Well, if he testified under oath then he ought to be prosecuted. By the way, I wonder what ever happened to the military officer who sent 500 phony "letters from soliders" to newspapers across the United States? From the sound of the USA Today story, it didn't seem like they were going to do anything to him for getting caught at propaganda.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-10-14-letters-usat_x.htm

Greyhawk, I'm sure you splashed the Light Colonel's fraud across your website. After all, you wouldn't be just a partisan shill who winks when the Republicans lie their way into a war, invent phony war heroes (Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman) and invent phony stories from the field, would you?

Perish the thought!

So on the one hand, we have a blogger highlighting how Massey fabricated instances of war crimes he claims he and his fellow soldiers carried out. He tells wildly varying versions of these lies to newspaper reporters, television interviewers, in a book, and under oath at court hearings over the course of the past two years.

On the other hand, we have a commenter implying equivalence between Massey's dishonest campaign of libel and slander to Caraccilo writing up a form letter describing the good his soldiers are doing in Iraq, asking various soldiers to sign copies of it, and then sending those copies to the soldiers' hometown papers.

Hmmm.

Yeah, there's definitely a partisan shill here. But my vote for who the shill is doesn't go to the guy calling out Massey for spreading his imaginary Kerry-esque stories of war crimes.

Kolb is in a fantasy world here equivocating those two events. I have first hand familiarity with the letter writing campaign he speaks of and it wasn't at all the way it was made out to be. Those form letters were supposed to be an example or template for the Soldiers in the unit--not to be copied verbatim. Nobody forced the Soldiers to send them and nobody checked. There was no coersion, they sent them of their own free will. In the end, that is what came back to haunt them because a fabricated campaign like Kolb suggests would've been better organized and would've had intentional variations in the letters. Because LTC Caraccilo and his staff weren't checking or orchestrating it the way the press implies, many Soldiers evidently decided the letter looked good as-is and sent it out rather than making their own. Why have an example for them to use? Because Soldiers can get in deep trouble for dithering into politics and some of them probably didn't fully appreciate the scope of what the organization as a whole had accomplished. None of the substance of the letters was disputed, because it was all fact. The templates provided substance for them and kept them out of the political lane. Now contrast that with the other clown you are comparing this to, who outright fabricated things and what his motives likely were. I hope you can see the difference, Kolb.

Translation: Any lie is okay as long as the U.S. government or its representatives tell it. Same goes for torture ... er, "fraternity pranks." It even includes lying your way into an imperial war at a cost of $250 billion and rising + 2,000+ U.S. troops killed + 15,000+ U.S. troops wounded + tens of thosuands of Iraqis killed and wounded. But, oh, we're doing this for their "freedom."

Yeah, right. Tell it to the Ministry of Love, wingnuts.

"There was no coersion, they sent them of their own free will."

Yeah, right. You've got some a-hole of a light colonel with a form letter. You're an enlisted man. You're going to tell me there wasn't coercion? Gee, I think I'll just sprout wings and fly to Pluto next week.

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

"Because Soldiers can get in deep trouble for dithering into politics"

What, for sending forged letters that back up the government's propaganda machine? The proof is in the pudding. What ever happened to the light colonel for dithering in politics? From the looks of the USA Today story: Nothing.

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

Conclusion: There's no lie you people won't tell, and no lie that to which you won't raise the old stiff-armed salute -- as long as it comes from your fuhrer or his representatives.

Want to see the respect that the so-called "patriots" show for the fallen? Check this out:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110605Z.shtml

So we have more and more proof that "Stolen Valor" soldiers exist today to take the anti-war side again. Just like the VietNam vets had to contend with until exposed by Glenna Whitley and B. G. Burkett. For those who haven't heard of B. G. Burkett, he wrote a book, called "Stolen Valor" in which he exposed many lying former and faux military men who claimed to be war heroes from VietNam. A couple of these frauds are still in Congress today.

Gee, Wilson, does your side ever find anyone who can actually tell the truth to make your points? Integrity does matter, you know.

Once again, our Men in Uniform are accused of atrocities by charlatans who try to inflate their self importance and gain recognition from a media which tells their lies because it fits their ideas of what a VietNam, oops, I mean Iraq, Baby-Killer is made of.

Maybe Massey can run for the Senate in a few years. Worked for Sen. Kerry (an anti-war liar of the first degree) and Sen. Harkin (merely a fabricator of more important events than he was involved in), so probably would work for Massey. Of course, it only works if you are a Dhimmicrat.

Subsunk

Wilson
Quick quiz:
He best way to counter a post that exposes blatant media willingness to rush to print any claim that insults US soldiers without minimal fact checking is to

a) provide a link to another published story that insults US soldiers

b) Do "a" then follow with yet another story from a different media outlet that insult US soldiers

c) Do "a" and "b" and invoke Godwin's law within four hours of the original post.

Your answer is "c". Thanks for playing.

Seems like Jimmy is just positioning himself for a run for the Presidency, nothing more. Clue to Jimmy: The last guy who used this tactic failed...

Clue to Kolb: You must have a learning disability. The templates provided in the letter writing campaign were facts, not lies, not propoganda in the sense you claim. Hence, no lies because they were verifyable facts. And there was no coercion, despite your moronic claim. They were given the template and they walked away. The brass would never know what, if anything, these troops actually sent. You also totally missed to clue train with the politics comment. The LTC did not dither into politics--the letters were about the mission and what the unit had accomplished--not pro or anti-Bush letters, which would've gotten them all into trouble. This was one of the key reasons for providing the example letter. Having one of the guys in your unit swerve into that lane will get everyone into trouble.

P:

And if soldiers in, say, Kosovo had sent 500 identical letters to U.S. newspapers, written by a light colonel, touting that deployment, you'd be saying the same thing, right? That little stunt was pure propaganda and it was entirely political because it was aimed at swaying public opinion. The light colonel probably wasn't punished, and it probably is because the higher-ups had not only approved of the propaganda but had told the light colonel to do it.

By the way, isn't it amusing to see so much concern for "truth" from those who get their news from the Moonie Times and FauxNews?

Yup, I'd say the same about that one too. No, it wasn't political because it does not endorse politicians or political views, and yes it does sway public opinion. Read "On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War" and see why maintaining public support is important to us and the accomplishment of our mission. No, it wasn't propoganda because that means it would have to be much better orchestrated to meet the classic criteria for that. No, nobody above the LTC in question told him to do it and moreover he didn't make anyone below him do it--he just provided some facts and a template for them to write their own letters *if* *they* *chose* *to*. He had no way of knowing if they did or what they wrote so there was no ethical violation there and no fraud, which is why he wasn't punished AFAIK. Just like in Basic Training when the drill sergeants tell you to write your parents when you first get there. They don't screen what you write.

Now obviously the big point you are missing, and it is telling, is that the things in those letters were provable facts (after all, reporters would check), whereas the guy you used this incident as an analogy for outright fabricated stuff under oath.

"No, it wasn't propoganda because that means it would have to be much better orchestrated to meet the classic criteria for that."

Then would we also say the Iraq War isn't a war because the U.S. leadership has done such an incompetent job of leading it? What, they shouldn't punish the light colonel for politicking on the job on the grounds that he botched the job?

-----------

"No, nobody above the LTC in question told him to do it and moreover he didn't make anyone below him do it--he just provided some facts and a template for them to write their own letters *if* *they* *chose* *to*."

Apparently PowerPointSamurai has even less regard for military leadership than I do. Because I think that when a light colonel solicits "volunteers" to send letters, those letters are going to get sent like it or not. There's no "choice" involved.