing a lawsuit against Obama, alleging he used campaign funds when he visited his grandmother for the last time.

I hope we can all get along and not be as divided as we have been for the past few years, and I hope that nothing happens that would cause such division. 

Again, I thought the post you wrote was very classy.  Thanks. 

Out of all the earmarks in the bill 60% were dems and 40% were pubs.  I didn't mean the whole bill was 100% earmarks. 

Maybe logical thought escapes you.

was that now McCain has nothing to say about Obama's lack of experience because Palin doesn't have much either.  I didn't take it necessarily as a bash. 

How can someone be pro-life and pro-death penalty?  A life is a life right?  Most of the pro-lifers I know, have listened to have made comments about God's the only one who can take a life, well if that is someone's stand how can you be pro-death penalty.  I'm not saying that that is her reasoning, God, but just a question.

I'm all for cleaning up gov't too, including your party, but isn't what she is under investigation for a bit of gov't corruption too with the whole ex-BIL incident.  I read that somewhere too about firing the guy because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex.