Provocation

So who provoked the murders? Was it the old man without legs in the wheelchair? Or was it the infant whose brains fell on the boots of the marine who cleaned up the bodies later on?

That's an easy one, double-dub. It was the folks who planted the bomb. Thanks for asking.

By the way, for regular readers here, WW is Willy Snout. (His email address, if you're wondering how I know.)

So, 'hawk, are you saying that marines are robots without self-control who can be expected to go on a rampage? I mean, whoever planted the IAD was indeed a bad guy. No argument from me on that one. But you seem to have sort of skipped over the part between the IAD and the dead civilians.

Not to mention the four-month delay in the Marine Corps "investigation," which has allowed evidence to vanish and lies to be coordinated. No fools, they.

Nope - pointed out at the start this story had a narrow focus.

Rest in it's time, if not already covered here or at MilBlogs.

Greyhawk --

I agree that the term "unprovoked" is most likely an artifical term brought out to sensationalize headlines and ledes. But in the face of what seems to have happened in Haditha, I'd suggest that this is a very minor issue.

A certain amount of blame undoubtedly falls to the insurgents who planted the roadside bomb that killed Lance Cpl. Terrazas. But another large part of the blame, should the allegations turn out to be warranted, falls on the shoulders of the Marines, whose responsibility it was to respond appropriately to attack.

If these people are caught and put on trial, think they'll be acquitted after they explain that someone threw a brick through their windshield and killed the driver and wounded one passenger?

http://w3t.org/u/qdt

Greyhawk,

You show more patience with trolls than I could muster.

The point of your detailed examination into the Times reporting on this, is of course that the Times feels compelled to "sex up" their reporting for a desired effect.

Words mean something, context is critical to proper understanding, and objective facts don't need "sexing up." Unless of course your a frustrated partisan, in the media or on the left, and you wnat the American people to finally "get what this evil war is all about."

As opposed to, you remember, just report the damn news. Not create it.

Brogonzo
It's not semantics - there's a distinction between provoked and unprovoked - and it's directly applicable to whether we are discussing manslaughter or first degree murder, or even a much lesser charge.

That discussion must wait for the completion of the investigation - but make no mistake about it, you're seeing an attempt by the media to establish guilt of a very specific crime.

An Arabic speaking former Israeli officer, who comments on Hugh Hewitt's show from time to time, saw an Arabic language interview of the child who survived. She was saying that she had put her fingers in her ears because she knew the IED was going to explode and make a loud noise. How did she know if all those civilians were innocent ? Does the NY Times have translators who can see the Arabic language interviews and draw conclusions ? Or do those conclusions run counter to the story they want to write ?

Sheesh Willy, I was considering another post about how the Indianapolis murders were more heinous than the haditha incident, but here you did it for me.

Heh. WW, could you stick to the details of the post in question, rather than expand it beyond?

Greyhawk points out how the media reports the story. He does not attempt to defend the indefensible.

So, go somewhere here at Greyhawk's place or over at Milblogs, or over at my place where someone *does* attempt to defend the indefensible and fight your fight there.

What the 'Hawk (and others like me) is doing is not mounting a defense of American military personnel losing control - we're looking at how the narrative is being built and framed - as well as explaining how the services deal with things like this.

And I haven't seen a post in my readings (no, I haven't read every milblog or right wing blog in the world, so I'm sure you can find 'em) where I see anyone mounting any serious defense of the actions *if the story is as it's being spun in the media* but, rather, looking at that spin and exposing it. And you'll find many declarations where it's baldly put - if there's sufficient evidence, charge 'em. If they can't defend it, throw the book at 'em.

And pointing out that until we hear the defense, we don't have the full story. The instructive case of Lieutenant Pantano comes to mind.

Now to see if he finds the Red Herring.

Greyhawk,

I definitely understand the difference... but assuming initial reports are true, inasmuch as some of the victims were concerned the Marines' actions were indeed unprovoked.

Respectfully, I'd offer a slightly revised analogy:

We're at a gathering, and you punch me in the jaw, but I don't see who it was that punches me. I recover from the blow, look around, and then announce that I am going to punch everyone around until I find the person who actually hit me.

In that case, I'd say any assaults I launch at surrounding partygoers are, as far as they are concerned, unprovoked, since they had nothing to do with the initial sneak to the head.

Now, I've heard a couple people bring up the point that the nine-year-old girl reported covering her ears because she knew the bomb was going to go off, from which they infer that not ALL of the Haditha villagers could have been innocent.

Perhaps one or two of our fellow partygoers saw you wind up before you hit me and said nothing to warn me, and afterwards, did not point you out to me as I went through the crowd, punching my way to the guilty party. I still wouldn't be convinced that I would be justified in hitting anyone who wasn't directly involved in that first punch -- it's between you and me, right?

I understand the desire to defend the marines from preemptive conviction in the court of public opinion, but I'm not loyal enough to follow anyone off a cliff, and that's what this is beginning to look like.

I hope this hasn't come across as trollish. I'm really not looking for a fight (analogous, physical, or otherwise), just to figure out the right way to approach this awful scenario.

John, the Milbloggers and their amen chorus have been doubting that a massacre occurred. They have been doing so by raising a swarm of tangential objections of various kinds, and of course demanding "complete evidence."

However, complete evidence will never be forthcoming, because the Marine Corps didn't even start its investigation until four months after the massacre. This has insured that forensic evidence will be unavailble and has given the murderers times to coordinate their lies. The result will be mostly acquittals, and a few wrist-slaps of those who didn't file accurate reports.

http://w3t.org/u/qbg

Once all of that is over 'n done with, the Milblogs will declare that there was no massacre. Already, by declaring it "provoked," Greyhawk, et. al. are quite strongly suggesting that the victims had it coming.

Be that as it may, let's accept for purposes of argument that the marines were "provoked" into slaughtering women, children, infants and old folks. Leave aside the "terrorists" in the cab, and say they were guilty because any Iraqi male is a terrorist who is guilty of something.

Even if it was "provoked," it can still be a massacre. Take, for example, the Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770. You know, the one we learned in those boring history classes? Yes, I realize it happened in the B.R. (Before Reagan) period and therefore is unimportant, but a closer look my be instructive.

Three (yes, only three!) townspeople were killed by British soldiers, and eight more were wounded. Guess what? Those soldier were provoked by a crowd of people shouting insults and throwing snowballs. You know, sort of like that crowd in Kabul that was throwing rocks after that truck accident the other day?

It was "The Boston Massacre" because the British soldiers overreacted.

The order to shoot was given by one Captain Preston. He and six soliders were acquitted. Two soldiers were convicted. They were branded (you know, colonial times and all that) and then set free. This time around, no one's going to get branded but I predict acquittals all around.

I also predict that "The Haditha Massacre" will wind up being as important to the Iraqi public as The Boston Massacre was to the American public. Provocation? Beside the point, really.

One other thing. The definition of a "troll" is anyone who disputes the prevailing opinion on a website full of ideologues.

Mike K,

You posted a valid point that has been overlooked. If the surving girl new the IED was about to go off, who in the house told her. If someone in the house told her then they can no longer nbe defined as innocent.

Bro
Now you're into aspects of the case that are under investigation, and I'm not headed in that direction, via allegory or otherwise.

I've already stated that "It's the height of American arrogance to believe our boys coudn't have done such a thing".

Double-dub:
Already, by declaring it "provoked," Greyhawk, et. al. are quite strongly suggesting that the victims had it coming.

Not even close.

Love the Terrorists as American Revolutionaries analogy - very revealing.

WW - some Milblogs will undoubtedly do as you say.

I would suggest that Greyhawk's, Blackfives, Smash's, OP-FOR and mine (to name some of the larger ones) will not.

I for one, have been routinely beating the drum for more senior officer scalps for any number of things.

Flip side - you seem to want us to just jump on the NYT bandwagon and call for immediate executions.

We aren't going to do that. I call for appropriate executions based on the evidence.

And make the point that the press, as is their wont, is trying the case in... the press, where, pretty much be definition, the accused can't defend themselves.

So, we milbloggers show the other side of the story - inasmuch as we can without outright defending the indefensible.

It's actually a tight line to walk.

If these guys did what they are accused of, they need to come live with me for a long time (I live in Leavenworth, Kansas, home of the major military prison facility).

There should be a window to the other side of the story. The NYT aren't going to provide it - so we will. As carefully as we can, and in this case, with one hand behind our backs - because we can't - and shouldn't, defend the indefensible.

Love the Terrorists as American Revolutionaries analogy - very revealing.

-----------------

Just a little bit of military history, Greyhawk. You know, if the Bush people had read some military history they wouldn't be in this mess in Iraq. As analogies go, the U.S. debacle in Iraq is pretty damn close to a carbon copy of the British experience in Iraq in the 1920s.

But history is for pansies and traitors, right? I guess they never heard of Santayana, either. Oh well, a trillion her, a trillion there. Not to mention all those lives. More where they came from, I guess.

John, I'm not calling for immediate executions of anyone. Haven't done that here or anywhere else. Investigations -- real ones, as opposed to the one now underway -- are about finding the truth. Trials are about accountability.

I have no idea who pulled the triggers. I don't know who ordered the coverup, or who executed the coverup. We may well find out the latter, but I predict the most that will happen to them is maybe a few careers ended and a wrist-slap or two.

The killers themselves will be acquitted, and it will happen because too much time elapsed between the massacre and what is being called an investigation. Evidence has been lost, lies have been synchronized. That one's over before it ever started. I give lots of credit to the Washington Post for having the balls to say so.

But no one should kid themselves. It's all over in Iraq. The U.S. effort, such as it was, absolutely depended on the local population. The military and the Milblogs can (and will) spout and spout 'til the cows come home, but it doesn't matter. It's over.

The only question now is the timing and manner of the American withdrawal to come, and the subsequent consequences. Oh, and if you or anyone else here thinks I feel good about that, think again. This loss is going to make Vietnam look like a day at the beach.

"The only question now is the timing and manner of the American withdrawal to come, and the subsequent consequences. Oh, and if you or anyone else here thinks I feel good about that, think again. This loss is going to make Vietnam look like a day at the beach."

Then why cheer for it so?

WW - what do you base your assertion "real ones, as opposed to the one now underway" on?

As for the senior civilian leadership ignoring history - I won't even *try* to offer a defense on that.

You are correct.

I cheer nothing. Just look at the news now. Massacre reports are popping up like spring flowers. How long do you think the U.S. is going to be able to stay in Iraq?

This is a tragedy, an outrage and a debacle all the way around. I don't blame the boots on the ground. Oh, I guess I blame the shooters at Haditha, but I think the real issue is that they've had the worst leadership in American history. How else do you explain losing in a defeated, ruined country that has no army and no visible outside supplier?

You think $3.50 gas is a problem? Oh boy. Just wait. That's going to be the least of our worries. Unlike a fair number of you people here, I'm old enough to remember the aftermath of Watergate and Vietnam. It was real bad, but this is going to be worse.

And you know what? I hope I'm wrong. I really do. But I think it's going to get a whole lot worse. We haven't even begun to see the aftereffects of this one.

John, the first thing the Marine Corps did after Haditha is lie about it. Then, when Time magazine approached them, they tried to wave them away with the line that it was all propaganda. They didn't even start an investigation until March. By then it was too late. They'll never get the evidence they need to secure convictions.

The military's credibility is shot. Gone. Dead and buried. It wasn't Cindy Sheehan who did that. I've been highly critical of the upper civilian leadership, but I never expected the level and extent of the rot within the military itself.

This is very, very bad news. It is devastating. And to have it happen with the United States Marine Corps is almost more than I can bear.

I'm sure the media will give our Marines as least as much benefit of the doubt as they give to Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA).

I too have been restraining from commenting re: Haditha, but, more importantly, some of the far left blogs I visit are also being comparatively restrained. The feminists blogs are being far more reasonable re: Haditha than they were for instance with the Duke Lax case. But, it is still early.

And for people to be going after John Murtha is bizarre, macabre and utterly beneath contempt. The man has done nothing other than tell the absolute truth at every point. That's exactly what Americans in general, and marines in particular, are supposed to do.

Since when did this country stomp on decorated war veterans who tell the truth? The Milblogosphere should be burning with shame for what they've done to him, not to mention over what has been done in our name.

"I cheer nothing. Just look at the news now. Massacre reports are popping up like spring flowers. How long do you think the U.S. is going to be able to stay in Iraq?"

Really? I stay up on most newsworthy events. I haven't seen this. Perhaps you are overstating the events in Iraq.

"This is a tragedy, an outrage and a debacle all the way around. I don't blame the boots on the ground. Oh, I guess I blame the shooters at Haditha, but I think the real issue is that they've had the worst leadership in American history. How else do you explain losing in a defeated, ruined country that has no army and no visible outside supplier?"

A whole lot of assertions here. It seems to me you've already tried and convicted the "boots on the ground". Also, unless you are privy to information that most of are unaware of, how could you say the terrorists in Iraq are not supplied from outside sources? Once again, heavy on accusations with no substance.

William Jefferson, the corrupt politician from New Orleans? Talk about your dodges! Of course he should go to jail. But what in hell does that have to do with the issue at hand?

William Jefferson, the corrupt politician from New Orleans? Talk about your dodges! Of course he should go to jail. But what in hell does that have to do with the issue at hand?

Talk about missing the point!

Let me try to explain, the press has made excuses for Jefferson fromt he start...Do you really think they give the Marine Corps the same treatment?

jacitelli, I'm sure that there are some outside supplies. So let me be more precise. Where's the Ho Chi Minh Trail? Imagine if the insurgents had a real outside supplier. I mean a big one, like China or Russia. That's what I'm talking about, and it doesn't exist.

And look at Iraq. The U.S. bombed the living hell out of that country. They are nowhere near recovering. The population is largely shellshocked and scared. There's nothing like the Vietcong or the NVA there. But the U.S. military is getting its ass handed to it every day. The situation there is worse than it was a year ago.

Put politics aside for a nanosecond if you can. Don't you find it a little troubling?

WW
Everything your saying is based on an assumption that everything you've read in the media coverage of this story is true.

You insist that the Marines won't be punished appropriately for their crimes because too much time has elapsed, but insist you're not calling for their execution. But obviously you've determined their guilt.

Wehen I hear IVAW guys confessing to war crimes I offer to serve as their executioner - and I'm serious. I have a low tolerance for war criminals.

Jefferson is irrelevant here. If your answer to this is to point at "the media" and its treatment of every other crime, we'll never talk about the Haditha Massacre. Which I suspect is exactly what your goal is. At least have the integrity to look the beast in the eye.

"But the U.S. military is getting its ass handed to it every day."

Gonna have to ask for specific facts on that one.

I've assumed the guilt of no individual. I have no idea who pulled the triggers. But yes, it is fact that marines slaughtered two dozen Iraqi civilians. To dispute that is to attempt to cover up what can no longer be covered up.

I don't think any trigger-pullers will be convicted. I think will prove impossible. And then what will happen is that you, Greyhawk, and the rest of the Milblogosphere will continue to deny that a massacre occurred.

By discussing "provocation," which is only tangentially relevant, you've already pointed the way.

Oh come on, Greyhawk. Look at the death rate. It's the same as it was a year ago. Now they're sending more troops in. Basra is deteriorating, and Ramadi (? I might have the town wrong) is being described as under the control of the insurgents and the next Fallujah.

Come on, you can't just wish this stuff away. I know you want to, but wishing makes it so only in the movies. Iraq is engulfed in civil war. It's a rising tide, and the U.S. military is sitting in right smack in the middle of it.

Hey, I believe yesterday was the first anniversary of Cheney's statement that the insurgency was in its last throes. There's a funny thing about war: Nasty as it is, it does tend to separate the bull from the bullshit.

Anyway ... got errands to do. Back later for more.

Greyhawk,

He can't give you any specific facts, only opinions.

I won't accept his basic premise, that American forces are defeated in Iraq. I know too many soldiers and marines who state otherwise.

"I've assumed the guilt of no individual. I have no idea who pulled the triggers. But yes, it is fact that marines slaughtered two dozen Iraqi civilians. To dispute that is to attempt to cover up what can no longer be covered up."

I don't know who did it, but they are all guilty.

Bam, no trial, just convictions for WW.

This was a piss poor analysis. Doesn't sound like the killed Iraqis provoked the marines - hence the attack was unprovoked.

If I get ripped off by a faulty gas station pump and then decide to go ram my car into someone, can I claim I was provoked? Of course not. If I ram my car into the gas pump, then maybe I could say that I was provoked by the pump.

I know some people can only think in simple analogies and that is why I included it here.

To whomever was sticking up for Murtha,

Why is a US Congressman giving leaked information to the media during an on going investigation? It's innocent till porven guilty in this country and the Marines involved in this are entitled to a trial where all evidence is laid out, a time line is drawn and events are well documented and not merely heresay as at this point they are. Murtha should now better.

Along with the conclusions being jumped to in the media, we have posters her who are using terms that are not what they seem. For example, one asshole keeps referring to a “massacre in Haditha.” About a “slaughter.” Sounds either like an eye witness to me, but I really, really doubt it. Someone who wants to appear to be the smartest guy in the room.

Hey, hear about the entire Duke lacrosse team raping that dancer?

Well, if we use the Boston Massacre as our standard in which 5 people were killed, then, yes...this would be a massacre.

WW said "The order to shoot [at the so-called "Boston Massacre"] was given by one Captain Preston."

Wrong. Preston didn't order the redcoats to fire. He yelled "DON'T fire."

Unfortunately, in the middle of a screaming crowd, that probably wasn't terribly smart. Because at least one of the regulars heard only the last part. Bang. And then his friends opened up. And Sam Adams had a propaganda field day.

Paul Revere's woodcut of the "Massacre" was the "Fahrenheit 9/11" of 1773. That is to say, it was grossly dishonest, portraying Captain Preston ordering an ordered line of evilly-grinning redcoats to blast a volley into a crowd of nattily-dressed innocent Bostonians.

If Marines truly did shoot up civilians in response to an IED attack, then Eddie Skolnik ought to finally get some company. No, I'm not a veteran, so "who am I to judge" and all that -- but neither did I have the unhappy childhood, or whatever, that a lot of garden-variety murderers can claim, and I don't have a problem wanting them hanged even though I haven't walked the proverbial mile in their shoes. Murder is murder, and soldiers are supposed to be more honorable than most, not less. Most are, and the ones that aren't, face the consequences.

What I object to is that WW, John Murtha, and others with axes to grind are embracing the view of disputed facts that reflects most poorly on their country. Why is that, I wonder? It's kind of the reverse of "my country, right or wrong" -- it's "I will believe the worst of my country, until compelling evidence convinces me otherwise."

The enemy in Iraq bases his strategy on fighting a propaganda war. He knows that there are plenty of people in the United States that think this way. The press is lousy with them. Ergo, he organizes his strategy around producing incidents like Haditha, and counts on WW and Co. to buy and propagate his spin on anything that can be spun as an atrocity -- while producing a genuine civilian massacre of his own literally every couple of days, without consequence.

ww,

The Marines in question assert that drone video will exonerate them.

If so who pulled the triggers?

I note none of the news stories speculate that the terrs. might have murdered their own to create an incident. After all they have killed Iraqis by the bushel basket full. What is a couple dozen more?

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

And yes this is totally OT. However, as a Navy man I have to stand up for my Marines. 'Ceptin if we are on opposite sides in a bar fight. LOL.

Semper Fi.

The admittedly akward phrasing of the headline admits the possibility that what was meant is that the alleged Haditha attacks by Marines were unprovoked BY THE VICTIMS, which is essentially what WW and others have argued, I believe.

Thomas, you have no evidence to suggest that WW tends to believe the worst things about America unless compelled otherwise. That is unsupported hyperbole, and is counterproductive.

Regards,
Dave

M. Simon, I'm aware of no reports of officials or investigators saying there exists any reason to suspect the Haditha victims committed suicide or were shot by other Iraqis. Are you? In the absence of such reports, it would be irresponsible for journalists to idly speculate that it "might" have happened.

Regards,
Dave

Yes. There are such reports that hint at the possibility. I will look up the urls and post them in a few minutes.

The Captain of the company said in meetings with town folks nothing was mentioned. He was sure something would have been said if such an event was done by the Marines.

Taken in a vacuum, "unprovoked" could be perfectly innocent. The civilians who were shot did not provoke it.

But this is not a vacuum, this is the real world and the main stream media has lost it's presumption of neutrality long ago. The same people who approved the use of "unprovoked" will not use the word "terrorist" to describe someone who denotates bombs in shopping malls filled with civilians.(IRA & Hamas to give a few non-Iraq examples.) They will not report on atrocities committed by the Iraqi gov't before the war because that might have ignited hatred but they will show photos of prisoner abuse that are over a year old even after the first time they showed them there were riots. These are the same people who, by and large, nodded in consent when one of their peers stood up and announced that the US military was purposely trying to kill members of the media without a single shred of evidence.

Yes, the attack on the civilians by the marines was unprovoked. So, too was the attack ON the marines.

I will consider giving the MSM a chance when I hear the network news speak of "unprovoked" IED attacks on our soldiers and "terrorists" bombing civilian filled marketplaces.

M. Simon,

Fair enough, you may yet produce credible reports from people whose responsibility it is to investigate the matter, that Iraqis were involved. In the meantime, I recall you wrote that, "none of the news stories speculate that the terrs. might have murdered their own to create an incident". Evidently, you will forthwith produce evidence that what you wrote before, is not exactly true.

Regards,
Dave

First things first. Thomas, we were both incorrect about the Boston Massacre. Preston gave no order, either to "Fire!" or "Don't fire!" That came from Pvt. Hugh Montgomery, who told his defense lawyer that he yelled "Fire!" after he was clubbed to the ground by an unruly Bostonian. Which, as anyone who has ever driven in Boston can attest, is utterly believable -- the unruly part, that is.

In any case, three Bostonians died instantly. One died the next day, and six more were wounded. The massacre was absolutely provoked, but it nevertheless went down in history as, "The Boston Massacre."

http://w3t.org/u/qdx

Now, as for facts in dispute, what is NOT in dispute is that U.S. marines killed two dozen unarmed civilians, and that among them were women, at least one infant and one legless old man in a wheelchair. It is also not in dispute that the USMC issued a press release the next day that contained several lies; that the Pentagon lied to Time magazine when it told them on first inquiry that the stories of a massacre were enemy propaganda; that the Marine Corps didn't request a criminal investigation for nearly four months.

I want to believe the worst things about America? No. I want to know the truth, uncolored by what anyone "believes." We already know certain facts. Those who deny them, or who are squirting squid ink into the water in a phony quest for tangential answers that will never be known partly because the USMC slow-rolled the investigation to begin with, are trying to cover up the truth.

Why? That's impossible to say for certain. I can merely speculate as to the reasons, and my speculation would center on two reasons. First, there is an element that simply does not want to hear bad news. Moral cowardice is a chronic human failing. Secondly, I think many people in the military and in the Milbogosphere are afraid that there has been a pattern of actions in Iraq, and in particular at the recent battle of Fallujah but also elsewhere, that would made Haditha look like nothing if it were examined without fear or favor.

As for Murtha, I have yet to see anyone at any of the so-called Milblogs successfully impeach a single thing he has said. Murtha has done absolutely nothing but tell the truth. For that he is fiercely hated by those who, in the words of the whackjob colonel in that movie you all love, "can't handle the truth."

I think if you actually read your history, you'll tend to find that countries that habitually lie to themselves, particularly about their purported greatness or virtue, tend to lose their wars and then collapse completely. Face up to the truth, folks. It ain't easy, but it's what real men do.

WW,

"However, complete evidence will never be forthcoming, because the Marine Corps didn't even start its investigation until four months after the massacre. This has insured that forensic evidence will be unavailble and has given the murderers times to coordinate their lies. The result will be mostly acquittals, and a few wrist-slaps of those who didn't file accurate reports."

Sorry to tell you but this paragraph shows your bias. The 4 months works both ways. Who's lying and why? It is entirely possible that had there been an immediate investigation with good solid evidence that the "alleged murderers" would have been exonerated and it would have been over with. As it is, there will always be a question as to what really happened. The problem with the accusation of massacre is the same as the accusation of rape or child molestation, the accusation is in and of itself a fait accompli. You don't have to prove it, you just have to accuse it. The enemy knows that there will be people like yourself that wants us to lose that will carry the ball for them. It is the perfect psychological weapon because it cannot be effectively blocked. The war will be won or lost by what public opinion in the US is. That is the only thing that is common between this war and Vietnam. The more Abu Grabs or massacres that the enemy can get into the news the better for them. Who cares if it's true because there will always be the fifth column that will believe it because they WANT to believe it. Especially if it makes Bushitler look bad.

As far as what really happened, I do not know, but then again neither do you. I'll wait for the trial before I make a decision. It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Or doesn't that apply when it comes to the military?

Steve in Utah

Reagan,

AP may have an explicit policy of avoiding the word "terrorist"; I vaguely recall something about that. I could understand why they would, if they do, because it's a terribly imprecise word that, IMHO, tends to obscure rather than illuminate. In any event, I suspect, though without a Nexis subscription cannot verify, that AP reported many, though not all, pre-war Iraqi attrocities in real-time. To comment on them again without new developments, as many as 20 years later, would not be news. I suspect in the case of Abu Graib, there were new developments (a year later).

As for the IED, I suppose news outlets could say they're "unprovoked", but perhaps that's redundant. After all, an IED is essentially a mine that more or less randomly kills individual soldiers who typically have done nothing specifically to the insurgents who have planted the IED. In that sense, it is unprovoked, but saying so would add no new information that we do not already know.

Regards,
Dave

WW, your comment: "Since when did this country stomp on decorated war veterans who tell the truth?"

And, my answer is: how did Swiftboating become a verb over on the left?

Having said all I have to say and therefore falling silent in this - I pipe up to ask...

Apropos of nothing else in the discussion and not trying to move the thread...

WW - why "so-called milblogs" vice "milblogs"?

We return this thread to it's original, rambling gait.

Jumping the Gun in Haditha.

Provenance of the Iraqi Reporter on the Spot

A Marine Speaks

Eyewitnesses

I'm still looking for the story I read. More in a while.

evidently I posted too many urls.

You will have to wait until greyhawk moderates.

Steve,

You wrote that you will wait for any trials that occur to be complete, before forming a judgment. Have you considered the possibility that pre-trial investigations are capable of establishing certain facts, which in and of themselves would damage U.S. credibility and undermine the war? For instance, that civilians in Haditha died, that they were unarmed, that some were children and some infirm, that they did not commit suicide, were not killed by debris, and were not killed by other Iraqis. Perhaps even that they were killed by American soldiers? Have you considered the possibility that actual criminal trials may only center on the narrower issues of whether a particular Marine committed a particular set of criminal acts?

I do not claim that these have been establish, but they might be, and if they do it will be useful to discuss them, even before any trials. It will be (or is) a useful opportuntity for American self-evaluation and policy correction, not an orgy of American self-hatred. I'm sorry, but I believe the defense that you will "wait for a trial" is essentially a stalling tactic.

Regards,
Dave

CoREV, I'm not going to take your bait and start off towards grandma's house, the path to which goes over the hills and through the woods. One poster here wants to talk about a corrupt congressman from New Orleans. You want to talk about Swiftboat Veterans for the Truth. If we talk about those things, then we won't talk about the Haditha Massacre. I, for one, don't want to let you or anyone else off the hook that easily.

Steve, your comment is an oh-so-typical example of those who label truthtellers as traitors. As for the delayed (and to my view, in many ways pointless) so-called investigation, the practical realities are these:

1. If you wait four months to start, evidence gets destroyed and stories get coordinated. The Washington Post article whose link I posted above does a very good job of talking about it, quoting both prosecutors and defense attorneys. I don't think any trigger-pullers will be convicted -- or if they are at trial, that the conviction will stand on appeal.

To me, the USMC's delay served to ensure that outcome. Who knows, maybe I'll be wrong about that. Given that the Marine Corps lied about this thing twice already, I'd say the burden of proof is now on them.

2. A delayed investigation that can't actually result in convictions is, in my opinion, a political exercise. It is damage control, aimed at creating an image of the military in search of the truth. Problem is this: No one will believe it. I take that back. The Milbloggers will believe it because you want to. But the Iraqis won't, and the majority of the American public won't.

3. Even if an investigation had started within a day or two as it should have, there would always be anomalies, i.e., unexplainables. Anomalies are part of virtually every criminal investigation ever conducted.

I think the Milblogosphere would have seized on any anomalies to deny the truth. Now that we have a Potemkin investigation conducted as a political exercise, I think sure as day follows night, the Milblogosphere will seize on the many gaps that are sure to be unfillable to deny that a massacre ever happened. Or that it's Hillary Clinton's fault. Who knows?

I'm tellin' ya, countries that can't take the bad news lose their wars. Read history. You'll see what I mean.

My speculation is that the terrs. did it.

The Marines say drone video will exonerate them.

John, I say "so-called Milblogs" because I think the Milblogosphere mainly consists of far-right-wing cranks who use military issues as a means to push their far-right-wing agenda.

The best evidence I can offer is the nearly complete silence from the so-called Milblogs about the horrendous problems in health services for returning veterans. Wouldn't you think that, if these were really "Milblogs," the many problems would get more attention? Nary a peep about it at Mudville, Blackfive or any of the rest. It's all right-wing politics, all the time.

M. Simon, why should anyone heed your speculation that Iraqi "terrorists" killed unarmed Iraqi civilians at Haditha.

WW, you comment w.r.t. the deafening silence among "milbloggers" about insufficient health services for returning veterans, is one of the most astute I've read recently. Kudos.

Regards,
Dave

WW makes a good point. Nations which can't take bad news lose their wars.

Oddly enough, that simple statement is correct from both sides.

1. If, as WW avers, the military can't take/allow bad news, and the leadership all the way to the top suppresses it - we will lose the war. A defensible postion.

2. In the other corner, stand the milbloggers - sans "so-called" - who say the same thing. Except from the perspective that a nation which cannot take the bad news from the front, and yes, the occasional war-crime (suitably dealt with) will lose its wars. A defensible position.

Dave,

As I said I don't know what happened. I don't think there is anyone here that does not want justice to be served. If these guys are guilty they should be punished. But summarily stringing these guys up without hearing their side is vigilantly and does not serve justice. If my desire that justice be properly served is stalling then I'm guilty as charged.

Steve in Utah

John,

Your second point is a good insight, which I would enlarge as follows. A nation which cannot take the bad news from the front, insofar as its citizens no longer believe the war's objectives are worth its costs in blood, treasure, and moral superiority, will lose such wars, if by losing we mean ending them. Perhaps such a nation will conclude such wars are not worth fighting, and have never been.

Regards,
Dave

Jenin Massacre? The Massacre that wasn't?

That's what this smells like, right down to the original reporter on the story who filed a report from the Taliban HQ in Afghansitan after 9/11 about that war-mongerer GWB and how "talking out our differences" with the Taliban "who shared our same values, and were not so different after all" was better than military action (he had a "Thanksgiving Dinner" with them).

More than likely the Marines had enough and ignored the Rules of Engagement and SHOT BACK at the Al Qaeda people there (Haditha was Zarqawi's hangout and Al Qaeda stages executions as a public spectacle there daily) ... regardless if civilians were there or not.

My Grandpa was a Marine on Okinawa (flamethrower). His task was to rappel down cliff-side and flamethrower each cave. Some caves had soldiers wating to ambush Marines; others civilians. He didn't like it. It was war.

When Al Qaeda hides behind civilians as a matter of policy, it's inevitable that Marines will fight back and shoot back even if Civilians are human shields.

THAT's what this is all about. Nothing more.

Steve,

I know of no one who is seriously arguing for punishing the Marines who are alleged to have committed war crimes, without due process.

If you argue for individual and fair justice for the Marines who are--or will be--accused, that is admirable. If you use that argument to stall a wider discussion of immoral acts potentially being conducted in our names, that is not admirable.

Regards,
Dave

Jim,

Your theories about what "actually" happened at Haditha are quite colorful. Do you have any evidence to support them?

Regards,
Dave

Hey WW,
Marines started investigation in January. You won't hear that on MSM. I wish NCIS would hurry up so information will be accurate from the report and Greyhawk can report it the right way.

WW, Dave - speaking only for me (I'm in the tier of milbloggers just below your cited sites)...

I've seen discussions on the paucity and inadequacy of PTSD care.

We've followed the travails of wounded soldiers in the system.

Then, rather than write about it, beat our breasts, and wrap ourselves in smug self-satisfaction for having 'spoken truth to power'... we act. Enough so that it was noticed by the BBC. Chuck Ziegenfuss is a "so-called" milblogger, btw.

We can't fix it all, so we picked something we could fix.

Project Valour-IT

Blackfive, Greyhawk, Smash, Lex, and many others (see Project Valour-IT blogroll at my site) have raised, via our blogs, hundreds of thousands (yes, hundreds of thousands) of dollars for that and other projects which directly benefit the soldiers.

There is a milblog cottage industry on the subject. Soldiers Angels.

We just don't brag about it that much.

And then, just today, I went whacking at Congress (admittedly from the Right, though I'm a RINO, not a card carrying Republican) for their cynical use of the VA laptop theft to propose 1.25 billion, yes, billion, dollars to make the VA provide a service the credit agencies already provide for free. I'll take that 1.25 billion. And put it in the health accounts - like I said - here.

Just sayin'. We might not be talking about it on the blogs because we're *acting* on it.

I'm a retired soldier and a %70 disabled one at that, gents. You betcha we pay attention.

What have you guys done besides bitch in the comments of right-wing bloggers?

Milbloggers take up issues they are concerned with - I've written at length about wounded troops and their recovery.

"the horrendous problems in health services for returning veterans"

As with the "handed their ass" comment I'll have to request additional details. As with the previous comment, I doubt you can deliver.

Really, Tex? Perhaps your news is more up-to-date than mine, but I read this morning that the initial investigation (probably the January one) concluded that the Iraqis had been killed by the IED, and that only when a military official was shown in March by a Times reporter a video which undercut that analysis, only then did a more thorough investigation commence.

Regards,
Dave

John, you're right. And let me answer you. I supported the Iraq War for slightly more than a year. And even since then, believe it or not I continue to donate to charities that help the returning vets and I send care packages through Any Soldier -- along with resolutely non-political greetings, on the theory that the last thing someone over there needs to get is a package full of stuff along with a letter that says, "Oh by the way, I'm against your mission."

Anyway, what caused me to turn against the war was the one-two punch of the U.S. policy of torturing enemy combatants and the revelation that the stated reasons for going in -- WMD and Saddam's links to al-Qaeda -- were lies made up out of whole cloth.

I probably would have handled either one of those by themselves. I wouldn't have been happy about it, but I wouldn't have bailed. But the two together? Nope. And when that stuff came out, I figured we'd lose. You might lie your way into a war and win, but when a country like the U.S. lies it's way in AND openly repudiates its core values, it's over before the first shot's been fired. That's what I figured a couple years ago. The real tragedy, in my book, is how many lives have been lost for absolutely nothing.

The Haditha Massacre itself is bad stuff, but frankly it's the kind of thing that really does happen in wartime. I don't think, at least for the moment, that the U.S. has been following a policy of massacring people in villages. But the actions at Fallujah, and the lack of discpline as indicated by the massacre and subsequent coverup, are deeply worrisome.

I look at this and see not only the initial lie, and not only the torture, but a frustrated, fatigued, overwhelmed, poorly-led and badly-deployed military that is on the verge of spiraling out of control. That's what it looks like from where I sit, and it's scary.

"countries that can't take the bad news lose their wars. Read history. You'll see what I mean."

Case in point: Blackhawk Down - a definite must-read, and much of what brought us to where we are today.

Well, Greyhawk, didn't you read about the marine who saw the infant's brains splatter on his boots? Suffering big-time from PSTD and getting short-shrift from the VA. Plenty of stories out there about returning vets with serious injuries, both physical and mental, not getting the care they need. Your president (sorry, I don't consider him mine) has responded to all this by cutting veterans funding.

What do the Milblogs say about it? Nothin' at all. If you spent one-tenth as much time checking into this stuff as you do tracking down the latest crapola about Cindy Sheehan, I might actually develop some respect for what you're doing.

As it stands now, I see Mudville, Blackfive and the vast majority of the Milblogosphere as shills for the Bush administration in particular and the far-right-wing of the Republican Party in general.

Case in point, "Blackhawk Down." The so-called Milbloggers just can't get enough of that one! 19 people killed. Yup, bad news, no doubt about it. I don't see the Milbloggers peeping at all about the Mother of All Blackhawk Downs, which was the stationing of 250+ marines at the bottom of a hill in Beirut, and the subsequent retreat when they were blown to smithereens.

Oops, wrong president. Like I say, with you it's all right-wing politics, all the time. I'm just waiting for the day I click over to Mudville Gazette and read that the disaster in Iraq is all Hillary's fault.

WW, Dave - my comment on milbloggers and health is in hock waiting Greyhawk's approval because it has urls in it.

Dave -

"Your second point is a good insight, which I would enlarge as follows. A nation which cannot take the bad news from the front, insofar as its citizens no longer believe the war's objectives are worth its costs in blood, treasure, and moral superiority, will lose such wars, if by losing we mean ending them. Perhaps such a nation will conclude such wars are not worth fighting, and have never been."

You state that as a given - obviously, from this side, we find the point arguable.

My personal position on Iraq was that I was not fond of the idea of invading. In that I am at least consistent, because I wasn't fond of Kosovo or Bosnia that much, either - for many of the same reasons. And I got to play in those.

That said - I believe we should follow-through on what we start - and yes, I can hear the intake of breath as you prepare to say "But we aren't winning, we're going to lose, and so leave now and never, ever, ever, do this again. Unless the UN says ok." (alright, the last part was probably an unfair snark)

And I agree with WW that we screwed the pooch from the beginning. And it was the senior leadership around the Presdident (driven by the SecDef) that failed. I've read Cobra II and pretty much concur with much of what is said in there. I wrote so (although not on the blog, but rather in internal papers for the gov't) when asked for opinions on the subject. I do read history. I even have the sobriquet of "military historian" in my Officer's Record Brief and on efficiency reports.

And I help the Army try to figure out this whole transformation thing.

So, I have an informed opinion, too - that differs from yours on where the tipping point is.

That said, what matters is what the people end up thinking - and that agenda is, I believe, largely set by the MSM.

Hence us milbloggers. Lilliputs trying to put out a different story line.

And one a lot less driven by puppetmasters in the Pentagon than you might think.

I've seen the official 'blog training' that the Army published for internal training of combat leaders.

Blackfive, Greyhawk, and my blog are all specifically addressed.

And not always fondly. Though they saved their real ire for Neil Prakash, but that's a different story.

But, according to my server logs and the internal army news digests... they do read us. Just as they read the left blogs. Do we have an impact? I dunno. Which is why I said, in the post in stasis for approval - we act.

We don't just beat our chests in digits and then go to bed knowing we done good. But I'll have to ask you to wait for that post to show up.

Of course, if 'Hawk is too much a slug, I'll just make it a post at my place.

Steve, you say you "don't know what happened" because you don't want to know. There are abundant facts in evidence establishing that marines committed a massacre at Haditha. To hide behind "I don't know" is to signal your unwillingness to hear the truth. We don't need to know the names of the trigger-pullers to know that marines massacred a bunch of civilians in that town. It's beyond dispute that this happened.

Catpain Kimber Speaks

Kimber said he heard nothing about a civilian massacre during city council meetings and talks with local leaders.

"It would have been huge, there would have been no question it would have filtered down to us,” he said. “We reported no significant atmospheric change as a result of that day.”

ww,

Thanks for the set up.

LOL.

"Just a little bit of military history, Greyhawk. You know, if the Bush people had read some military history they wouldn't be in this mess in Iraq."

Posted by WW at June 2, 2006 08:44 PM

As a matter of fact, the evil, incompetent Rumsfeld studied the Algerian War of Independence (1954-1962) pretty thoroughly before launching OIF. His main concern was that we not duplicate the REAL mess that the French made fighting their own protracted Muslim insurgency.

Some statistics: The French had 500,000 troops in Algeria, which at that time had a population of 9 million. If you scale the troop-to-citizen ratio up to match Iraq's population, that would be equal to 1.5 million troops. We currently have about 138,000 in Iraq.

The French lost 18,000 troops killed over an eight-year period, or 2250 a year. Again, if you scale it up to Iraq ratios, it would be 6750 a year. We're losing about 700 a year, and that
figure is falling.

Between 350,000 and 1.5 million Algerians were killed. To scale those figures up to Iraq, multiply them by three. So far in Iraq, about 35,000 have died, including terrorists, former regime members, and civilians killed by the Iraqis themselves.

The French used a policy of collective punishment in Algeria: Villages that harbored insurgents were bombed from the air, assaulted, or hit with artillery strikes. The French also tortured suspects to death, rounded people up by the thousands and shot them without trial, and put about 2 million in concentration camps. And they still lost the war.

With less than 10% of the troops (proportionally) that France had in Algeria, and with a policy not of conquest but of partnership, look what we've accomplished. More importantly, look at the slaughter we've avoided.

I only hope all our future wars go as "badly" as this one.

http://tinyurl.com/q79w4

P.S. The Soviets killed a million Afghans and lost 14,000 of their own, a KIA rate twice what we're suffering. Another REAL mess.

Beirut - another excellent example.

You'll be waiting a long time for the Hillary stuff though - best of my knowledge she - like Joe Lieberman - is despised by the loony left for her support of the war.

John,

I'm sorry if I implied so, but I do not take it as a given that Americans will throw in the towel on Iraq because incidents like Haditha (or as it's alleged to be) destroy their morale. Rather, that they *might* throw in the towel because they *might* conclude the war to be morally repugnant, and if they do they *might* be right, and if they are right, then "losing" such a war is not necessarily a bad thing.

Sometimes, a person, or a nation, may make a mistake (nevermind whether it was an honest mistake, or if it was deliberate calculation...that's another argument). IF this war is a mistake (I say, "IF"), then it is not fortitude, but folly, to continue at it.

Regards,
Dave

P.S. I appreciate the civility of your post.

Just a dumb question. Since the insurgents in Iraq are not military... they must then all be civilians. So then if all being killed are civilians the only question is to differentiate between innocent civilians and enemy civilians.

When one is attacked by an IED and the "civilians" in the area 'all' knew it was about happen are they not 'all' "enemy civilians" then?

By the way, WW
Your decision to go with the "all they'll get is a slap on the hand" schtick might make it difficult for you to switch over to the "only punishing the low ranking troops" rant when the actual trials start.

Actually I mean it will be difficult to take you seriously when you inevitably do.

Tom W., if Rumsfeld had studied history before virtually destroying the U.S. military and this country's standing in the world, he'd have come across the fact that when news of the French torture of enemy combatants reached the home front, the public rebelled against the whole thing. I guess Rummy figured, "Okay, we won't torture them to DEATH or anything."

Well, funny thing about that is the once you start down that road there's no return. In fact, there is abundant evidence in the military's own archives (released to the ACLU through FoIA requests) that "torture to death" is exactly what's been done.

Naturally, no one gives such orders from on high. Bureaucrats are rarely that stupid. I'm not sure that the Nazis even specifically gave printed orders to torture anyone, let alone to death. It's always euphemisms, with all kinds of deniability built in.

Oh, and if Rummy had studied his history, he'd have seen what happened to the Brits in Iraq in the 1920s. At the very least, he'd have had the good sense to tell his commanders not to virtually repeat the speeches the Brits made on their way in.

And so on.

Trust me, Greyhawk, if Clinton gets nominated by the Democrats in '08 you and your fellow far-right-wing Republicans posing as Milbloggers will be hanging the Iraq defeat around her neck. Sure as day follows night, it's gonna happen. What's more, I also predict that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.

Dave - I detest shouting matches and personal attacks. I don't allow 'em at my place. Keeps the readership down, but it keeps the moonbats of both sides away, too.

Jeeze,

We are on to health now. OK. The very largest health problem in Iraq (it dwarfs physical wounds) is PTSD.

The US Army is involved with Israel in studying the problem and coming up with soltions.

A test for PTSD

PTSD and the Endocannabinoid System

BTW I'm somewhat of an amateur strategist and think Iraq is/was a great move. In strategy like real estate the three most important things are location, location, and location. We have Iran surrounded.

Heh. WW - another example for you of a so-called milblogger taking on the torture thing, roundabout, which of course none of us do, aside from publishing the talking points that Don sends us. I've lost readers over my tepid support for torture.

Heh. *That* one posts. Hey, 'Hawk - what's the magic number for "too many urls"?

Oh, wait - that's prolly classified because it's a spam thang.

'hawk, in days gone by, there'd be some officers doing time for something like this. As for trials, the delay in the investigation convinced me that those will go nowhere. Not that there'll be no trials. They'll go through the motions. They might even get a conviction or two, but nothing's going to stick.

But if I'm wrong, then there's the question of officers and their involvement. I have no idea about that. Haven't read anything yet. I'd like to know about the air strikes and how that happened. I'd also like to know whether there's a pattern of the U.S. committing massacres and then calling in air strikes to try to obliterate the evidence.

Now, that's a question that a real investigation could still look into. But I think it's likelier that I will sprout wings and fly to Venus than the U.S. military will seriously look at that question, because if they do that then they're also going to have to take a close look at Fallujah.

Ain't a-gonna happen. When it all comes out in the wash, it's going to be acquittals and wrist-slaps in public, back-slaps in private. And they'll inevitably tell themselves that it's over 'n done with. The Milblogs will bless it and throw holy water on top, and the downward spiral will continue.

WW- check out this post (yeah, another one of mine, this time on Milblogs) regarding "officers swinging from the yardarm". It's the update at the bottom of the post.

Then you can say you've read something about that.

The Army is working on the PTSD problem.

I posted TWO urls on the subject.

I await greyhawks's moderation.

I note that speculation on who did it has died down since I posted the Kimber quote.

Interesting.

Well, John, it's all speculation as to what will happen in whatever trials take place. I went down that road because of the Washington Post story. Why I am so eager to believe bad things, some might ask?

Well gee. They lied their way into Iraq. They made torture standard operating procedure of the U.S. military, and of course lied about it. They've been dangerously incompetent in actually executing the war -- at the leadership level. And they've done nothing but lie about it at every stage.

Call it inductive reasoning. If it happened before, it'll happen again.

http://w3t.org/u/qdy

Let me tell you this: If there's anything that REALLY gets to me here, it's the sheer incompetence. This is the United States of America. We have 300 million people, which means roughly 4 million adult geniuses. Well where the hell are they?

I spoke too soon.

ww,

You are back to speculating that the Marines did it.

What if there was no report because the Marines didn't do it?

Dasher,

I don't think you will convince very many people that because they do not wear uniforms, Iraqi non-civilians cannot be distinguished from civilians, if that is your aim.

M. Simon, why do you find it interesting that the few recent posts have not debated the identify of the bad actors in Haditha? What is it that you find significant about this, and what is it that you have concluded?

Regards,
Dave

I have seen many posts in this comments section which have stated that "what is not in dispute is that US Marines killed 24 innocent Iraqi civilians".

I have been following this story from the beginning, but have not read up on any updates this afternoon. Have I missed a big story somewhere that revealed that we now know for a fact the Marines shot and killed these civilians or are we not still waiting on more evidence and a trial?

Last I heard we had the word of some very sketchy sources (an "Iraqi journalism student" and some pro-insurgency doctor who spent time in an American jail for his ties to the insurgency).

In other words, we have no coraborated evidence that the civilians were shot dead by the Marines.

Also, are there pictures of the dead bodies? Last I read, the families of the dead would not allow the bodies to be exumed for an examination. So are we simply going on the word of a journalism student and an enemy doctor?

And I read a story of a child who was a survivor of the Haditha killings who said she knew about the IED before it was going to go off. Why did she know? Why was she allowed to survive the "massacre"?

M. Simon,

You can call it "speculation" if you like, but there exist news reports that claim military investigators will very shortly conclude that some Marines killed people in Haditha, probably unlawfully. You might assert that these reports are false, but if you supply no evidence, no one should believe you.

Perhaps you think your "Kimber" link is such evidence, but my my lights it does little more than cast a little doubt as to whether this particular Marine was involved as some people think he is. It doesn't suggest Iraqis murdered these people.

Michael, there exists video of the dead bodies, and the bullet wounds are clear, though of course it alone does not demonstrate that Americans caused them. Though few "official" details appear to have been released, news accounts I have read say that investigators will soon conclude that these people were killed unlawfully by Americans. I don't think "we" the public know this for sure (though the investigators may), but we will probably know it for sure, BEFORE any trials have even begun.

Regards,
Dave

Michael,

It's reported at least one young girl survived the "massacre", by her own account because her mother's blood splashed on her and made her appear to the attackers as wounded and maybe dead. If this is the same girl to whom you are referring, this is an explanation for why she was "allowed" to survive.

Regards,
Dave

Thanks, Dave.

Taking that into account then, the Marines are currently innocent until proven guilty and those who keep saying the Marines having killed innocent civilians is not in dispute are wrong.

I find it very disturbing to see a trend in the way things are reported in the media. The Duke rape case (guilty before trial), the William Jefferson case (media gives the excuse that he grew up poor and wanted to be rich, so who could blame him for stealing), the UNC jihadi (media made sure to downplay his Islamic reasons behind his attempted mass murder) and then there was the DC Snipers who were motivated by Islam (yet the media has covered up their "Allah Akbar" drawings from jail).

I have seen many responses to people bringing up these other stories regarding the media treatment of such and the responses have been "what does that have to do with anything?" Well, considering this post was about the media treatment of the Haditha story, bringing up the media treatment of other stories is very apt. It shows how they treat certain groups of people and either defend or condemn/convict based on little facts or evidence, and do not always use the rule "innocent until proven guilty".

In this case, the Marines have been treated with the "guilty until proven more guilty in court" idea. Whereas in the William Jefferson case, the UNC jihadi case and the DC Sniper case, efforts were made to either apologize and defend their actions (Jefferson) or downplay the motivations of such actions (UNC Jihadi & DC Snipers).

