 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
Some time ago I advised folks not to focus on whether Jamil Hussein was actually an Iraqi police officer and instead concentrate on the accuracy of his claims. I'll now suggest avoiding the argument as to whether "Scott Thomas" is or isn't a soldier. The exhumation of a graveyard has already been corroborated, that alone leads me to believe Thomas is indeed a soldier here.
There was a children's cemetery unearthed while constructing a Combat Outpost (COP) in the farm land south of Baghdad International Airport. It was not a mass grave. It was not the result of some inhumane genocide. It was an unmarked commentary where the locals had buried children some years back. There are many such unmarked cemeteries in and around Baghdad. The remains unearthed that day were transported to another location and reburied. While I was not there personally, and can not confirm or deny and actions taken by Soldiers that day, I can tell you that no Soldier put a human skull under his helmet and wore it around.This neither proves or disproves any claim that a soldier pranced around wearing a "skull cap". I do know what would have happened to any such soldier were he to be seen by an NCO, an officer, a fellow soldier, or any one else around who wasn't also a complete asshole.
But allow me to shock you: There probably have been dogs struck and killed by vehicles in Iraq. There probably have been people insulted in DFACs. And there are assholes in the US Army. The New Republic wants people to believe those assholes are typical soldiers. I suggest my bottom line comments from my first take on the story might be useful.
I for one would like to know whether "Scott Thomas" and his buddies are the sick little pieces of shit described in The New Republic or simply figments of some other sick little piece of shit's imagination.I don't know the answer yet. Of course, if this guy is a soldier he's a pathetic excuse for the real thing, and he's going to face some repercussions for his actions. He either did what he says he did, and is an asshole, or he didn't and is fabricating stories, and is an asshole. Back to my first story:
Pretend for a minute his stories are true. He's not just reporting the actions of others, the Left's latest "war hero" is an active participant in the actions he describes. One wouldn't expect such a scumbag to take appropriate action within his chain of command to correct the numerous examples of "bad behavior" he reports, but I do concur with California Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Kurt A. Schlichter:If "Scott Thomas" actually is a soldier, you'll see an amazing example of Orwellian double-think. Any attempt by the Army to punish this douche bag for the behavior he confesses to (or for fabricating incidents, if his claims prove false) will be described by leftists in and out of the media as persecution for "speaking out". No one will commend the Army for cleaning it's own house. This is because Thomas' actions are seen by these same people as typical behavior of U.S. Soldiers - all of whom are as described in Thomas' dispatches. Thus the Army will be "hypocritical" for punishing (make that "scapegoating") one who will suddenly be described as a "whistleblower'.If this guy saw improper conduct, he needs to report it up his chain of command. No senior guy is going to look the other way and let his career go down the toilet protecting wounded-abusing, dog-killing kid corpse desecrators.
If you believe leadership in his unit is perfectly willing to allow soldiers to run amok in this fashion then you are ignorant of the US military today. Case in point: a unit here in Iraq was using the radio call sign "Aggressive". They had to change it to something else. Reason: "Aggressive" presents the "wrong image". This isn't an Orwellian effort - it is much more exemplary of the mindset of military leadership today than the sort Thomas describes (or infers from his description of those they lead).If he's actually in the military and he's lying, then words aren't sufficient to describe the sort of low life scumbag he is.
If he (or she) is not in the military and is simply demonizing U.S. Soldiers for fun and profit, then he (or she) is simply doing what so many reporters find irresistible these days - providing gullible Leftists with what they are eager to believe.
Meanwhile, a second storyline will also develop. This one will be about the humbling of bloggers who will be described as naive, or part of a cover-up. Whichever might be the case, the bottom line will be that bloggers have zero credibility. Here's how that happened in the Jamil Hussein story.
So lets make one thing clear. For the record - and for what it's worth - I hereby call on The New Republic to stop covering for this little dirt bag and turn him in to proper authorities. The New Republic's new "war hero" is not exposing bad behavior of others that's condoned by his seniors - he's confessing to that behavior himself. Since the New Republic won't release his identity, we can only conclude that either they support this sort of behavior by US troops or know that he isn't one. Neither option speaks well for anyone involved.
I further urge my fellow bloggers - and anyone else interested in the truth in this matter - to follow suit.
UPDATE:
JD at Outside the Wire has a solution
Dadmanly has more, with links to even more
And so does ABC News
