June 02, 2006

Exhumation (NOT YET) Granted in Haditha (Updated)

Update: Lawhawk wrote to inform me that I goofed, and he was right: the families of the victims have not yet granted the NCIS permission, but that the NCIS is looking to exhume the bodies of those killed. Big difference. If permission is not granted, it could potentially make the case more difficult for presecutors.

As the Haditha investigation goes forward, Iraqis appear to have reversed course and are now allowing the bodies of the victims to be exhumed so that forensic evidence could be collected by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) investigation. Traditionally, Muslims do not allow disinterment.

The Washington Post's article about this development caught my attention with this paragraph, particularly the sentence highlighted in bold:

A source close to the inquiry said Naval Criminal Investigative Service officials have interviewed families of the dead several times and have visited the homes where the shootings allegedly occurred to collect as much evidence as possible. Exhuming the bodies could help investigators determine the distance at which shots were fired, the caliber of the bullets and the angles of the shots, possibly crucial details in determining how events unfolded and who might have been involved.

Forensically, I was initially perplexed at how they intended to judge the distance at which the shots were fired. At extremely close ranges inside a house, the terminal velocity of bullets can't change much from 15 feet to 5, but the possibility is that shots would leave varying amounts of powder residue depending on their distance to target. A shot at contact range would presumably deposit far more residue on the victim's body around the wound than would a shot fired from across a room. I know it depends upon the exact circumstances, but it would seem that closer contact range shots might be more consistent with an execution, where shots from across a room might be more consistent with room-clearing fire.

It may perhaps be nothing but a mere formality (in fact, that is what I suspect and what WaPo reporter Josh White just confirms via email) but the investigators are also interested in verifying the caliber of the bullets.

This might be of interest because all all standard Marine Corps entry weapons (variants of the M4 and M16 rifles, and the M249 SAW) are 5.56 NATO caliber weapons, with the possible exception of the 9mm NATO round in the M9 Beretta pistol and the 12-gauge round fired by shotguns sometimes used by entry teams.

I think it is highly unlikely that the autopsies with uncover any other weapon calibers, but if 7.62/.30 caliber bullets or bullet fragments are found, then this case would get very, very interesting, to say the least.

The U.S. has 7.62 NATO rounds in use by the Marine Corps, but they occur primarily in sniper rifle systems and the M240 medium machine guns—neither of which are practical for house-to-house raids cited in this case. The 7.62x39 Warsaw pact round, or ".30 Russian" as it is sometimes know, is the standard caliber for the Russian small arms favored by the insurgency. Anything other than 5.56mm NATO or 9mm NATO rounds would be a major surprise.

In any event, I hope that the NCIS investigation is able to find conclusive, unambiguous evidence so that the Marines involved face justice based upon the strength of solid evidence, not mere speculation or questionable eyewitness accounts.

Update: I'm not certain of the veracity of the charge, but I'll put out the link so that you can read it and decide for yourself. Sweetness & Light notes that the doctor who conducted the initial autopsies may have ties to an insurgency-supporting group.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:04 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Eating the BBC Alive

I was going to post on the BBC's recent attempt to place another "atrocity" at the feet of the American military, but Bruce Kesler at The Democracy Project gutted them so thoroughly that any attempt to add to his takedown it is wasted effort.

Read the whole thing.

It's nice we can truth the free world's media to be skeptical of our troops while blindly believing insurgent cameramen to be truthful, isn't it?

Update: And just to further gut the BBC, ABC News is reporting that U.S. investigators who started an inquiry into this incident in March have called these allegations "unfounded," and that U.S. forces followed the rules of engagement, capturing the al Qaeda suspect that was the focus of the raid.

I hope they have a recipe for crow.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:48 AM | Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

An Empty Nation

Via Hot Air this morning, I was shocked to find—and I do mean shocked—to find an editorial in The Nation passing judgement on the Marines involved in the Haditha killings, and blaming it all on—you guessed it—George W. Bush. You didn't see it? It was sandwiched between their monthly column highlighting the heroes of Afghanistan and Iraq, and a sidebar piece about how things are so much better in Iraq now in 2006 than planners dared to dream in 2002. Oh wait… The Nation has never written such articles, have they? My bad.

No, instead they hitch their wagon to the charges leveled by floundering redeployment specialist John Murtha. Before he blamed senior military leadership for a cover-up and implied that randomly murdering civilians was a matter of policy (not to mention just pure fun, right John?), Murtha found the time to judge the Marines in the Haditha incident "cold-blooded killers" based upon preliminary NCIS reports given to him by sources within the military.

Murtha does not bother to wait for the investigation to be complete. Murtha doesn't bother to see what the final investigator's report, scheduled at the time of his outburst to be released 60 days later, may say. He doesn't wait for charges to be brought, or a for the trial to even be scheduled. He simply pronounced the Marines guilty of premeditated murder, a capital offense. We need no trial. We need no jury and we need no judge. From behind the safety of a microphone, Judge Dreadful has made his pronouncement.

This of course, is just the kind of fuel The Nation relies on. If prematurely sentencing up to a dozen Marines in what could be capital case can be slanted in some way to tarnish the White House, then the Marines they would sacrifice without benefit of a trial are worth it.

I always thought that liberals were against the death penalty.

I guess it just depends on who they get to kill.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:03 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

June 01, 2006

RFK Jr.'s Racial Politics

Yesterday, I became aware that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was going to be releasing an article in Rolling Stone magazine today alleging massive voter fraud in the 2004 President election. I remarked that such an article had the great possibility of being a spectacular implosion, and opined about what the article was likely to discover:

I suspect the content of the article will provide bold headline-inducing accusations, weave nebulous connections and schemes, and in the end, fail to provide any sort of evidence that can be considered solid, or bring forth witnesses that won't almost immediately be found to have credibility problems.

Even the flimsiest of evidence will be enough for the more excitable types on the far left, but barring something truly explosive and concrete (which is something that has been sorely lacking in every Democratic “bombshell” of the past six years), I imagine this will be grist for the Democratic Underground types for months to come, and largely forgotten within the next week by everyone else.

Now that the article has been released in Rolling Stone, my supposition turned out to be woefully unprepared for just how low this particular Kennedy was will to stoop.

Not only is Kennedy guilty of providing no actual support of election fraud in any of, "13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities," as he calls them, the tone of the article he wrote reveals itself to be something far, far worse: nothing more and nothing less than Democratic electioneering, as an attempt to smear the name of Ken Blackwell, a black conservative gubernatorial candidate in Ohio.

There is a reason that the Washington Post labeled Democratic cries of election fraud a "conspiracy theory," and the New York Times (source, full text) declared "there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale." RFK's shoddy research (much of it largely irrelevant statistical analysis of exit polling data from carefully selected analysts and Democratic pollsters) is merely a framework for an unscrupulous, and rather blatant political agenda.

Kennedy's article was constructed for one reason, and one reason only; to smear a black fiscal and socially conservative candidate that has charisma, integrity, and cross-cultural appeal--in short, a real chance of winning. Blackwell defeated Attorney General Jim Petro in the 2006 Republican primary with 56% of the vote, and has been significantly closing the gap with Democratic frontrunner Ted Strickland in recent weeks. Strickland led Blackwell by 16 points in a Russmussen poll on May 8, but that gap has dramatically to just six points in a May 25 UC-Ohio poll.

As Blackwell continues to close in on a candidate that seems increasingly unable to find traction, the Kennedy assault targeting Blackwell's duties in the 2004 President elections seems like nothing less than an attempt to smear a black conservative and attempt to save the 2006 Ohio governorship Strickland seems primed to fumble away.

Ohio Democrats fear a Strickland loss, but the national Democratic Party fears that Blackwell may be in the vanguard of black conservatives that may cut across racial and party lines, eroding their traditional stranglehold on the black vote.

For 40 years Democrats have virtually ignored the black community, coasting on increasingly empty promises from the civil rights era, while still being able to count on their votes. With the emergence of Ken Blackwell in Ohio, Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania, and Michael Steele in Maryland, the DNC is absolutely terrified that black voters might veer away from the increasingly radicalized liberal politics that share little in common with many middle class suburban and rural black voters. They fear this year's slate of black conservatives could be be the end of their dominion.

Kennedy, a white Massachusetts liberal born of privilege, seeks to smear a self-made conservative black candidate that emerged from a traditional blue-color home under the flimsiest of pretenses to keep black voters, as his potential running mate Hillary Clinton might say, "on the plantation."

We've learned to expect almost any level of debauchery from the Kennedy clan, but this new race-driven low of RFK, Jr. goes beyond the pale.

Update: fixed some some minor grammar errors.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:18 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

When Specific Words Matter

I do not think that Will Dunham at al-Reuters—or perhaps his military sources—quite understands the definition of the word "unprovolked."

Mr. Dunham runs with this lede:

A preliminary military inquiry found evidence that U.S. Marines killed two dozen Iraqi civilians in an unprovoked attack in November, contradicting the troops' account, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

While the killings of up to 24 Iraqi civilians that day may be wrong and even criminally so, it was not by any means "unprovoked."

“Unprovolked” conjures up a certain image and a specific definition, namely :

Not provoked or prompted: an unprovolked attack

Clearly, the Marines in Haditha on November 19, 2005 were provoked into action by a very concrete, undisputed event: the detonation of an improvised explosive device by an unknown individual or individuals that killed one Marine and wounded two others. The Marine response to this attack seems to be both misdirected and clearly unacceptable in its result (we'll trust the military criminal justice system to determine the extent of criminal culpability), but if the brutal killing of you fellow Marine in a tremendous explosion isn't provoking, I don't know what is.

I suspect that some will say that the difference between "unprovoked" and "misdirected" is no difference at all, but obviously, if they are willing to argue the point, then those very different words and what they represent to the future of the accused, does indeed matter.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:38 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Hurricane Season 2006 Begins

It's that time of year again.

From VOA News:

Well-known U.S. storm forecaster William Gray has predicted an active Atlantic hurricane season.
Gray and his team at Colorado State University say 17 tropical storms can be expected this season, with nine of them becoming hurricanes. He added that five of the storms will be major hurricanes.

Last week, officials at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted there will be up to 16 named storms. They said they expect 10 of them to become hurricanes, and that six of them could become major hurricanes.

The Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1 through November 30.

NOAA and Gray say the world is in a 20-year cycle that will continue to bring strong storms.
The 2005 storm season was the most destructive in recorded history, with seven major hurricanes, including Katrina, which killed some 1,300 people along the U.S. Gulf Coast.

In case you have forgotten Katrina—which I admit is unlikely—these never before released photos taken by a North Carolina church relief team should jog your memory. They were taken between September17-22, 2005 between Gretna, Louisiana (just across the Mississippi River from New Orleans), and Waveland, Mississippi.

A heavily damaged Mardi Gras float in a destroyed Louisiana warehouse.

A mobile home lot, trailer long gone, and a twisted rail bed. Mississippi.

Destroyed gas station, only the pumps are upright. Mississippi.

A home destroyed. Storm surge took away much of the first floor. Trees appear to have collapsed on the rest. Mississippi.

A tangle of vehicles including cars, motorcycles and tractors from garage crushed by the storm surge. Mississippi.

The remains of an unknown commercial building. Destroyed by storm surge. Mississippi.

If these photos are sobering, then they've served their purpose. As someone who has been through hurricanes in the past, I created a Hurricane Survival Guide last summer to try to help people prepare. It is still there, still (I hope) relevant, and you are more than welcome to use it as a rough guide for the busy season ahead.

Of course, the best hurricane survival tip is this: when it comes, be far, far away. Everything you own, no matter how much personal value it has, is just stuff.

You can't replace you.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:03 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 31, 2006

This, Too, Could Be Yours

Source

Now, does any one need to be reminded why mass immigration without assimilation a bad idea?

Small gangs of youths pelted riot police with rocks and set cars and garbage bins ablaze late Tuesday in a second night of unrest in the Paris suburbs, raising fears of a return of the disturbances that inflamed 300 French towns and suburbs last fall.

The violence of the last two nights -- in which youths attacked police cars, government buildings and riot police -- was sparked in part by mounting resentment toward the mayor of the northeastern Paris suburb of Montfermeil, who in recent weeks imposed a law prohibiting 15- to 18-year-olds from gathering in groups of more than three and requiring anyone under 16 to be accompanied by an adult on city streets after 8 p.m.

The French government last fall promised to improve living conditions and job opportunities in suburbs heavily populated by immigrant families and where unemployment is rampant, but little has been done and the government's main initiative -- a youth jobs bill -- ended with this spring's politically disastrous student demonstrations.

This is Paris, France, but it could just as easily be Paris, Texas.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again and again: importing poverty is never going to solve a nation's problems and instead, can only add to them.

If you think nearly unchecked immigration is a problem now, wait until 40 million more arrive with little or no education, little or no job skills, and little or no English language skills.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:02 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Lefties: We Did Get Fooled Again

This has all the making of a spectacular implosion:

A damning and detailed feature article, written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for Rolling Stone and documenting evidence of the theft of the 2004 Presidential Election is set to hit newstands this Friday, The BRAD BLOG can now confirm. The online version of the article will be posted tomorrow (Thursday) morning.

The article -- headlined on the cover as "Did Bush Steal the 2004 Election?: How 350,000 Votes Disappeared in Ohio" -- has been several months in development and will contend that a concerted effort was undertaken by high-level Republican officials to steal the Election in Ohio -- and thus the country -- in 2004!

Kennedy told The BRAD BLOG this morning that "the best evidence says the Republicans succeeded" in their plan.

He writes in the 10-page long article, and confirmed to us today, that evidence shows Ohio Sec. of State J. Kenneth Blackwell was "certainly in on" the scheme, and there are indications that the effort went all the way up to the White House.

Kennedy, who is co-host of Ring of Fire, a weekend show on Air America Radio, is an environmental attorney and the son of the late Robert F. Kennedy. This is his first public foray into the realm of Election Fraud, Election Integrity, Electronic Voting and, in particular, the questionable results of Election 2004.

It will be very interesting to see what "evidence" RFK, Jr. will present. Despite the claims made above, I suspect the content of the article will provide bold headline-inducing accusations, weave nebulous connections and schemes, and in the end, fail to provide any sort of evidence that can be considered solid, or bring forth witnesses that won't almost immediately be found to have credibility problems.

Even the flimsiest of evidence will be enough for the more excitable types on the far left, but barring something truly explosive and concrete (which is something that has been sorely lacking in every Democratic “bombshell” of the past six years), I imagine this will be grist for the Democratic Underground types for months to come, and largely forgotten within the next week by everyone else.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:36 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

John Murtha: My Lai-r

Perhaps it is simply my perception, but it seems to me that the intent of some to turn the killing of approximately 24 Iraqi civilians by Marines into this war's My Lai has failed thus far, and I somewhat doubt that meme will have chance of growing beyond the far left. The differences between the incidents far outweigh the similarities.

For those of you unfamiliar with it, My Lai (note: the following is summarized from the Wikipedia entry on the subject) was a massacre of hundreds of unarmed Vietnamese civilians by a Charlie Company, 11th Brigade, Americal Division of the U. S. Army. Ostensibly, U.S. intelligence pinpointed the 48th Battalion of the Vietcong as hiding in Son My village, specifically in areas labeled My Lai 1-4. Lt. William Calley led a platoon into the area, and after finding no Vietcong, they killed between 347-504 civilians, some after being raped or tortured. The date was March 16, 1968.

A cover-up of the incident was almost immediate, with the 11th Light Infantry Brigade's Commanding Officer, Colonel Oran Henderson running a cursory investigation that found just 22 civilians had died inadvertently while 128 Vietcong had been killed. Letters from several soldiers finally got the attention of Congress approximately a year later. They story broke publicly in November of 1969, and some reports indicate that thoughts of a cover-up (read the Wikipedia entry, take it for what it is worth) ran through many levels of the Army Officer Corps, all the way to the National Security Advisor and the Secretary of Defense.

The incident is major note not only for the brutality and scale of the massacre, but for the light punishment given to those who perpetrated it (Calley served just 3 1/2 years years as the only conviction), and the huge shift in perception it brought, bolstering and providing fuel for the anti-war movement.

But Haditha is not My Lai.

I will tread very carefully in discussing the Haditha incident as it is still under investigation, but we do know certain things that are beyond doubt. We know that on November 19, 2005, one Marine was killed and two more were injured when an IED went off near a convoy from Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines. We know that immediately after the event other Marines in the convoy dismounted and approximately 24 Iraqis were killed, some of them women and children. Everything else at this point is speculation.

My Lai started without any recognizable provocation, and seems to be a blatant small-scale genocide. Haditha had a real and quantifiable trigger; the death of one Marine and the injury of two others by an IED detonation. Right or wrong, Haitha had a discernible triggering event.

Unlike My Lai, there is no evidence of an attempt at a high level cover-up whatsoever with Haditha. Three officers—two Captains and a Lt. Colonel have been relieved of command, and at least two separate and apparently quite thorough investigations by the NCIS were launched months ago.

The Haditha investigations will also be far more thorough and accurate than the investigations at My Lai for several reasons.

First, the investigation in the Haditha has same-day evidence collection, including digital photos obtained by another Marine unit that responded to the area. It may also have some real-time evidence collected, as there is some indication that drone surveillance aircraft and radio communications may have also captured details of the events of that day. Forensic science has also progressed phenomenally in the near 40 years since My Lai, and the likelihood of investigations obtaining a far more detailed forensic record of events is all but assured. It seems most of these events happened indoors where evidence such as bullet holes in walls, fragmentation patterns, and firing lanes are precisely known.

No, Haditha is not like My Lai, but that has not stopped some from trying to inflate it to that level.

Chief among them is ex-Marine and current Democratic congressman John Murtha, who has alleged that the Haditha incident was cold-blooded murder, that this incident is indicative of the policy of our troops and now, that the incident is being covered up by the highest authority in the Marine Corps, citing Marine Corps General and Joint Chief of Staff Peter Pace by position, if not by name.

All of these charges by Murtha are unproven hyperbole, set forth with but one goal in mind: "redeploying" all American soldiers out of Iraq. The Haditha incident may be Murtha's last, best hope of purposefully losing a war he first began trying to undermine in 2004. John Murtha is willfully attempting to smear the entire Marine Corps chain of command (and by the extension, the Corps itself) down the river to advance his political agenda.

Always Faithful?

Hardly.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:31 AM | Comments (77) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 massacre or not...judgeing by the polling data from Iraq found in last month Foreign Policy magazine even the people we "liberate" hate us.

Posted by: centrist at May 31, 2006 10:52 AM (vrOoK)

2 I have said it before that the attitude of the politicians and the press on this and somewhat similar matters (the prisons) is leading us to another Vietnam. The way this is playing out is exactly the same as they did in the 60's. If you want to put an army in any country, even ours (hurricane relief), then you must accept and anticipate that bad things will happen. The ones to bear the responsibility should be the government officials who commited us to the action. Instead, we have a situation like this were people are second guessing what the soldiers did. Then strange rules of engagement will follow and more soldiers will get killed so the politician does not look bad. The men in this situation did what they thought appropriate under the specfic circumstances. If later it is deemed murder then too bad, they did right. If you don't want this to occur, then don't get involved in Vietnam or Iraq. If I were instructing my child as to what to do if he were going to Iraq, I would tell him to trust no one and kill anything near you.

Posted by: David Caskey at May 31, 2006 11:05 AM (6wTpy)

3 AHhahahahaha!

Yes Murtha lost the war!

Because he was in charge of it!

And once the war is lost Murtha will be President of the world! It's good that you can see his scheme for what it is. If Murtha hadn't said anything or been right Iraq would be ice cream and ponies today.

And the murder of innocent civilians is nothing like the murder of innocent civilians so people should stop saying it is.

Posted by: salvage at May 31, 2006 11:49 AM (xWitf)

4 David, I don’t think Iraq is becoming another Vietnam. I do believe some very clever politicians, who now oppose our involvement, are trying to capitalize on circumstances that bear similarity to Vietnam for the purpose of stimulating the public to demand or at least support a withdrawal from Iraq. If these politicians can stifle our national ability to mobilize a will to win, they will have emulated the circumstances perpetuated by the antiwar movement of the 1970’s. Therein lays the similarities. The significant difference in that they have not succeeded at this point. The majorities of Americans still supports the effort and are beginning to see positive progress in Iraq. The politicians are playing their cards too early to be effective.

There is some irony associated with Vietnam and Iraq. A liberal president lied us into Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin attacks) and now the liberals claim our current president lied us into Iraq. There’s something about liberals, lies, and wars; I’ll connect the dots one of these days…

If your child was deploying to Iraq, the very best piece of advice you could possibly give him/her is to remember his/her training. “Killing anything near you,” would only result in a Courts Marshal. Maintaining the discipline of what was trained is what will more likely enable a safe trip home. I understand frustration, but our military really is extremely professional, well disciplined and capable of inflicting the greatest damage on the enemy with the least collateral damage of any force ever to step onto a battlefield.

Posted by: Old Soldier at May 31, 2006 11:53 AM (X2tAw)

5 ”And the murder of innocent civilians is nothing like the murder of innocent civilians so people should stop saying it is.”

Salvage, is your prejudgment reserved only for the military or do you apply it equally to liberal politicians who maligningly speak out of turn?

Posted by: Old Soldier at May 31, 2006 12:01 PM (X2tAw)

6 Old Soldier,
A new massacre today...US troops kill pregnent women at checkpoint. The Iraqi media will cover this over and over..unlike the US media. How do you think the fathers,uncles and grandfathers will take this "incident". We are creating terrorist faster than we are killing them.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_women_killed

Posted by: centrist at May 31, 2006 12:17 PM (vrOoK)

7 This civilize way of war is crap. Seek and eradicated. If the population harbor the enemies, burn the city down and slaughter everyone. Very effective. As the shotgun of Japan, and it was a civil war. Don't have a rebellion since.

Posted by: Anh at May 31, 2006 12:24 PM (ohEm6)

8 Prejudgment?

Yeah the judge and jury signed off on My Lai a long time ago and I have yet to see / hear anything that suggests that the Marines didn't kill civilians in retaliation in this latest outrage.

Now before y’all start fluffing up the strawmen this incident in no way is a reflection on your average Marine. I don’t think that they typically engage in these sorts of crimes. I think when the trial starts we’re going to see just how much pressure and frustration they were under. I’m not even going to pretend that I can understand their situation and reactions to that situation much less judge.

But the fact is that something very bad happened and that the Marines involved are most certainly guilty, that of course doesn’t mean we don’t need a trial because we don’t know all the facts or their nuances.

The typical wingnut boiler plate response of SHOOT THE MESSENGER! OH MY GAWD WHY ISN’T SOMEONE SHOOTING THE MESSANGETR!?!? is particularly galling in this case. CY over there rather than admit that Murtha was right and that he’s a flipping hypocrite for giving a GOP man a pass for doing the exact same thing instead gets all pedantic and Clintonesque trying to parse the difference.

There is none, they were both correct, deal with it.

As for the checkpoint pregnant woman thing, you’re an American soldier on the streets of Iraq, a car is speeding towards you, do you think terrorists trying to kill me and my buddies or do you think pregnant woman trying to get to the hospital? Let’s not mix our apples and oranges here.

Posted by: salvage at May 31, 2006 12:43 PM (xWitf)

9 centrist, I read the article you referenced; a very tragic loss of life. There appears to be a valid reason for the soldiers to have fired the warning shots that became lethal. It is indeed unfortunate all the way around; however, would it have been any less tragic if a car with a man, a pregnant woman and a bomb had sped into the checkpoint, detonated and killed two or three soldiers? Are not our soldiers allowed to operate militarily; establish rules of engagement that limit collateral damage, yet provide force protection? I’m sure there will be an investigation and I’m sure the results will be made public. I’m also sure that if the situation was justified, if the Iraqi driver was covering his butt because he failed to yield to rendered signals, there will be no media coverage. In the court of public opinion, the damage is done – American soldiers killed two women, one was pregnant. Even you profess our soldiers quilt by claiming we make more terrorists than we kill. Do you really and truly believe that garbage?

Posted by: Old Soldier at May 31, 2006 12:46 PM (X2tAw)

10 I respectfully suggest that you listen more carefully to what Murtha is saying. He is a war hero who bled for the country, has been a military hawk for decades, and initially supported the war. He has been a tireless defender of the Marines in Congress in issue after issue.

Murtha has closer ties to the Marines command structure than anyone else in Congress in either Party. He is likely to be very well informed on this -- and on strategic and tactical issues regarding the war as well. It is widely believed that what Murtha says is what Marines generals are thinking but can't say publicly.

Posted by: mikezw at May 31, 2006 12:47 PM (AEisU)

11 ”But the fact is that something very bad happened and that the Marines involved are most certainly guilty, that of course doesn’t mean we don’t need a trial because we don’t know all the facts or their nuances.”
Salvage, are you sure you wouldn’t just advocate for shooting the “guilty” Marines now and save all the expense associated with a trial? Man, the investigation is not even concluded and you’ve got these guys before a firing squad. That’s real American of you! Careful, you’re bleeding heart is becoming very black!

Posted by: Old Soldier at May 31, 2006 12:54 PM (X2tAw)

12 Salvage,
My post relates these incidents to the broader question of whether or not we can or are succeeding in creating a pro-american, democratic state and or killing more terrorist than we are creating by having troops in Iraqi....in short whether we are or can win. All of these incident lead me to believe we cannot achieve our broader strategic goals. We will leave Iraq with MORE people willing to die to fight america than when we arrived....with government that either listenes to it people(hates america) or ignores the will of it people and is pro-american.

Posted by: centrist at May 31, 2006 12:55 PM (vrOoK)

13 Anh -- "This civilize way of war is crap. Seek and eradicated. If the population harbor the enemies, burn the city down and slaughter everyone. Very effective. As the shotgun of Japan, and it was a civil war. Don't have a rebellion since."

You are no better than Bin Laden. I love this country and the values it stands for. If we followed your advice, Bin Laden would have already won (and does seem to be winning...)

Decency and morality is not weakness. Athens eventually defeated Sparta. The Allies eventually defeated the Nazis. The Japan you laud fell into an ideological trap that led to self-destruction. Go read Karl Popper's 'The Open Society and Its Enemies'. You are with the enemies, and a traitor to the Constitution. Your shallow 'strength and ruthlessness' is nothing but weakness and cowardice -- and in the longer term would lead to the destruction of our country and our society.

Posted by: mikezw at May 31, 2006 12:58 PM (AEisU)

14 ”Murtha has closer ties to the Marines command structure than anyone else in Congress in either Party.”

Mikezw, if you believe those words, I’ve got some ocean front property in Sierra Vista, AZ that I’d like to sell you. Murtha is most likely briefed and just as likely has gone public with bits and pieces of information when he should have remained silent. The Marine Colonels that I know refer to Murtha as a “former Marine.” In case you are unaware, that is in essence the same as a yellow stripe being painted down the back of a horse cavalryman in the 19th Century. In other words it is a revocation of his ability to claim, “Once a Marine, always a Marine.”

I have no qualm with Murtha’s service as a Marine; I do however have serious problems with his conduct as a U.S. Representative. And just for the record, a Hawk does not advocate a retreat in the face of the enemy.

Posted by: Old Soldier at May 31, 2006 01:06 PM (X2tAw)

15 Even you profess our soldiers quilt by claiming we make more terrorists than we kill. Do you really and truly believe that garbage?
Old Soldier,
You should ask the village, clan, and husband of the pregnent women who was killed....let alone the millions of Iraqis who saw it on tv. "Unfortunate incident" like that happen everyday with longterm negative consequences broader strategic goals of the mission.
Hero Jack

Posted by: Murtha at May 31, 2006 01:08 PM (vrOoK)

16 Old Soldier -- well that's not what I hear, and I think my sources are pretty solid. However in the internet we can all claim whatever we want... But you certainly seem to be factually off-base regarding Murtha's congressional record -- his record defending the Marines and VA in the budget process is outstanding.

Posted by: mikezw at May 31, 2006 01:14 PM (AEisU)

17 Posted by Murtha at May 31, 2006 01:08 PM

Cute, but ineffective. That ownership of your words or I'll not respond.

Posted by: Old Soldier at May 31, 2006 01:16 PM (X2tAw)

18 OK, I apologize for going way off topic here, but since you guys appear to have it covered pretty well I feel safe in doing so. And since CY lives here in Raleigh too I figured it couldn't hurt.

What is deal with the 'Canes and the Stanley cup finals getting so little press? You click on a sports page and you have look four articles down before you get to a Stanley Cup story. You have to go by Armstrong getting cleared of doping from six years ago?! I don't think anyone doubts Armstrong has solidified his legend status. You have to go by Clemens going back to the Astros. Are you kidding me? Again, it's established, he's great, but he has maybe one year left. Then you get to the Basketball finals which is at game four. Big deal.
The 'Canes and Sabres have been an absolutely great matchup. Both games 5 and 6 have gone OT with the Sabres forcing a game 7 here in Raleigh and yet it appears that it's hardly news! What's the deal with that!
I just had to get that off my chest and didn't have another outlet handy.
Please return to your discussion. :-)

Posted by: Chris at May 31, 2006 01:19 PM (Vv7V0)

19 Mikezw, being a member of the House Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Defense certainly positions Rep Murtha to strongly support the military with funding, and he has been supportive. However, it does not necessarily equate to hawkism. Rep Murtha was one of the first (if not the first) to suggest President Clinton withdraw the troops from Somalia, even in the face of GOP leader support for the operation. Now he is one of the first to call for us to withdraw from Iraq. He has certainly been consistent in that position, I’ll give him that.

His public excoriation of the Marines with his “cold blooded murder of women and children” comment is beyond reasonable and civil rhetoric. It is insightful and wholly counterproductive to the ongoing investigation. He has publicly proclaimed guilt without a completed investigation and possible ensuring trial. That is extremely reckless behavior for a congressman!

Posted by: Old Soldier at May 31, 2006 01:31 PM (X2tAw)

20 O.S. -- yes, Murtha's record as a hawk is consistent: fight them when we have to, get the hell out when they're pointless and unwinnable. Somalia was the only other one where Murtha called for withdrawal. He was right then, he is right now. The damage being done to the military's strength and moral structure and to the country's security and moral values worsens every day we continue on this catastrophic path of incompetence, imperial folly, graft and lies.

Posted by: mikezw at May 31, 2006 01:44 PM (AEisU)

21 Gee mike,

the military has more than met its enlistment goals this year. Soldiers in Iraq are wondering why the US people don't support them. But they feel they are needed there. So what are you talking about - other than just spouting rhetoric.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 01:52 PM (ybfXM)

22 "The damage being done to the military's strength and moral structure and to the country's security and moral values worsens every day we continue on this catastrophic path of incompetence, imperial folly, graft and lies."

Careful mikezw, your true colors are showing... Liberal talking points are not up for discussion; not by me anyway. Perhaps someone else will suffer your rant.

Yesterday Murtha was a war hero. Today he cares for the military, especially his beloved marines, like a female black widow spider cares for her mate. What a patriot!

Posted by: Old Soldier at May 31, 2006 01:54 PM (X2tAw)

23 I think miezw is either Michael Hiltzik or Jason Leopole in disguise. But KEEP HOPE ALIVE mikey.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 01:56 PM (ybfXM)

24 I'm not going to continue this argument, I'll just leave a short coda.

Actually I'm just an old-fashioned guy who's done work in national security policy -- used to be an old-school Republican but, with what the Party has become, cannot see myself voting for a Republican again in the foreseeable future (I liked Bush Sr. and disliked Clinton -- but I think Bush Jr. really may be the worst President in US history, and the one who does the most damage to the country). My being appalled by the current situation and with where we're heading hardly makes me a leftie. The latest polls have some 70% of Americans saying the country is in the wrong direction -- and they are right.

Posted by: mikezw at May 31, 2006 02:21 PM (AEisU)

25 My, Jesus' General loves you.

No, Haditha is not My Lai. The brutality is not of the same level, evidence more precise, the cover up less extensive. Then again look at the results of a cartoon, or the false news report of a Koran being flushed down the latrine. The raw numbers may not compare, but whenadjusted to scale the fall out from this will be huge.

To everyone's dismay Rep. Murtha has been right all along. Makes you wonder what else he's right about. Or is that why the focus is on him more than Rep. John Kline?

...and for the record, contrary to what you've stated, Murtha doesn't think the cover-up goes all the way to Pace.

Posted by: Fred at May 31, 2006 02:40 PM (xX+1y)

26 Confederate Yankee's column is 100% correct. What Murtha has been doing generally is to atempt to cast Iraq as Vietnam, and in this instance, use Haditha as the Iraq My Lai. To do so, Murtha has been Kerry-like in his use of falsehood and speculation. It is a brazen effort to undermine our country's efforts in Iraq in furtherance of the war against the Jihadists.

Posted by: Phil Byler at May 31, 2006 02:42 PM (5rVtL)

27 In one of my irritatingly repetative comments in an earlier thread concerning this I said something along the lines that if something happened, those who didn't participate directly will tell exactly what happened. In the Wiki entry about My Lai, it stated that the investigation that led to the charges was instigated by some of the soldiers themselves. If something happened in Haditha, at least one of the Marines will have a problem with it and tell the truth. Yes they are a band of brothers, but there are things that exist in the oath of service that will come to the fore, now that the investigation is occuring, and there is no iminent threat to the individual Marines life. If something happened, one of the Marines will talk, if nothing happened, none of the Marines will talk.

I'm gonna wait till we hear what the investigation dug up, but truth is that Murtha has already defined all branches of service and a criminal enterprise engaging in deliberate conspiracy. Rot in hell Murtha, even if something did happen, you are still wrong.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 02:48 PM (QTv8u)

28 Man, I take a couple of hours to go to the VRWC Steering Committee meeting, and I find the place completely infested. Let me see if I can clear up some fuzzy thinking and fact problems on the part of our left-of-center guests.

Despite the somewhat amusing ranting of a false deity from the Art Bell universe (or so I’m told), there is quite a bit of difference between the hyperbolic charges made by Murtha as fuel for political grandstanding against a war he has been trying his hardest to retreat from since 2004, and the comments of Kline, who was reacting to allegations of war crimes as technically and dispassionately as possible. Kline’s focus is on the event, Murtha immediately labeled the actors, ascribed it to policy, and indicted the command structure of the Marine Corps itself. . Anyone trying to conflate the goals, choice of verbiage and overall message being conveyed by these two very different speakers as being the same or nearly so, is guilty of being very intellectually dishonest.No one is “shooting the messenger.” The messenger was Time Magazine and ABC News, which broke this story back in mid-March. No, John Murtha is an vulture, using over-inflated, unsupported hyperbole (unless you are actually insane enough to think civilian massacres are part of U.S. military policy as he implies) to push for political advantage, even at the expense of his “beloved” Marine Corps. If you would like to know how the Marines feel about Murtha in return, simply click though the milbloggers. “Ex-Marine” is a term I borrowed from them, and it has a very specific, very strong meaning.Murtha was a “hawk.” Past tense. He has been shrilly calling for a headlong retreat (excuse me, “immediate redeployment”) from Iraq since 2004, much louder than anyone in Congress. Murtha was once a hawk, but the “Pink Badge of Courage” winner not only gave up his hawk status, he forcefully rejected it.

On a somewhat related note, the next person falsely posting under someone else’s name gets banned.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 31, 2006 03:28 PM (g5Nba)

29 WAPO reports more info - the Marines DID encounter enemy fire after the IED exploded.

And the Murtha Wannabe Marine that is telling all - (Briones)- did not participate, but is claiming PTSS, and was arrested for car theft, DUI, leaving the scene...how convenient he can now claim PTSS as his reason for breaking the law.

Of course all the facts are not in, but bit-by- bit Murtha is being shown to be an exagerating bloviate.

Posted by: cheryl at May 31, 2006 03:36 PM (iB7ZQ)

30 Comments regarding an earlier intemperate remark by former Marine Jack Murtha hold truer today.

"We mark the boundaries of legitimate disagreement by the way we characterize arguments that lie outside them. What Jack Murtha did last week wasn’t just wrong [call for cut and run]. It was cowardly and disloyal. That’s the truth and Jack Murtha deserves to hear it.

Thirty-five years ago he demonstrated that he had physical courage. This week he demonstrated that he lacks moral courage. There is no inconsistency here. Thirty-five years is a long time and physical courage is not the same thing as moral courage.

Jack Murtha served the nation honorably and should be honored for it. But his service doesn’t establish that he is loyal now. Nobody ever did the Republic of Rome greater service than Julius Caesar who capped off his military career by fighting a civil war and destroying the republic.

Peter Mulhern, The American Thinker, 11/20/05

Posted by: martin at May 31, 2006 04:23 PM (Olu/e)

31 Confederate Yankee:
Just a small nit to pick regarding the similarities/differences between My Lai and Haditha:
"My Lai started without any recognizable provocation...Right or wrong, Haitha had a discernible triggering event."

I believe My Lai also had a "triggering event," although it is not well known. Just the day before the massacre at My Lai-4, Lt. Calley unwittingly led his platoon into an old minefield that had been sown by soldiers from the ROK (Republic of Korea.) The minefield was not marked on American maps. One of the most beloved soldiers in Calley's platoon was killed attempting to get out of the minefield. In addition to this triggering event, although only in country for a short while by March of 1968, Charlie Company had an extremely high rate of killed and wounded due almost exclusively to snipers and booby traps. It frustrated the men to see such things as women and children walking down a trail, carefully watching where they stepped because it was obvious they knew where the mines and booby traps were placed. In the briefing on the night of March 15, led by Captian Ernest Medina, a number of veterans recalled that there was a strong sentiment of wanting to "exact revenge" for the death of this well-loved soldier, as well as all the other men of Charlie Company killed by snipers and booby traps. (This is referenced in "Four Hours in My Lai," by Kevin Sims and Michael Bolton.)

Therefore, I think a case could be made that at least in this respect, there is a similarity between the two events, My Lai and Haditha, the triggering event being the death of the soldier in the minefield just the day before the My Lai operation. Note that I am not saying this was in any way a justification for what happened, just pointing out that that is a true similarity between My Lai and Haditha. But that is where I believe any similarities end. In every other respect, I think it is incumbent upon those who would claim the incidents are similar to put forth their evidence.

It is sad that of all the good work soldiers and civilians accomplished in Viet Nam, such as providing medical care, improving infrastructure (much of which is still in place today by the way), all that most people can recall when they think of the Viet Nam war is "My Lai." I traveled to the Central Highlands in Viet Nam a number of years ago and met many people who expressed their gratitude for what the United States did for the Vietnamese people during the war. Although Haditha is sure to dominate headlines for the forseeable future, I hope that in years to come, the Iraqi people will express similar sentiments as I heard from many people in Viet Nam, appreciation for all the good we have done and continue to do.

Posted by: Con Ky at May 31, 2006 05:26 PM (fY8m1)

32 Correction to the above:
Should be "by Kevin Sim and Michael Bilton," NOT Bolton.

Posted by: Con Ky at May 31, 2006 05:37 PM (fY8m1)

33 the military has more than met its enlistment goals this year. …Specter 01:52 PM
Only by lowering their standards.
Murtha was a “hawk.” Past tense….Posted by Confederate Yankee 03:28 PM
Anyone with any knowledge of the way Bush is conducting his war in Iraq would be against this terrible counter-productive waste of American lives, treasure, prestige and material. The number is terrorist incidents has increased drastically
As has Anti-Americanism. It's one thing to be hated for being right, but quite another to be hated for being warmongers.
[ www.wws.princeton.edu/ppns/papers/speulda.pdf ]
That is the result of lying to one's population to justify one's irrational desire to launch an unjustified war in Iraq.

Posted by: Mike at May 31, 2006 05:44 PM (lCUVh)

34 Geee mikey...Why don't you use a more biased reference. So let's see..as I read it the Army adopted the Department of Defense standards rather than using their own. Now if your belief is right, then I guess we got a lot of stupid people flying multi-million dollar jets and stuff....LOL. Get a grip. The whole point was the original poster said the military is on its last legs. I said that they have more than enough people.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 05:52 PM (ybfXM)

35 Even funnier mikey....your WaPo cite is over a year old. Wow. Great research on your part.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 05:54 PM (ybfXM)

36 And your anti-americanism study is from the same time period. What - you been asleep for a year? But be that as it may - the whole thing was based on Pew Research. Again - could you find a more-biased citation? Man you are funny.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 05:56 PM (ybfXM)

37 I will pit ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE VOLUNTEER FOR THE MARINE INFANTRY against EVERY SINGLE DRAFTEE authorized by hero of anti-war Leftist MacNamerra, who authorized the CONSCRIPTION! of substandard individuals into the broad military draft.

F! MacNammarra, and F! this BS!

CNN apologized for Zarqawi not knowing how to use a weapon with only 7 stages in it's cycle of operations, but NOW! everyone who is familiar with the operation of a weapon is STUPID!?

F you whoever it is that said "lowering standards" is the reason we make recruiting goals.

F YOU, F you from here to eternity. F YOU you self righteous scumbag, What are your standards for commenting? What are the goals you have achieved to stand in judgement of men and women willing to make a choice, while you will sit on the side and mock, from absolute safety eating pop corn waiting for a chance to call on the deaths of noble peoples who face harm just so you can make some sort of false snark that insults not just bush, not just his admin, not just the military, but all of those who ever served?

F YOU!

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 06:02 PM (QTv8u)

38 wickedpinto,

But - why don's you say what you really mean. LOL. But I think that you voiced what I would have said if I were in a rage...and I agree with you to some extent.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 06:45 PM (ybfXM)

39 Hmmm. Murtha also broke the "Willy Pete/White Phosphorus" non-story. Goes to credibility.

And introduced the famous Cut and Run redeployment policy. Also goes to credibility.


He's batting 0 for 0. IMO those yanking his ear are also yanking his chain.

This will drum up a cacophony of leftwing hysteria - again - that THIS IS THE STORY THAT WILL GET RUMMY, CHENEY and BUSH.

Most likely it will end up another stinky leftwing fart floating on a breeze.

Posted by: cheryl at May 31, 2006 06:48 PM (iB7ZQ)

40 Folks just a reminder that here, we have certain, quite reasonable standards of what we consider acceptable speech that we try to observe. Keep your language clean, or you'll find your comment gone.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 31, 2006 07:41 PM (0fZB6)

41 This story just doesn't make sense. If the Marines lost it why such a small number of dead civilians? I can't get excited about this when the pets of the Left are blowing up about ten civilians a day. But the Left will never protest that. I wonder why?

Posted by: Thomas J. Jackson at May 31, 2006 07:44 PM (A7X8u)

42 Who would have ever thought that those who defend us would need us to defend them. God save us from the left.

Posted by: Lisa at May 31, 2006 07:45 PM (Z212r)

43 Mikezw expressed himself very well.

The Iraq war is a distraction from the WOT. We are under attack from Islamic fundamentalists, but Iraq was a secular nation under Saddam.

Sure the military is degrading. For example: the stop loss orders from the National Guard. Basically Guardsmen have been told they cannot leave, even when their official obligations are up. Obviously this is going to have a negative effect.

Search the internet "for military recruiting shortfall". Here's from the second hit I got, military.com (9/30/2005):

"WASHINGTON - The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about its plans for growth."

Coalition deaths have been very consistent for years, see http://icasualties.org/oif/. Shiites and Sunis are killing eachother en masse and torturing eachother with power drills. How focused do you expect these people to be on democracy?

I do support our troops. I don't want to hear about another young man dying for a cause I don't understand. Bush Sr. was a wise man.

Best,
Cy

Posted by: Cyrus at May 31, 2006 08:17 PM (PD625)

44 And the Murtha Wannabe Marine that is telling all - (Briones)- did not participate, but is claiming PTSS, and was arrested for car theft, DUI, leaving the scene...how convenient he can now claim PTSS as his reason for breaking the law.
Posted by Cheryl at May 31, 2006 03:36 PM


My father was an airplane mechanic in WW II, and often had to remove bodies from returning bombers. Anti-aircraft tended to pierce the plane’s armor and ricochet around inside the turrets. Gunners sometimes had to be hosed out of their enclosures.

My Father lost it once – stole a jeep and got so drunk he blacked out and ended up AWOL five days.

Briones, as you say, did not participate in the killings. He was ordered to assist in the clean up. While removing the body of a little girl, her guts spilled out onto him. His mother says he smells the blood to this day.

You would be in a better position to defend the soldiers who took part in the killings, Cheryl, if you showed a little mercy toward Mr. Briones.

Posted by: Drat FGL at May 31, 2006 08:35 PM (WTIbj)

45 The military is not degrading, if you think it should improve do us all a favor and don't enlist.

Fed, I was trying to be cautious in the actual language, the only outright epithet I shared was "scumbag."

But I unnerstand, a civilish discussion should be maintained, I was being civilish, while not outright being vulgar, at least that was my intention.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 08:39 PM (QTv8u)

46 Please Cy...get some updated info. You are quoting sources from September 2005? Long time ago.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 09:06 PM (ybfXM)

47 I think the other thing you should ask yourself CY is how many people are there in Iraq? What is the population? Then try to figure out how many people are actually participating in the insurgency - a few thousand?

There are almost 29 million people in Iraq. Even if there were 10,000 insurgents that is only .035%. So what about the other 99.965% of the population? What is happening here is that too many people draw conclusions about the entire country based on a few reports of a few people over there. That's not valid. Even if there were 100,000 insurgents, which is beyond the pall, you are still only talking 3 tenths of one percent. Get a grip on reality.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 09:17 PM (ybfXM)

48 Just to clear up things....the CY in my last two posts was Cyrus - Not our esteemed host Confederate Yankee.....pretty dumb to use caps

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 09:56 PM (ybfXM)

49 CY,

No offense, but haven’t you opened yourself up to the same criticism you leveled against those who said Haditha is like My Lai? My Lai has been tried. The facts are known. It seems premature speculation at this point to cite certain of those facts and state, “these things happened at My Lai, but not at Haditha”. A trial may reveal that a high level cover up did in fact take place, and that innocent children were killed at point blank range by soldiers seeking vengeance.

What seems true now may change as more facts become known. My question is, what can we say about Haditha that will make those who compare it to My Lai seem ridiculous no matter what new facts come to light at trial?

Posted by: Drat FGL at May 31, 2006 10:09 PM (WTIbj)

50 Specter (btw thanks for the sorta support

Don't forget that ALL violence, and all DEATH is attributed to the war.

There are a lot of Crime deaths that are associated with "insurgents" and "secular violence" that are in fact, "basic crime"

And even more significant than all of that, the 4 bigwigs in "al queda in Iraq" were captured by Iraqi's, not by the US forces.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 10:23 PM (QTv8u)

51 As for the military not lowering standard to meet targets. A co-workers step son....was interested in the new larger signing bonus. One problem...he is a crack head gang banger...no worries the recruiter "coached" the kid how to pass the drug test. Anything to make those numbers.
It then came as no surprise when the Chicago Sun Times ran articles last month about US gang activity in Iraq and US military weapons and know how turning up in major urban areas here in the US. All is well....we made the numbers!!!

Posted by: centrist at May 31, 2006 10:35 PM (8AVC0)

52 Specter --

"Please Cy...get some updated info. You are quoting sources from September 2005? Long time ago."

I'm not cherry picking. I'm looking through the links and most of them are from Sept/October 2005. I don't have any more recent information.

So you're telling me that recruitment is way up over the last nine months? I haven't heard one way or the other. I have heard a few anecdotal stories about "lowering the bar" such as the one posted by centrist.

By all means post a link to the great recruitment news from the last nine months. I'll read it.

Posted by: Cyrus at May 31, 2006 11:11 PM (PD625)

53 Combat veteran reenlistments still high despite war

More than 500 "re-up" at Fort Carson. Note that the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment have now exceeded retention goals by more than 130 percent this fiscal year.

Study: U.S. Marines retain best recruits
"Despite four years of tough combat deployments, the U.S. Marine Corps has retained a higher percentage of top recruits.

"The Center for Naval Analyses in April analyzed the Marines' first term re-enlistment population and determined that the quality has continually improved over the last six years, with more first tier recruits remaining in the Marine Corps than drop out after four years."

Americans Enlist in Record Numbers
"May 16, 2006: In the last seven months, the U.S. Army has met or exceeded all of its recruiting goals. In that time, over 160,000 people have enlisted, or re-enlisted. The total strength of the active duty and reserve forces are 1.2 million men and women, all of them volunteers.

"Except for a few months in 2004-5, the military has been able to maintain its strength, despite wartime conditions. The biggest problem has not been casualties (only about 10,000 soldiers have been killed or disabled so far, less than one percent of overall strength), but the disruption to family life caused by so many troops getting sent to combat zones. This discouraged re-enlistments in reserve units, although mainly among the non-combat troops. In combat units, re-enlistments were at record levels."

One of those stories is less than 48 hours old, and others are all also from the Month of May.

If you require more reading material,please, be sure to let me know.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 31, 2006 11:27 PM (0fZB6)

54 The PERPORTED BS of "go to jail or go to the military" idiocy is a standing LIE! about the service, at least the VOLUNTEER service, the first day of MEPS you take a comprehensive drug test, and are eliminated, you take one week in a drug test and you are eliminated.

This whole crap about "criminals are the first in enlistment" is stupid, let me correct, retarded, and even worse than retarded, those who think that the military is built on a Criminal alternative, are LIARS! they LIE, and they make up stuff, that they clearly know nothing about.

so LIE! LIARS, LIE AS YOU PLEASE, LIE LIE LIE and only those who are RETARDED and STUPID, and IDIOTIC will believe your LIES, YOU LIARS!

Note this, the "recruitment goals" may not be EXACT, however, look at the GROUND forces? Marines and Army are overflowing now.

You can LIE all you please, but the thing is that only the NON-conflict branches are missing their recruitment goals.

The very BRANCHES that the ANTI-VIETNAMERS were pushing for support, so that they can later challenge service, but, OH! NO! WAIT! the cowardice of impersonal war is losing? and the Army and Marines are overflowing?

OH! I must be lying, cuz that is your standard method, though, I am right.

I suggest you tell a volunteer Marine, or Volunteer Army Infantry that they are War Criminals.

You will have to hold your nose, cuz it will be bleading.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 11:43 PM (QTv8u)

55 Tom Clancy said in one of his books, I don't know which one, "that the Marines were built as a naval support force, but they had the best ad campaign" that is trueish, but not actually true. Marines Originaly, were the on deck anti-mutiny service, they were coddledish, in their treatement on deck, but after the tripolitan wars, the Marines earned real value.

And it took the first Commandant, . . .DAMN, I know it, but I cant remember offhand, Arthur? Archibald, I think it was archibald, I've been out for about 7 years.

The first Commandant was Archibald something or other, and he decided that the MC was the most dedicated service because, it was the MC that EXECUTED every mutiny, and the MC had overriden other conflicts with non Naval armies.

Anwyas.

The MC, is BUILT on an absolute resolution to the oath of service, and . . .

Well.

the MC doesn't have ANY problems, even in time of war to supply their numbers.

That should be a LESSON to whatsisfaces. . .whats the name of the jerky airforce general who fought the navy in the 40's 50's?

WAR, is WAR, and HONOR lives on the ground.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 11:55 PM (QTv8u)

56 Increased BENNIES, is completely DIFFERENT from REDUCED expectations.

one is a BRIBE, the other is an acceptance of substandard creatures.

YOU think that BRIBERY of individuals who FIT the requirements are the same as reducing requirements?

Thats just STUPID!

REALIZE IT! You say that because politicians think they can bribe EQUALLY VALUABLE individuals, to join the military, that that is the same as REDUCING the requirements of service?

Then that is YOUR PROBLEM!

The Admin, wants the BEST participants, equal to, or better than, what we already have is a REDUCTION in service?

You think that coaxing a better servicemen is equal to MacNammara's "hundred thousand?"

You must be either stupid, or uneducated, or just plain retarded.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at June 01, 2006 12:11 AM (QTv8u)

57 Why was my earlier comment deleted? Was it because I used a mild expletive, or because you are afraid of honest, well-informed debate? Assuming the former, I am re-posting my comment (insofar as I can remember the words I wrote; it may not be exact), with the offending phrase replaced:

Haditha is small potatoes compared to the atrocities and murders committed daily in Iraq by US troops and US-supported death squads, for more than three years now. It is just one tragedy among many thousands visited by US troops on the people of Iraq. The Haditha massacre is in the spotlight because Time magazine reported on it and a US congressman is outraged about it (why aren’t the rest of you?). As for all the others, few Americans know about them, and even fewer care. Even though they are committed in your name and financed by your tax dollars.

If you want to know the truth about what’s happening on the ground in Iraq, read (for starters) Dahr Jamail’s reports, beginning with this one, “Countless My Lai massacres in Iraq”:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/053006Z.shtml

Posted by: noborders at June 01, 2006 02:20 AM (lPhDi)

58 A question for Old Soldier!

You seem to have some army experience, so migth I.

Read this and answer the question:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two Iraqi women were shot to death north of Baghdad after coalition forces fired on a vehicle that failed to stop at an observation post, the U.S. military said Wednesday. Iraqi police and relatives said one of the women was about to give birth.

A car entered a clearly marked prohibited area near coalition troops at an observation post but failed to stop despite repeated visual and auditory warnings, the U.S. military said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press.

“Shots were fired to disable the vehicle,” the statement said. “Coalition forces later received reports from Iraqi police that two women had died from gunshot wounds ... and one of the females may have been pregnant.”

Is that murdering TWO persons or THREE???

Please avoid any tirade about ROF and the sort...

Intelligenti pauca...

Posted by: Teletransfer at June 01, 2006 04:35 AM (GFcAd)

59 "Is that murdering TWO persons or THREE???"

I'll answer your question right after you answer one for me... Have you stopped beating your wife?

I'll not be set up with such elementary trickery. If you honestly seek an answer to a legitimate question, try again by rephrasing it.

Posted by: Old Soldier at June 01, 2006 06:40 AM (X2tAw)

60 noborders, noshame

Your characterization of your own arguments as participating in "honest, informed debate" is worthy of banishment.

None of your allegations are supported by facts. This tactic is generally the mark of a rabid ideologue of limited intelligence, well-suited to du but not here.

Posted by: martin at June 01, 2006 06:52 AM (Olu/e)

61 P.S. to above

Nice touch, linking to truthout for support. Now there's the ticket to "honest, informed" debate. You'd be funny if you weren't so pathetic.

Posted by: martin at June 01, 2006 06:56 AM (Olu/e)

62 uhhh....noborders....

Let me see if I get this. Your proof is TruthOut? You mean like Jason Leopold who hasn't hit a story right in years? Marc Ash who blindly supports without andy...well...proof...? The group that still says Leopold's story that Rove would be indicted in 24 hours....well...maybe 24 business hours...well...maybe Friday....next Wednesday...well, the next Friday...was correct in all of it's points? The truthout organization that bans people with different viewpoints - not swearing mind you - just a different viewpoint and you get banned. The same TruthOut organization that is now the laughingstock of the blogosphere over their reporting? That truthout? Maybe you missed all of that.....

Find some other evidence for us of these "Death Squads" from a reputable reporting source - you know - one that doesn't just make stuff up.

Posted by: Specter at June 01, 2006 06:57 AM (ybfXM)

63 noborders,

I'd suggest you start with the 911 conspiracy sites. They have a higher level of reputation than TruthOut. LOL.

Posted by: Specter at June 01, 2006 06:59 AM (ybfXM)

64 You're evading the issue under discussion by referring to unrelated articles on other topics by other authors, and making gratuitous insults. I didn't cite Jason Leopold on Rove's indictment or anyone at all on 911 conspiracy theories, but Dahr Jamail on Iraq. If you don't like truthout you can read his reports on his own site or his interviews with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. Or read Robert Fisk in the Independent, or Pepe Escobar in the Asia Times. Or Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. Or a host of other independent and international journalists who don't simply swallow and regurgitate government propaganda and disinformation.

If you disagree with the facts brought to light by these and numerous other reporters, try refuting them--with evidence, if you have any--instead of attacking me personally as "pathetic", "a rabid ideologue of limited intelligence" and similar. So is your argument that US troops are NOT killing Iraqis and ravaging their country? The evidence suggests otherwise.

How would you feel if foreign troops came into American towns, bombed your houses, kicked down your doors, tortured and murdered your people, took over your government and buildings and resources, installed multi-billion-dollar permanent military bases, and showed no sign of leaving?

For that matter, how do you feel as an American when your government is in fact doing all of this in a foreign country? Do you really approve of this? You think this is good for America? Don't you feel just the tiniest bit defrauded and disappointed by a government that lies to its public and wastes billions of dollars and sacrifices American lives and alienates and disgusts the entire world with its behavior? Why don't you want to hold it accountable?

Posted by: noborders at June 01, 2006 07:46 AM (lPhDi)

65 Rxcuse me, noborders, but what we did in Iraq were: to remove a murderous tyrant dictator in Saddam who had used WMDs on his own people and had killed hundreds of thousands, often by real torture; to deny al Zarqari, arguably the most dangerous al Qaeda operative after September 11, a safe haven in Baghdad; to disrupt what the uncovered Iraqi government documents have shown were lines of cooperation between Saddam's government and al Qaeda; to propel the Iraqi people toward three national votes by which they consensually adopted a Constitution and a democratically elected government; and to help rebuild Iraqi infrastucture. While we have accomplished this work of LIBERATION, the American military has performed magnificently. Yet, you, noborders, want to view it all through the prism of an oppressive occupation and cite various anti-war left wing writers as your sources. You can have them. I will gladly live in the real world and stand by our outstanding men and women in the American military. God Bless America and the American military.

Posted by: Phil Byler at June 01, 2006 08:30 AM (5rVtL)

66 Phil, apparently you prefer to view the world through the prism of long ago debunked talking points from an administration with zero credibility and a highly undemocratic agenda, for America and the world. Fortunately, your views are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Most of the world was against Bush's illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq from the start; it appears that American public opinion, with the exception of a few stubborn holdouts who prefer the glorious myth to the messy ugly reality, is finally catching up with the rest of us. Three years too late. The dead aren't coming back, and many of the survivors will be maimed for life. I'm not sure what world you're living in, but "real" is not the adjective that comes to mind.

Posted by: noborders at June 01, 2006 09:02 AM (ycNsv)

67 It seems that this thread has devolved from any sort of real discussion to two diametrically opposed camps trying to talk—no, scream—past each other. I’ll wait a while to see if things improve, but as both sides seem to be settling into their respective trenches, I’m probably going to close down commenting on this particular thread.

I value opinions on both sides (even those I don’t agree with), but we seem to have reached a point of diminishing returns on this post, and it seems almost time to move on.

Don’t worry, though. There’s always another discussion around the corner.

Thanks.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 01, 2006 09:10 AM (g5Nba)

68 No, noborders, what I cited to you were bottom line facts as to what we have accomplished in Iraq in the context of what we are dealing with in the war with jihadism. Saddam was a murderous dictator -- do you deny that? Al Zarquari was and is a murderous jihadist who had operated freely out of Baghdad before Saddam's removal from power -- do yo deny that? We now have Saddam governement documents establishing points of cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda -- do you deny that? We did propel the Iraqi people to forming their own democratically adopted Constitution and democratically elected government -- do you deny that? We have been rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure -- do you deny that?

What you responded with to me was a lot of spin and argument in which you basically say that my view is "discredited." No, it is not. You appear to be trapped by your spin and cannot acknowledge the bottom line facts of what we have accomplished and the good that the American military has done. You don't need Bush Administration talking points to see the facts that I have cited. For me, what is truly important are the guys on the front line.

And again, noborders, I say God Bless America and the American military.

Posted by: Phil Byler at June 01, 2006 09:35 AM (5rVtL)

69 Curfew and Riots continue in Kabul(the tranquil part of Afganistan). Another "incident"...a US semi plowed into traffic and killed 8 people. Riots and "death to american" chants have continued for days as a result.

Posted by: centrist at June 01, 2006 09:53 AM (vrOoK)

70 At least when the active military massacre innocent civilian they are accountable. Their are tens of thousands of heavily armed civilain "contractors" that are BEHOLDEN TO NOBODY...not military, not Iraqi not US courts. Their videos circulating on the internet of the "contractors" just driving around and wasting Iraqis one after another....and then setting it to music. People who do things like this simply cannot get in trouble....who is going to stop them?
If we find out about events like that here in the states....the Iraqis are VERY aware of it and more. With all of these "incidents" in little surprise that the broader strategic goal of building of a pro-american place has slipped away

Posted by: gomer pyle at June 01, 2006 10:20 AM (vrOoK)

71 I think the term "incident" is best applied when the person who is killed is in someone elses family, village, country or religion. When is happens to us...it cause for REVENGE!

Posted by: centrist at June 01, 2006 10:30 AM (vrOoK)

72 Wicked Pinto,
I stand by my coworkers story. His son in law owed him money...the only way he could raise it was to enlist. He has gang links and is a drug user and was told how to "get around" the drug tests by the recruiter.
I also stand by the behind the Sun Times story on gang/military/Iraq...an investigation is ongoing. The US military is a large organisation with a lot of poor people...so to think that some percentage wound not succomb to the temptation of some quick easy gang money is really quite naive...would be going agaist human nature.

Posted by: centrist at June 01, 2006 11:44 AM (vrOoK)

73 Phil, all of your "bottom line facts" except the first are demonstrably false. I'll grant you that Saddam Hussein was a murderous dictator. He is currently on trial for crimes and atrocities committed in the 198os--when he was treated as an important ally by the Reagan administration, whose Special Envoy to the Middle East for part of that period was Donald Rumsfeld. The United States was not especially troubled by Saddam's massive human rights violations, any more than it was/is by the various other murderous dictators it has supported, in the past and at present. Promoting human rights and democracy is not a driving force behind US foreign policy.

But for all Saddam's brutality, daily life for most Iraqis, and especially women, was much better under his rule than it has been under the US occupation and sectarian violence that has followed.

Your "guys on the front line" are blowing away Iraqis. Kids, too. Lots of them. Do you deny that?

The American military should be used to defend the American homeland from real threats, not to indiscriminately slaughter foreigners in their own countries. I suspect a lot of the troops serving in this filthy war would agree. That's one reason why so many veterans antiwar groups have sprung up.

But CY is right--it's time to move on. "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens." (Friedrich Schiller)

Posted by: noborders at June 01, 2006 04:01 PM (2MIdC)

74 You want to move on, noborders, because your last response is ridiculous. You say that I am wrong about the bottom line facts that I cite and then admit the first one about Saddam being a murderous dictator and ignore the rest, including that Saddam had ties with al Qaeda and that we have propelled the Iraqi people toward a democratically elected Constitution and democratically elected government.

Instead, you do two things. First, you try to paint Saddam as an American ally based on events in the 1980's when Iran and Iraq were at war, ignoring that in 1990 we went to war against Saddam and were in a state of near-war with him thereafter (remember those "no-fly zones"?). Second, you engage in a rant about American troops generally blowing away Iraqi civilians. That, I do deny; and that, I think shows how off the wall you are. The American military conducts itself according to the international rules of war; it faces an enemy that does not. The American military has generally gone out of its way to avoid civilian causalties; the enemy it faces has no compunction about causing civilian casualties.

The American military has a military justice system that works -- hence, the convictions for the Abu Ghraib abuses. The American military justice system is now operating in its investigation into what happened at Haditha, which was an insurgent hotbed. The sad thing is, noborders, that you want the worst to be true and need to believe the worst is true. I don't. I need to learn the full facts because our Marines in the front lines deserve that no pre-judgments be made.

In any event, it gives me great pleasure to say once again to you, noborders, God Bless America and God Bless the American military.

Posted by: Phil Byler at June 01, 2006 05:08 PM (5rVtL)

75 noborders, I cannot believe the wholesale spin you are buying into. Our press has never supported anything conservative, never cared for the military and continues to portray events worse than they are. I do agree that with soldiers dying, thats bad enough....but things could be worse! Take a close look to the time period post WWII and you will see throughout the media here many of the very same things were said and harped on by the press. The difference only being the time period and the administration was democratic. Not a BUSH supporter but call it like it is. We are only cleaning up and buying time before Iraq can take care of itself.

Posted by: Big Axe at June 01, 2006 10:31 PM (flxyp)

76 Noborders doesn't like it, but we're all in this together, humans believing in freedom to choose life, and humans believing in forced, involuntary and absolute submission to their interpretation of the Will of God.

Moral equivalence? The fighters for 'freedom to choose life' STRIVE to observe Rules of Engagement, even in the heat of battle. The fighters for 'enslavement to our clergy, under our God' HIDE behind grinning children, and fire on us, while videotaping their cleverness!

Some posters here want very much to make the 'freedom fighters' murderers, responsible for the death of a pregnant woman, while ignoring the existent and observable reality that she was in the company of the 'enslave and hide-behind-women-and-children' fighters, which, not to put too fine a point on it, argues for her classification as 'enemy', whether actively armed or not.

Parallel to Vietnam? This: CHILDREN can throw grenades, can count American troops, can report American positions, can wilfully obstruct troops in the belief that Americans are the "Bad Guys", when in fact, the Americans are there to help.

(Think of a surgeon's scalpel cutting through perfectly good tissue, to get at a life-threatening purulence behind it... 'innocent' cells die, to get the diseased tissue!)

Posted by: Karridine at June 02, 2006 03:09 AM (SjEWx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Time for a Refill

It sounds like Al Gore's out again:

Al Gore has made his sharpest attack yet on the George Bush presidency, describing the current US administration as "a renegade band of rightwing extremists".

I wish.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:15 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 30, 2006

Letter From a Wannabe God

This morning I got email from Jesus himself. Actually, I got email from a liberal blogger who styles himself "Gen. JC Christian, patriot." The email, addressed to others and myself, ran as follows:

Hugh Hewitt, Hugh Hewitt Show

Bob Owens, Confederate Yankee

Gary Gross, California Conservative

Biggus Dickus, Blue Crab Boulevard

Dear Mr. Hewitt, Mr Owens, Mr. Gross, and Mr. Dickus,

About a week and a half ago, each of you published scathing posts attacking Rep. John Murtha for his comments about war crimes at Al Haditha, Iraq. Mr Owens called for Murtha's censure; Mr. Dickus demanded his resignation; Mr. Gross wants him frog marched off the Hill.

What seemed to enrage you the most about Murtha's comments was that he had made them before it has been established by the Marine Corps that a crime had been committed. I couldn't agree more. I mean we aren't talking about a goatherd at Gitmo here, we can't jump to any conclusions until Our Leader and Sean Hannity tell us it's acceptable to do so.

Maybe it wasn't a war crime at all. The final report might show that the victims were all terrorists. Who knows? Perhaps the 6 year old was shouldering an RPG and the 3 and 4 year olds were manning a .50 cal machine gun. We won't know until the final report is issued.

But as much grief as you gave Murtha for his remarks, you haven't written a word about remarks attributed to Rep. John Kline:

"I was saddened, surprised and outraged that this could happen," Kline said. He said he thought the incident would be regarded as "a horrific aberration" for the Marines.
Why have you been silent? Isn't he jumping to the same conclusion as Murtha? An official report hasn't been issued. He can't be certain that a war crime was committed, can he.

Worse yet, like Murtha, Kline is a retired Marine. Why is it that these ex-leathernecks seem to be the angriest about what happened at Haditha? Does leaving the Marine Corps cause you to hate America? Maybe you should look into that.

Oh wait. I just realized that Kline is a Republican and one of Our Leader's most loyal servants.

Never mind.

Heterosexually yours,

Gen. JC Christian, patriot

While the others will presumably ignore this email (not the least reason of which is that he didn't bother to send it to everyone he addressed) and with good reason, I personally have no problem at all answering "General Christian."

It is a fair question to ask why I chose to call for Murtha's censure, while ignoring Kline's comments thus far, though I thought the answer would be quite obvious to any reasonable person, much less our Lord and Savior.

Kline, himself a former Marine, stated in the Washington Post (side note to General Christian: a link to a quote is good email etiquette, which is something even a false deity should know):

"I was saddened, surprised and outraged that this could happen," Kline said. He said he thought the incident would be regarded as "a horrific aberration" for the Marines.

He was further quoted three days later in the NY Times, "This was a small number of Marines who fired directly on civilians and killed them," adding "This is going to be an ugly story."

Does anyone have a difficulty spotting the difference between Kline's comments about the deaths in Haditha, and these from Murtha?

Rep. John Murtha, an influential Pennsylvania lawmaker and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, said today Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush that killed a Marine during a patrol in Haditha, Iraq, Nov. 19.

[snip]

Murtha said combat stress prompted the Marines' alleged rampage.
“It's a very serious incident, unfortunately. It shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they're out in combat,” he said. “One man was killed with an [improvised explosive device] and after that they actually went into the houses and killed women and children.”

Kline notes the undisputed facts that the killing of 24 civilians was conducted by Marines, that this was going to be an "ugly story" and that in his opinion, such killing by Marines were "an aberration." At no point in his commentary did he attempt to assign motive, nor guilt, nor innocence. He merely commented on what most of us already knew from the Times and ABC News follow-up reports in mid-March.

John Murtha, however, has apparently declared himself prosecutor, judge and jury in this case. He pointedly accuses the Marines of killing civilians "in cold blood," and even attempts to ascribe a motive and a mindset, more than six weeks before the report of the investigation is even ready for release.

Perhaps in his omnipotence General JC Christian can look into the hearts of men and know what is in their souls, but John Murtha does not have that capability, nor do other mortal men.

It is for that very reason we have a criminal justice system, so on this mortal plane we can attempt to determine (as best we can) guilt or innocence by collecting evidence of a crime, filing charges against the accused, holding a trial where evidence is shown by both sides, prosecution and defense, before finally rendering a verdict of guilt or innocence.

I called for Murtha's censure because he attempted to short circuit the military criminal justice system, prejudging these Marines guilty without the benefit of due process, and potentially compromising the integrity of the criminal proceedings. I made no complaint against Kline, because Kline never even approached improperly interfering in this case.

A deity, particularly an omnipotent one, would presumably know such things. But as well all know, "General JC Christian, patriot" isn't a deity, but merely another poor player as the Bard noted, strutting and fretting his hour upon the stage before he, too, will be heard from no more.