What angers me is half-reporting of the facts of a story and jumping to conclusions based on ideology. It does not do justice to either party. As was noted by one milblogger I read on this, all of this leaking in the media and speculating could lead the defense of the Marines to declare a mistrial. IF...IF...they are guilty of the reported crime, it would be a tragedy to allow the guilty to go free based on the disgraceful leaking and trying of this case in the press/media.

Michael in MI is such a typical example of what I've been talking about. No one knows which marines pulled the triggers in Haditha. No one has claimed to know that. But it's a fact that two dozen Iraqi civilians were killed there, including women, at least one infant and a legless old man in a wheelchair. It is also a fact that the killers were marines, and that they acted after an IAD exploded, killing one marine and seriously wounding another.

Who in hell do you think did it, Michael?

So, essentially, WWs point is that no matter what any offical investigation determines, its bound to be a whitewash because these troops are obviously guilty due to the Bush Administrations policies. But he hasn't prejudged them.

M Simon, if marines didn't do it, who do you think did it? And if it was someone other than marines, then why did the U.S. Marine Corps issue a press release the day after the murders that lied about a firefight that never took place, and that attributed the deaths to sharpnel from an exploding IAD?

You really need to get your lies straight, 'cause they're bumping into each other.

I have "prejudged" no individuals. Frankly, it's quite the opposite. I think that, in the end, the Marine Corps will succeed in its effort to cover up who actually pulled the triggers. I don't think we'll ever know for certain.

You know the old saw, "Justice delayed is justice denied?" Well, the Marine Corps took its sweet time -- nearly four months -- before launching a criminal investigation of the massacre. As the Washington Post story to which I've posted a link in a prior message will attest, this makes it unlikely that any convictions will be obtained, much less stick. So, in that sense, the coverup will likely succeed.

But that says nothing about the larger truth, which is that marines massacred a bunch of civilians in the Iraqi town of Haditha. Looks like as least 24 of them, although I don't rely on that precise number. Not when we also know that U.S. air strikes came in and blew up some houses there.

The massacre, and the subsequent cover up, are facts. They stand even if we never can prove to the extent required by U.S. courts, who the killers were. Those who keep writing that I have "prejudged" any individuals are lying. I have done no such thing.

Waaah! Set my comments free, 'Hawk!

It is a fact that the Marines did it? Based on what? Media reports from an Iraqi journalism student and a doctor helping the insurgency? I have not seen a report confirm that the Marines definitely did it. Right now all is speculation. When the report comes out stating in no uncertain terms that the Marines were guilty, THEN we can state it as a FACT, but NOT before.

Smokes Screen alert. Now WW is willfully confusing two different issues.
A:) People are dead, but were they civillians and did US forces kill them?
We have very preliminary reports from differing sources. We have seen incorrect reports (if not flat out fabrications) before, so it behooves us not to jump to judgement untill more information comes out.

But since WW has simply ignored that possibility (BUT HE HASN'T PREJUDGED, MIND YOU!), we skip directly to problem #2
B:) If civillians were killed, were they then killed in violation of the rules of engagement?
No matter how often you mention the enfeebled or the young, we have no evidence yet that they were killed out of the calculated malice of the Marines, rather than being caught in the crossfire during a firefight with insurgents. Only the former of these is a crime. If you didn't allow yourself to be governed by your politics you might see this.

Neither options proves that the Marines in question are innocent of any crime. It is possible that the worst is true and they comitted a crime. But there is hardly an airtight case for that conclusion. Your attempt to impunge the President with the least evidence betrays your bias.

Let's see, Michael. The day after it happened the Marine Corps issued a press release citing 15 deaths there. The USMC said there was a firefight (a lie) and that the deaths were caused by shrapnel (a lie). The susicipicious Iraqi journalism student -- who you've mistaken for someone else, by the way -- took videotape of the dead. The tape, and the report from the doctor, establish that the dead were killed by bullets, not shrapnel.

The people in the village, including children, have offered accounts of marines executing people there. The videotape corroborates it, showing bloodstains inside the houses but no bullet houses on the outside of the houses except for the doors where the marines shot their way inside.

So tell us, Michael: Who did this? Aliens from outer space? Sounds to me that you don't want the truth because you can't handle the truth, to quote a movie you people love so much.

Why are these Iraqis the only source you trust WW?

So there are videos of the Marines shooting their way inside the houses and killing these people in cold blood? You have seen these videos, WW?

Could you please type I-E-D next time? Not that it shows your lack of understanding, or anything...

And, so, there you have it. WW thinks he knows, just knows, that Marines are murderers because the US Marine Corps issued a statement saying they were investigating a claim. But he says the investigation will be a whitewash. Because he knows, simply knows, the Marines in Haditha are murderers.

But he hasn't prejudged them, of course.

Just come out and say you're Anti-American, WW. It will save us all some time.

Comes now Deamon to wonder whether the dead were civilians. Maybe not, Deamon. You know those Iraqi infants. Dangerous as hell. That goes double for legless old men in wheelchairs. Of course, all Iraqi men are terrorists and so are the women. They can't be believed, so let's kill 'em all.

Were civilians killed in violation of the rules of engagement? Maybe not. It could well be that the Marine Corps rules of engagement tell marines to execute babies. God forbid, though, if were to call such a person a baby-killer. That would be biased.

A firefight? That story has already been established as a lie. Yup, Deamon, the U.S. Marine Corps lied. Be still my beatin' heart!

My "attempt to impunge the President?" Please tell me what the word "impunge" means, Deamon. Or did you skip skool that day? Sheesh.

"It could well be that the Marine Corps rules of engagement tell marines to execute babies."

You just lost all credibility with me with this statement, WW and expose your true anti-military bias.

Birkel: Oops, IED. There is something called an IAD that's used in the telecommunications world, which might be the only profession to rival the military when it comes to the proliferation of acronyms. The error is mine.

It's a fact, not my anti-American supposition, that marines committed a massacre at Haditha. Nations that lie to themselves lose wars. You know, like the one the U.S. is currently losing in Iraq? You can't run from the bad news. It will always find you, whether you want it to or not. Real men stand up and look the beast in the eye.

Deamon will explain that he meant to type "impugn" when you admit that you "skipped school" when you typed this:

"The susicipicious Iraqi journalism student..."

I knew you meant suspicious. You knew Deamon meantimpugn. Spare us the stupid cheap shots and stick to the relevant debate.

So we are losing the war effort in Iraq. Granting WW this debateable premise, someone with a better knowledge of military history back me up on this, but has there not been a time in every single war effot where the US has been "losing". In every war effort, including Viet Nam, we turned things around and won militarily. Viet Nam was not a military defeat, it was a cut and run based on a lack of willingness to stay and finish the job. General Giap can attest to that fact.

Michael, you're the one who suggested that the marines were operating according to their rules of engagement. It's a fact that at least one infant was slaughtered that day. You might go to the Los Angeles Times website and read the story about the marine who picked up an infant at the scene, watched its brains fall on his boots and has suffered from PTSD ever since. And who was given short-shrift by the Veterans Administration, something the Milbloggers haven't said squat about because they're interested in very little of anything other than right-wing politics and polishing the Bush administration's propaganda.

Anyway, if they were operating according to the rules of engagement and they killed a baby, then elementary logic would say that the rules of engagement allow for baby-killing. Now, I actually don't think it's true. I think the rules do NOT allow for baby-killing, and therefore the slaughter of the infant is pretty damn close to proof of a massacre. Especially when you combine it with the rest of what we know.

Not speculate, but know. The call for "more evidence" is a dodge from people who want to delay, deny and make excuses. Fool yourselves, but that's all you fool.

"Viet Nam was not a military defeat, it was a cut and run based on a lack of willingness to stay and finish the job. General Giap can attest to that fact."

----------

That must be the same Gen. Giap who boarded a helicopter on the roof of the American Embassy in Saigon and flew away. Some victory.

Lol, Ignore my points and attack my spelling! It is an Ironclad position indeed that you must hold to redirect your rapier wit to my typos. I give up! Your identification of my erroneous typing has lifted the veil from my eyes to wickedness of the Military/Industrial/Bush complex!

I supose had I typed impugn I could have convinced him.

And yet, the question remains. When Iraqi and Military reports conflict, The Military is lying. There is no grey area here, the President and by extension the Military are liars so in the event of conflicting reports the Military MUST be lying. But WW hasn't prejudged!

Dave,

The reports are contradictory.

All I have provided is evidence of the contradictions.

If the evidence shows the Marines did it they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

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

ww 0256AM,

If you have already made up your mind why not just say so. Saves bandwith.

BTW you might want to look at greyhawks latest post. More contradictory evidence.

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

My bit on PTSD is up. Go back in the thread.

Thank you greyhawk.

Simon

"Michael, you're the one who suggested that the marines were operating according to their rules of engagement."

Really? Where? I stated no such thing. You either have me confused with another commentor or are lying.

The only thing I have stated is that we do not know for a fact that the Marines killed the civilians. We have reports from Iraqis that they did, but no confirmation. We have confirmation of bullet holes in the dead bodies and confirmation they are dead. But that is it.

Until the investigation is complete, I'm withholding judgement on the Marines.

IF the investigation shows that 3 Marines went in and executed the civilians while 20 others stood outside and waited and they all covered it up as has been reported, I hope the 3 who reportedly did the killing get the death penalty and the others get life in prison.

BTW Greyhawk's latest shows contradictions among the Iraqis. Now what ww?

[After refreshing and reading what's been posted since I started typing this comment, I'm noticing a significant decline in quality of the discussion. But hope springs eternal, and I'll add my two cents.]

There's one thing about WW's arguments that no one has yet addressed.

WW, you keep saying "The Marine Corps lied. You then use this statement to buttress your belief that any crimes coming out of this investigation will be white-washed because it's supposedly obvious that the Corps covered it all up.

These declarations on your part on founded on very shaky ground. Bear with me, and I'll explain.

For the sake of argument, let's stipulate Marines clearly and intentionally massacred innocents in Haditha and there was a coverup. The problem is, that coverup would have likely occurred at a local level (Battalion-level at the highest). Every general does not investigate the daily activities of each squad; every Public Affairs hack does not call each squad leader for a report of the day's events. Instead, each level of command and reporting (including PA) is dependent on the statements of those below. Thus upper leadership or PA would unknowingly be reporting falsehoods.

There were hints along the way that something was wrong (such as compensation payments that were made despite a report that an IED was at fault instead of the actions of Americans). These hints either weren't followed up on by the BN leadership, or those in higher or other (i.e. Public Affairs) areas didn't put two and two together until Time magazine pointed it out to them.

So please don't paint the Marine Corps as a group having covered something up. It's very hierarchical, and so dependent on the honor and integrity of leadership at EVERY level. One bad link in the chain and the truth can be hidden for at least a little while.

This broad brush of "cover-up" is part of what has so many military men and women furious at how the investigation is being characterized by people like Rep. Murtha (which is another story entirely).

[I apologize for the length of this and the pedantic quality (it's Friday and I've spent the week teaching little children). I'm sure some of the other commenters here could've said this with fewer words and more authority, but I just noticed it hadn't been pointed out...]

The military sent soliders in to pick up a dead baby? Is this before or after the Military Firebombed the village to eliminate the evidence? Because sending more witnesses in dosen't aide in a coverup. And why do you fixate on the dead baby? Its such a heartwrenching image, devoid of any real use in this argument because you have provided no evidence that this child was executed by US Marines. Its entirely possible that the child were killed in a ricochet, or was used as a human shield by an insurgent. Either of these cases are the awful wages of this kind of war, and neither are crimes. Perhaps you could call the Marines in that situation babykillers, but i won't.

I can't say for certain that Marines did or did not execute this baby, and neither can you, unless you have several new links you are hiding somewhere.

And BTW Gen. Diap was a Communist General who waged war against US forces in Vietnam. Even our enemies admit that that war was lost at home, not militarily.

(Sorry for the OT WW, but I didn't want that mistake to pass either)

WW,

Goal number one in OIF was to demolish the army of Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power: Done in a matter of days.

Number 2: Help Iraqi's create a new government, been there done that.

You can only claim we "lost" by redefining the word to mean anything short of utopia. As long as a bomb is going off somewhere in Iraq people in your camp will claim we lost.

If you think about it, that summarizes the mindset of the Left in totality, and why most people just see their ideas as unrealistic and pandering to the lowest common denominator.

FbL, you're right. The discussion did take a downward slope. Let me try to match your effort to bring it back to where it should be. I allowed myself to get down in the mud, and that's rarely a good thing.

First off, from everything I've read I think what happened is that a bunch of marines went crazy after an IAD killed one of their comrades and (at the time) appeared to have killed a second. If you listen to the TV interview of the survivor, one thing that comes through is that both of these people were very well-liked by their fellow marines. Add that to the general tension and it's not hard to imagine people going wild.

As for the issue of a coverup and how broad a brush to use, you do have a point. After all, any organization is made up of individuals doing this or that job. I can understand how the original press release got issued. Had it been corrected, I'd be more than willing to overlook it. But it wasn't corrected. Check the story about that in The New York Times:

http://w3t.org/u/qe6

Excerpt:

A senior Marine general familiar with the investigation, which is being led by Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell of the Army, said in an interview that it had not yet established how high up the chain of command culpability for the killings extended. But he said there were strong suspicions that some officers knew that the Marine squad's version of events had enough holes and discrepancies that it should have been looked into more deeply.

"It's impossible to believe they didn't know," the Marine general said, referring to midlevel and senior officers. "You'd have to know this thing stunk." He was granted anonymity, along with others who described the investigation, because he was not authorized to publicly discuss it.

Of course, if you read the Times story carefully you'll see all kinds of fodder for the excuse-makers of Faux News and the Milblogosphere, who are ever-ready to bless every disaster on the grounds that we can't demand even minimal integrity or competence from Americans or we are unpatriotic.

In any case, I'd be shocked to my socks if the end result of the cover-up end of this winds up being anything other than the usual reprimands, followed by hustling off a colonel here and a general there to a tender embrace of Halliburton or some other cozy sinecure. They protect their own; to think otherwise is naive.

Another angle. When I or someone else says "The Marine Corps ..." in the real world that is shorthand for the people who run the joint, i.e., the ones at the top. Look through what I've written here and do it fairly. Yeah, I want the trigger-pullers identified and punished, but I really save my special vitriol for the leadership, which I think is some of the worst we've ever seen in this country's history.

Massacres happen in wartime. They are ugly, but they happen. But you don't run from the truth, or you shouldn't. What's worse in my book is that there seems to be a pattern, i.e., marines shoot up the joint and kill a bunch of civilians, then call in air strikes to blow up the evidence. Elsewhere, I've seen stuff from troops about how they bring a shovels with them on patrol so if they shoot a civilian they can toss a shovel near the body and claim he was burying an IED.

Put the morality of it aside for the moment, because God knows we don't want to talk about that. So let's be "tough minded," and talk about it in practical terms. To me, it speaks of a lack of discipline. Now, battle-hardened troops on the second and third tours are bound to be less disciplined in certain ways; they're much more likely to say, ah screw it I know what this is, and just shoot 'em. Every account of war that I've ever seen speaks about this phenomenon.

Finally, there's the issue of accountability. Given that I'm posting in the Milbogosphere, which is almost always an extension of the Republican right wing, I can't help but note the "conserative" mantra of personal responsibility. This is constantly being preached at shiftless black people, and at liberals and at just about everyone. Except, well, guess who?

I'm a huge believer in accountability. For all.

Great, Jon! So tell your president to declare victory and bring 'em home. Now.

Hm, isn't there a rule, "don't feed the troll"? But I will break this rule as well.

WW says: Unless the ROE says "baby-killing is allowed" then a dead baby is a clear indication that the ROE was violated.

This is so beyond stupid it is hard to believe WW really believes this.

As a hypothetical, Marine is receiving fire from a house. The house has in it a baby. Marine calls in artillery on the house, killing the terrorist and the baby inside the house. Not being a military lawyer, I would imagine that under most ROE, that attack would be legal. But those ROE would not have said, "baby-killing is allowed"

Like, uh, duh.

Of course now I'm going to keep writing IAD when I mean IED. And the Milbloggers will say I'm a shitball civilian who doesn't know what he's talking about, blah blah blah. Well, stop slaughtering babies and old guys in wheelchairs and I'll use the right acronym. Deal?

Some USMC personnel may very well be guilty as claimed. If so they are criminals and should be punished accordingly. However, most of the negative "information" we hear about this case comes from the NYT and their ilk. Of course, those folks always tell the truth and can be relied upon to get facts straight--just like in the sinking of the USS Maine. Yep, thanks to the newspapers, we all know that the Spanish American War was totally justified.

And W, Gen. Giap was the head of the North Vietnamese Army. In his memoirs, he stated that afer their defeat in the 1968 Tet offensive, the North Vietnamese were seriously considering giving up. Then they saw that the U.S. media and the anti-war faction was seriously undermining our efforts and decided to stick it out.

"Well, stop slaughtering babies and old guys in wheelchairs and I'll use the right acronym."

