 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! November 17, 2004 From the FrontBy GreyhawkWhenever reading a published report from the front I always wonder where the work of the reporter ends and that of the editor begins. By that same token, I'm never certain who to blame for any part of a story I might find offensive or recognize as patently false. Many media types fault blogs for that "lack of an editor". I find it a strong point. Don't like what you read here? I'm responsible for it - your disagreement is with me. I even provide you the forum to do so. MSM stories, on the other hand, are a vague "responsibility free" zone - witness RatherGate for an excellent example. Dan-o's got deniability - plausible or not - and can hide behind any number of scapegoats; there are enough layers of people involved in that fraud to offer even those who can't hide a perfect opportunity to shrug and deny. That said, I can't help but admire a reporter like Kevin Sites, who has been blogging off and on from Iraq since the invasion. Here are his latest posts - photos and a report from the streets of Fallujah. If you haven't visited his blog before, set aside a bit of time to wander the archives, you'll be glad you did. Update: Damn. Wasn?t aware of this story when I first posted this entry. Bizarre timing incident, to say the least. Update 2: Glenn Reynolds notes the story sounds familiar? Update 3: For those accusing Sites of various anti-American crimes I offer the same admonition I'd give to those who accuse the young Marine of atrocities: "You weren't there." Here's Site's quote on the incident: "I have witnessed the marines behaving as a disciplined and professional force throughout this offensive. In this particular case, it certainly was a confusing situation to say the least." Posted by Greyhawk / November 17, 2004 9:29 AM | Permalink 2 TrackBacksI'm sure most of you have seen or heard about the MSNBC video showing a US Marine killing an apparently unarmed, wounded insurgent. It won't come as a surprise to any of you that I come down on the side... Read More Journalistic Integrity When I was a young man approaching high school graduation I struggled with which path to follow in life, as most young men do. I chose at the time to go off to college and chase one of my dreams- to become a journalist. I appl... Read More 9 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Greyhawk - I've been to Kevin's site many times and he does have great photo's. What I don't understand is his video of the current situation with the Marine who killed one of the terrorists in the mosque. Seems to me that Kevin played right in to the hands of the MSM with Abu Gharib type video and supplied AlJezeera (sp?) with fodder to rail the Coalition. Wouldn't reporting the incident with the upper eschelon have been enough? I saw a posting at A Star is Born (think)who said until she saw the Abu Gharib info she was very grateful to the Coalition. Now she isn't. This worries me. What do you think?
I've got the same question as Toni. I saw Sites' report on NBC last night and asked, "What, or whose, purpose does this serve?" I'm seriously seeking an explanation from those more in the know that myself.
The "civilans" were given months of warning to leave. Everone that stayed has to be assumed to be someone who is either a butcher or fully supports the butchers. A man with six rounds in him cans till squeeze the triger of a 45. If his hands are not up you have to assume the worst. Its his life or yours. Or as it was 38 years ago my life or his - I never took more than a nosecend to figure the answer. Do what you are told or die! "War is HEll!"
Kevin Sites has been digging for ammo to use against the US military for a long time. Look at the totality of his reportage from Iraq. He misses no opportunity to emphasize anything that places the military in a bad light. He clearly knew what the global ramifications of doing this were. He has more concern for his television career than doing the just or right thing by this Marine. It is incomprehensible that these soldiers are responsible for protecting Sites in this chaotic environment. I only hope none of them will ever have to stick their necks out for his safety. His reporting is consistently biased against US military actions in Iraq, and he is using the bravery of these soldiers in a problematic situation for his own ratings.
He is not fit to walk among them.
O'Rielly was all over this tonight. He is furious that anybody is even considering that the soldier did anything wrong. O'Rielly is not a bad guy to have on your side in a fight!..I had the same reaction as the post above about this Kevin guy when I saw his report last night. I remembered him from Afghanistan way back when we first went there. I think he was doing something freelance or for Nat Geographic, maybe. Anyway, he did have a supercilious and quite continental thing going even then.Last night in one of the blogs I read, somebody said they had googled K.S.'s name and come up with bunches of his work that consistently showed a leftish slant. Don't know for sure about that.Don't worry, though: Everybody will pitch a fit if our guy gets in trouble for killing the enemy.