I wish the good General all the best in his blogging endeavors, and hope that the real Jesus is as amused by his antics as I have been.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:28 AM | Comments (115) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 CY,

By all means, let's get that censure meme going!
I for one would welcome the visual of Hastert and Sensenbrenner and other Republican House stalwarts standing in front of a camera and calling for censure for Rep. Murtha. As the Preznit says, bring it on!

Posted by: nick f at May 30, 2006 11:02 AM (vgzEN)

2 nick f, you do seem to have a great deal of difficulty staying on topic, don't you? CY made his points very well, yet you parade off into Never Nerver Land...

CY, I believe you may have momentarily forgotten the Liberal Law of Logic, and I would be remiss if I did not recall it for you. The Liberal Law of Logic: "Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about."

Remember, liberals cannot respond when facts and fundamental logic are used in the same argument. It just sends them into overload and that is not a pretty sight.

Posted by: Old Soldier at May 30, 2006 11:17 AM (X2tAw)

3 (this originally posted by Nick F. and was deleted accidentally)

CY calls again for censuring Rep. Murtha. Why is commenting on that "never never land"? I know it's difficult for you but please try and address what I say instead of your usual "Liberals=bad, wingnuts=good" BS.

Posted by: CY (For nick F) at May 30, 2006 11:59 AM (g5Nba)

4 As to the validity that I charged for Murtha to be censured again, I suggest you check your reading comprehension. I was explaining a position already made, not stating it again as a separate event.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 30, 2006 12:02 PM (g5Nba)

5 nick,

"It is a fair question to ask why I chose to call for Murtha's censure, while ignoring Kline's comments thus far,..."

I believe CY's words; "chose to call" and subsequently, "I called for..." refer to the past tense and are not really relevant to the point of the current post.

I read the current topic as being: first a response to a small "d" diety, and second an opinion as to why Kline's words were an acknowledgement of what was already reported, versus the irresponsibly inflamatory words espoused by Murtha. A further or new call for Murtha to be censured was not made.

Two former Marines spoke of the incident; both carefully chose their words. One was careful to acknowledge a possible bad situation for the Corps; the other invoked a political advantage in support of formely stated opinions about the war. Believe me, Murtha's "in cold blood" are not words carefully chosen to deflect aspersions against his "beloved corps".

Posted by: Old Soldier at May 30, 2006 12:10 PM (X2tAw)

6 CY,

Understood, you were restating your call for censuring Rep. Murtha. That's what I'm addressing. I for one think it's a great way to elect Democrats. As for OS, I don't know where to begin. He doesn't much care for comments that conflict with yours. Too bad.

Posted by: nick f at May 30, 2006 12:22 PM (vgzEN)

7 Nick F is either intentionally being obtuse (and thinking he’s clever by doing so) or he is mind-numbingly dim not to understand what is being stated here. Censure is not the subject of this post.

Any further attempts by you to purposefully change the subject of a comment thread to an off-topic discussion will be met with banning. I’ve been a good sport for several weeks, but as you have proven time and again that you are far more interested in trolling than substantive conversation, I’ve pretty much reached the limits of my patience.

If you are interested in discussing why Kline’s commentary on the Haditha shootings is contextually different than Murtha’s, then by all means engage in a thoughtful discussion. If you can’t stay on topic, please head elsewhere.

As for Old Soldier, he knows far more about the military than you or I ever will. I suggest you try to learn from him. I certainly have.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 30, 2006 12:46 PM (g5Nba)

8 I have no idea what is going on, but my trackbacks are not showing up here or in several other blogs I link to. I've linked this one, Bob. Thanks for doing such a nice job with it.

Gaius

Posted by: Gaius at May 30, 2006 12:57 PM (fXkqP)

9 I really hate to go off topic after CY's post, but aren't comments like this also off topic:

"Remember, liberals cannot respond when facts and fundamental logic are used in the same argument. It just sends them into overload and that is not a pretty sight."

Listen, I understand why smart-ass, partisan logic pisses people off, but please, take the high-road and don’t sink down to their level with generalized ad-hominem attacks. You’re just going to further divide this country, and with all the challenges facing us right now, partisan bickering is the last thing this country needs. I hope you’ll excuse me for going off topic; the partisan attacks that have increasingly dominated the comments section of this blog have really been irking me and I’ve been meaning to say something.

Posted by: Keram at May 30, 2006 01:08 PM (5PC7E)

10 Kline stated known facts. Murtha added supposition and speculation.

When I read some of Murtha's statements, I formed the perception that he was tarring more than just the few Marines involved, all as part of his larger issue with the war. That stinks of politics and is why I believe that Murtha is a useful idiot for the enemy.

When beheadings were occurring and innocent civilians are being blown up in the market, where is Murtha in being judge, jury, and executioner for those "crimes"? Maybe if he were as voiciferous against all of the "innocent" killing as he is against us and these Marines, then maybe I would belive him to be sincerely against this war. Politics.

Just gather and confirm the facts and then act on them accordingly.

Posted by: SouthernRoots at May 30, 2006 01:15 PM (jHBWL)

11 Judging others before their day in court ?? Shocking !! And let's all remember theat O.J. should always have been thought of as innocent. Reps Kline (R) and Mutha (D) were both at the same briefing. A briefing that was done by the Commandant of the Marines. As was Sen Warner (R) they all reached the same conclusion: that there was every reason to believe that something horrific had taken place. Perhaps not as bad as My Lai but something that may be an insurmountable obstacle to cover up.

Posted by: john ryan at May 30, 2006 01:43 PM (TcoRJ)

12 ”Listen, I understand why smart-ass, partisan logic pisses people off, but please, take the high-road and don’t sink down to their level with generalized ad-hominem attacks.”

Keram, since you quoted me, I’ll respond; I accept your criticism as being intended to mediate. However, I will tone down when I see the olive branch being extended from the left along with a spirit of mutual respect. Until such time I shall respond to liberal comments that are intended to insight in kind. (That implies that the host will indulge my comments.) I spent 31 years active duty defending everyone’s right to free speech. To suggest that I should exercise constraint when confronted with antagonism is charitable, but most unrealistic. I commend your intent at mediation; but rest assured, I shall respond within the confines of my conscience.

This is not meant as a rebuke; rather as insight into this old soldier’s position.

Posted by: Old Soldier at May 30, 2006 01:48 PM (X2tAw)

13 Banned is exactly what I would expect from a bully. Can't defend what you say? Ban the critics!
No need, you're deleted from my hard drive.

Posted by: nick f at May 30, 2006 02:15 PM (vgzEN)

14 Asking Nick to stay on topic was too much for him, I take it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 30, 2006 02:26 PM (g5Nba)

15 The "general" has tried to rope me into playing along with his folie a douchebag a few times. I think I bit once, and regret it to this day.

He's an asshole, and best ignored.

But if you're gonna answer him, CY, this was probably the best way.

J.

Posted by: Jay Tea at May 30, 2006 05:07 PM (U0ZHm)

16 hehe good work CY.

Posted by: The Ugly American at May 30, 2006 10:06 PM (iuWs8)

17 Let us be honest for a second. Practically noone comes to blogs such as this, or DailyKos, or Jesus General, or Townhall, or Huffington Post, or NRO, etc., etc. to actually debate anything. Like myself, there are just a whole lot of people that like to see their thoughts on the page, and if people will read them and get pissed off, then even better!

Please answer me honestly: How many times has your mind been changed on an issue by what you read on a blog or a blog's comment section? If there was such a time, what was the issue, and how did your opinion change?

Comment sections on sites like the ones I've named above are for people to say the same thing over and over and over again so they can get some perverse pleasure out of rehashing the same argument with no interest in opening their minds to the possibility that they might be wrong.

Why do we always seem to forget that one-half of an argument is almost always wrong, and oftentimes it's more. This CAN and WILL include you, no matter how sure you may be.

Posted by: Tired at May 30, 2006 11:45 PM (dCgIM)

18 "This was not an accident," said Minnesota Republican John Kline, a former Marine colonel who was briefed about the killings along with other members of the House of Representatives armed-5ervices committee. "This was not an immediate response to an attack. This would be an atrocity," he told The New York Times.

Time to call for censure of Kline too, I think.

Posted by: bat guano crazy at May 31, 2006 12:31 AM (Hf1QS)

19 Tired, were you analyzing motives or self-fulfilling?

Posted by: Old Soldier at May 31, 2006 05:47 AM (X2tAw)

20 CY,

Seems like splitting hairs to me. Anything more than "No comment" is giving an opinion about what happened, thus passing judgement. How can one be "saddened, surprised and outraged" if you haven't been given enough information to make up your mind about what happened? Hmmm...what could Kline be saddened, surprised and outraged about in this incident...hmmm...Maybe all the Marines are innocent and he is saddened, surprised and outraged they didn't kill all of the people in those houses...yeah, that must have been what he meant by that...

Don't care for General JC's tone, but it does seem he caught you fair and square...

Posted by: matt a at May 31, 2006 06:57 AM (fTMz7)

21 The "General" is Tim Hill, a deranged leftyloon, he used this stchick with Art Bell a few years ago.

Posted by: Paul Dunn at May 31, 2006 06:59 AM (fPKg3)

22 matt a, remind me never to play poker with you if you feel general jc caught CY "fair and square." There is a significant difference between being "saddened, surprised and outraged" at news versus leveling an accusation of "cold blooded murder" before the investigation is completed. If you have any powers of reasoning left, you must acknowledge the difference...

Posted by: Old Soldier at May 31, 2006 07:05 AM (X2tAw)

23 Old Soldier - plenty of reasoning power left, the difference is semantics and rhetoric of politics. "There's a significant difference..." Not WRT what happened, just how it is spun. One side is going to spin it up, the other side is going to spin it down. The crux of CY's argument is that Murtha should have said nothing before the investigation was completed, yet here was a Republican accusing the Marines of a "horrible aberration". CY showed it himself with Kline's quote in NY Times, "a small number of Marines who fired directly on civilians and killed them". If a Republican says it, why even have a trial, eh? Did Kline say "cold blooded murder"? Seems like everyone is more upset because Murtha had a better sound-bite than with the actual incident...

Posted by: matt a at May 31, 2006 07:36 AM (fTMz7)

24 You are very smart.

Posted by: salvage at May 31, 2006 08:38 AM (xWitf)

25 matt a,

But the other thing you hve to consider is the behavior of these two gentlemen (and I always use that word tongue-in-cheek when it comes to Congresscritters of either party) in the press/media over the past few months. Remember, Murtha has used the war as a political objective - to tar the Bush administration. Kline has not. CY's censure idea is just a result of a cumulative effect. It is not just this incident. Look at the bigger picture. I'll give you an example - Murtha hanging out with Code Pink - the group that sits outside hospitals and protests soldiers. Cause and effect here.....

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 09:23 AM (ybfXM)

26 tired,

Sorry CY - a bit OT.

You are right that people do not change their minds much, but people do learn more of the background and that can help. For example I leared a lot about Kerry's Silver Star incident from Doug Reese over at JOM. I still don't like Kerry - but I learned.

nick f,

Banning? Well - at least places like CY tolerate people for weeks at a time and warnings are posted. I got banned from TruthOut in one day because the regulars did not like my comments. No warning given. That sounds more like lefty sites. It is rare when a right site bans people. When you get to nutz, we just ignore.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 09:27 AM (ybfXM)

27 Specter, do you live in La La Land? Your last post certainly seem to indicate so. Any person on any blog who attributes any particular displeasing activity solely to the other side (i.e. only lefties band posters) has lost his capacity for meaningful reason. Look, there's a-hole lefties and there's a-hole righties that run blogs, and both groups of those folks ban commenters in relatively similar frequencies.

More importantly, let's consider my hyperbolic description of blog managers who ban commenters as a-holes? Does banning a commenter really make a blogger an a-hole? Probably not, as they are most likely going to ban trolls who waste time and space by spouting talking points, abusive generalizations and the like. Fact is, we don't read blogs to hear some snarky lefty/righty insult our view points or our politics. We read blogs to get perspectives on current events from people of a like mind. Thus, the fact that TruthOut banned you is probably more a testament to your trollitude than to any inherent quality of theirs.

And finally, with regards to Murtha's "hanging otu with Code Pink", of what relevance is that to anything, including censure? As our Supreme Court has pointed out, the freedom of association permits individuals to associate with other people of their choice, and the freedom of expressive association cannot be abrogated without a showing of a compelling state interest. I dare say that you nor anyone else on here can elucidate a compelling state interest that might serve to bar Rep. Murtha from chillin' with the Pinkies.

Posted by: Everett at May 31, 2006 10:16 AM (Bhe/R)

28 Old Soldier, and any others who claim Senator Murtha gets any political advantage from his stand:

First, I disagree with you on this point. I think Murtha's motivations lie entirely elsewhere, and that if you were paying attention you would notice this.

But please ask yourselves where, and why you think he can get any political advantage, and then compare with the Administration and the monarchical powergrab over the past five years.

How do you think Murtha will get more power, influence or support in government by making these statements? He's a Democratic Senator in a Republican controlled Congress. Many, if not most, of his party colleagues take an opposite position. So it's not going to get him on any committees or move him up the party hierarchy. It does not stand to give him more power or influence.

The popular support for his position is nationwide, not in his state, so it doesn't particularly secure his position as a delegate.

His only possible audience is in the Armed Forces, who are loyal to the Commander in Chief, and as such they're historically more likely to vote for the boss and his party. So no extra votes there either.

On the other hand, the political advantages to the Administration of staying in Iraq are transparent: withdrawing troops now, with Iraq in its present state, would be an admission of failure, weakness and wrongheadedness by this already unpopular Administration. These would be massive political disadvantages (and if there were Democrat support for Murtha in Congress, then you'd have a point - but there simply isn't). Politically the Administration will not do the thing that would have prevented this atrocity (in Kline's own words), this random act of violence by marines who are losing their discipline because they have been at war for too long.

Decry this act of political expediency, then, because it is real, and call instead for the courageous act of withdrawing troops because it is what our troops need.

Or it will just get worse, and we will get weaker as a nation.

Posted by: bat guano crazy at May 31, 2006 10:49 AM (BAab+)

29 Everett,

You obviously missed the point. Try acting like a troll on most right sites. You will be tolerated, made fun of, etc. But rarely banned. Yes - there are going to be extreme sites that ban people quickly, but it is more rare than the left. TruthOut, which is not considered far-left extreme bans people right and left - no warning - nothing - all you have to do is disagree with their position and it happens. That isn't La La Land boy, it is fact. So does Larry Johnson. I can name others.

Yet here, trolls as well as people who can disagree and discuss positions are tolerated to a point and then warned. Case in point - you start your post with an attack against me. Listen pal - I don't know your experience on the net but I've been around since george, lisa, gopher, telnet, etc. I participated in usenet debates when most people didn't know that the internet was more than the WWW.

You are right that Murtha has the right to hang out with Code Pink. Never said he didn't. I said it shows his attempt to use Iraq as a political leverage point, rather than showing concern about our soldiers. C'mon - These people gave money to the insurgents. They supported the people killing our soldiers and then protest against wounded soldiers outside the hospital. Do you think that is the right thing to do? You see - you tried to change the subject. It wasn't about Murtha's rights. It was about his behavior and character. Get a grip!

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 11:20 AM (ybfXM)

30 Specter -- please make your arguments without lying. Even in right-wing news sources, the most damning signs in Code Pink's protest that they could cite were "Maimed for a Lie" and "Enlist here to die for Halliburton." I don't much like these protests, but this is hardly "the group that sits outside hospitals and protests soldiers", as you say. They are not protesting soldiers, they are protesting those who get soldiers wounded and killed for lies.

"It is rare when a right site bans people." -- this is so at odds with reality as to be risible. The banning practices at right-wing blogs are far more aggressive, just compare Daily Kos with Red State. CY is a rare exception, and even here...

Also, your smearing of Murtha is very unbecoming. Murtha is a war hero who bled for his country, an old war hawk who's been a tireless defender of the military in Congress over many, many years, initially supported this war, and is the person in Congress with the closest and deepest ties to the Marines command structure. Most everyone in Washington understands this: if you want to know what the Marines generals are thinking but can't say, listen to Murtha. He was willing to speak up when even Democratic leaders wouldn't -- and expose himself to this kind of smearing -- because his ties to the military have made him more aware than most of what a strategic disaster we are in, what damage is being done to our armed forces, and what an intractable lose-lose situation this has become. Your smearing of an honorable man says much about your character -- putting party about country.

I believe Murtha came forward on Haditha for two reasons:
(1) he is genuinely shocked at the moral damage to his beloved Marines that's being done by being calously thrown into this hopeless situation and by a morally corrupt leadership (cf. Gonzales' torture memos, Rumsfeld and Miller's role in Abu Ghraib), and
(2) to get ahead of the WH/RNC treasonous spin, who would blame it all solely on the Marines (cf. Abu Ghraib) to protect themselves politically, without regard for the damage to the Marines' morale and to our security (cf. Plame, Valerie) -- that's why Murtha's top talking point is always how this is a failure of leadership.

Posted by: mikezw at May 31, 2006 11:20 AM (AEisU)

31 (Typo, that would be: putting party *above* country.)

Posted by: mikezw at May 31, 2006 11:25 AM (AEisU)

32 bat guano,

How do you think Murtha will get more power, influence or support in government by making these statements? He's a Democratic Senator in a Republican controlled Congress. Many, if not most, of his party colleagues take an opposite position. So it's not going to get him on any committees or move him up the party hierarchy. It does not stand to give him more power or influence.

The popular support for his position is nationwide, not in his state, so it doesn't particularly secure his position as a delegate.

Well....let's see how to discuss this. According to the MSM dems will controll Congress come the fall. Would you think that maybe he was promised something to make a vocal stance? Look at it this way - who ever heard of obscure Murtha before he came out with his "cut and run" strategy? Nobody. He was completely off the radar. But - he has a solid service record so somebody propped him up (ummmm.....DNC maybe?) to start making waves about Iraq. Could it be that he is a small cog in a bigger strategy? 'Twould seem so.

Please show your evidence about people "nationwide" supporting Murtha. And be careful because most of the polls have been very thoroughly vetted. But I would really like to see you back that point up.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 11:26 AM (ybfXM)

33 mikezw

Standing outside a military hospital spouting off that you were wounded for lies, oil, corrupt politicians is extremely tactless.

They are right up there with those that protest at military funerals. IMO.

Now, back on topic.

Saying that bad things happened, civilians were shot and killed and it is a horrible situation is understanding that a horrible incident happened. The investigation will bring out the details as to HOW it happened. Doesn't make it an easier pill to swallow but it could be the difference between a terrible crossfire that killed innocents and some rogue military purposly killing those innocents. That is for a court to decide, not Murtha.

Concern and sympathy is ok, Telling the world that those Marines are guilty after looking in a crystal ball is not.

Posted by: Retired Navy at May 31, 2006 11:28 AM (Mv/2X)

34 mikezw,

I never questioned Murtha's service, did I? You see - you tried to change the subject. It wasn't about smearing him for his service record was it? But you insinuated that is what I did. Now prove I said that since you decided to say that I did. Go for it.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 11:31 AM (ybfXM)

35 One thing I haven't heard from those saying that Murtha was doing this for "political gain" is just what "gain" they're talking about. It reveals it as a talking point and those that use it as stenographers for someone else's purpose. And why the implication that all "political gain" is bad? Working for the Civil Rights Act was working for "political gain," and it was obviously good political gain. Working to end the Vietnam War—and pointing to the deaths of tens of thousands of young Americans to end it—was working for good politcal gain.

Your implication seems to be that Murtha's's trying to simply get reeleced—in Ohio—by smearing Marines.

WTF?

Seems to me that Murtha is working for the good gain of taking Marines and other fighters out of harms way in a wrong war. And, like Jean Schmidt did, a decorated, combat-serving Marine is being smeared here...for a much less honorable political gain.

Posted by: Thom at May 31, 2006 11:36 AM (21VTo)

36 Thom,

Show one place where any one in this forum smeared Murtha's record. Just one. Try it. You may not like what you find.

Whatever happened in Haditha will come out. If it was rogue military they should get what they deserve. But what we know for a fact about culpability is...well....nothing yet. More and more details are coming out. It is not right for anyone - including Kline - to be making any statements about the issue yet. Certainly not "cold blooded murder" statements. Here is some information from yesterday's WaPo:

Drone's Video May Aid Marine Inquiry Footage Shot on Day of Iraq Incident

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 30, 2006; A03

Military investigators piecing together what happened in the Iraqi town of Haditha on Nov. 19 -- when Marines allegedly killed two dozen civilians -- have access to video shot by an unmanned drone aircraft that was circling overhead for at least part of that day, military defense lawyers familiar with the case said in interviews.

~snip~

Yesterday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said charges will be issued against troops if the evidence merits it. For now, however, "it would be premature for me to judge" the outcome of the two U.S. military investigations, Pace said on CBS's "The Early Show." "We'll get to the bottom of the investigation and take the appropriate action."

Iraqis who say they witnessed the violence in Haditha have said U.S. troops shot men, women and children at close range in retaliation for the death of a Marine lance corporal in a roadside bombing. The two investigations -- one into the incident and another into allegations that military personnel tried to cover it up -- began this year after news reports challenged an early military statement that the civilians were killed in the bombing.

~snip~

"There's a ton of information that isn't out there yet," said one lawyer, who, like the others, would speak only on the condition of anonymity because a potential client has not been charged. The radio message traffic, he said, will provide a different view of the incident than has been presented by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and other members of Congress. For example, he said, contrary to Murtha's account, it will show that the Marines came under small-arms fire after the roadside explosion.

Well...it could be spin too, but the obvious bottom line is that we do not know the outcome of the investigation yet.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 11:49 AM (ybfXM)

37 Specter -- you said: "It wasn't about Murtha's rights. It was about his behavior and character." You smeared Murtha's character, for your own petty political gain. *You* made character the issue, so it is legitimate for me to argue back based on his character. Like Thom said, Murtha has nothing to gain personally from speaking out. His concern is for the Marines and for the country. The same cannot be said of those who smear him.

Retired Navy -- I never condoned those protests, actually I specifically said I don't like them (although they are perfectly legitimate, and the country needs to return to a tradition of respect for dissent which is central to its character, if America is to remain America). The point was that Specter was lying about the nature of the protests in order to smear Murtha. While I don't feel much affinity for them, I believe that people in Code Pink genuinely care more for the welfare of the soldiers than those who put party above country to defend the criminal incompetence and disregard for the welfare of soldiers of this Administration (cf. cuts after cuts to the VA budget).

Posted by: mikezw at May 31, 2006 11:50 AM (AEisU)

38 BTW Thom - it would be kinda hard for Murtha to be reelected in Ohio seeing as he is from Pennsylvania. Facts anyone?

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 11:51 AM (ybfXM)

39 Spector, you can't be serious.

How about the headline for the very latest CY post: John Murtha: My Lai-r

And I how about his from May 26:

Even if these accusations are proven true—once charges are finally brought and duly prosecuted—Murtha's grandstanding is still a reprehensible act, trading upon horrible (alledged) murders for temporary political gain.

You really can not be serious.

Posted by: Thom at May 31, 2006 11:58 AM (21VTo)

40 Specter --

A chain of speculative assertions ending up with "T'would seem so" does not make a cogent argument.

Thanks for playing.