WW - Just curious, do you spend this much time on Islamic blogs telling them to stop slaughtering innocent civilians, children, babies, old people?

Or are you simply anti-American military?

Sameer, there is no need to pose hypoetheticals. The marines at Haditha were not under fire. The claim of a firefight was a lie. An infant was slaughtered. Its brains spilled out onto the boots of a marine sent into the village later on; he was the subject of a story in The Los Angeles Times that discussed his nightmares, and the VA's relative indifference. At the same time, they bagged a legless old man in a wheelchair. And a bunch of women.

We had a suggestion here that the marines were following their rules of engagement. Well, okay, then it's perfectly reasonable to ask exactly what those rules of engagement allow. Killing babies and old folks in their wheelchairs? If not, then what's this about following the rules of engagement?

Sorry about asking hard questions, but U.S. marines slaughtered two dozen people. Hard questions need to be asked, whether you like it or not. Nations that lie to themselves lose their wars. Real men face the truth.

*throwing hands up in frustration*

BTW, I just realized who "Willy Snout" (referenced in Greyhawk's first comment) is. He's the guy who literally told Greyhawk's youngest to go play in traffic, yes? IIRC, there was also something about "your daddy is a murderer" or such.

Why did I bother?

Also, do you go to Iraqi insurgency blogs, WW, and tell them to stop slaughtering innocent civilians, women, children, old people, etc?

Or are you simply anti-American military?

I think that WW should think about the consequences of a democrat party cut and run policy.

A hell of a lot more innocent women and children will be killed. I teach in a high school with a large Cambodian and Lao population. Come tell them that the US was the evil force in Indochina. Listen to their stories about what happened to their families.

Use Haditha as a My Lai. Cut and run.

Then, count the millions who get butchered by the terrorists that you support. What will happen to the women who voted? Purple finger? Death!

Our troops are dying, now are being convicted without a trial, by the people they are defending.

You should hear what the public school teachers are teaching our children. WW would be a moderate at our school. One teacher posted a Rolling Stone article how the military brainwashes our troops to be conscienceless killers.

I weep for our nation. I weep for the people of Iraq when we stab them in the back after promising them freedom. Ha Ha, just kidding?

Who will ever trust the USA again?

BTW, I just realized who "Willy Snout" (referenced in Greyhawk's first comment) is. He's the guy who literally told Greyhawk's youngest to go play in traffic, yes? IIRC, there was also something about "your daddy is a murderer" or such.

Yes, it's true, I have written some things I probably wish I hadn't. I can't remember writing what you say I wrote, but who knows? In any case, give me credit for this: I least I didn't shoot an infant in the head and then send a marine in to retrieve the body, spilling the brains to spill out onto his boots, leading to PTSD and nightmares.

The young marine called his mother on the telephone, saying the baby could come to him in his dreams. Then he went home and started drinking too much, and got in a vehicle accident, and is now in AA. All of which were given short-shrift by the VA, something the Milblogosphere ignores and will continue to ignore because all they care about is Cindy Sheehan.

I weep for the people of Iraq when we stab them in the back after promising them freedom.

As long as you'll broaden it to "shoot them and their children and their women and their elderly in the head," I think we can agree.

"Who will ever trust the USA again?"

Any war that needs to be fought, any natural disaster from which people need to be rescued, any financial support nations need, who does the world come to first... the USofA.

Only those with anti-American hatred either ignorantly developed or taught through propaganda (as is done in most Middle East countries, most notably Saudi Arabia) do not trust the USofA.

Iraqis were skeptical of US intervention in Iraq at first because we let them down in 1991 after Desert Storm and then cut and run from Mogadishu. However, our extended stay there now to bring a democratic government and security to their country has helped gain their trust, even if they are eager for us to leave and get back to living a "normal" life.

The gist of WWs position remains: The Military is lying about Haditha because the Military is full of liars and I'll believe the worst possible scenario about US Marines because the Marines are Awful People. The NYT said so.

No new evidence of guilt, just a reflexive damnation of all things Iraq at a whiff of impropreity.

Show a picture of a dead baby and point fingers and some people can't surrender fast enough.

Iraqis were skeptical of US intervention in Iraq at first because we let them down in 1991 after Desert Storm and then cut and run from Mogadishu.

You forgot about the one president who stuck 250+ marines at the bottom of a hill in Beirut, and when they were blown to smithereens decided to retreat. Many a terrorist has cited that as the first evidence of American lack of resolve. But that president was Saint Ronald, so he gets a pass.

The gist of WWs position remains: The Military is lying about Haditha because the Military is full of liars and I'll believe the worst possible scenario about US Marines because the Marines are Awful People. The NYT said so.

No, you're intentionally misrepresenting me. My position is that the U.S. military has been lying throughout the Iraq War, and as it concerns Haditha the Marine Corps lied at least twice. Elementary inductive logic will tell you that liars can't be trusted.

Okay, this is against my better judgement, and is probably spitting into the wind. But I'll admit I don't have the self-discipline to resist...

All of which were given short-shrift by the VA, something the Milblogosphere ignores and will continue to ignore because all they care about is Cindy Sheehan.

Go back and read the long post by John of Argghhh. Look for the highlighted word "Valour-IT" and read the rest of the links he supplies. And then check out sablogs.com and search for the term "VA hospital." Just because you are unaware of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And I'll not be commenting again because I find your characterizations of the military members, the milblogs, and spouting of so many falsehoods I can't keep up with them all so deeply offensive that I don't trust myself to comment any longer.

P.S. Not to mention that after educating children all week I don't have the patience to spend my weekends doing it, too.

As far as I know WW, the first I read of Osama finding proof of a lack of American resolve was our pullout from Mogadishu. After that, where al Qaeda was known to be in support of the militants in Mogadishu against our Special Forces, Osama declared the USA to be a "paper tiger". If you can point me to an article showing al Qaeda seeing Beirut as the signal that America was weak in fighting wars, then please pass it along. I'll be glad to change the first instance when Osama and al Qaeda were initially encouraged that they could defeat America.

Bin Laden's own 1996 fatwa against the US talked of Mogadishu.

I have a number of questions about this incident.

One thing it reminded me of was the civilians placed at military targets during the bombing of Baghdad in 1991. Another was the phrase, "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

I'm not inclined to accept anything on the say-so of American media. I've seen too much evidence of their bias, arrogance and willingness to slander and libel our troops.

Such things do occur, but I want more proof than what I've seen so far.

Not that you'll ever keep your word. but the guy who led the attack on the Beirut barracks is the same guy who is now al-Qaeda's #2 man. What message do you think St. Ronald's cut 'n run act sent?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a041883beirutbombings

But don't worry! We know it was all Hillary's fault.

AST, I know, I know. You have to wait until Faux News says it's true. You know, sort of like the American Communist Party would wait for instructions from Moscow back in the 1930s? I mean look, it ain't just the NYT that's been reporting this stuff. And besides, the NYT was right at the front of the line when it came to passing along Bush's lies about WMD and Saddam/al-Qaeda links. Why do you now turn on them?

Read bin Laden's words WW. He specifically pointed to Mogadishu as the highlighting example of American weakness:

"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where - after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order - you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, Aden and Mogadishu."

I don't seem to find Reagan anywhere in his fatwa, but he does mention Clinton. I prefer to take the enemy's word on what they consider the determining factor rather than yours. Beirut is mentioned as an afterthought. Mogadishu and Clinton are specifically mentioned in focus.

Keep in mind also that American forces were sent into Somalia at the behest of the United Nations, after Pakistani "peacekeepers" were massacred by militants. The UN and US forces were sent in there to help the genocide that was taking place. They were sent in to help MUSLIMS.

"And besides, the NYT was right at the front of the line when it came to passing along Bush's lies about WMD and Saddam/al-Qaeda links. Why do you now turn on them?"

Was it not the NYT which ran the OpEd by Joe Wilson who lied about his findings in Africa regarding Saddam's Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium? President Bush's statement was correct, Joe Wilson's trip to Africa confirmed it, then the NYT publishes his OpEd lying about it. That's one of many reasons I consider the NYT to lack credibility and actually outright lie.

"The UN and US forces were sent in there to help the genocide that was taking place."

Just to clarify... that should read:

"...to help STOP the genocide that was taking place."

Actually, ABC News and Newsweek were at the front of the line in 1998-1999 reporting on the links between al Qaeda/Osama and Iraq and Iraq's WMDs.

WW... you have so many "facts" about who did what to whom and when... first, please share the report of the investigation you're reading 'cause the rest of us (and the MSM, of course) would just love to take a peek!

and if you are so certain of everything that went on that day, perhaps you could also share who planted the IED (that's I.E.D.) so we can send the Marines after him.

as for me, here's what I know to be true: US Marines were attacked and one US Marine was killed and one was wounded in Haditha by an IED planted by one or more terrorists; civilians were killed on that day; the civilians MAY have been innocent; US Marines MAY have been involved; terrorists MAY have been involved. But the FACTS -- you know, the who? what? where? when? why? how? -- have yet to be determined.

all the rest is just hyperbole, conjecture, allegations, and wishful thinking on the part of people with an agenda.

Comments like:

"They made torture standard operating procedure of the U.S. military"
"marines massacred a bunch of civilians in that town. It's beyond dispute that this happened."
"I see Mudville, Blackfive and the vast majority of the Milblogosphere as shills for the Bush administration in particular and the far-right-wing of the Republican Party in general."

tell you everything you need to know. This is someone who is obviously anti-military and no evidence of any kind will distract him from his conviction that the Marines are secretly trained to eliminate old men and babies and they just got caught this time. Maybe if he actually knew some military families, WW would not be quite so prejudiced.

This situation reminds me very much of the Duke lacrosse team coverage - inital shocking charges, emerging contradictory stories, presumption of guilt by the media. Knowing what our troops have to go through in honoring our limited terms of engagement when the insurgents are free to use civilians and mosques as cover, puts me squarely in the camp of giving our guys the benefit of the doubt. They are our fellow Americans, after all, and innocent until proven guilty still applies.

Excellent post, inmypajamas.

Michael, all of your blather is a diversion from the issue at hand: U.S. marines committed a massacre at Haditha, and then the Marine Corps covered it up. Now you and the Milblogosphere in general, along with the military itself, it frantically searching for ways to justify it, deny it, excuse it or bury it -- even if this includes vicious personal attacks on people who tell the truth.

Fine 'n dandy I guess, but no one's fooling anyone but themselves. The large majority of the U.S. public has lost confidence in the war, and the overwhelming majority of Iraqis have long since lost confidence. It's over, Michael. The only thing that staying there will do is insure that more American military personnel, and Iraqis, are killed and wounded.

You're a civilian, and so am I. The difference is that I'd rather not see more Americans wasted for nothing. You, on the other hand, appear not to care. For you, politics is everything.

Soldier's Mom, don't run away from facts. People who run away from facts lose wars, like the U.S. is doing in Iraq as we argue.

I have no idea who planted the IED in Iraq. It's a stupid question. I also have no idea which marine(s) massacred the civilians. But the fact of the massacre is beyond dispute, as is the fact that it was perpetrated by marines.

Your labeling facts as conjecture, etc., is a dodge. Again, nations that lie to themselves lose wars. Read your history, or if you can't read then have someone who can read do it out loud to you.

"For you, politics is everything."

Look in the mirror, my friend. Goodnight.

Excellent post, Michael in MI.

attack the reasoning because you have been found out? the bottom line is that you have no facts, ww (sigh).

you claim to "know" for a FACT that the marines massacred civilians. but there is no way that you could know that as a FACT. people have ALLEGED that is what happened, but it has not been established. that there were 24 people killed is a FACT. that it was a massacre by US Marines is one of the following on your part: conjecture, allegation, hyperbole, or wishful thinking because it has not been established as a FACT. only an investigation can establish that. but you jump around claiming all these "facts" about the incident -- as if you know the details of that day...

I do not ignore the facts -- they are what they are ... and there are few at the moment (although you, the MSM and others would have us believe that whatever they say is a fact -- real). I have no opinion one way or the other as to what the facts are. It might be true, but I hope it's not. However, I wouldn't begin to guess or assert that I actually knew who was responsible for the deaths as you do to promote a personal point of view or agenda. I will accept what the FACTS are when the investigations are complete, whatever those FACTS are.

In the meantime, I repeat: all the rest is just hyperbole, conjecture, allegations, and wishful thinking on the part of people with an agenda.

(and as for the IED question... a bit sensitive, aren't you? 'cause lordy, lordy, when they taught sarcasm you must have been absent or out to lunch.)

I sometimes click into these right-wing blogs to see how people try to defend the indefensible. Amazing that there are so many Yanks that make excuses for the massacres. How many times will you need to see stories about soldiers shooting wounded Iraqis in mosques, machine-gunning cars with women and children because they came too close to a checkpoint, bombing houses filled with people because they were in a town that had "terrorist activity" -- how many times until you realise that you're no different to what the Soviets did in Afghanistan during the 1980s?

Let me tell you rightists how you're regarded in Australia, a country where we joke that we're becoming the 51st State? (Actually, with all our states that would be 51 through 56 or 57, depending on how you count the Northern Territory.) Aussies had the greatest respect for the States stemming from World War II, but we now view your country as a horror. It's like a formerly favourite uncle who turned out to be a child molester. This opinion is not just me, mates. It's shared by everyone from ridgy-didge Anglo-Saxon ockers to Greeks who came here after the war to Vietnamese boat people that Australia took in after your other disastrous escapade. It's not France we're talking about here, mates, it's a country so similar to yours. You right-wingers need to get out to see the world a bit more. You're quite widely hated. Perhaps a sense of shame would do you good.

By the way, the person who made the analogy of the Brits in Iraq in the 1920s is correct. You are getting your arses handed to you, and the only question is how long you will suffer before you finally concede defeat. The more you prolong it, the worse your loss will be. The trouble is, it won't stop there. Once you're driven from Iraq and Afghanistan, you will put Iran in a commanding position. The mullahs there will be able to destabilise Saudi Arabia and have control over the world oil supply. There's nothing you can do about it, short of a nuclear attack on Iran. And if the U.S. does that, you'll be more of the world pariah than you already are. Imagine, a country that was the only one to use atomic weapons against humans -- twice! And although you rightists do not give a shite about the opinion of the rest of the world, you depend upon it for your imports and financial security. Your President Cheney (we realise Bush is his puppet) has set the U.S. upon a lose-lose course. You are doomed, seppos. My biggest regret is that when you go down, you will take so many others with you, including my country. However, we're more self-sufficient than you are, and we get on better with the Chinese. Your rash actions have only accelerated their rise as the new global power of the 21st Century.

WW claimed:
One other thing. The definition of a "troll" is anyone who disputes the prevailing opinion on a website full of ideologues.

No, that's the sort of whine used by trolls like WW when they are called on their antics. Have some cheese and crackers. HTH. HAND.

that's ok, bukko... feel better after the little anti-American rant? however, I don't see anyone condoning any wrongful acts that may have been committed... rather I see a measured response that says that people are rushing to judgement before all the facts are known. they may have done it or maybe not. not condoning -- but stressing innocence until proven guilty in a court of law (which isn't in the press).

just don't forget that all this is happening during A WAR... there are far more brutal, senseless and horrific killings of men, women and children every day by the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan than any isolated incidents attributed (rightly or wrongly) to American troops. I don't suppose you're running to THEIR websites decrying THEIR er, "policies", eh??

you're entitled to your opinion... so long as you realize that what might be good for the U.S. and its interests may not be your cup of tea. amazingly, the U.S. is not respinsible for everything that is wrong with the world, and we've come to accept that we're damned when we try to sort things out and damned when we don't... seems the only time everybody loves us is when they want a part of our pocketbook.

those of us that actually think about Ausralia at all are proud to call Australia an ally and friend, whether every one of you agree or not... hell, we don't all agree amongst ourselves either... and just like you and your countrymen, some are right and some are, er, wrong.

we are the greatest nation on Earth, we're just not perfect (yet).

Greyhawk wrote:
By the way, for regular readers here, WW is Willy Snout. (His email address, if you're wondering how I know.)

Are you sure? He's made it through the entire thread without screaming "Jawohl!" and claiming all who disagree with him are doing it.

Bukko, isn't it a bit presumptous to speak for the entire bleeding continent? It makes you look like a complete tosser when you do that, mate.