What matters, and what can't be seen in the video, is the intent of the young Marine. If he thought (and if it was reasonable for him to so believe) that the man he shot was feigning injury to allow an attack on the Marines, then his actions may be found to be justified as self-defense, even if he was wrong about the nature of the threat. That's why understanding the context in which the Marine had to make a split second decision is so vital and why an investigation should be conducted. It's wrong to jump to any conclusions too soon.
Among the matters that will be considered by the investigators is the previous use by the enemy of feigned injury or surrender in violation of the laws of war.
Mr. Sites just happened to be there. Blaming him is inappropriate. My initial viewing of his video tends to support his conclusion that the situation was as confusing as he states in the quote above. In fact, his "interview" with another live Insurgent in the same room who was not shot tends to prove that the Marines were not willy nilly shooting prisoners and were maintaining discipline. However, more information is needed to draw any conclusions out of this situation and that's why an investigation is appropriate..
EagleSpeak- I probably wouldn't have too much of a problem with your assertion that "Mr. Sites just happened to be there" if it wasn't for this charming little entry in Mr. Site's blog:
"So in some ways, embedded in this unit, I begin to feel I've betrayed the people that depend on me to be skeptical; to question the dominant powers and institutions of my nation and the actions it undertakes in the name of its citizens. I am not a military or American cheerleader, not a mouthpiece signed on to some institutional agenda whether I believe in it or not. I am here to ask the hard questions of the people who make the hardest decisions; ones that result in people dying or people being killed. I must remember as one journalist advised, "write in your notepad every day 'I am not one of them.'"
How about this little quote from the Falluja battle:
"The Marines know they are being hunted. Boxed from the east and the west in a treacherous kill zone by an enemy they can feel -- but can't see. Their superior firepower is checked by the insurgent's knowledge of the city -- their cunning in using blind alleyways and the crooks and crannies of buildings to pick off the Marines."
Evidently, Mr. Sites feels it's his responsibility to be the defender of truth, justice and the American Way, as *he* sees it of course. Never mind that that vision seems to be heavily tainted with the typical MSM leftist BS. As I posted somewhere else, Ernie Pyle is probably spinning in his grave over these
"wartime correspondents".
Yes, have a look at Sites' blog and read -- in its entirety -- the latest entry that Bucky Katt mentions.
Also note the title of Sites' archives -- "Dispatches from a life in conflict." Does it strike anyone else as odd that the emphasis is on Sites' life? In other words, he could have headed his archives "Dispatches from the Front," or "With the Troops," or "Taking down Terrorism," but he chose to make his life the center of gravity. Is what's happening in Fallujah all about Kevin Sites? Just wondering.
Remember, Kevin Sites was the only person that was in that mosque when the first unit went in, and when the secon unit went in, when the shooting occurred. He entered, safely behind a big hulking Marine (whom he paid back with a nice close up of the guy's name on the backpack) and is heard saying "these are the wounded that were never picked up." I wish he was as solicitous of the safety of our soldiers as he is for his own, and that of the enemy.
Yes, he makes the reasonable sounding statement that the soldiers have been disciplined. This, he knows, only serves to highlight that this particular incident is out of character and worthy of prosecution.
In Kevin's blogs, he is obviously confused about exactly what his role and loyalties should be as an embed. He should have stood back and allowed the other soldiers there to handle the situation. It was not his place to insert himself into the chain of command by suggesting to superior officers that they might want to investigate the footage. He got things rolling in a certain direction, which is in keeping with the tenor of his previous reporting.
Sites/NBC released the footage worldwide, which was run unedited, with the soldiers name not blocked out, by Al Jazeera. Why?
I hope the Marines in whatever unit he is embedded in know his MO, and his lofty goals for his journalistic career. He is a danger to every soldier within a camera shot's distance away from him.
The fact that Sites allowed this footage out, which almost seems a deliberate attempt to get this Marine in trouble, knowing what effect this snapshot in time would have globally, tells me all I need to know about his objectives. If anyone's actions should be scrutinized, criticized and viewed through a microscope, it is his.