Posted by: bat guano crazy at May 31, 2006 11:58 AM (BAab+)

41 mikezw,

That is because there is a problem with Murtha's character. But you said:

Also, your smearing of Murtha is very unbecoming. Murtha is a war hero who bled for his country, an old war hawk who's been a tireless defender of the military in Congress over many, many years, initially supported this war, and is the person in Congress with the closest and deepest ties to the Marines command structure. Most everyone in Washington understands this: if you want to know what the Marines generals are thinking but can't say, listen to Murtha. He was willing to speak up when even Democratic leaders wouldn't -- and expose himself to this kind of smearing -- because his ties to the military have made him more aware than most of what a strategic disaster we are in, what damage is being done to our armed forces, and what an intractable lose-lose situation this has become. Your smearing of an honorable man says much about your character -- putting party about country.

Right off the bat you tried to tie the questions about Murtha's character to his war record. Look at your own words mike. You think he gets a free pass for his stances today because he has a solid service record? Why? It does not make sense. Try again - explain to me who (besides his local constituents) had ever heard of Murtha before last year. Why don't you find a few articles from say 2000 about his stances.....

And your assertion that he is has the closest ties to the command structure? Where did you get that? I would be willing to bet you are wrong. So put up your proof and then we'll talk. You made the claim - not me - it is up to you to prove it.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 11:59 AM (ybfXM)

42 You're right, Spector. Pennsylvania, not Ohio. More facts?

Posted by: Thom at May 31, 2006 12:01 PM (21VTo)

43 Spector, I just saw your word game with me. I said:

And, like Jean Schmidt did, a decorated, combat-serving Marine is being smeared here...for a much less honorable political gain.

You changed that to:

Show one place where any one in this forum smeared Murtha's record. Just one. Try it. You may not like what you find.

I didn't say someone smeared his "record." I said they (you) smeared him. That's weasely.

Posted by: Thom at May 31, 2006 12:09 PM (21VTo)

44 By the way, I went to check out the original post, and it turn out that "Jesus' General" has a reply to CY:

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_05_28_patriotboy_archive.html#114904819525164952

I'm not sure it's my favorite style of satire... but he does hit the key point: the full quote from Kline is 'pre-judging' as much as Murtha.

And, by the way, there's nothing wrong with 'pre-judging', i.e. discussing how you see the facts available, we all do it all the time for every kind of case. Commenting publicly on how you assess the available facts so far would only be an problem if he was in the command structure or somehow involved in the legal proceedings. Otherwise he can and should discuss it. Murtha is regularly in touch with the Marines generals, more than anyone else in Congress, and wouldn't be speaking up if there was any doubt that this is a serious problem.

Posted by: mikezw at May 31, 2006 12:10 PM (AEisU)

45 Thom,

What happens is Murtha was wrong in his assertion? I'm not saying he is or is not - we simply do not know at this point. What happens to the families of those soldiers that have been accused. Aren't they already guilty in your eyes? In the eyes of everyone who hangs on Murtha's every word?

Nevertheless, your implication was that people are smearing Murtha's military record. I asked you to show one place. Still haven't seen it. Try again.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 12:11 PM (ybfXM)

46 Specter -- let me spell it out real slow:

1) We were discussing the validity of Murtha's comments on Haditha, how they compare with Kline's, etc.

2) You tried to impugn Murtha's character by bringing up issues unrelated to Haditha (the silly Code Pink stuff), and suggested Murtha was interested in harming the military for 'political gain'.

3) Since you had shifted the argument to impugning Murtha's character and motives with unrelated issues, it was important to respond: Murtha has proven himself to be a man of great character over his entire life, and a tireless defender of the Marines -- and this had to be said in response to your smear. He has nothing to gain politically from this (when almost every other Democratic politician is cowering, that should give you a clue), he's speaking out and putting himself in the line of fire (politically speaking) out of a sense of duty to the Marines and to the country.

Posted by: mikezw at May 31, 2006 12:23 PM (AEisU)

47 Holy crap. Is this what I should expect here? From Spector:

Nevertheless, your implication was that people are smearing Murtha's military record. I asked you to show one place. Still haven't seen it. Try again.

Here's what I said:

And, like Jean Schmidt did, a decorated, combat-serving Marine is being smeared here...for a much less honorable political gain.

First, I never said anything like what you claim I did. And you have no response for the smears I did find.

God, what a waste of time.

Posted by: Thom at May 31, 2006 12:44 PM (3jLID)

48 Thom,

I am going to break this into two posts.

Now just where did I "smear" Murtha. I do not like the man. I do not like his politics. I do not like the game he is now playing. I do not like lying and trying to take advantage of issues like this for political gain. But you show me where he was so well known for his positions before a year ago.

But don't take my word for it. Let's go to Murtha's words himself:

From Face The Nation, March 5, 2006:
Congressman Murtha, thank you for coming this morning, and I want to start by quoting something that General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said this morning on "Meet the Press." He said he believes the way in Iraq is going, in his words, "very, very well." What is your assessment?
Representative JACK MURTHA (Democrat, Pennsylvania; House Appropriations Committee): Why would I believe him? I mean, that administration, this administration, including the president, had mischaracterized this war for the last two years. They, first of all, they said it will take 40,000 troops to settle this thing right after the invasion. Then they said there's no insurgency. They're dead-enders is what the secretary of defense said. On and on and on, the mischaracterization of the war. They said there's nuclear weapons. There are no nuclear weapons there. There are no biological weapons there. No al-Qaeda connection. So why would I believe the chairman of the joint chiefs when he says things are going well. I ask my staff--when my staff--when they make a statement like this, I say, `Look, look in the latest report that the State Department puts out, the Weekly Report, and tell me how much progress we've made.' So they look at it, and we've made no progress at all. Sixty percent unemployment, the Iraqis want us out of there. Eighty percent of the Iraqis want us out of there. Oil production below prewar level. Water production, only 30 percent of the people getting water. Now our troops are being fed well and being taken care of. They're doing everything they can do militarily. But they're in a situation where they're caught in a civil war. And there's two participants fighting for survival and fighting for supremacy inside that country, and that's my definition of a civil war.
So I don't believe the secretary. I think we're not making progress. We're caught in a civil war. We've lost almost 20,000 people in this war, if you count the casualties and the people who've been killed in the three years we've been involved.

More to come...

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 01:06 PM (ybfXM)

49 Part II

From the State Department Weekly Report - the same time week - the one you would think Murtha was referring too:
-Iraqi Police and Coalition Forces conduced a raid resulting in the death of Abu Asma, the Al Qaeda military leader of northern Baghdad.
-The Police Chief of Diwaniyah Province...and Col. Larry McCallister, commander of Gulf Region South District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cut the ribbon to officially open the 32nd police station in Diwaniyah Province.
-The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed construction on the $118 million New Power Generation Plant in Basrah Province. The new plant will provide power to approximately 1.5 million residents.
-On February 21, the US Army Corps of Engineers completed construction on the $3.4 million Al Abara Substation, an Electric Distribution Project in Diyala Province. The rehabilitated substation is capable of providing power to approximately 60,000 residents.
-U.S. and Iraqi troops have stepped up their patrols in Iraq's Baghdad and Babil provinces, and with assistance of ordinary Iraqis, discovered and defused numerous roadside bombs, mine fields and weapons caches.
-Total trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces: 232,100.
-Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Ja'afari claimed that sectarian violence in his country would not derail efforts to set up a new government and said the security situation was as now under control....The number of attacks has dropped sharply over the last few days.
-Construction is complete for the Al Basasel School project that 150 students and eight faculty members will utilize in Mosul. The US Army Corps of Engineeers completed constructed on several other educational facilities:
--Renovations on the Malk Al Ashtar school project in Diwaniyah, that will benefit some 2,000 Iraqi students.
--A girls' school housing 480 students in Khairat, Karbala Province.
--Refurbishing of the Imam Ali School in Karbala....This school will serve approximately 960 students.
-US Army Corps of Engineers completed a water pump station project that will benefit approximately 100,000 Iraqis in the western part of Mosul.
-Construction is complete on two US-funded Village Road Projects in the Basrah Governorate that will provide improved transportation for 6,000 local residents in Taha and Al Khas....
-The dinar remained stable against the dollar this week, ending at 1,476 dinars per USD on March 1.

So let's see...Murtha's staff reviews this report and tells Murtha that no progress is happening? Yet the report clearly shows progress? How dishonest is that? It doesn't smear his service record does it? It shows disregard for facts though.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 01:07 PM (ybfXM)

50 Part III

Let's look at more of his statements. According to the CIA Factbook for 2005 the Iraqi unemployment rate was 25%-30%. Seems like Murtha's 60% was stretching things a bit, doesn't it? Not only that but from the same source:

Although a comparatively small amount of capital plant was damaged during the hostilities, looting, insurgent attacks, and sabotage have undermined efforts to rebuild the economy. Attacks on key economic facilities - especially oil pipelines and infrastructure - have prevented Iraq from reaching projected export volumes, but total government revenues have been higher than anticipated due to high oil prices. Despite political uncertainty, Iraq has established the institutions needed to implement economic policy, has successfully concluded a three-stage debt reduction agreement with the Paris Club, and is working toward a Standby Arrangement with the IMF. The Standby Arrangement would clear the way for continued debt relief from the Paris Club.

Murtha claimed that 80% of Iraqi's wanted us out of there. Yet the worst poll for us I've seen is the World Public Opinion Org poll entitled What the Iraqi Public Wants, published January 31, 2006, and it says:

Support for Timetable

Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of the Iraqi's favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of "within six months" and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years. Just 29% say it should "only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq."

So it seems Murtha's number was somewhat high. Hey - he has staff to check this stuff.

You see...I don't question Murtha's service record. In fact I have never seen anyone attack it. But I do question his politics. And that isn't a smear. I just showed you through his own words how he, at best, tries to stretch the truth to prop up his position. That is wrong. And just so you know - if you have read my stuff - I don't much trust any politician. There are those I like better than others, and some I loathe.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 01:16 PM (ybfXM)

51 mikezw,

That is not what happened, although you may twist it so. The comment I made was about whether CY's issue of censure makes sense. The issue was why Murtha and not Kline - that is where we were in the discussion where you popped in. My point was very simple for those that can read and comprehend at the same time - It isn't just Murtha's comments on Haditha that culminate at this point. It is his overall behavior over the last year or so. Kline does not have that type of record. Here is what I said:

But the other thing you hve to consider is the behavior of these two gentlemen (and I always use that word tongue-in-cheek when it comes to Congresscritters of either party) in the press/media over the past few months. Remember, Murtha has used the war as a political objective - to tar the Bush administration. Kline has not. CY's censure idea is just a result of a cumulative effect. It is not just this incident. Look at the bigger picture. I'll give you an example - Murtha hanging out with Code Pink - the group that sits outside hospitals and protests soldiers. Cause and effect here.....

It was simply a comment. You are the one who tried to take it from there and insinuate that I am smearing a "warhawk's" record. LOL...warhawk. Right. But you went further with unsubstantiated claims that Murtha is the closest congresscritter to the generals. Gee...his comment from face the nation sure don't support that.

I have put up my opinion about Murtha. Take it or leave it. But if you think it is right to support a man who supports groups like Code Pink - go right ahead. Elections are coming - even in PA right Thom?

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 01:24 PM (ybfXM)

52 Spector:

Now just where did I "smear" Murtha. I do not like the man. I do not like his politics. I do not like the game he is now playing. I do not like lying and trying to take advantage of issues like this for political gain.

You changed the field to fit your play midgame again. Now it's you I was supposed to find a smear from? That's not what you asked:

Show one place where any one in this forum smeared Murtha's record. Just one. Try it. You may not like what you find.

I didn't like what I found. I found smears. And showed them to you. You showed your inability or unwillingness to face things directly and dodged to "Murtha's record." Now you dodge to "where I smeared him." And then you dodge to another subject completely: But you show me where he was so well known for his positions before a year ago. and print two large excerpts which I will not read.

And BTW, you smeared him while denying smearing him: I do not like lying and trying to take advantage of issues like this for political gain. Calling someone a liar who takes advantage of deaths for selfish gain is a smear.

But you knew that. Now show us how big of a man you are and don't dodge. Face this.

Posted by: Thom at May 31, 2006 01:25 PM (3jLID)

53 Specter -- you are poorly informed on Murtha's record in Congress as a hawk and a tireless defender of the Marines (either that or you're lying), and you're impermeable to logic (you can't ask us to listen to an argument based on Murtha's record and then rule out 99% of his life-long record as out of bounds from the discussion). Have a nice life.

Posted by: mikezw at May 31, 2006 01:33 PM (AEisU)

54 mikezw,

I hear you pontificating, but I posted Murtha's actual words and facts - yes facts - that actually belie his words. Where are your facts and links? Any? Any at all? Or are you just going to use your brilliant rhetoric?

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 01:40 PM (ybfXM)

55 Old Soldier you have yet to answer for why it is terrible for Murtha to comment on the incident, but ok for his republican counterpart to comment on it.

You see why your credibility is at zero on this, don't you? We KNOW Murtha is a decorated marine, well loved by his fellow marines. We DONT know that you are anything more than a lowly enlisted member of the 101st Chairborne Division of the Fighting Keyboardists Corps. Thus, anything you have to say is of no consequence.

Thanks for playing.

Posted by: Lisa at May 31, 2006 01:41 PM (2Rz49)

56 Thom,

We are cross-directing - if that is a good word. Ok. You meant general smear. I meant smear his service record. I don't think anyone has smeared his service record - here - or anywhere I have read about. But I think frank discussion and criticism of his current politics is in order.

But then again - I posted some facts that you have not responded to. Do I smear his current politics - not sure smear is the right word - but I do not like his politics. Never will. If he was my congresscritter I'd be out to depose him. Yet I support Joe Lieberman who is one of my Senators. Go figure.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 01:44 PM (ybfXM)

57 I think the mistake you may be making here, CY, is assuming that you know as much as Murtha knows about the situation. Jack Murtha has been an influential voice within the Pentagon and the foreign policy establishment for years. Without a doubt, he has access to information that the So-called Liberal Media and blogs alike do not. Regardless of how one feels about Murtha's politics, I think one has to consider a little more respect for the source. He has certainly earned the benefit of the doubt.

Beyond that, have you ever heard of a Marine that did not support his fellow Marines and the Corps? Look at Murtha's record: he's consistently a supporter of the military. True, Murtha is against the war, but then so is most of America. That doesn't disqualify him as a credible source on military matters, especially sensitive issues like Haditha, given his access to military top brass.

Finally, I think there is a definite tone in Kline's comments of condemnation for the act. I find it too much of a stretch to believe that Kline, an avid supporter of the Iraq war, would be "outraged" at 20 or so civilian deaths. There have been tens of thousands of deaths of Iraq. No one supporting the war can credibly claim to be "outraged" by the casualties, unless they have a child's understanding of the realities of war. Kline's comments clearly indicate that he sees something particular about this incident, and, if you believe Murtha is wrong to criticize, then you're being hypocritical not to hold Kline to the same standard.

Posted by: Samurai Sam at May 31, 2006 01:46 PM (HrtLF)

58 Lisa,

Read the whole thread. Already answered because what was said was different. One said - something happened and it was horrible no matter the reason. One said cold blooded murderers of women and children. All this before the facts are out.

I agree that civilians being killed is horrible. No question. I believe that the investigation needs to be completed. No Question. I believe that no politician should be making public comments before the investigation is complete (reminds me of Nifong saying that the DNA would prove all - but having to back off that after the results came back). Any statement can prejudice the results. Which one do you think made the more prejudicial statement?

Game over.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 01:49 PM (ybfXM)

59 Spector:

We are cross-directing - if that is a good word. Ok. You meant general smear. I meant smear his service record. I don't think anyone has smeared his service record - here - or anywhere I have read about. But I think frank discussion and criticism of his current politics is in order.

Thanks for attempting to come to common ground on language.

Now that we're here—I'm not what the difference is. To call Murtha a liar who uses the deaths of Marines for selfish gain is to smear him as a person, obvioulsy, AND especially a smear as a Marine. That doesn't require a lot of thought, does it? If you don't mean to smear his "record"--fine--but I think you do anyway saying what you do. Please consider that.

And let me remind you, I entered this conversation saying that of the people accusing John Murtha of using this for "political gain," none spell out what that gain is. And, replying to the charges by very many in the right blogosphere, here included, that Murtha's words were harming the Marines, I said it seemed that Murtha—a Marine—was the one being smeared. That's an unfortunate irony, IMO.

You then came after me, let me remind you, by saying nobody in this forum smeared Murtha. That's obviously not true, and I showed that.

And your response to the "political gain" question was this:

According to the MSM dems will controll Congress come the fall. Would you think that maybe he was promised something to make a vocal stance? Look at it this way - who ever heard of obscure Murtha before he came out with his "cut and run" strategy? Nobody. He was completely off the radar. But - he has a solid service record so somebody propped him up (ummmm.....DNC maybe?) to start making waves about Iraq. Could it be that he is a small cog in a bigger strategy? 'Twould seem so.

Wow. Spector, you can't really want to use this. You seem to be really hot about asking for "proof" here...so what about this?

and you can't see the smears built into it? "Cuta nd run"? And he was "promised something" (????????????) to diss the Marines that he served with for 37 years?

Man. I'm trying to stay polite now, Spector, but I think it's time you offered something like an admission about some of these points.

Posted by: Thom at May 31, 2006 02:34 PM (3jLID)

60 Spector

You asked me: "What if Murtha's wrong?" I'd ask you the same question. What will you do if Mutha is wrong? What will you feel? What will you say and write? What is the fire that burns your anger at Murtha? What if he's wrong?

What if he's right? is surely as good a question, you can't argue with that, can you? What if he's right? What will you feel? What will you say and write?

I'd charge that if this turns out to be true and Murtha had waited until after all the Marines involved were convicted to say a word—your anger and vitriol for Murtha would be the same. I charge that of you, CY, Malkin, Powerline, etc.

This is about disagreeing over this war—and the tactics used in arguing the disagreement. I charge that these tactics displayed here are base, are smears, are disingenuous, are intentional distractions. They reflect the strength of the overall argument of this side.

What if Murtha's right, Spector?

If he's wrong, I'll be shocked and angry, to tell you the truth. And I'll probably write him an email asking him to very plainly explain himself and apologize.

You have to realize that this is largely about trust: Getting info on Marines—who am I going to trust more? A 37-year Marine and current member of Congress (and ranking minority-member on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee), or CY? Or Malkin? Or you? Of course I'm going to take his words very seriously. And I can not take seriously the words of those who, without any showable proof or even access to proof, call him a liar and a coward and on and on and on. And because, it seems demonstrated, he doesn't agree with you on the war. That's it. Disagree--get smeared.

If you want respect, attention, all that--this stuff has to change.

Posted by: Thom at May 31, 2006 02:57 PM (3jLID)

61 If he's wrong, I'll be shocked and angry, to tell you the truth.

Why? Its obvious he's gone soft in the head in his old age. I can't hold senility against anyone.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 31, 2006 03:17 PM (gf5iT)

62 Spector, I offer you Purple Avenger as Exhibit A in my argument.

I'm sure you understand.

Posted by: Thom at May 31, 2006 03:25 PM (3jLID)

63 You said:

How many times has your mind been changed on an issue by what you read on a blog or a blog's comment section? If there was such a time, what was the issue, and how did your opinion change?

While my opinion may not be changed all that often, I am often forced to at least think about those opinions by comments at dailyKos, much like comments from my moderate conservative father-in-law do.

Those that visit blogs to see thier words on the screen are not there to listen. W/o listening, there will be no growth.

Cheers

Posted by: Spud1 at May 31, 2006 04:33 PM (gfD8r)

64 Specter,

In impugning John Murtha as an unknown who is making his name by criticizing the Marines and Bush you really show your ignorance to national politics. Murtha has been widely known for years for his "non-Democratic Party" views. The man has been a long-time friend of the GOP in Congress "crossing the aisle" continually to vote against abortion rights and gun regulation. He has regularly earned a 0% rating from NARAL and A+ from the NRA. And, due to the "man bites dog" nature of the ratings, has long been a known factor in politics.

Republican Presidents and the Republican Congress have made Murtha their first stop when attempting to gather bi-partisan support. Now that the "party machine" has been turned loose on Murtha it's doubtful he has improved his position, as you think. His name has been so tainted it's doubtful he's the first destination for the GOP.

Murtha has been in Congress for 31 years and is quite well known for his term on the Armed Forces Committee, his hawkishness and his willingness to stand up for the "common fighting man", the grunt on the battlefield. His recent stands in the public eye against the Bush Policy in the Middle East is nothing new for Murtha and it is perfectly mirrored by the actions during his long term in office. And, it is also about time someone in Congress stood up and talked about accountibility for ones actions. He finally got your attention (and took the right's indignation over the Spanish version of the US Anthem off the front page as a bonus!!!).

Posted by: Rick Nettles at May 31, 2006 05:22 PM (iQKAH)

65 Thom,

Sorry - had to mow the dang lawn.

Listen - I have pointed out many times that I think Murtha's strategy here is just a small cog in a bigger strategy. The DNC has been actively trying to pull down this administration for 5 years now. You can't even question that. They needed someone who has a solid military record to be the point on the Iraq policy issue. Now if they did not care about the record - why not just use Kerry - I mean at least he was well known throughout the country. But no, we bring out Murtha because no-one can actually pick at his military record. But he is still talking just the DNC talking points.

Now lets talk semantics. Obviously your definition of smear is not anywhere near mine. Smear means villify to me - and is much more serious in my mind than in yours. You think "cut and run" is a smear. I don't - I think it speaks accurately of Murtha's position. You think my saying Murtha "lies" is a smear. But did you read my Part I above as to what Murtha said on "Face the Nation"? Did you note that in part II, the very thing that Murtha says he used to determine that there was "no progress" in Iraq (the Weekly Report) had a ton of good news in it showing just the opposite? Why would Murtha say the opposite? I posted information that showed that many of Murtha's statements were at best exaggerations, at worst outright lies. Not a smear if the facts back up the claim. Sorry...the quotes speak louder than plain rhetoric.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 05:25 PM (ybfXM)

66 Rick,

Find one national level article about all that about Murtha from before 2004. You have made statements, now back it up. Sorry - plain rhetoric doesn't cut it for me. Sorry if you like it when people believe you simply because you say it is so.

I have been debating national politics for many, many years. Quite frankly I lived in PA for quite some time. Never heard of Murtha before 2004. So educate me - but with something besides just words.

Above I posted actual words that Murtha spoke that were not true. Why haven't any of you who would malign me spoken to those actual words from this year?

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 05:29 PM (ybfXM)

67 Kline notes the undisputed facts that the killing of 24 civilians was conducted by Marines, that this was going to be an "ugly story" and that in his opinion, such killing by Marines were "an aberration." At no point in his commentary did he attempt to assign motive, nor guilt, nor innocence. He merely commented on what most of us already knew from the Times and ABC News follow-up reports in mid-March.

John Murtha, however, has apparently declared himself prosecutor, judge and jury in this case. He pointedly accuses the Marines of killing civilians "in cold blood," and even attempts to ascribe a motive and a mindset, more than six weeks before the report of the investigation is even ready for release.

Wow, that's splitting the hair mightly finely there. I assume that you have the same sources as Mr. Murtha, so you're right, we should let the investigation run its course.

If it is indeed true, I'm sure you'll show some of that conservative moral fortitude that I keep hearing about and apologize.

Posted by: Antioch at May 31, 2006 06:00 PM (gS3jn)

68 Spector

Befoe I go and look, and I don't know if I'll be able to until this evening, your "proof" of Murtha's lies falls flat to me in a couple ways. First: You could list out the yin-yang reports of "progress" in Iraq and say Murtha's ignoring it and it seems equivalent to saying he ignored that "Mussolini made the trains run on time." Are an obviously strong indurgency, daily bombings, scads of other "non-progress related" events, not to mention 2,500 American deaths just a friggin' blip to you? That I can not understand.