WW,

You are correct that Beiruit happened during Pres. Reagan's term of office. But your assertion that the current anti-American Islamic Extremism movement was born out of that incident is incorrect. That movement was born in Egypt by unenlightened people that misinterpreted Al'Qutb's assertion that Muslim's must work to modernize the Islamic world while uphold Islamic values. In his work, he states that sometimes armed struggle is neccessary to effect this change. Anti-American sentiment became part of the movement because it was Qutb's disenchantment with Western-culture. (He had a bad experience when visiting Amercian during the Minority Right's movement of the 50's and 60's.) This is really where the current anti-American/Western movement was born. The West, particularily America, failed to understand or react to the movement at that time. It seems we were mired in a "long war" (aka Cold War) and another "insurgent" war. So you are correct that Beruit may have been one of the first volleys in the Islamic Extremist terrorism campaign against America. However, I will contend that Pres. Clinton the vast majority of attacks against America by terrorist occured during his watch. Now mind you, he had plenty of problems to deal with aside from his personal ones, he had to deal with an intelligence and military agencies that were geared towards defeating that long war mentioned. Major transformations started to occur during Cliton's presidency but occured to late to stop the current terrorism campaign. This is not entirely Clinton's fault. He relies on the SECDEF, Dir. Central Intelligence, and JCS to help shape the military. But the simple fact of the matter is, the first volley on American soil occured when the World Trade Center was attacked with a car bomb that failed to blow it up (Bush I). It was after this attack that Islamic Extremist's started cooking up a new attacks to finish their spectacular attack that failed. The destruction of the World Trade Center was planned during Clinton's watch. So if you want to lay blame, let's look at how long Extremists/Terrorists have been around and let's look at the number of Presidency's during that time, and let's apply equal blame. So if you want to claim neutrality in politics, then you need to look at the events from a neutral perspective.

Dave,

I will match my named sources against your unnamed sources.

In any case I think the military MUST go to trial now so that all the evidence properly comes out.

A few days ago I was leaning 80/20 that the Marines did it. At this point I'm 70/30 against. It is looking like a propaganda stunt by the terrs. The fact that they will not allow autopsies on the bodies gives more weight to the against side in my opinion.

ww is convinced that the Marines committed war crimes.

I'm convinced the terrorists committed war crimes.

What are the odds?

And ww wants us to leave Iraq to a bunch of folks whose MO is war crimes? Sweet. Are you on the side of the war criminals ww?

I will believe American policy is war crimes when incidents like Haditha do not get investigated and happen on a daily basis.

There is no doubt that the terrs. policy is war crimes. None at all. Massive and daily.

SpectreCode,

I'd actually go back a little farther. To 1940 when the French colonies sided with Vichy and got filled with German propaganda. The Germans also did a fair job of passing on their crap in Iraq and were active in Iran.

In a sense this war is in part blowback from WW2.

The virulent Jew hatred in the ME is in the main a German legacy. Mein Kampf is still a best seller in the region.

I think this thread is a great example of how Murtha disgraced the Marines. He ought to throw his medals over the fence.

Even I, a defender of the Marines have doubts. I don't have all the evidence. I could be wrong.

And yet come now the mbats in full on shreik mode. Saying we should leave Iraq to a group that is 100% war criminals because our purity is only 99.9%.

This is not rational discourse.

This my friends is insanity. It is siding with war criminals. Well they say a man is known by who he objectively supports.

Some Soldier's Mom 04:59z,

Woo hooo!!

One side's policy is war crimes.
One side punishes war crimes.

One side's policy is torture.
One side punishes torture.

In the words of that great old lefty marching tune: which side are you on?

WW claims that there was no IED when in fact, one Marine was killed and another wounded by a blast during that incident that day. WW has no credibility, period. He is an anti-military hater and shit disturber who is merely parrotting Propaganda at this point. He pretends that he KNOWS what happened in Haditha, when the truth is that none of us who wasn't there knows diddly jack about it. Period. It doesn't matter how many times you post your assertions, WW. You simply don't know. None of us does. But your ideological blindness won't let you admit that. Nice try, but your posts are full of shit.

I conclude that, according to the media, a dead marine is of no importance whatsoever.

Exactly what does constitute a "provocation"?

And yesterday I read that a lawyer for the families of the alleged victims said that no exhumation for forensic examination would be permitted.

Then this episode cannot ever be closed.

Also- a speaker from Human Rights Watch ( or some similar thing) said that he'd watch to see if the Marines were "found innocent."

This is astonishing. Here I thought one had to be "found guilty."

Thus if the exhumation do not occur I guess the Marines have no chance to be "found innocent" and will remain guilty, tried and convicted by the MSM.

Anybody here actually been to Haditha besides me? Hmmm, no big outrage over the 19 fishermen murdered by terrorists at the Haditha soccer stadium last year. Why the big fuss now? Oh yeah, because U.S. Marines are the ones accused.
So, does anyone know for a fact that the houses in the video are at the same location where the IED/firefight took place? What about the fact that the incident took place on 19 Nov, but the video was filmed on the 20th? Muslims do not leave their dead lying about for even that long. In my time there last year with 3/25, there were quite a few structures that were pretty shot up. The TTP is: attack Coalition forces in an area full of civillians, claim atrocity, then stage events for "reporters" at a shot-up "house" NOT WHERE THE ACTUAL EVENT TOOK PLACE. Last May 7th, the insurgents used the hospital there to ambush one of our patrols...medium machine guns in sandbagged positions on the roof and in the windows...followed by an SVBIED, which destroyed a HMMWV, and killed three Marines and a Navy Corpsman. Of course, in the media, we were blamed for bombing a house...the house on the side of the street where the SVBIED truck blew up. Haditha is the kind of place where, in one instance, last March, the insurgents planted an IED, and when we found it and detonated it in place, the "City Fathers" came to us asking payment for damages...because a small waterline was ruptured...but they knew the IED was there all along, AND WHO PLANTED IT. That was what we had to deal with, and the situation has changed, as our replacements went in along with the Iraqi Army, and established a permanant presence in the city...this event happened not long after that occurred. I'm just saying, if you don't know all the facts, don't let the clutch out on your mouth before you put your brain in gear.

FYI
Some quotes courtesy of http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/thisiswar/

"Sergeant Michael McCuster recalled one time when his Marine platoon went into a village [in Vietnam] and gang-raped a woman (the last man to rape her, shot her). He recalled that their sergeant 'took no part in the raid. It was against his morals. So instead of telling his squad not to do it, because they wouldn't listen to him anyway, the sergeant went into another side of the village and just sat and stared bleakly at the ground.'"

—from An Intimate History of Killing, p 200. McCuster's quote is from Vietnam Veterans Against the War, The Winter Soldier Investigation (1972), p 29.

"By the time Calley and men sat down to lunch, they had rounded up and slaughtered around 500 unarmed civilians. Within those few hours, members of Charlie Company had 'fooled around' and laughed as they sodomized and raped women, ripped vaginas open with knives, bayoneted civilians, scalped corpses, and carved "C Company" or the ace of spades onto their chests, slaughtered animals, and torched hooches. Other soldiers had wept openly as they fired on crowds of unresisting old men, women, children, and babies."

—description of the My Lai massacre (16 March 1968). From An Intimate History of Killing, p 160.

Soldier's Mom, it is a saf fact that marines massacred civilians at Haditha. That's not conjecture. How do we know? Both logic and hard evidence. First off, the USMC officially acknowledged that marines were there and that 15 people died. The press release, issued the day after the massacre, attributed the deaths to sharpnel from an IED and said there was a firefight.

There was no firefight; that comes from the Marine Corps, not me. The deaths were not caused by shrapnel, they were caused by bullets. That's established by photographic evidence and a doctor's report. Multiple people in the village say marines shot the victims, and the Marine Corps itself acknowledges that marines were in the village.

If marines didn't kill those people, and shrapnel didn't kill those people, then who or what did? Aliens from Jupiter? I don't think so. Nations that lie to themselves lose wars, just like the U.S. is losing the one in Iraq.

---------

SGT Ted lies. I have not claimed that "there was no IED." Why did you lie, Ted? You know, it occurs to me that maybe the Marine Corps shouldn't have hired Baghdad Bob to write its press releases. SGT Ted would have been just as good.

---------

ssgtcrutch, why "no outrage" about terrorists who murdered 19 fishermen at Haditha? Because, quite frankly, I expect it of them. That's why they are "terrorists." And if marines kill terrorists, not only don't I complain but I say, "Thank you."

Now, let's put aside able-bodies men and women, because as we all know every Iraqi is a terrorist and therefore it's useless to point out their deaths. Instead, let's just concentrate on a legless old man in a wheelchair and those infants. You know, like the one whose brains fell on the one marine's boots and now torture him in his dreams? That baby.

Call me a dreamer, but I don't expect marines to be killing handicapped old men and babies, okay? I do realize that terrible things happen in wars, but when they do I expect that those who do them will face consequences. I don't expect the Marine Corps to lie about it, and then to perpetrate a coverup.

Oh, and ssgtcrutch, there was no firefight. That was a lie. The Marine Corps has acknowledged this. Maybe it's time that you did, too, rather than keep repeating a lie about a firefight.

---------

Wes, I really don't think the details of the My Lai Massacre are relevant here. We know it happened, so what's the point of dredging it back up? Are American fighters capable of committing massacres? Of course they are. The real issue is what happens when such crimes are discovered.

Do we lie about it? Do we let people off the hook? That's what matters. The Marine Corps lied about the Haditha massacre, and we have plenty of so-called "Milbloggers" who continue to lie about it. Nations that lie to themselves lose wars, just like we're losing the one in Iraq.

drjohn, it could also work the other way. Without exhumed bodies to confirm that the baby has bullet wounds made by US bullets, there would be insufficient evidence to convict. You'd have to be able to confirm how the people were killed.

Why no protests and unrest at the time of the incident, if this is so clear-cut and all? Everything else anti-US gets out immediately via the net, why not this? The 24 civilians allegedly included "college students". Like the ones in the cell at Baghdad Technical University?

To this day, all major assertions on this story are unidentified anonymous sources, "highly placed, senior, and in-the-know". We still don't know who these sources are, or if they exist at all.

How about we give the power point briefing on core values and human rights to Zarqawi and the insurgents? They need the refresher course alot more than our guys do.

If there was deliberate killing, let them fry. Until we know, I stand squarely behind the few and the proud.

Actually there is a valid point to be made re: My Lai - but it's that those who would compare this event to that one diminish the horror of My Lai. One result of the events at Haditha will hopefully be prevention of a repeat of an atrocity of that magnitude.

Hey, here's an idea for a fun game: grab a case of beer, go back through the comments - so far there are 178 of 'em - and every time you run across the phrase "Haditha massacre" or a variation thereof, take a drink. In no time at all, WW's comments will begin to make sense to you!

So, "Vet Mom," are you among those who is so afraid of bad news that you're willing to deny the truth and denounce those who tell it? You know: Nations that lie to themselves lose their wars ...

mrj, in fact the village elders went to the USMC base shortly after the incident and protested the massacre. The USMC's first response was to issue a press release full of lies. It took about a month and a half for Time magazine to hear of it, and the USMC next response was to lie to Time.

It took four months for the USMC to request a criminal investigation. If you read the article from The Washington Post whose link I pasted into an earlier message, you'll see that both the prosecution and the defense agree that it will be very difficult to obtain convictions against individual marines because the delay allowed crucial evidence to disappear and killers to coordinate their lies.

I think that's what the Marine Corps wanted all along. Oh, there'll be a big show trial, but in the end there'll be no justice here. The so-called Milblogosphere will go happily along its way, telling itself that there was no massacre and that it was all an invention of left-wingers who hate America.

But few are fooled. A large majority of Americans sees what's true, which is that the Iraq adventure is a dismal failure. The Iraqis have long wanted us to get the hell out of there, and their country progressively slides further and further into chaos.

It's over, mrj. Your president -- I don't consider him mine -- lost us another war. Not Cindy Sheehan, not Hillary Clinton. Your president.

But take heart! Bush's popularity ratings are still (barely) above 50% in the bellwether states of Utah and Idaho. Yup, the Mormons -- and all of their wives -- love him.

http://w3t.org/u/qee

But only barely. 51% in Utah, 52% in Idaho. What are the issues dragging down your president, even there? Immigration and Iraq. The two I's. Hey "Milbloggers," when even the folks in Utah think the war's a bad idea, I'd say it's time to pack them bags and come on home. It's over.

"When you get down to almost 50 percent in Utah, that's the canary-in-the-mine-shaft of all warnings for Republicans," said Kelly Patterson, director of the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young. The walls of Mr. Patterson's office bear a headline from the last time a Democrat won Utah in a presidential race — it was Lyndon B. Johnson, in 1964.

Except for Iraq, my approval rating for Bush on those issues is alot lower than 50%. Alot lower.

But I wouldn't take this one case as an indication that the entire effort will inevitably fail, even if it doesn't result in your notion of justice. It will succeed if everyone recognizes there's no alternative to winning. Don't think that'll happen, though, as too many are hoping for another grand US failure to wallow in for the next twenty years.

You're talking about party politics and red states vs. blue states. I'm talking about the future my children are going to live in. If this fails, "51% in Utah" and Republican votes will be the least of our problems.

Exactly right, mrj. The reason we were attacked on 9/11 was because of the opinion of the Muslim world/al Qaeda that America could not stomach a fight. Our response to 9/11 and then taking the war to Iraq shocked the terrorists who felt we would just roll over after Fallujah. We didn't, however they have repeatedly mentioned Mogadishu and Viet Nam as templates for this war on how to defeat the US. And they are masterfully winning the propaganda war with the willingness of the American media to accomodate them. The only way we can lose is if Viet Nam is repeated. Lack of will to see this through is the only way the Coalition can lose at this point. Just like the North Vietnamese realized they were defeated, but hung on due to the propaganda spewed by the American media to turn the American public against the Viet Nam conflict, the terrorists are banking on the same cooperation of the American Media, International Media and Democrats again to turn an ignorant American public against the war effort. Only this time, Islamism seeks to return the Islamic Caliphate across the entire planet, not just stay in Europe or the Middle East like in Viet Nam when they slaughtered 1 Million+ Cambodians after our pullout. If we pullout of this war, it sends the message to the terrorists that no one, not even the best military in the world, is willing to stand up to them.

And then, it's open season on the West with terror cells and homegrown Islamists as we have seen just in the past week with the arrests in London and Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

They are living among us lying in wait. We need to stay vigilant.

You can learn more about the 19 fisherman and despicable Brit papers here.

The photos are grim but not gruesome.

Thanks for the added coments ww. You have proved beyond a reasonable doubt which side you are on.

mrj,

You will be comforted to know that Congress' rating is about 10 points below Bush's.

Suppose that 1/2 of those who disapprove of Bush want a more vigorous prosecution of the war? Where does that leave the Dems? Hint: not a very good place.

I guess I'm reluctantly in that 1/2 percent. Bush is "my guy" but right now he needs some tough love.

JACI - the press has made excuses for Jefferson fromt he start...

I haven't read any. Could you provide some links because I'm pretty curious about what could excuse having $90,000 in cash in one's fridge.

Thanx.

The enemy knows that there will be people like yourself that wants us to lose that will carry the ball for them.

We lost Iraq in the summer of '03 when Paul Bremer's request for an additional 50,000 troops was turned down.

An Arabic speaking former Israeli officer, who comments on Hugh Hewitt's show from time to time, saw an Arabic language interview of the child who survived. She was saying that she had put her fingers in her ears because she knew the IED was going to explode and make a loud noise.

I'm skeptical of this report because Huge Ego is notorious for having lying whores on his show.

Michael in MI -

Please stop the horseshit about Nam. We effectively lost the war for many reasons, one of which was LBJ's refusal to give Westmoreland an additional 200,000 troops in 1967.

I'm talking about the future my children are going to live in. If this fails, "51% in Utah" and Republican votes will be the least of our problems.

On that, we can agree. I think your president's impending defeat in Iraq is going to cost all of us dearly, including those of us who don't consider him "our" president.

An Arabic speaking former Israeli officer, who comments on Hugh Hewitt's show from time to time, saw an Arabic language interview of the child who survived. She was saying that she had put her fingers in her ears because she knew the IED was going to explode and make a loud noise.

I think I would rather hear from an Arabic speaker other than a "former Israeli officer." After all, I seem to recall that Israel was the source of the phony tape purporting to show Palestinians celebrating the 9/11 attacks. I was home watching CNN when they broadcast it, and my blood boiled. A few days later, I learned it was an Israeli propaganda plant.

And then, of course, there were the Israel-connected neocons who led us down the garden path to the Iraq War, complete with faked WMD "evidence" and phony "connections" between al-Qaeda and Saddam.

I've been a much more skeptical consumer of pro-war propaganda since then.

They are living among us lying in wait. We need to stay vigilant.

And poisoning our precious bodily fluids no doubt! Right, Gen. Ripper?

WW, Hey bud, go back to your Dixie Dance Queens, with your sweeping generalizations. I knew and was befriended by several Iraqi civillians during my tour last year. As Marines, we do our absolute best, often at the risk of our own lives to avoid civillian casualties, not just merely equating all Iraqis with insurgents. In fact, over 90% of the terrorists we eliminated (like that term? pretty cold, huh) were from SYRIA! Your welcome.

ssgtcrutch, then you of all people should be maddest of all about the Haditha Massacre, because it has undone a whole lot of your work.