As to the Weekly Reports. So he thought the "progress" reported didn't mean a lot compared to rather horrible parts of the report. I agree with him on that. It really does seem like lipstick on a pig.

And id you get the CIA numbers on unemplyment from Powerline?

Murtha claims the unemployment rate in Iraq is 60%, which is unbelievable on its face. This is a figure that is sometimes cited on far-left blogs, which I suspect are Murtha's source; the CIA's World Factbook estimates Iraq's unemployment rate for 2005 at 25-30%. (The Factbook didn't attempt to estimate the unemployment rate under Saddam.)"

And why go to the CIA Factbook when you were claiming he ignored the Weekly Report? What did the Report say about it? did it say anything? Here's the Voice of America (why won't that link work?) in February of this year:

Although the Iraqi soldiers say they joined the army to fight terrorism and defend Iraq, in a country with an estimated 30 to 60 percent unemployment rate, the contractor says money is also a big incentive."

So what are you gonna go with?

Posted by: Thom at May 31, 2006 06:56 PM (3jLID)

69 Huh. The site does not seem to allow VOA news.

Posted by: Thom at May 31, 2006 06:57 PM (3jLID)

70 You mean here? Yep - CY doesn't allow links to various sites. But you can look up the sites and stats yourself. But my statement stands - Murtha said on national TV that based on the "Weekly Report" he could see that no progress was being made in Iraq. Flat out lie from my perspective. How can power plants, schools, etc. be no progress? He did not qualify it as "well the bad outweighs the good." He said, to quote specifically, "So they look at it, and we've made no progress at all." That is BS. No getting around it.

So now you want to dispute the numbers. Go look for yourself.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 07:11 PM (ybfXM)

71 Spector, that's quibbling and you have to know it. If someone standing next to a burning house puts out a fire in their dog house and says "I'm making progress," and I report to the neighbors that "No progress has been made," I'm not lying. I'm giving a good portrayal of what's happening. That is entirely reasonable and applicable here.

And give me the link to the Weekly Report.

Posted by: Thom at May 31, 2006 07:18 PM (3jLID)

72 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/62580.pdf

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 07:26 PM (ybfXM)

73 You can look at all of them. BTW - it is not quibbling. It is a fact that Murtha said this on national television without any qualification. It is a fact that he said it specifically in response to the reading of the Weekly Report. Go figure.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 07:28 PM (ybfXM)

74 CJ=Troll. Good DNC talking points CJ. Nice pet doggy. Can't even spell....gawwwd....

But listen CJ - you obviously did not read the entire thread. Too anxious to get to the bottom and be a troll right? I said a few times above that NO POLITICIAN should be speaking out about this before the investigation is over. Bet you missed that huh? The reason that Murtha is worthy of more disrespect is his record of stretching the truth beyond credibility. He is the one who called the marines cold blooded murderers and insinuated a cover-up. Not Kline.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 07:36 PM (ybfXM)

75 But CJ - I will agree with you that it is a sad incident. I also believe that we are doing more to get to the bottom of it than at any time in our past. But that does not mean that Murtha's statements are a foregone conclusion.

CJ - please benefit us with the divine knowledge of the General about how long it took to defeat insurgencies in Germany after WWII. Just have him look in his crystal ball....Let's see...Iraqi army defeated, Hussein dethroned, Democratic government (ME style of course) elected, New Iraq army and police forces taking over security of major areas of the country, PM selected, Cabinet selected, government holding meetings, new shcools, employment up over pre-war, government not stealing the Oil For Food money from the civilians, Al-Quaeda saying they are hurting. All that and we can't say we won. I wonder who we are fighting - who are the parties in this war that the General tells you about?

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 07:43 PM (ybfXM)

76 Folks just a reminder that here, we have certain, quite reasonable standards of what we consider acceptable speech that we try to observe. Keep your language clean, or you'll find your comment gone.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 31, 2006 07:48 PM (0fZB6)

77 Thanks CY. Where can I figure out what links you allow and which ones you don't?

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 07:58 PM (ybfXM)

78 Hey CY, why no linkage to VOA allowed?

Posted by: Thom at May 31, 2006 08:00 PM (3jLID)

79 It sounds like the mu.nu spam filter is getting overly aggressive again. As you folks hit a snag, shoot me an email and I'll see if I can clear it out. Thanks for your patience.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 31, 2006 08:04 PM (0fZB6)

80 Thanks CY. Great minds think in similar ways huh Thom?

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 08:08 PM (ybfXM)

81 Sorry, but I did read the "thread." I remain unconvinced.
The "progress" Specter lists is not only exagerated, but is not what we went there for.
Iraq is moving into open civil war. Today, the Pentagon is sending 1,500 more combat troops into Iraq.
Hostile Militas control the State Security Forces- not the other way around. The various factions are going to fight it out with themselves and Americans- as long as we stay there.
This is Vietnam all over again. The question is not whether or not we Bug Out, but when.
I just hope my Air Force nephew doesn't pay with his life for Bush's hubris.
As far as Murtha Vs Kline, your picking of nits over what they said is very unconvincing and doesn't change the facts.
Certain Marines have broken faith with their nation and commited murder. Others will pay with their lives because of the fury of the Arabs.
I blame Bush.

Posted by: Capability Jones at May 31, 2006 08:09 PM (V2ZpX)

82 Is Confederate Yankee trying to sound like William F. Buckley? Cause it just comes off as pompous.

Is this a universal winger thing? I see this a lot on winger blogs and it really turns me off.

Posted by: ManOnBlog at May 31, 2006 08:14 PM (waHUo)

83 See CJ - you just did what Murtha did. You claim they murdered. How do you know? Has the final report been sent out? The answer is no. You are making assumptions.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 08:18 PM (ybfXM)

84 ManOnBlog,

So don't come back. Don't let the door hitya on the way out....

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 08:25 PM (ybfXM)

85 Specter,

You are obviously only interested in pitching a fit.

My comment was dead serious. What is it with everybody doing the fake WFB in wingerland? Doesn't it embarrass you?

Ah, but you didn't really respond in the first place. Fool me once...

Posted by: ManOnBlog at May 31, 2006 08:37 PM (waHUo)

86 Spector

Didnt get what you were referring to with the "great minds" remark. Am I being to hopeful that you were being nice to me? I thought we'd come to a pretty civil argument.

Posted by: Thom at May 31, 2006 08:46 PM (3jLID)

87 Thom,

I do appreciate thought out arguments rather than just ad hominem attacks. And even though there are going to be points we can agree to disagree on based on our own POV, I still do learn from discourse and debate. Quite honestly, I don't think I was "mean" to you, but we both know that we aren't going to agree about Murtha. 'Course I don't get to decide if he stays or goes - Johnstown/Somerset people do.

Great minds comment was that one after the other we both asked CY about the links posting rule. Just thought it was funny.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 09:01 PM (ybfXM)

88 ManOnBlog,

Apologies if I misunderstood your stereotypical attack on all right wing bloggers and people of a conservative bent. Ahhh...but then again you knew you were attacking people's beliefs with your first post. Obviously, you were not interested in discussion of any point of view - you just wanted to get yours in. Sorry that reality burst in on you.

Posted by: Specter at May 31, 2006 09:04 PM (ybfXM)

89 It may have been missed in the hinterlands, but the stink of something being very wrong with the action in Haditha was around form the day after the attack, when the Iraqi government first raised an alarm and called for investigation. Mind,the only place that I heard of this was on such 'liberal' institutions as the NPR and the BBC; in the main American media, it was a number of insurgents killed, same old, same old...

all nice and quiet, at least until Murtha spoke- his was a voice that could not be easily dismissed or ignored. In the view of man, he did the honorable thing, when faced with a corrupt administration who's preference for hiding ugly truths is lamentably well documented- he ensured that the truth would not remained buried. Restitutions was offered to the Iraqi families involved soon after the incident- someone on high knew what happened and tried to make amends, even as they also apparently attempted to keep it quiet...

At this time, what happened in Haditha appears to be an egregious tragedy- but what the silence afterwards speaks of, is of something more monsterous.

Posted by: Arkanjil at May 31, 2006 10:29 PM (bH47R)

90 My Cousin is a Marine. They're a real touchy lot when it comes to Honor and the Corp. A piece of dust on another guy's uniform sets them off. Right or wrong, I can see where Murtha and Kline are coming from. Jarheads, they love that Corp more than anything. ( I was in the Army). The whole affair points out one thing I think we can ALL AGREE on. The TROOPS have been hanging in the game WAY too long. Rotated over and over and NOBODY is talking about ending this thing. I had some neighbors once, we didn't get along and I thought they were NEVER going to move, the thoughts I had, the things I dreamed. Yeah, I can see how this came about. I'm not condoning anything I'm just saying. It all just shows, we need to do more for our TROOPS than what we're doing or we're going to be seeing a whole lot more or worse.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at June 01, 2006 12:24 AM (OXzwT)

91 Wow. You have to get up pretty early in the morning to slip one past Confederate Yankee.

BTW, you wingnuts would make things a lot simpler if you would just explicitly state for the record that you believe that the commission of war crimes is far less serious than the discussion of war crimes. Your side used this logic with the young John Kerry, and now you're using it again with Jack Murtha. So at least you're consistent, at least when it's Democrats doing the discussing. When Republicans like Kline or John McCain do the discussing, they get a free pass. Do you really imagine for a second that you aren't completely transparent with this act?

Posted by: laserda at June 01, 2006 01:07 AM (nrm17)

92 Hey CY, if you want to soft-pedal the crimes of baby killers, that's one thing. But to accuse the General of blasphemy is too much. Even though his manliness must seem God-like to you, he has never called himself a deity. He is merely the humble servant of (The Republican) Jesus. Hence the apostrophe in the title of his blog. (For more information on this concept, try googling the phrase "possessive case.")Hey CY, if you want to soft-pedal the crimes of baby killers, that's one thing.

Posted by: Jeff at June 01, 2006 02:34 AM (Nlmu3)

93 As Michelle Malkin points out, now that unauthorized, anonymous leaks of the full situation have come out, we can go ahead and start treating it as a war crime. That doesn't mean Murtha's not a girly man traitor, since he did it first, before any unauthorized, anonymous leaks. I think the distinction is clear.

Anyway, the list of people we need to swiftboat now is unfortunately getting pretty damn long. We must keep up the effort, it's just the going is going to be tougher from here on out.

And this is nothing like My Lai, so stop saying that.

Posted by: islmfaoscist at June 01, 2006 03:23 AM (K1y9u)

94 Uhhh....Arkanjil,

The investigation into the incident started right away, and is now coming to a close. Murtha did not start the investigation by speaking up. He just opened his yap at the wrong time - again.

Posted by: Specter at June 01, 2006 07:03 AM (ybfXM)

95 lazerduh,

Sounds like you are trying to conflate the records of the two together. Murtha has a solid service record and deserves it. Kerry...well don't start on that. He deserved what he got.

But here is the point, other than Murtha's position on San Salvador in the 80's, find one national issue he was prominently involved with up until 2004. An issue where people knew his name and face from the exposure. You see - it is near impossible. Contrary to what has been posted, the man really isn't a hawk. He is very supportive of troops and equipment for them. But the Dems needed someone with a solid service record to speak about the WH policy in Iraq. They obviously could not use Kerry - he was tainted by his own self-inflicted campaign wounds. So out pops Mrurtha - speaking the DNC talking points.

Quite trying to make it sound like the feelings about Kerry and Murtha are anywhere close to the same. They are not. You should try reading the whole thread. I laid out some pretty durn good quotes about recent lies from Murtha (at best wild exaggerations). Rather than just attack back with your words, why don't you try to find some way to rebut what has been presented as Murtha's recent congressional level blunders.

Posted by: Specter at June 01, 2006 07:11 AM (ybfXM)

96 Wow....I think that Jeff is actually Murtha. He starts right off with baby-killers. Right into DNC talking points. Such a mesmerized group....

So Jeff - I seem to remember several times in this thread where CY and I and others have stated that when the investigation is completed, if the soldiers have done what has been rumored, they should be put on trial and get everything they deserve (and to me that is much, much more than the 3 1/2 year that Calley got). So don't say that we soft-pedal. That is not true. But we are patiently waiting for the report. Then take action to make sure nothing like this happens again. You, on the other hand, have already become judge, jury, and exectutioner. So much for the legal process - Murtha threw it out and now Jeff does. You guys ever heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"

I bet Jeff that you were one of the people blogging around that talked about "Like...duh...hey man, I support the troops, but not, you know...like...the war." And now you don't even support the troops....

Posted by: Specter at June 01, 2006 07:17 AM (ybfXM)

97 Spector, read Arkanjil's comment again. She didn't say that Murtha started the investigation. Not even close. She said it was "all quiet" public-wise. that's correct. I am personally thankful to Murtha for bringing it to the light. Best disinfectant and all that.

And if you've been in combat then I'll listen to a single word from you about kerry in combat. If not, not a single word.

And again, the conspiracy theory you roll out about the Dems and Murtha is just that--a conspiracy theory. It deserves as much attention as the 9/11 theories. You go on about "proof" from one side and then bring out this from the other. Spector, we're not idiots here. That shit ain't gonna fly. Stand up, speak straight. Please.

And your wild-eyed contempt and had-wringing over Murtha's words would be more believable if (and now back to the orignal subject) you, and CY and others, expressed the same for Kline. But you don't. You make hairbrained excuses for him. "But Kline didn't say 'cold-blooded! And he didn't insinuate a coverup! And he didn't use it for political gain!"

Stand up.

Posted by: Thom at June 01, 2006 08:35 AM (21VTo)

98 Specter, you must live in a bubble. You make the most absurd unsubstantiated assertions, and believe that by repeating them they become true.

I have pointed out many times that I think Murtha's strategy here is just a small cog in a bigger strategy. The DNC has been actively trying to pull down this administration for 5 years now. You can't even question that.

The only part of this statement I can agree with is that there's no question: the problem is that the rest is speculation and nonsense.

Go back and read the debate on the AUMF. I listened to it at the time. You will find almost none of the Democratic Senators opposed to granting the President the authority to deploy troops in Afghanistan: most clearly, I remember Robert Bird, of all people, dissenting, on constitutional grounds.

As a body, the Democrats have given, and continue to give, this Administration a pass.

But perhaps I'm wrong...

What is the nefarious plot that lies behind the Democrats voting to approve Hayden for the CIA, Roberts for Chief Justice, Gonzales for Attorney General? You seem knowledgable about the inner workings of the dark and mysterious cabal that is the DNC: lay out the inner workings for all to see! Expose the evil machinery! If they don't take money from Abramoff, surely their souls are sold to the devil?

Naaah. You see, Specter, this is what makes you a wingnut. It's like you've got three teevees in your head and they all show Fox News. Them Dem-a-crats, they's awl trayters an' turr-rists. 9-11.

Posted by: bat guano crazy at June 01, 2006 10:08 AM (Hf1QS)

99 I meant to comment about that too.

The DNC has been actively trying to pull down this administration for 5 years now. You can't even question that.

What the hell do you think political parties do? That's just ridiculous.

Posted by: Thom at June 01, 2006 10:13 AM (21VTo)

100 Thom,

Well I tried to be nice, but you want to attack all the time. So be it. So where did Murtha come from then? I've asked you to point out a specific, national level, issue that made him such a well known leader of men and nationally known. Besides San Salvador in the early 80's - there is nothing. Are you seriously and intellectually trying to debate the fact that the DNC needs to cast aspersion on the administrations Iraq policy? Gawwwd...and bat guano says I live in a bubble.

With respect to Kline - read my posts. Try it just once. I've said NO politician should be making statements period. Simple. But, with Murtha's consistent dissing of the war in Iraq, he has opened himself to additional scorn and derision simply because of his past stances. Figure it out for yourself. You could not even come up with an argument about why Murtha was caught lying on Face the Nation a mere two months ago. If you don't like it...too bad. You've posted nothing that would change my mind about the man.

As to Kerry - what most of you who would support him don't get is that it isn't mostly his combat record that is in question. It was his activities after that. Winter Soldier, Paris, testifying falsely in front of Congress, claiming he went to Cambodia on a Swift Boat, etc. You guys don't get it. You try to lump everyone into a stereotype. I never questioned his combat record or the fact that he served. I do question how someone gets that many medals in 4 months of active duty - can you explain it? But look at his record afterwards. Get over it.

Here is more of what Murtha claimed:

"Who covered it up, why did they cover it up, why did they wait so long?" Murtha said on "This Week" on ABC. "We don't know how far it goes. It goes right up the chain of command."

So let's see - an investigation was going on. Several people have been relieved of command. Murtha claims cover-up. Where? Just more spin on his part? Get a grip.

Posted by: Specter at June 01, 2006 10:37 AM (ybfXM)

101 bat,

You are too offensive to comment back to. Sorry. You are so brainwashed you can't even see it. They've given a pass to the President. LOL. Let's see - backing away from their statements about Iraq after the war using hindsight, cut and run, economy is horrible, PlameGate, QuailGate, President is lying,...gee I guess none of that is from the Scandal du Jour crowd that you are so enamored with. Get a grip! And you say I'm in a bubble.....yep I guess your name fits.....just a pile of non-thinking.....

Posted by: Specter at June 01, 2006 10:41 AM (ybfXM)

102 Spector,

For the record Murtha never said "cut and run". He said re-deploy in the region.

You seem interested in getting things straight. Just trying to help.

Posted by: Mart at June 01, 2006 12:06 PM (APBxx)

103 Spectre,

Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Posted by: laserda at June 01, 2006 12:08 PM (nrm17)

104 So let me get this straight:

- CY: Milquetoast WFB wannabe.
- Specter: CY's spittle-flecked attack poodle.

So tediously typical of winger blogs.

Posted by: ManOnBlog at June 01, 2006 12:10 PM (qGSvj)

105 Have gone through these tedious -- sometimes childish -- comments, and not one word by CY in response to the quote by Kline about Haditha being an atrocity. CY cherry-picked a quote by Kline, ignored the bad ones, and then said Murtha is worse and thus deserves censure. CY, you are not being intellectually honest.

Posted by: A Reasonable Dem at June 01, 2006 12:31 PM (pzVN3)

106 Reasonable Dem,

So, I’m “intellectually dishonest” for not selecting the exact Rep .Kline quote on the subject that you cherry-picked, is that correct? Interesting…

So the Kline quote that has your panties in a bunch is this one:


Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., a retired Marine colonel, told the paper that the allegations against the Marines in Haditha indicate “this was not an accident. This was direct fire by Marines at civilians. This was not an immediate response to an attack. This would be an atrocity.”


I fail to see where this approaches the level of vitriol of Congressman Murtha’s comments (which, by the way, are getting progressively more unsupportable, from his implication that the killing civilians is now a policy of our military, to his statements that the “highest authority in the Marine Corps” was somehow involved in a cover-up scheme.) Murtha said the Marines, “killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” This strongly premeditated murder without pretext; a capital offense. Murtha has not online incited the Marines, he has convicted them of first degree murder by his words.

Kline tells us what we already know. He says that “this was not an accident.” 100% accurate. These marines were not firing at someone other than those they killed. He states that “this was direct fire by Marines at civilians.” Again, to the best of what we know, this is 100% accurate, and I’ve not seen it seriously disputed.

The next sentence I’m not so sure of, but the trial (and I’d be extremely surprised if there wasn’t one) will let us know for certain if at least some of the civilians killed were not killed as an immediate response to the attack. Again, I don’t like to speculate, but some sources have indicated that very soon after the attack (and I don’t know if that time is measured in seconds or a minute or minutes), five Iraqis apparently running from a taxi were killed. Without commenting on the legality of such a shooting, that would appear to be a more or less immediate response.

The last statement, “this would be an atrocity” is a conditional: do you not see the word “would” I this sentence? It depends upon the veracity of the other three statements (in addition to others Kline does not reference, but a trial certainly would) that need to be true for an atrocity to occur.

Sure, folks on the left call this “splitting hairs,” but that is the very essence of what you do when you break down homicides into justifiable and unjustifiable, and among unjustifiable homicides, the different degrees of murder, manslaughter, etc.

Kline, in this example you were so eager for me to comment on, ends on a conditional statement say what would be an atrocity if all condition as are met as described. That “would” is very important in understanding his context.

Murtha, on the other hand, directly charges Marines with premeditated murder, with the highest levels of the Marine Corps with being accomplices to premeditated murder (what else does an accomplice do, but help commit or cover up a crime?) and implies that such killing are not only accepted, but accepted military policy.

Quite frankly, if you can’t see the gulf of difference between where these two men are coming from, then you are far less than reasonable, and I’m at a loss for words as to how to make it any more clear.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 01, 2006 01:29 PM (g5Nba)

107 That's right, CY. By taking apart the statement and treating each sentence as separate and isolated, you remove the meaning of the whole.

That would be disingenuous.

Posted by: bat guano crazy at June 01, 2006 01:38 PM (BAab+)

108 So I go from providing not enough information about Kline's comments, to too much (thought to be accurate, I deconstructed each sentence and reassembled the statement as a whole to show what it meant as a cohesive thought, so BGC's complaint is without logic or merit).

You know, you might make people start to think that the only thing liberals are good at is constantly complaining, and that you are, as you put it, "bat guano crazy."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 01, 2006 02:01 PM (g5Nba)

109 Let me sum up:

Dems: Good at complaining too much.
Reps: Good at getting the US into situations where "atrocities happen" and then also good at arguing the inconsequential and trivial aspects of said atrocities.

Tough choice, but I think the Dems win here.

Posted by: ManOnBlog at June 01, 2006 03:36 PM (g3iVS)

110 And it's all about winning, isn't it?

Posted by: ManOnBlog at June 01, 2006 03:43 PM (yxR2D)

111 Not one of Klein's first three sentences in the quote under discussion is conditional. Klein states them as fact. His concluding sentence, that it would be an atrocity, is couched in the same form as "that would be disingenuous".

Which your argument is, CY.

But what's my complaint? I'm sorry, I missed it. Could you be specific?

Posted by: bat guano crazy at June 01, 2006 03:53 PM (BAab+)

112 CY: Good at arguing (in an annoying pseudo-WFB tone of voice) a distinction without a difference to DEATH, and then calling YOU crazy.

Posted by: ManOnBlog at June 01, 2006 04:13 PM (yxR2D)

113 Arg. Now my comments are being censored. Tut tut, CY. And our loss, Spector.

Posted by: Thom at June 01, 2006 04:30 PM (3jLID)

114 Okay, I was just trolling for attention with the baby killers remark, and it didn't even get me that much. Just one guy who wants to bleat about due process Yeah, yeah, let's be patient and let officialdom do its work: we all agree that this is what should happen. However, what many on the left are accusing the right of is hypocracy. Thought experiment: let us say that it was American women and children who were slaughtered in cold blood by Iraqi soliders, then further suppose there was a delay and/or a cover-up of the said murders. Do you really expect us to believe bloggers like CY would be calling for due process and measured rhetoric?

Posted by: Jeff at June 01, 2006 04:43 PM (Kk4wv)

115 Ah, the sound of crickets from CY.

If, when Kline says "would" it's conditional, and he's not actually saying there was an atrocity, then by the same reasoning, if I say "would", that's conditional too, and there is no complaint on my part that CY is being disingenuous in his argument.

But this is a small place: in the real world, it's looking worse for our troops. The reports of indiscriminate slaughter keep coming. This is a sad time.

Posted by: bat guano crazy at June 02, 2006 10:02 AM (Hf1QS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 29, 2006

The Wall

The monuments in Washington all seemed false in the cool morning mist. They were big and white and extravagant, yet the tourists cheapened them somehow as they gawked, took photos, an scurried to the next place on their list of things to see. Their attention seemed to focus on what things were rather than why they were. The scene was a poor sample of Americana. Even Honest Abe seemed to frown from his throne. Of all the walls of stone only on seemed real.

This wall's long black marbles slices into the ground. On it are engraved fifty-eight thousand American names from an undeclared war that no one wants to remember in the jungles of a country half a globe away. There are no ornate scrolls or stenciled directions, no fancy faded pieces of parchment, no self-serving sentiments, just names.

There's also a statue some distance away. Three bronze soldiers stare into the wall, waiting for word of their fellow soldiers or perhaps mourning their loss. The soldier's don't talk; they simply stare. They were all just boys, most only six years than I was then: nineteen.

Under the statue-soldier's gaze, and elderly man lagged behind a tour group at the wall. He caressed it and knelt to leave a single rose at the base. He sobbed. He had difficulty standing up. A nearby park attendant helped him up and asked, "One of yours, sir?" The man shook his head and replied, "Not one of them. All of them."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:50 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Memorial Day Weekend, 2006

Memorial Day
As we stand here looking
At the flags upon these graves
Know these flags represent
A few of the true American brave

They fought for their Country
As man has through all of time
Except that these soldiers lying here
Fought for your country and mine

As we all are gathered here
To pay them our respect
Let's pass this word to others
It's what they would expect

I'm sure that they would do it
If it were me or you
To show we did not die in vein
But for the red, white and blue.

Let's pass on to our children
And to those who never knew
What these soldiers died for
It's the least we can do

Let's not forget their families
Great pain they had to bear
Losing a son, father or husband
They need to know we still care

No matter which war was fought
On the day that they died
I stand here looking at these flags
Filled with American pride.

So as the bugler plays out Taps
With its sweet and eerie sound
Pray for these soldiers lying here
In this sacred, hallowed ground.

Take home with you a sense of pride
You were here Memorial Day.
Celebrating the way Americans should
On this solemnest of days.

Michelle R. Christman
USMC 1987 - 1991
Desert Storm Veteran

Update: Bumped to top

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:15 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 27, 2006

Geography Doesn't Lie

It seems like John Kerry is trying to keep the myth of the Magic hat alive:

John Kerry starts by showing the entry in a log he kept from 1969: "Feb 12: 0800 run to Cambodia."

He moves on to the photographs: his boat leaving the base at Ha Tien, Vietnam; the harbor; the mountains fading frame by frame as the boat heads north; the special operations team the boat was ferrying across the border; the men reading maps and setting off flares.

"They gave me a hat," Mr. Kerry says. "I have the hat to this day," he declares, rising to pull it from his briefcase. "I have the hat."

He may have the hat, but what he needed was a map.

I cannot speak with authority about the charges brought by the SBVFT, but I can say one thing with absolute certainty:

John Kerry did not take anyone into Cambodia from his swift boat based at Ha Tien. The navigable Giang Thanh River runs near the Cambodian border, but at no point does it ever cross.

Map from Ha Tien
Entrance to the Giang Thanh River
Gulf of Siam East of An Thoi

If Kerry said he took forces up the Giang Thanh and dropped Spec-Ops soldiers off so that they could walk into Cambodia, I could believe him, but geography does not lie.

John Kerry never took his swift boat from Ha Tien, Vietnam up the Giang Thanh River into Cambodia, and if he insists that he did, he is either delusional, or guilty of telling a lie.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:16 PM | Comments (64) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Don't miss the point that Xmas in Cambodia was not in February of '69. This is moving the ball by 3 months which was the fallback to being caught lying about Xmas.

Posted by: RiverRat at May 27, 2006 10:23 PM (oNFas)

2 Kerry has to change the date to blame Nixon, who of course was never president in 1968; can't blame Democrat LBJ!

Posted by: Tom TB at May 28, 2006 06:31 AM (wZLWV)

3 It never ceases to amaze me that there is a two-party epistomology -- liberals and conservatives see two different realities. To liberals, the reality is that the mainstream media gave fawning coverage to the Swift Boaters and displayed their anti-Kerry, pro-Bush bias in the way they covered the story and failed to report critically on a bunch of party political operatives posing as an independent group.

Of course, the Swift Boat stuff fit into the conservative hatred of veterans -- the purple band-aid stuff as well as the Bush campaign's smears of McCain in 2000 are all part and parcel of a deeply-ingrained conservative contempt for those who show physical courage. It may be related to the conservative fear and panic over terrorism: conservatives, consumed with irrational fear of a few maniacs with box-cutters, hate those who show courage (like Kerry) because it points up their own lack of courage.

Posted by: The Red State Baron at May 28, 2006 11:48 AM (sJV6q)

4 TRSBaron, there is one reality; Kerry was either in Cambodia on 12/24/68, or he was not.

Posted by: Tom TB at May 28, 2006 12:13 PM (wZLWV)

5

Only from the looney left.

Posted by: La Mano at May 28, 2006 12:21 PM (ERh4G)

6 THIS from the looney left:

"irrational fear of a few maniacs with box-cutters, hate those who show courage (like Kerry) because it points up their own lack of courage."

Posted by: La Mano at May 28, 2006 12:22 PM (ERh4G)

7 And if the Swift Boaters had focused entirely on 12/24/68, they might have had a point. However, that particular controversy wouldn't have had much traction except in the righty blogosphere. So they launched (with willing help from veteran-haters among rank-and-file Republicans) an attack on the military service of a veteran, in all its aspects, and somehow placing the burden on Kerry to prove that he earned his decorations.

It was a shameful example of the conservative/Republican hatred of veterans, combined with the "stab in the back" mythology (the never-dying idea that we lost Vietnam because Dem Dirty Libruls wouldn't let us win), and a general contempt for those who show physical or moral courage.

Posted by: The Red State Baron at May 28, 2006 12:26 PM (sJV6q)

8 La Mano - How is there anything "looney left" about what I said? The characteristic of the "looney left," just like the looney right, is irrational fear: the tendency to blow up minor threats into huge conspiracies. A loony lefty fears that big corporations control every aspect of our lives; a looney righty fears that terrorism is a threat to our civilization.

A non-looney, however, understands how to view threats rationally. So by pointing out the obvious -- that terrorism is not an existential threat and that fear of terrorism should not dominate our lives -- I am the very opposite of looney.

Posted by: The Red State Baron at May 28, 2006 12:29 PM (sJV6q)

9 Baron, you seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that the Swift Boat Veterans were all, you know, veterans. What kind of mental contortions do you have to make to turn them into veteran haters? Hell, they all served in Vietnam longer than John Kerry ever did.

There's no evidence whatsoever the Kerry was ever in Cambodia and lots of evidence that he couldn't possibly have been during the constantly changing points in time he claims he was. The hat the Kerry keeps producing as evidence - as if this was proof of anything other than he has a hat - is laughable.

Posted by: RSR at May 28, 2006 12:47 PM (iIsdp)

10 RSB,

I'm not arguing other SBVFT allegations. I'm focusing on one very specific charge by Kerry that he took American special forces soldiers up the Giang Thanh River into Cambodia.

Either focus on that specific topic, or go elsewhere.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 28, 2006 12:48 PM (0fZB6)

11 Every time this general issue is resurrected by "reporting for doody" kerry, I laugh so hard I accidentally shoot myself in the ass on the richochet. You wouldn't believe my Purple Heart collection. (I've got to believe kerry is running interference for a real candidate.)

And RSB, are you in some kind of democrat underground training program? Your rhetoric is, to put it kindly, uninformative and uninspiring.

Posted by: martin at May 28, 2006 03:52 PM (Olu/e)

12 and somehow placing the burden on Kerry to prove that he earned his decorations.

If you're looking to live at 1600, the fishbowl and explaining yourself in detail is part of the game. Them that aren't up to the heat shouldn't play the game.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 28, 2006 04:15 PM (gf5iT)

13 RSB:

254 vets came out and supported the SBV allegations. When they held their first press conference, no one from the media even showed up.

The media continued to ignore them, because that was the initial DNC/MSM strategy for the SVB. Then the book became a bestseller, because FNC and talk radio were talking about the SBV. After that, the DNC/MSM had to respond, so they started covering it, nearly always managing to slight them; every article seemed to be "Questions Raised About Swift Vets."

And now the left complains the media didn't work hard enough for Kerry? Good Lord.

And then the media published crudely forged 1972 memos about Bush's Guard service.

The problem was always John Kerry's opportunism and prevarication.

Posted by: TallDave at May 28, 2006 04:19 PM (H8Wgl)

14 a looney righty fears that terrorism is a threat to our civilization.

Heh. I'm guessing you didn't work in the World Trade Center or the Pentagon 5 years ago.

But what the hell, civilization can survive a $1 trillion, 3000-death hit now and then. Why worry?

Posted by: TallDave at May 28, 2006 04:23 PM (H8Wgl)

15 You have to trust that the reporter on the story correctly reported what Kerry said ("the boat was ferrying across the border"). Did you ask permission from PCF when you reprinted the graphic? Where did they get that map from, Google Earth circa 2006? Yeah, you're argument is so ironclad.

And of course, John O'Neill told Nixon he was in Cambodia before he later said he wasn't in Cambodia. Just f***ing ignore what he said.

Posted by: Lee at May 28, 2006 04:25 PM (wQnig)

16 Lee, you will note that I did link to the source of that graphic as is standard practice, and the graphic's creator, RB Shirley is aware that did so. He even mentioned it today.

As for what anyone else said, I don't care.

The Giang Thanh does not flow through Cambodia, and therefore, John Kerry is not telling the truth. I'm sorry if that direct fact is just too much for you to bear.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 28, 2006 04:58 PM (0fZB6)

17 The navigable part of the Giang Thanh doen't flow through Cambodia today.

That was also the case since at least 1958, when I was there.

Posted by: Richard R at May 28, 2006 05:10 PM (1VlyJ)

18 The article never says he stayed on that particular river - and further up north there do seem to be streams where a Swift Boat could veer westward. Yes, you don't know anything.

Posted by: pgl at May 28, 2006 05:22 PM (eRITw)

19 Actually pgl, you are 1/2 right: there are other waterways. From the source cited in the main article:


Eventually, patrols were augmented throughout the length of the Giang Thanh River and extended from its northeastern head along the Vinh Te Canal to the east all the way to the western bank of the Bassac river. Interdiction operations included not only Swift Boats, but also PBRs (Patrol Boat River) and units of the Navy's Mobile Riverine Force.


So there were other waterways, but there are still two problems with your weak attempt to save Kerry. The first is that at no point does Kerry ever mention entering another body of water. The second is that the waterways connected to the Giang Thanh come in from the east, not the west.

Folks, you really should quit. This grasping at straws is starting to get very, very sad.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 28, 2006 05:53 PM (0fZB6)

20 CY, my apologies in advance for departing from your posted topic, but I cannot let this RSB drivel go without my responding. You post is in essence inarguable. The facts speak for themselves; however, your commentary makes the blatantly obvious become even more obvious. I find it curious that everyone conveniently ignored Richard R’s comments, “The navigable part of the Giang Thanh doesn't flow through Cambodia today. That was also the case since at least 1958, when I was there.”
Now for this disrespectful commenter, RSB: You repeatedly blathered, ”…the conservative hatred of veterans…” You offer no explanation, nor support for this accusation other than the SBVFT enlightening the public regarding the truth about John Kerry’s record versus his claims. John Kerry’s post Vietnam record includes the Winter Soldiers debacle, meeting with Viet Cong and North Vietnamese representatives in Paris WHILE HE WAS STILL IN THE NAVY as well as anti-war activism while he was still in the Navy Reserves. John Kerry disgraced himself without the help of the SBVFT. They just could not stomach his perpetuating lies about himself glorifying himself with fictitious accounts of bravery and action.
I am a veteran of 31 years of active service in the U.S. Army; service that includes Vietnam, Central America and Desert Shield/Desert Storm (the first Gulf War). As a veteran I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not the liberals who support my brother and sister veterans, it is the conservative population. You are making unfounded accusations that I find very offensive. Unfortunately, it is completely in line with your political ideology; you claim to support the troops and veterans until, that is, it comes time to put your money where your mouth is.

Posted by: Old Soldier at May 28, 2006 06:28 PM (owAN1)

21 Kerry never ceases to amaze me... he can't even get his lies straight after, what, two years? Actually maybe 30 years. One would think that with enough money and time one could put together a story that isn't so easily dismantled.

BTW: I recall that O'Neill reasonably explained his foray's into Cambodia describing a river system that skirted the border and is identifiable on a map. It happens.

Been there done that. I myself, around Christmas '68 in fact, was in Cambodia flying a "snoopy" mission on the deck. We took heavy fire and when we came back to direct air cover discovered we had crossed the line and could not respond. Our rules of engagement at that point in time did not allow us to do that. Don't know about classified "black ops", etc., and I suspect there were some. But us normal guys couldn't fire even if fired upon from across the line. Very frustrating, especially when you are talking about incoming 12.55mm.

Jack Inman
Airborne Personnel Detector
4th Inf Div, Pleiku RVN Jul '68-Jul 69

Posted by: Jax at May 28, 2006 06:47 PM (xUlOT)

22 But none of the Kerry Supporters can explain the reference to Nixon being president in 1968.

Posted by: Specter at May 28, 2006 07:14 PM (ybfXM)

23 pgl - you seem to know what you think you are talking about. How deep were all those other tributaries? Answer that first - the we can talk about the draw of a swift boat and the room needed to turn one around. You might want to research that before you come back though.

Posted by: Specter at May 28, 2006 07:19 PM (ybfXM)

24 But, but, but...teh hat. He has teh hat!

Posted by: RSR at May 28, 2006 08:40 PM (iIsdp)

25 Kerry is a waffler, but he's also a decorated veteran, an accomplished prosecutor, and accomplished senator, he's urbane and sophisticated, etc.

Your man was a drunk until 45, and had no accomplishments of note after that until elected to office. He's the antithesis of what is best in Republicansim: individual responsibility. He talks about faith but doesn't go to church. The buck never stops with him, he blames an underling.

So I'm okay with you guys knocking Kerry, because I know it comes from a desperation to believe you did not screw up as badly as you fear you did.

By way of demonstration, English contains the "sore loser", but what to call you guys?

--Sam

Posted by: Sam Spade at May 28, 2006 09:00 PM (PD625)

26 Kerry is a waffler, but he's also a decorated veteran, an accomplished prosecutor, and accomplished senator, he's urbane and sophisticated, etc. Your man was a drunk...

Our man was President of the United States.

When you say Kerry was "accomplished", what do you mean? He has no significant legislation to his name. I think this was all sorted out and discussed thoroughly back when he ran for president and was beaten fairly thoroughly by a man who was "a drunk until he was 45".

I hate to break it to you, but Kerry isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. You guys will be better off when you quit holding morons up as examples of "urban sophisticates" to be emulated and elected to lead us. Kerry has no leadership qualities whatsoever, and he is not at all sophisticated. He is as predictable and dull as every other faux-intellectual who tries to bamboozle the self-proclaimed "liberals" among us into voting for them. There is no evidence that he is remotely intelligent.

Posted by: Dave S at May 28, 2006 09:21 PM (m/5FH)

27 "the conservative hatred of veterans" ???

Hey RSB, what planet are you living on?

Conservatives respect and appreciate the service veterans have rendered to this country. That is, unless they LIE about it, and SLANDER their fellow vets, as Kerry has done.

Posted by: infidel4life at May 28, 2006 09:50 PM (kXnbn)

28 Lee made excuses:
-------------------------------------------------
You have to trust that the reporter on the story
correctly reported what Kerry said ("the boat
was ferrying across the border"). Did you ask
permission from PCF when you reprinted the
graphic? Where did they get that map from?
-------------------------------------------------

Readily available on the web during the election,
even on the Kerry web site, were a collection of
spot report messages sent in by Kerry and Swifty
Mike Bernique concerning a patrol the two sailors
made on the Giang Thanh river on February 12-14
in 1969 and referenced by Kerry in the NYT article.

Kerry does indeed indicate that he dropped off
some special forces troops near the town of Giang
Thanh at the headway between the Giang Thanh River
and the Vinh Te Canal ... ON THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE
SIDE OF THE RIVER! This was NOT an unusual occurance,
and therefore not worthy of much notice.

And as Confederate Yankee so aptly points out, you
cannot get to Cambodia by Swift Boat via the Giang
Thanh River OR the Vinh Te Canal.

Coordinates for the places where the patrol visited
are given in the messages. Plotting them on a map
of the time is shown at: http;//pcf45.com/feb.jpg
The position shown in red is the 8AM position Kerry
stated he dropped off his riders and now claims is
proof of his being inside Cambodia on that date. And
where he picked up his magic hat and delivered arms
to the Khmer Rouge (the Cambodian Communists?)

Clearly this is NOT THE CASE from information provided
by him to his superiors at the time. He remained in South
Vietnam during the entire period of this reported patrol.

Flip flopping: Sa Dec? No Cambodia. Christmas? No February
CIA operators? No SEALS. Ha Tien and the Giang Thanh River
inside South Vietnam?

YES.

As has been the case time after time in this controversy,
John Kerry is his own worst enemy when it comes to
providing proof of his exaggerations and outright lies.

Rather than try to defend his delusions, his supporters
should ignore this most recent lame attempt to justify his
falsehoods over the past forty years and hope that he
seeks professional psychiatric assistance.

RBShirley .... http://www.pcf45.com

.

Posted by: R B Shirley at May 28, 2006 10:54 PM (0XL+D)

29 Another point, if memory serves, is that the River up there was not in Kerry's unit's normal AO, but was patrolled by PBR's better suited to the shallow-draft streams... one of whose duties was to prevent border crossings. And for that matter, PBR's were far better for a stealthy insertion of SEALs and CIA types than a fifty-foot long diesel powered high-cabin boat designed for coastal bluewater work.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at May 28, 2006 11:58 PM (cRfpZ)

30 NortonPete makes a good point: The fantasy life of liars often imitates art. The Massachusetts Walter Mitty sees the movie and quickly imagines himself in the hero's role, a young Martin Sheen going up the scary river to confront the horrors of war. Why, I can see it all now, starring Brad Pitt as Johnny Flipflopper.

Decorated hero turns war protester, makes big splash on TV, denounces war, throws decorations away, smears fellow vets, marries rich girl, gets elected, marries more rich girls, times change, decorations revived, war stories embellished, hero recalled to serve country again, wins presidency, submits to UN agenda, wins Nobel, marries more rich girls, undergoes apotheosis, meets Davy Jones, feeds fishes. Fade to dark.

Posted by: Black Jack at May 29, 2006 08:28 AM (BJYNn)

31 Kerry was such an accomplished senator he chose not to mention it during his entire campaign. :: Instead of running on 20 years of service in the senate, he ran on 4 months in the Delta.

I would imagine Kerry had told these stories so much he himself came to believe them. I've known people like that before. Told the same lie so often they really, really believed it.

Posted by: Sue at May 29, 2006 09:13 AM (6vbDF)

32 Can anyone find a mention by Kerry of the boat trip to Cambodia ( not a diary entry which might be from anytime ) before 1979?

I'm curious when his first verbal mention of the Cambodian trip occurred.

1979 was the release date of "Apocalypse Now" which is about a trip into Cambodia.

Posted by: NortonPete at May 29, 2006 09:43 AM (qQx72)

33 Memory can play tricks but this continued delusion by Mr. Kerry is clinical stuff. BTW, take away the money provided by his succesion of rich wives and this guy would be a greeter at Wal-Mart

Posted by: barton Hosney at May 29, 2006 10:00 AM (RrM2q)

34 Has Kerry ever find any of his "band of brothers" who could corroborate his claim of a trip into Cambodia? Seems pretty simple to me. Or did Kerry drive that swift boat into Cambodia single handedly?

Posted by: George at May 29, 2006 10:17 AM (iKT22)

35 Would somebody please explain this weird obsession with something that happened so long ago while we have a President that through his complete incompetence is losing a war, doing more harm to the US army then any American since Robert E, Lee and has publically acknowledge that he was completely wrong about every excuse he used to start the war.

Maybe if you spent one tenth of the energy and intelligence on why is Ben Laden still free to
mock the US, rather then on this irrelevent garbage you might force this fool we have as a president to try and win the War on Terror.

Posted by: spencer at May 29, 2006 11:06 AM (+RSFY)

36 It is a wierd obsession we talk about. Kerry's bizarre obsession.
This discussion is not about Bin Laden.

Its about Kerry's delusional behavior.

Posted by: NortonPete at May 29, 2006 11:12 AM (qQx72)

37 Just updated my Angrybear post. CY: John O'Neill claimed he took that same boat into Cambodia. Wow - I guess O'Neill is one helluva sailor! LOL!

Posted by: pgl at May 29, 2006 01:13 PM (eRITw)

38 Amazing how simple yet so difficult to understand. Kerry is a phony, always was, always will be.

He lied about his three month vacation and his self-promotion.
He lied about other Vietnam vets.

He's toast. And no amount of retooling will get moneybags Kerry back together again.

It only gets worse with each examination; with or without the 1080 he has signed how many times now?

Okay, let's get back to retelling how Iraq is being lost. Keep repeating it and just like Kerry, you can rewrite history.

Posted by: RW at May 29, 2006 01:20 PM (xKx5B)

39 pgl is just too... well, words fail me.

Perhaps he should have noted that when John O'Neill spoke of going up to Cambodia,that he never stated his route. As Ha Tien is on the coast, O'Neill could have very easily gone into Cambodia by heading west into the Gulf of Siam and turning north around peninsula. Kerry, however, claimed to have done the impossible, taking the Giang Thanh River into a country where it does not flow.

He continues to argue on his site that because the map cited in this post shows evidence of water, that there must be a river into Cambodia from the Giang Thanh.

I've challenged him on his site to name that river, the one that other Vietnam Veterans never saw.

It should be amusing to watch him try to dig himself out of his hole.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 29, 2006 03:44 PM (0fZB6)

40 George Dubious Bush was a deserter.


The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the bedrock of military law. The UCMJ is a federal law, enacted by Congress; the "Manual for Court Martial" (MCM) is the implementation mechanism. Chapter 4 of the MCM includes, and expands on the punitive articles.

The primary difference between Desertion and Absent Without Leave (AWOL) is "intent to remain away permanently." If one intends to return to "military control," one is guilty of "AWOL," under Article 86, not Desertion, under Article 85. If a member of the armed forces is absent without authority for longer than 30 days, the government (court-martial) is allowed to assume there was no intent to return.


885. ART. 85. DESERTION
(a) Any member of the armed forces who--
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; . . . is guilty of desertion.

Explanation:
(2) Desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service.
(a) That the accused quit his or her unit, organization, or other place of duty;
(b) That the accused did so with the intent to avoid a certain duty or shirk a certain service;
(c) That the duty to be performed was hazardous or the service important;
(d) That the accused knew that he or she would be required for such duty or service; and
(e) That the accused remained absent until the date alleged.
--- Manual for Court Martial, 2002, Chapter 4, Paragraph 9

Posted by: DOR at May 29, 2006 03:57 PM (zxbd3)

41 Anyone who tries to have the last word with GWB service is really grasping at straws.
We are not discussing GWBush's service. He did not
make it a center piece of his political existence.
GWB ran on his Current political beliefs and won.
John Kerry reported for duty with a bogus hat and a tall lie about going to Cambodia 40 years prior.
And now John Kerry thinks its important to repeat this lie.
This is the gist of this thread. Not someones
foolish rantings about a ANG paperwork screwup.