Quote: "ssgtcrutch, then you of all people should be maddest of all about the Haditha Massacre, because it has undone a whole lot of your work."

How quickly you change your tune WW, only on thread up you write:

Quote:
"*IF* the Haditha story turns out to be true, the point needs to be driven home that this is not a reflection of military orders or a reflection of the actions of the military troops as a whole.

How do you know that? What if the Haditha massacre proceeded like dozens before it? "

Ever get tired moving those goal posts?

Steve J - The LA Times wrote an article saying we could not fault William Jefferson for the $900,000 he stole because he grew up poor.

Please stop the horseshit about Nam. We effectively lost the war for many reasons, one of which was LBJ's refusal to give Westmoreland an additional 200,000 troops in 1967.

Another of which was the media lying about the military successes in Viet Nam, as North Vietnamese General Giap admitted in his memoirs. Another was John Kerry's Winter Soldier smear as well as John Kerry's smear in front of Congress in 1971. Had the war been reported correctly and the anti-war movement not turned on the effort, things may have been different.

Yes, there were many reasons, but when the enemy has a picture of John Kerry up in their museum as a tribute to him helping them win the war, I consider the anti-war movement a big reason for that loss. Call it whatever you want, but the military today knows full well how much it means to have the support of civilians back home. Propaganda can cause the loss of a war as much as military losses on the battlefield.

WW - Have you been following the news this weekend about the Islamists busted in Toronto and London? In Toronto, they had 3 TONS of chemical weapons. They were training in a terrorist training camp north of Toronto. You can ignore the threat of Islam all you like and focus your hatred on the military. Just be thankful that better men than you are protecting you from this evil so you have the freedom to denigrate them in an online forum from the comfort of your home.

"Propaganda can cause the loss of a war as much as military losses on the battlefield."

Mogadishu is an example of this.

WW - Have you been following the news this weekend about the Islamists busted in Toronto and London?

Yeah, I noticed that one. Looks to me like the Canadians know what they're doing, as opposed to the Bush administration, which is on its way to spending a trillion dollars and thousands of lives to lose a war in a country without an army or a significant outside supplier.

"...to lose a war..."

"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

That said, I guess you would like us to pullout of the Middle East and wait for them to come here and count on our security forces to foil every single terrorist plot on American soil. Good plan. 1993, 9/11, 3/11 in Madrid, 7/7 in London prove that doesn't always work.

By the way, those Canadians who know what they're doing have military in Afghanistan as well. They know they have to take the fight to the enemy and not count on catching all the terrorists who infiltrate at home. Prevention is better than a cure.

Michael, your brain-damaged president attacked the wrong country. Most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, but he bombed Iraq instead. Imagine if, after Pearl Harbor, FDR had decided to attack Korea.

It would have been dumb, but on the other hand we can probably say this: He would have won. Putting politics aside for a nanosecond, don't you find it just a bit troubling that the United States is losing a war in a country of 25 million battle-weary people who lack an army or a significant outside supplier?

Tell me, and be honest if you possibly can be: If Gore were president and the very same events had occurred, would you be so, uh, "patriotic?" Somehow I doubt it, but I'm sure you'll have some snappy retort.

And I don't imagine that our enemies would call the pullout you demand a victory, WW. Do you?

"Imagine if, after Pearl Harbor, FDR had decided to attack Korea."

I seem to recall that he decided to attack Germany, not Japan.

That said, President Bush made the decision that most of the Senate, save Howard Dean, told him to make: Go get Saddam, he is the next part of the War on Terror, because of his links to Osama and al Qaeda.

It would also behoove you to read this for an accurate account of history.

Any position that Opposes Bush, WW, even if you have to side with terrorists and tyrants. When I say you are governed by your emotions and your biases, I'll Cite this everytime.

Finally, because its late, I'll have to point out that by your reasoning we have yet to resolve the Second World War. When Will FDR Bring our boys home from Germany? Its not as though they wanted us there, either.

"...attacked the wrong country. Most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, but he bombed Iraq instead."

I thought the leftist talking point was that we were supposed to attack Afghanistan and stay there until we found Osama bin Laden. Now, we shouldn't have attacked Afghanistan, we should have bombed Saudi Arabia? Maybe we should have bombed California since a Taliban fighter who trained in Afghanistan was originally from California. And we should have bombed Jordan since Zarqawi came from Jordan.

I really don't think that there is a way to explain to someone that winning in Iraq matters to us if they don't already see it. That we long ago "lost" there is a matter of faith with many and losing holds no penalty for us, in their minds, because winning holds no benifit. It doesn't matter how illogical this is.

Losing would mean horrible slaughter and extended future tyranny. And this wouldn't be *bad* for the West? Yet at the same time, our actions can "create" more terrorists... who wouldn't exist if we didn't "create" them?

The only thing that will guarantee the creation of yet more terrorists and another generation of terror is if we *lose* the battle to pull the middle east, kicking and screaming, into the modern world.

Another was John Kerry's Winter Soldier smear as well as John Kerry's smear in front of Congress in 1971.

It wasn't a smear. Even Tommy Franks, who was also in Vietnam, backs Kerry up.

From the Sean Hannity Show, 8/03/04

HANNITY: What does that mean to you?
FRANKS (continuing directly): I think we had a lot of problems in Vietnam. One
was the lack of leadership of young people like in-in John Kerry's position. He
was a young officer over there, and I'm not sure that, that activities like
that didn't take place. In fact, quite the contrary. I'm sure that they did.
HANNITY: I mean, raped, murdered, all these things. But he never told
names. Does that anger you? I mean, this is the guy now that is the leading
candidate for the Democrats.
FRANKS (continuing directly): I don't know. I think Vietnam was-I think
Vietnam was a bad time. I think that what I've learned in my life, Sean, is that
it's a heck of a lot easier to protest than it is to step up and take responsibility
for the actions of a unit or for-or for your own actions. And so, I don't-I don't
like what I saw. But at the same time, I wouldn't say that-the things that
Senator Kerry said are undeniable about activities in Vietnam. I think
that things didn't go right in, in Vietnam.

the enemy has a picture of John Kerry up in their museum as a tribute to him helping them win the war

YOU are a liar. The picture comes from a visit made in 1993 that Kerry lead to investigate POW/MIA issues. Even that troglodyte Jesse Helms said Kerry did a good job.

The LA Times wrote an article saying we could not fault William Jefferson for the $900,000 he stole because he grew up poor.

I read the article and once again YOU are lying.

I seem to recall that he decided to attack Germany, not Japan.

I seem to recall that FDR attacked BOTH. You seem to forget that Germany declared war on us on
December 11th.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/germany-declares.htm

WW posits a historical metaphor:
Michael, your brain-damaged president attacked the wrong country. Most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, but he bombed Iraq instead. Imagine if, after Pearl Harbor, FDR had decided to attack Korea.

...which was under Japanese control at the time.

Another War Crime.

Steve J.,

As I understand it at the time this issue came up there were several Kerry pictures in the museum.

One from the 70s was there. Now what did Kerry do in the 70s that was so memorable? Let me think.

I think Tommy Franks was refering in a gentle way to Kerry's admission of personally having committed war crimes. Like the time he killed the family in a sampan.

ww,

There are two wars. The one on the ground which we are winning. And the one in your mind which we are losing (thanks to the news sources you patronize).

Of course when our enemies pull school children off of busses and kill them to you that is proof they are winning. And as a kind and humble humanitarian you wish to leave Iraq in their gentle hands.

Sweet.

"I seem to recall that FDR attacked BOTH. You seem to forget that Germany declared war on us on December 11th."

The point was that after we were attacked by Japan, the first country we attacked was Germany. We did not engage Japan until after we engaged Germany. And Germany never attacked us.

I suggest you read up on Greyhawk's "A Brief History of a Long War" series to understand why it was correct to take the War on Terror to Iraq. Or just go back and research quotes from Democrats or quotes from newspapers from January 2001 who were all calling for President Bush to take care of Saddam and Iraq.

"YOU are a liar. The picture comes from a visit made in 1993 that Kerry lead to investigate POW/MIA issues.

"The critical issue is that the Vietnamese communists have chosen to honor Senator Kerry in their War Crimes Museum for his assistance in helping them achieve victory over the United States. The sign outside the entrance to the room where Kerry's photo is displayed reads: "The World Supports Vietnam in its Resistance." Also exhibited inside the room are protest banners and emblems from various nations and photographs of international leaders who supported North Vietnam's cause."

"It wasn't a smear. Even Tommy Franks, who was also in Vietnam, backs Kerry up."

John Kerry left America with the impression that every soldier in Viet Nam was committing war crimes, not just a few. That is why most of the Viet Nam Vets returned home to be called "babykillers". That is a smear. Saying an entire group of people are guilty of something, based on the actions of a few. Not every soldier in Viet Nam committed war crimes, but John Kerry implied that they did.

And the "Winter Soldier investigation" has already been exposed as a huge fraud and lie. So, I would call those two things smears, yes.

As I understand it at the time this issue came up there were several Kerry pictures in the museum.

You are mistaken. The smears about Kerry were done by despicable, evil men.

John Kerry left America with the impression that every soldier in Viet Nam was committing war crimes, not just a few.

No he didn't. Kerry's testimony didn't make much impression at the time.

"You are mistaken. The smears about Kerry were done by despicable, evil men."

You are mistaken, Steve J. The picture of Kerry's 1993 visit is up in the museum dedicated to those who helped Communist North Vietnam win the Viet Nam war. That is a fact, not a smear.

GreyHawk,

"Now pardon me as I slip into military jargon, but even though dipstick may have had that "unprovoked" quote falsely attributed to him by a reporter with an agenda, do you suppose if someone rammed a size-14 combat boot straight up his ass it would be called "unprovoked"?"

You wear size 14s? Dude, can I borrow them to water ski?

Man, the **** you stir up in here! You think WW has a job? Or is he just a 7 yr college student who hasn't had to produce anything other than pizza box trash and 1960s/70s propaganda videos? Ole Willy is sure fired up in here. Throw some gasoline on him and see if he spontaeously combusts! But stand back. You wouldn't want him to spit on you.

Subsunk

MICHAEL -

This is from the Shifty Vet whores site:

Photograph of John Kerry meeting with Comrade Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, in Vietnam, July 15-18, 1993. Photo taken in the War Remnants Museum (formerly the "War Crimes Museum") in Saigon in May 2004.

.

And Germany never attacked us.

Wrong again.

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2timeline/reubenjames.html

Right, Steve J, you just proved my point. The picture exists in the War Crimes Museum, which honors those who supported Communist Vietnam in the Viet Nam War. Thanks for supporting my point.

"The smears about Kerry were done by despicable, evil men."

"This is from the Shifty Vet whores site:"

I guess if someone disagrees with your politics, Steve J, they are despicable, evil whores. Very nice.

MICHAEL - We struck back at Japan before we attacked Germany:

Feb. 25, 1942 - Lexington tried to raid Rabaul, but driven off

Halsey and Enterprise raided Wake, Marcus Islands
some success, but minimal damage

Nov. 8, 1942 - TORCH landings began at 3 points:

Casablanca = 35000 US troops from US under Geoge Patton
Oran = 39000 US troops from England under Lloyd Fredendall
Algiers = 33000 US and Brit under Ryder

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2timeline/Europe01c.html

M Simon, please find the spot where I have ever described anyone in Iraq as "gentle humanitarians." Not them, not us, not anyone. Iraq is a classic tar baby.

No one in Iraq is a gentle humanitarian, WW? Not even these people?

MICHAEL -

WorldNut Daily is NOT a source.

I guess if someone disagrees with your politics, Steve J, they are despicable, evil whores.

You guess wrong but that's not surprising given your appalling ignorance.

The picture exists in the War Crimes Museum

That's NOT what the museum is called today.

The picture of Kerry's 1993 visit is up in the museum dedicated to those who helped Communist North Vietnam win the Viet Nam war.

That is a LIE.

"That's NOT what the museum is called today."

If you want to ignore the fact that the picture was put up in a museum dedicated to those who helped Communist Vietnam win the Viet Nam War, then fine. There's nothing I can do to convince you.

MICHAEL -

I repeat, WorldNut Daily is not a SOURCE.

WinterSoldier.com is not WorldNetDaily.

MICHAEL -

The picture is hanging on a wall in a section that commemorates renewed diplomatic efforts since the Vietnam War. The plaque does not mention Kerry by name. It says - "Mr. Do Muoi, Secretary General of the Vietnamese Communist Party met with Congressman and Veterans Delegation in Vietnam (July 15-18, 1993)." The photo was taken in 1993 when Kerry was in Vietnam as part of a delegation sent by President Clinton.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Vietnam_Veterans_For_Truth

Steve - changing the name but not the contents of a museum doesn't really change much. Ever heard the expression about the leopard and his spots?

I call BS on your having read the LA Times puff piece about Jefferson. It is an obvious attempt to redeem the irredeemable.

EVERYTHING except your OPINION is just a LIE anyway. Try taking your fingers out of your ears for one second.

Steve J - For the last time, the picture was originally put up in the museum dedicated to supporters of Communist North Vietnam. During the 2004 Presidential election, when people found out about it, the museum took down the picture because they didn't want to influence the election. Read the link to wintersoldier.com that I provided for the entire history.

And I also encourage you to read Greyhawk's "A Brief History of a Long War" series for the historical context of the War on Terror focusing on Iraq.

New York "Sun," August 16, 2004
http://mailgate.supereva.com/rec/rec.outdoors.rv-travel/msg189891.html

KERRY’S PHOTO RAISES EYEBROWS IN MUSEUM IN HO CHI MINH CITY

‘It’s Kerry,’ Exclaims a French Tourist

By JOSH GERSTEIN Staff Reporter of the Sun

HO CHI MINH CITY, Vietnam --
The picture of the senator hangs among a set of photos devoted to the restoration of diplomatic relations between America and Vietnam in the 1990s.

It was apparently taken as Mr. Kerry took part in a delegation President Clinton sent to Hanoi in 1993. Other photos nearby show visits
during that period by former American officials who played key roles in the Vietnam War, including a Navy admiral who has since died, Elmo Zumwalt, and a defense secretary, Robert McNamara. A secretary of state during Mr. Clinton’s term, Warren Christopher, is also shown meeting Vietnamese officials.

the picture was originally put up in the museum dedicated to supporters of Communist North Vietnam.

That is a LIE.

ww first I'd heard that the 9/11 tapes of Stupidstinians celebrating was a plant. Any evidence?

I do know of news reports that said Arafat gave orders that no celebrations would be allowed. Now why would he have to give such an order?

Steve J. at June 4, 2006 09:45 AM,

We were in an undeclared war with Germany since at least the summer of '41. Reuben James ring a bell?

M. Simon - Thanks for that. I will concede the point that we were technically at war with Germany since they technically attacked the US via their sinking of the USS Reuben James prior to Pearl Harbor.

Steve J. at June 4, 2006 03:32 PM,

So then do you think Kerry's smears of our troops made him an evil despicable man?

Steve J. at June 4, 2006 03:33 PM,

Were you even alive then? Kerry's testimony made a big impression. He got a bunch of Senators to listen. It was "proof" for the anti-war side. I can state this from personal experience. It moved me to the anti-war side.

ww,

If you don't intend to leave Iraq to the tender mercies of the head choppers what is your plan? Other than leaving Iraq to the tender mercies of the head choppers?

We were in an undeclared war with Germany since at least the summer of '41. Reuben James ring a bell?

Dear Moron, I linked to that.

Children, children! This thread is about Greyhawk's belief that the marines were provoked into massacring all those civilians and therefore it's kinda sorta okay. Back to the topic, okay?

So then do you think Kerry's smears of our troops made him an evil despicable man?

Tommy Franks said Kerry told the truth.

Tommy Franks agreed with John Kerry that bad things happened in Viet Nam. Tommy Franks did not agree that all military members in Viet Nam were war criminals as John Kerry implied.

"This thread is about Greyhawk's belief that the marines were provoked into massacring all those civilians and therefore it's kinda sorta okay."

The thread is about the media coverage considering the U.S. Marines are guilty before all facts are out and deliberately distorting the facts to condemn the Marines.

Steve J,

Kerry said such incidents were wide spread and policy from the top of the chain of command that would be Johnson and Nixon. That was a smear.

In addition you might at least note that the Cong committed at least 10X and maybe 100x the war crimes our troops comitted. It was their MO. Terror to keep the peasants in line.

Sound familiar?

MICHAEL -

Kerry did not imply that. BTW, Kerry testified in April, 1971. In the preceding March,

March 1971 - Opinion polls indicate Nixon's approval rating among Americans has dropped to 50 percent, while approval of his Vietnam strategy has slipped to just 34 percent. Half of all Americans polled believe the war in Vietnam to be "morally wrong."

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1969.html

Kerry said such incidents were wide spread and policy from the top of the chain of command that would be Johnson and Nixon. That was a smear.

No it wasn't. We all saw U.S. soldiers burn down South Vietnamese villages.

"We all saw U.S. soldiers burn down South Vietnamese villages."

All U.S. soldiers did that? And they all were given that order to do so from Johnson and Nixon?

Unless all U.S. soldiers were doing that and they received the orders to do so from Johnson and Nixon, it is a smear.

"Opinion polls indicate Nixon's approval rating among Americans has dropped to 50 percent, while approval of his Vietnam strategy has slipped to just 34 percent."

Hmm, I wonder why. Part of that was the media not reporting the truth about the military successes that were achieved. The Tet Offensive was called a military disaster for Americans, yet, in fact, it was a military disaster for the North Vietnamese. Some simple reporting of the truth on the ground may have swayed public opinion.

MICHAEL -

Kerry did NOT say "all" soldiers nor did he imply that. Kerry specifically targeted the civilian leadership:

"We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric, and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war."

Part of that was the media not reporting the truth about the military successes that were achieved.

That horse died in 1967.

The Tet Offensive victory for the American forces was in 1968, which the media lied about.

Our "victory" in Tet did not stop N. Vietnam.

Steve J.,

The North was ready to negotiate in '68 until they read the American newspaper reporrts. You could use an education. Read Giap.

Steve J.,

I'm not a moron. Just a Maroon, as in Omaha Central and University of Chicago.

Sorry I missed the link first time around.

Boy you are touchy about your history. A weakness perhaps?

Steve J. at June 4, 2006 05:20 PM,

Was it policy? And if so was it done after the villagers were moved in order to deny the enemy the use of the village?

These questions you fail to answer.

My understanding of the war has come a long way since the 60s. How about yours? BTW what is your opinion of the boat people, the communist re-ed camps, the killing of about 100,000 by the communists post war?

John Kerry said the North only planned to murder about 3,000. Looks like things must have got away from them.

The thread is about the media coverage considering the U.S. Marines are guilty before all facts are out

We don't know which marines are guilty and I don't think we ever will know for certain, given the Marine Corps having delayed the criminal investigation. But enough facts have emerged to say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that marines committed a massacre at Haditha.

Those who demand "all the facts" before accepting that truth, or who, like Greyhawk, raise a "provocation" issue that is tangential at best and phony at worst, are, in my opinion, engaging in denial of what happened and hopes of being able to justify it and/or pin the blame on someone else.

Who do the so-called "Milbloggers" want to blame it on? The victims, including the women, the infant whose brains wound up on the boots of the marine who is now tortured in his dreams and the legless old man in a wheelchair -- slaughtered like animals by United States marines.

Or maybe Hillary Clinton. Or maybe Cindy Sheehan. Or maybe aliens from outer space. Anyone but who did it.

As for Vietnam, I find it both interesting and depressing that the Milblogosphere is filled with backward-looking arguments over the Vietnam War. To a very great extent, these arguments at least as conducted by the "Milbloggers," are as irrelevant as the slogans chanted by Cindy Sheehan and her cohorts.

Those who oppose the Iraq War -- the significant majority of Americans -- are not "hippies" who hate their country, blah blah blah. I live in Seattle, a place where the Iraq War is about as welcome as a garden slug on the living room carpet. Aside from a couple dozen airheads who show up at this or that recruiting office, the caricatures you people paint are laughable.

You want to know what the real "problem" is with respect to public attitudes toward the troops? It's indifference on both sides of the issue. War supporters think they can slap a yellow ribbon on their S.U.V. and be a patriot. War opponents have largely thrown up their hands and checked out of the debate.

So what happens? The dead 'n wounded come back literally in the middle of the night and are ignored. By everyone. That's today's reality, and no one dicusses it. The Milblogosphere is a leisure-time annex of the Republican right wing, so no one there is going to raise so much as a peep about the piss-poor performance of the VA, and the opponents of the war have largely determined that the troops are volunteers and therefore are getting what they wished for.

Now -- does that sound like Vietnam War politics to you? I'm old enough to remember that happy like debacle, and I'm here to tell you that it's night and day. So why not talk about reality for a change? Nations that divorce themselves from reality lose their wars, and eventually everything else.

ww,

What I'm trying to prevent is a divorce from realitty similar to what happened in 'Nam.

As for support for the troops - can't get much closer than I am. I'm one of the troops. Or was in the day when lefties spit on the troops. Something I could never have done back then even thought I was on the left. I had a lot of vet friends back then. Even those who hated the war could not spit on their own.

I see the same dynamic coming from you ww that I was part of from '66 to '75. Never again from me. I learned my lesson. For the sake of the Iraqis if for no other reason we must stay until the jihadis give up. However long it takes.

BTW you will note that during WW2 the right was anti-war and during the Civil War it was the Copperhead Democrats.

This is more about ins vs outs than the rightness of the war.

Once we have a Dem President the war will be more bi-partisan.

You will note that WW2 was called by some Republicans a war for the Jews. Now some Democrats are the leaders in that meme.

Seems like the Jews can't catch a break no matter the party in office.

You are seeing what you want to see. You are viewing today's events through old glasses. I'm a big fan of history and think it's essential, but history is something to learn from rather to be trapped by. Yes, there some striking parallels with Vietnam: WMD 'n Saddam/al-Qaeda = Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The U.S. military trapped in a civil war. Sharp differences of domestic opinion with little cross talk.

But there are big differences. Nobody these days, and I do mean nobody, is stomping on the troops themselves. Not even the dodos who are picketing recruiting offices. No one is insulting returning veterans. Use me as an example if you'd like. I am vigorously against the Iraq War, but when I was in the Seattle airport two weeks ago I saw a guy in uniform waiting for his bags, approached him and said the following: "Excuse me. I just wanted to thank you for your willingness to put yourself in harm's way."

Now tell me, does that sound like what happened during the Vietnam War? At it concerns Haditha, I have saved my real scorn for those who deny that it happened and those who covered it up. I don't want the marines themselves let off the hook, but you go through all of my comments here and see if you can find anything close to a blanket denunciation of the Marine Corps.

You won't. What you will find is bitter denunciations of the coverup, of military leadership, of the Bush administration and of the so-called "Milblogosphere" for its willingness to lie about every single thing at every single turn.

Oh, as for being in the opposition = being antiwar, that's a very simplistic reading of it. The Vietnam War has broad public support until the mid-60s, and then it declined. One Republican, Jeanette Rankin of I believe Montana, voted against entry into WW2 and was defeated in the next election. As a Democrat, I have supported every single deployment since Vietnam, including the Iraq War. I only turned against the Iraq War when the WMD lies were exposed and the torture was exposed.

The public mood is very different from Vietnam. There are reasons for that. Unlike the Bush admininistration and its knee-jerk "Milblog" megaphone, most of the public learned some lessons out of that one, the most obvious being that you don't blame individual troops for the policy that they have no choice but to carry out.

Additionally, there is nothing like the baby boomer youth culture of the '60s, which would have produced social tensions whether or not there was a war. There's no civil rights movement, and no riots in the inner cities. And there's no draft. All of those things make the public debate a very different animal, yet the so-called "Milblogosphere" acts as if this is 1971.

And what about the indifference? That, to me, is the elephant in the living room and it is most striking on the pro-war side. The "Milbogosphere" teems with right-wing nutscratchers bitching about non-existent hippies and commies, but there is barely a word about the very real problems facing returning veterans. And not a peep about George W. Bush's failure to attend a single militart funeral. Not a one.

What's the matter, "Milbloggers?" Did the Republican Party tell you to shut up about those things?

Or was in the day when lefties spit on the troops.

Another wingnut playing the Victim Card. There was no spitting!

Drooling on the Vietnam Vets
Jack Shafer
Posted Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 4:49 AM PT
http://slate.msn.com/id/1005224/
Jerry Lembcke argues that the story is bunk in his 1998 book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam (click here to buy it). Lembcke, a professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam vet,
investigated hundreds of news accounts of antiwar activists spitting on vets. But every time he pushed for more evidence or corroboration from a witness, the story collapsed--the actual person who was spat on turned out to be a friend of a friend. Or somebody's uncle. He writes that he never met anybody who convinced him that any such clash took place.
Lembcke uncovered a whole lot of spitting from the war years, but the published accounts always put the antiwar protester on the receiving side of a blast from a pro-Vietnam counterprotester. Surely, he contends, the news pages would have given equal treatment to a story about serviceman getting the treatment. Then why no stories in the
newspaper morgues, he asks?

The North was ready to negotiate in '68 until they read the American newspaper reporrts. You could use an education. Read Giap.

LMFAO!!!! The idiots stick to their memes.

The North KNEW in 1967 that they would win:

Copyright Dow Jones & Company Inc Aug 3, 1995
How North Vietnam won the war
Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition).
New York, N.Y.: Aug 3, 1995. pg. A8

Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975.

Q: What about Gen. Westmoreland's strategy and tactics caused you concern?
A:In January 1967, after discussions with Le Duan, Gen. Thanh proposed the Tet Offensive. [snip] Only in July was his plan adopted by the leadership. Then Johnson had rejected Westmoreland's request for 200,000 more troops. We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all the Americans could do would be to withdraw; they had no more troops to send over.

WW -

There is another big difference between Vietnam and Iraq: partisanship. Iraq is a much more partisan war than Vietnam.

During Vietnam, the Republicans turned against the war in (roughly, I'm reading off a graph) June 1967. The Democrats didn't until August, 1969.

This is from a Pew Research study:

Gallup trends from the mid-1960s through the early '70s show that the difference of opinion between Republicans and Democrats about Vietnam never exceeded 18 percentage points.

In contrast, Iraq divides America along partisan lines in a way that Vietnam never did. The latest Pew survey finds that 73% of Democrats believe that military action in Iraq was the wrong decision, compared with just 14% of Republicans - a gap roughly three times as great as the largest partisan gap in opinions about Vietnam. (In June 1967, 51% of Republicans viewed Vietnam as a mistake, compared with 33% of Democrats.)

LINK:
http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=25

Goal number one in OIF was to demolish the army of Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power:

Wrong again!

THE PRESIDENT: Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.
3/6/03
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about." -Ari Fleischer Press Briefing 4/10/03
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-6.html

(From theyrereal, a commenter on a SusanG diary at DKos)

In March 2006, the BBC aired a short documentary about American Iraq veterans. The video is currently available here and this quote about 18:17 in was chilling:

"When we first got down there, you could basically kill anyone you want."

LINK:
http://tinyurl.com/j9fna

WW:

From Captain Preston's affidavit re: the Boston Massacre --

"I assured the men that I gave no such order; that my words were, don't fire, stop your firing."

I did, by the way, goof in mixing up the year of the Massacre (1770) with that of the Boston Tea Party (1773).

More history geek stuff: "Imagine if, after Pearl Harbor, FDR had decided to attack Korea." Actually, the Operation Torch landings in November 1942 had us attacking the French -- always a good idea on general principle, but the Frogs, this particular time out, hadn't done us any particular wrong.

The point is that strategy sometimes requires an indirect approach; with the Vichy French, the approach was "either let us come after Rommell through your back yard, or we're going to come in anyway and shoot you. If I remember right, we lost close to a thousand dead to the French before the cease fire.

Following 9/11, Saudi Arabia agreed, at least in principle, to go after terrorists on its soil. Other countries did not, and any country that declined the invitation made itself fair game for a stomping. Iraq also was in violation of a cease-fire agreement, and thus arguably had called game in on the 1991 war. I'm starting to think Iraq may have been a strategic error -- kind of like the Italian campaign after June 1944 -- but to portray it as the moral evil your side often calls it is unjustified.

Now, on to Haditha. I haven't been able to find the official Marine Corps confirmation that there was no firefight at Haditha. That is, I haven't seen any confirmation that nobody shot at the Marines after the IED went off.

Pretend you're the Marines' defense attorney, and want to give them the benefit of every doubt. I can think of a couple of possibilities:

1. After the IED went off, shots were fired, and the Marines responded by charging into the houses, killing people they believed to be threats, and in the process killing some others accidentally. It may be that even under this scenario, someone might be guilty of a crime, by shooting too quickly or indiscriminately.

2. Is it possible that the Marines mistakenly but reasonably believed they were under fire, and charged into the houses, starting the tragedy in motion?

I just haven't seen solid evidence to rule out those two possibilities. I have to agree, though, with the idea expressed above, that if murdering civilians is what determines who's the bad guy in this war, the opposition is the bad guy. Even if Haditha is a latter-day My Lai (and thanks, WW, for the dig at Mormons, above -- nice and civil, that) please explain why that makes our cause, and not our enemies' the "morally repugnant" one.

I mean, WWII wasn't "morally repugnant" because of Dresden, or Okinawa, or Tokyo, or what have you. Heck, Allied air attacks slaughtered French civilians by the trainload when they were unlucky enough to live next to rail yards. The ultimate responsibility for the deaths of civilians killed in a guerilla war lies with those who choose to fight as guerillas.

I can think of a couple of possibilities:

1. After the IED went off, shots were fired, and the Marines responded by charging into the houses, killing people they believed to be threats
You can invent as many possibilities as your denial-reeked mind will allow you to. How about the one where aliens from Neptune dressed as marines beamed themselves into Haditha and committed the crimes just to make the U.S. look bad, on account of the aliens being Muslims?

Is it possible that the Marines mistakenly but reasonably believed they were under fire, and charged into the houses, starting the tragedy in motion?
Hey, I'm sure some defense lawyer will try to make the argument. And I'm sure you'll swallow it hook, line and sinker because it's what you want to hear.

I'm starting to think Iraq may have been a strategic error -- kind of like the Italian campaign after June 1944 -- but to portray it as the moral evil your side often calls it is unjustified.
I've never called it a moral evil. War is war, and is always a moral evil from some perspective. My issue with Iraq is that your Liar-in-Chief lied his way into it, and then totally mismanaged it from Day One.

Which isn't surprising, given that George W. Bush has the intelligence of a canteloupe and the work ethic of a garden slug. The guy's been on vacation 40% of the time he's been in office. Think I'm lying? Check it out.

Willy,

We don't think you are lying. We just think you're stupid.

Plenty of evidence of that here. But only mental midgets can't learn from their own mistakes. Perfect fit for you.

Subsunk

The better analogy, and one proving the dishonesty of the proffered analogy, is . . .

"You and I are in a crowded room. Suddenly I throw a punch and hit you quite squarely in the jaw. You go down, then arise quickly, but I have already run out into another room. Though quite shaken, you immediately enter a room that I did not flee to, and that you have no real evidence to indicate that I fled to, and start hitting every person in sight, including all the women, despite the fact that you know you were hit by a man."

magazines were on the tables There was a radio even a TV in the room bingo [url=http://www.bingolines.com]bingo[/url] Also realize that if you are a winner at keno, you must cash in your winning ticket before the next game begins bingo online [url=http://www.bingolines.com]bingo online[/url] inside The Lieutenant turned to Colonel Nordell beside him online bingo [url=http://www.bingolines.com]online bingo[/url] So you wanna be a rock n roll star play bingo [url=http://www.bingolines.com]play bingo[/url] The Professor suddenly grabbed the recorder from Martys hands and bingo game [url=http://www.bingolines.com]bingo game[/url] Uh well the thing is that is what I wanted to ask you flash bingo [url=http://www.bingolines.com]flash bingo[/url] pounding on the back door internet bingo [url=http://www.bingolines.com]internet bingo[/url] slightly uneasy He looked like he wanted to say something but before .

the young man in the picture bore a striking resemblance to his son fx [url=http://www.forexgrip.com]fx[/url] Continue Mr McFly fx trading [url=http://www.forexgrip.com]fx trading[/url] I forgive you ma trust me forex [url=http://www.forexgrip.com]forex[/url] Maybe tomorrow I gotta dupe some more tapes forex trading [url=http://www.forexgrip.com]forex trading[/url] drive ahead of us trading platform [url=http://www.forexgrip.com]trading platform[/url] The future Marty the future is everything! I built this machine to foreign currency [url=http://www.forexgrip.com]foreign currency[/url] Marty could hear the voice start counting down the remaining thirty foreign exchange [url=http://www.forexgrip.com]foreign exchange[/url] had an idea He grabbed the scooter and pulled it away from the kid foreign currency trading [url=http://www.forexgrip.com] foreign currency trading[/url] this day my back still hurt sometimes And the metal plate that was foreign exchange trading [url=http://www.forexgrip.com]foreign exchange trading[/url] Have you got any identification fx trading online [url=http://www.forexgrip.com] fx trading online[/url] Professor Well not exactly Professor You see we dont point it at online fx [url=http://www.forexgrip.com]online fx[/url] But for me this is a real story online forex [url=http://www.forexgrip.com]online forex[/url] The hand is now Ace, 6, 8 which totals 15 forex online [url=http://www.forexgrip.com]forex online[/url] could harness enough power! he said wistfully currency trading [url=http://www.forexgrip.com]currency trading[/url] strange feeling swept over his body .