Posted by: NortonPete at May 29, 2006 04:11 PM (qQx72)

42 "George Dubious Bush was a deserter?"

*snork*

Gosh, the moonbats are reviving all the 2004 talking points on this thread, aren't they? What's next, are they going to try to rehabilitate the Rathergate documents?

Funny thing: The official UCMJ definition of desertion, as quoted by "DOR," doesn't include as one of the examples of such behavior "serving in the National Guard or Reserves instead of active duty" or "qualifying for early release from Guard or Reserve status due to overfulfilling one's duty requirements." (Those being the reasons given by people like "DOR" when they accuse the President of desertion during war.)

So - if "DOR" had actually read the UCMJ instead of selectively misquoting it - maybe he would have realized that his argument is just as bogus now as it was back in 2004.

While you've got the UCMJ open in front of you, "DOR," perhaps you'd be so kind as to look up the sections on "conduct unbecoming," "sedition" and "treason" for us. Surely you'll find that Kerry's behavior shortly after returning from Vietnam - slandering the war effort and his fellow veterans, and acting as a "peace negotiator" for our North Vietnamese enemies while we were still at war with them (and while he was STILL A SERVING NAVAL OFFICER!) would fall under at least one of those categories...

'Bye now. Don't let the "DOR" hit you in the ass on the way out...

Posted by: Wes S. at May 29, 2006 09:34 PM (GDxlU)

43 Besides smearing the President DOR, just what proof do you folks have that Bush was a deserter when no paper, so far as I know, has been able to dig it up after 6 years of trying?

And somebody was claiming we were losing Iraq. Hmm...tell that to the people there who just keep electing new leaders and forming cabinets despite all the efforts to intimidate them. LOL

And I love it when people call O'Neill a liar for mistating that he was along the border of Cambodia. I read his Washington Post interview and he admits both he and Nixon initially got it wrong, which explains the immediate correction.

Read it yourself (if you can summon the courage):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12893-2004Aug18.html

So how is he lying when no proof seems to exists to contradict him (such as a log entry stating he was across the border)? Compare his statements to Kerry, who repeatedly made false and public claims that he spent 'Christmas in Cambodia'?

Posted by: Thatguy at May 29, 2006 09:35 PM (Pke82)

44 CY - O'Neill's statement proved Kerry's central point. When confronted with this - O'Neill said he never went into Cambodia. Without any knowledge of geography, any one with an IQ over 50 knows O'Neill lied somewhere. But whether or not on the SPECIFIC run you are babbling about Kerry was able to go into Cambodia (sorry if I don't trust your knowledge or integrity of these specific rivers), we know for a fact that Kerry made several runs. So on some of those runs he could have gone on a different route. So your focus on one specific run proves absolutely nothing. But then nothing is what your stupid post was. QED!

Posted by: pgl at May 29, 2006 10:04 PM (eRITw)

45 BTW CY - your rightwing buddies used to focus on 12/24/1968 and now you focus on 2/12/1969. I guess you were confused about two tours of duty as you seem to think Kerry went on only two missions. God - are you fellows desparate!

Posted by: pgl at May 29, 2006 10:06 PM (eRITw)

46 Didn't read the Washington Post interview I see. But what do Kerry lovers care about O'Neill's own explanation when speculation suits you fine. Typical... but how does O'Neill confirm Kerry's point? I'm confused. He says he was along the border and nothing has emerged to contradict him so how did you prove anything there? Unless you have mental powers, it's not conceivable that you know a truth that's eluded others here or elsewhere.

As for Kerry making several runs, I've heard that story before no one's ever offered any proof to back that up. No records and oh, yeah, Kerry won't release the relevant documents so no help there from your man. lol

Posted by: Thatguy at May 29, 2006 10:38 PM (Pke82)

47 Interesting. Suddenly, I can't post at pgl's blog. Whether this is due to technical issues, or fear, I cannot say for certain. I do know that he has posted again since I last tried, so I doubt it is technical issues. Since I can't post my response to him there, I'll simply post it here.

My "game"—proving that he is categorically incorrect, and that Kerry could not have accomplished what he said because of rock-solid geographical facts—would be nice from his perspective if it were "stupid."

But it isn't, is it?

John Kerry told an exaggeration about one mission in specific, where he got his so called "magic hat." When no one called him upon, he kept adding to it and adding to it until that kernel of truth—that he ferried Special Forces soldiers up the Giang Thanh River in Vietnam so they could go overland into Cambodia—wasn't even recognizable in the story. Suddenly, the key elements of the story Kerry tells had morphed into a lie.

The Giang Thanh River didn't radically change course into another nation during Kerry's four months of swift boat duty. But I wasn't worried about his career, I was focusing on one crucial mission, the one that Kerry brags about the most.

I proved that one specific mission was a lie.

Nor, despite what pgl says has John O'Neill ever been to Cambodia, as thatguy povided from the WaPo:


I [O'Neill] was on the Cambodian border. I was on a canal system known as Bernique's Creek located about 100 yards south of the Cambodian border from which it would have been very difficult to get into Cambodia at least from a boat.

I never went to Cambodia. Unlike the Kerry story you are defensive about I don't believe I can ever fairly be interpreted as saying anything different.


I'm also sure all the factual evidence I’ve provided proves nothing to pgl, just as he claims. He says all teh evidence provided is "stupid" and that it proves nothing.

To the contrary, it proves just how unwilling he is to face this issue objectively.

I think I've proven my case quite well... and not only about Kerry's honesty, either.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 29, 2006 10:55 PM (0fZB6)

48 There is no evidence, save for Kerry's word alone, that he had ever been in Cambodia on PCF-44 or PCF-94.

Kerry's account, which contradicts the experience of all others who have stepped forward, has shifted in both details and in *core* scenarios. Disbelief is merited.

It is up to Kerry to prove his positive assertions. It is not up to his detractors to prove a negative.

The starting line is the series of assertions made by Kerry and which depend entirely on his own varying word. Without his assertions, there would be no discussion of his having memories of secret multiple forays deep into Cambodia. Minus solid evidence, his assertions are highly suspect, to say the least. It is correct to assume that he did not go into Cambodia, at all.

Posted by: Where's The Beef? at May 30, 2006 12:30 AM (jcZ2c)

49 Confederate Yankee, you can add to geography that climate does not lie. Kerry was in South Vietnam during the dry season.

Water levels dropped drastically; in the area your map shows, any small channels would have become even narrower and shallower; some became dried up mud ditches.

The enemy would use the dry season to walk across the border and into hiding places in the Mekong Delta under the cover of night -- via routes that would have been flooded and thus navigable by small vessels during the rainy season.

The Swiftboats were limited to the larger waterways during the months that Kerry served in South Vietnam. Even the smaller PBRs had trouble navigating in dry season in the canal system shown on your map. Riverine warfare was wet AND muddy.

Swiftees dropped-off and retrieved Allied units and SF personnel on the routes that ran into these areas. Swiftboats were heavily gunned and disel-loud but lighty armoured. Not designed for stealth operations. Other cool boats were heavily armoured for such missions; and could operate in shallow and narrower waterways. Kerry might have ferried such boats and crews to and fro the area adjacent to the border, but he did not take PCF-44 and/or PCF-94 across the border and miles into Cambodia.

Geography and the Dry Season must have conspired against his reconstructed recollection(s).

Posted by: Where's The Beef? at May 30, 2006 01:01 AM (jcZ2c)

50 I imagine John Kerry is trying to rewrite history again. I don't see why he's even bothering.

Posted by: muckdog at May 30, 2006 05:53 AM (IO909)

51 You all need to get a life. I have never seen so much brain energy wasted on such a stupid topic as this. Kerry's story may have shifted.....that seems to be your headline....Wow. Pretty tantalizing stuff.

Posted by: Hit The Bid at May 30, 2006 10:46 AM (MsLg9)

52 Actually, hitthebid, I'm using this a as "teachable moment" to try to show those of you on the left what unassailable facts look like, only to watch you guys scatter like cockroaches in the light and try to change the subject or make unsubstantiated charges.

You call this a"stupid topic", yet folks like yourself have run this thread out to more than 50 comments. Telling, isn't it?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 30, 2006 10:59 AM (g5Nba)

53 Good job, CY!

Kerry's first known instance of using his Christmas in Cambodia story was in a review (surprisingly negative) he wrote of Apocalypse Now. I believe the Swiftees discovered something like 50 instances of Kerry using the anecdote (including one on the floor of the Senate).

The February 12, 1969 date for his mission (now involving SEALs, not CIA men) is not credible. Why? Because Douglas Brinkley, Kerry's biographer, noted in Tour of Duty his debt to Kerry PCF-94 crewmember Michael Medeiros, who had a log of every mission he was involved in. Medeiros was in Kerry's crew from January 30, 1969 until Kerry left Vietnam in mid-March of that year. Medeiros was a Kerry supporter and appeared on stage with him at the DNC. And yet they didn't come forward with Medeiros' log book in 2004?

Remember, also that Kerry claimed the memory was seared--seared in him. Would he be likely to forget where he was on Christmas Eve, and confuse it with February 12?

Susan Estrich admitted that when she was to go on a TV show to debate the Swiftees allegations, she called the Kerry campaign to get some talking points and was startled to learn there were none. All the Swiftees' allegations were either proven true, or remained undetermined; there is not a single case where they were specifically debunked on an issue.

Posted by: Brainster at May 30, 2006 12:48 PM (hEScd)

54 Someone over at my blog claimed that I was scared of you posting comments there. I now see your 10:55 PM post from yesterday. No CY - we at Angrybear have never blocked comments. We have had minor technical glitches as do all blogs. For you to even suggest otherwise is ALMOST as dishonest as the rest of your 10:55 PM comment.

Re-read what I said and what the Media Matters link said. O'Neill at one point did say he had never ventured into Cambodia. And at other points - he said he had. THAT is why we know he lied at some point. Do we assume you can't read plain English or do we assume you are a lying piece of s%^&. As Brad DeLong might ask: Stupidity or Mendacity?

BTW - you are most welcome to post your choice over at our blog.

Posted by: pgl at May 30, 2006 03:36 PM (r6SJw)

55 To All MOONBATS!

Kerry is a Lyin, Traitorus, Maggot! Now, when was He going to sign that form 180??

DUH!!

Posted by: Mike at May 30, 2006 04:30 PM (HiWxc)

56 I think I've said it before, but I'll say it again while typing s-l-o-w-l-y so that pgl will clearly understand it.

I don't really care about any of the side arguments liberals have brought up to deflect us from the infamous mission where John Kerry claimed to have sailed from Ha Tien up river into Cambodia and in the process, picked up his so-called "magic hat."

To date, pgl and oher liberals have twisted and turned, offering up all sorts of excuses and diversions, and while those diversions are amusing, they have utterly failed to provide the one bit of evidence that matters.

They have not shown that so much as one single waterway could take a 23-ton Swiftboat from the Giang Thanh river North into Cambodia. Not. One.

I'm certain they hav tried, to be sure, but such a body of water doesn't exist, and veterans from that time tell us that it never did.

pgl has been given ample opportunity on not one, but two blogs to show that John Kerry could have sailed into Cambodia from the Giang Thanh, and he has utterly, spectacularly and dismally failed to do so.

I think we now know what we need to know about pgl and his credibility, and it explains a lot about why Kerry is his hero.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 30, 2006 05:52 PM (0fZB6)

57 “O'Neill at one point did say he had never ventured into Cambodia. And at other points - he said he had. THAT is why we know he lied at some point.”

I assume you're basing your opinion on O'Neill's brief conversation with President Nixon. If so, than you ignored the Washington Post interview linked here earlier where the actual words spoken between himself and Nixon were shown. It’s clear from that that there’s no provable lie. O’Neill corrected himself and Nixon by stating that he was merely along the border of Cambodia. Unless you can actually offer proof he was in Cambodia, than you have nothing. For example I can say yes, I was France (Germany, Canada, whatever) then correct myself to by saying I was merely along the border without it being a lie. Unless you can show some proof that I was in the country, you have only speculation. Sorry.

“Do we assume you can't read plain English or do we assume you are a lying piece of s%^&. As Brad DeLong might ask: Stupidity or Mendacity?”

No, it seems you can’t read or are unable to understand the text of written English properly because nothing in the conversation between himself and President Nixon shown here again (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12893-2004Aug18.html) offers gospel evidence that O’Neill ever lied. Unless you have something else, you’re arguments sound flimsy.

Posted by: Thatguy at May 30, 2006 06:08 PM (Pke82)

58 By the way, when O'Neill was along the Cambodian border, he was stationed in southwest Vietnam which is much closer to the border than the area that Kerry served. Knowing that O'Neill was near the Cammbodian border in no way implies that Kerry, too, could have taken a swift boat to the border.

Posted by: George at May 30, 2006 06:33 PM (iKT22)

59 More specifically, O'Neill says he was serving at Bernique's Creek near Ha Tien when he was along the border. And even then, O'Neill says he never crossed into Cambodia.

Kerry claims to have gone 5 miles over the Cambodian border when he was serving on the Mekong River when he was in the Coastal Division. O'Neill, who commanded Kerry's boat after Kerry left, said those swift boats never got closer than 40-50 miles to the Cambodian border.

Posted by: George at May 30, 2006 06:53 PM (iKT22)

60 For clarification:

The Giang Thanh was nicknamed Bernique's Creek after the first Siftee who had run upriver in purusit of smugglers. His crew had fired across the border; they did not cross the border. Even returning fire was against the rules of engagement; that changed later but the prohibition on entering Cambodia remained in effect throughout Kerry's months on patrol.

O'Niell mentioned that he used that nickname, Bernique's Creek, for the river-canal system in that area.

No waterway there was deep enough nor wide enough to allow for passage of a Swiftboat across the border. Between the border and Bernique's Creek there is land. For most of the waterway there is mountainous and hilly terrain. Where there are small channels, these are very shallow and narrow and cannot accomodate a Swiftboat.

Posted by: Where's The Beef? at May 30, 2006 11:56 PM (jcZ2c)

61 Also, as I said upthread, the Dry Season further reduced the available waterways and channels that even smaller vessels might have used during the time that Kerry was in the vicinity of the interior end of Bernique's Creek. That river-canal system did not flow from a major water inside Cambodia; it was fed by marshy areas and a few small channels that entered from the border. Mostly it was fed by the canal system that emptied the low-lying flatlands between Giang Thanh and the Bassac -- primarily during the Rainy season.

East of Bernique's Creek, a canal system connected with the Bassac River; that river was larger and did cross the Cambodian border, however, it was heaviy patrolled -- especially on the Cambodian side -- and no stealth operations could have crossed there from South Vietnam.

Of course, the enemy used much smalls vessels, and forces on foot, to move weapons and supplies across the border in the area that Kerry, and later O'Neill, patrolled. The Swiftees were there to intercept this flow of men and goods when possible. The Rainy Season made this area more accessible to the enemy, using their methods, but even the rise in waterlevels did not enable any channel to allow passage of Swiftboats there. The smaller PBRs patrolled the canal system in the interior; even they faced a reduction in navigable waterways during the Dry Season. Kerry's Cambodia story was, and remains, within the timeframe of the Dry Season.

Posted by: Where's The Beef? at May 30, 2006 11:57 PM (jcZ2c)

62 At one point during the war, of course, our forces did successfully make a large scale incursion into Cambodia. Swiftboats and PBRs were used on the major waterways, such as the Bassac, but Kerry had departed from South Vietnam by that time.

When O'Neill spoke with President Nixon, he made an innocent slip of the tongue and immediately corrected himself. He made it clear that he had been on the South Vietnam side. Other Swiftees had gone across with the official incursion on the major waterways in other border areas.

In 2004, O'Neill further clarified that his crew operated on the South Vietnam side of the border and that the local waterways did not permit passage of a Swiftboat into Cambodia.

Some Kerry defenders divert attention to the official incursion into Cambodia (linking to photos of Swiftboats in Cambodia) or they cite the military operations that occured in the mountains (where no Swiftboats could reach) that utilized helicopter drops.

During the incursion, other areas along the border were penetrated by PBRs and smaller vessels utilized in riverine warfare.

These examples of crossing the border are faux debating points meant to throw-up diversions from the account of all Swiftees (up the chain of command) that during Kerry's time in South Vientam the Swiftboats did not enter Cambodia and could not have done so via the Giang Thanh and its related canal system.

Except for Kerry's word alone, there is no evidence that he had ever gone across the border let alone that he had taken a Swiftboat deep into Cambodia -- with the rest of the implausible, if not impossible, details he added to his variable story.

Maybe he would varying it, yet again, by claiming he was near the border and that he ferried others to points of possible entry.

That would pretty much gut his story of special significance.

SF drops were pretty common for Swiftees in the Mekong Delta -- *within* South Vietnam.

Apparently, however, only Kerry has recalled (or reconstructed) these supposed journies 5-miles deep inside Cambodia. Such adventures are denied by his superior officers, his fellow Swiftees, and nothing like it is supported by the available evidence.

Posted by: Where's The Beef? at May 31, 2006 12:09 AM (jcZ2c)

63 Didn't Kerry say he was in Cambodia for "some length of time on Christmas eve '68. Didn't he say he heard shooting and other "warfare" to the point it was SEARED into his mind. Where would this have been if he went via the place he described? This doesn't sound like dropping off special forces and leaving the area. The waterway he claims to have taken. besides the comments of others who say different boats would have been used, How wide is the area? Wouldn't the river patrol have seen him when they were looking for ANYONE attempting to cross into Cambodia? This is all absurd.

Posted by: THE DUDE at May 31, 2006 08:46 AM (1Duv+)

64 I live in NJ. I started driving the other day in a NW direction. Does that mean I went to Phila. Pa. I'll have to check my notes. I could have accidently driven to Chicago if I didn't stop driving after 3 miles. I wasn't sure if I voted for a trip to Chicago or voted against it. Maybe I did both!

Posted by: THE DUDE at May 31, 2006 08:51 AM (1Duv+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 26, 2006

Indefensible Acts

When the story first broke in March that on November 19, 2005, a Marine unit in the Iraqi city of Haditha may have killed nearby civilians after an IED killed one Marine and injured two others, I made a simple statement.

Someone who truly supports the troops, even if they do not support the war, would want this incident fully investigated to uncover the truth. They would want to know the facts.

They would want to know if the Marines fired out of blind rage at the loss of their friends, and they would be equally interested in finding out if the Marines assaulted that location because someone inside fired upon them, as they claimed. Was it a slaughter of innocents, or were insurgents firing from within civilian homes? Were those that triggered the IED among the dead? We do not yet know, and some are already passing judgment.

If a just-published New York Times article on the investigation is true, then the incident was far worse than we dared suspect:

A military investigation into the deaths of two dozen Iraqis last November is expected to find that a small number of marines in western Iraq carried out extensive, unprovoked killings of civilians, Congressional, military and Pentagon officials said Thursday.

Two lawyers involved in discussions about individual marines' defenses said they thought the investigation could result in charges of murder, a capital offense. That possibility and the emerging details of the killings have raised fears that the incident could be the gravest case involving misconduct by American ground forces in Iraq.

[snip]

Evidence indicates that the civilians were killed during a sustained sweep by a small group of marines that lasted three to five hours and included shootings of five men standing near a taxi at a checkpoint, and killings inside at least two homes that included women and children, officials said.

That evidence, described by Congressional, Pentagon and military officials briefed on the inquiry, suggested to one Congressional official that the killings were "methodical in nature."

Congressional and military officials say the Naval Criminal Investigative Service inquiry is focusing on the actions of a Marine Corps staff sergeant serving as squad leader at the time, but that Marine officials have told members of Congress that up to a dozen other marines in the unit are also under investigation. Officials briefed on the inquiry said that most of the bullets that killed the civilians were now thought to have been "fired by a couple of rifles," as one of them put it.

I'm not sure how to address this. I'd braced myself for the worst from the very first reporting of this story, steeling myself to the possibility that U. S. Marines, distraught over the death of one of their own, went on an anguished, emotional rampage in the immediate wake of the event, lashing out in a blind rage against the first possible targets that crossed their paths. This, of course, would still be a crime, but one that could be understood, if not tolerated.

But if sometimes truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, sometimes reality is worse than our darkest nightmares. If the Times article is correct, a staff sergeant led a squad on a methodical, multi-hour killing spree.

Why was this allowed to occur? Why was this sergeant not relieved of his command, and this unit immediately forced to stand down by other Marines? This event could not have occurred in a vacuum, and other Marines watched these murders occur, presumably without making any serious attempts to intervene.

I grew up on Guadalcanal Diary and the Sands of Iwo Jima, and have always had a fondness in my heart for the Marines that I saw from nearby MCAS Cherry Point and Camp Lejeune. The apparent fact that Marines stood by and let one or more of their brethren massacre civilians, and then apparently tried to cover up the crime (which will be the target of a separate investigation) are black stains on the long and storied honor of the Corps, and that sickens my heart.

If the Times reporting of this incident is correct, there does seem to be the possibility of capital crimes. Let the investigation proceed, let the trial be fair and unambiguous, and let justice be swift.

* * *

Eight days ago, before the joint NCIS/Multi-National Forces investigation had been completed on the case, before so much as one charge had been filed, ex-Marine John Murtha made the extraordinarily inflammatory and provocative statement that the Marines in this horrific incident "killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

I said then and maintain now that:

…it is unconscionable for any legislator to accuse U.S. military personnel of multiple counts of premeditated murder before an investigation into these charges is complete. Prosecutions must proceed at their own logical pace as evidence in the case dictates. Premature accusations by a public figure in such a case imposes an artificial timeline, endangering the accuracy and thoroughness of an investigation.

At the same time, such heated rhetoric as charges of murder of "innocent civilians in cold blood" is prejudicial against the defendants, poisoning public opinion against them. This would be an explosive charge in a civilian court, but to make such charges against members of the U.S. Military when they are engaged in military operations in that country is absolutely fissionable.

Even if these accusations are proven true—once charges are finally brought and duly prosecuted—Murtha's grandstanding is still a reprehensible act, trading upon horrible (alledged) murders for temporary political gain.

Sickening souls on the far left are already gloating that Murtha's premature pronouncements may turn out to be accurate, without considering for a second that it was not his place to make those accusations. He could have endangered the investigation and prosecution of these apparent crimes. Of course, due process doesn't much matter to these folks. Making charges, whether they can be proven or supported, is part of their stock in trade.

I find I am able to feel disgust for all the black hearts involved; those that could perpetrate such horrific acts, those that could cover it up, and those who would try to profit from it.

May justice find them all.

Note: It is important to remember that the investigation is still on-going and that the final NCIS report is not expected for another 30 days. No Marines have yet been officially charged.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:31 AM | Comments (48) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Hubris, Interrupted

I first saw this story break yesterday:

President Bush ordered the Justice Department yesterday to seal records seized from the Capitol Hill office of a Democratic congressman, representing a remarkable intervention by the nation's chief executive into an ongoing criminal probe of alleged corruption.

The order was aimed at quelling an escalating constitutional confrontation between the Justice Department and the House, where Republican and Democratic leaders have demanded that the FBI return documents and copies of computer files seized from the office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.).

In a six-paragraph statement, Bush cast the dispute in historic terms and said he issued the order to give Justice Department officials and lawmakers more time to negotiate a compromise. "Our government has not faced such a dilemma in more than two centuries," Bush said. "Yet after days of discussions, it is clear these differences will require more time to be worked out."

The order capped five days of tumultuous negotiations involving the White House, the Justice Department and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who denounced the Saturday-night raid as an infringement on the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches and had joined Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in demanding that the seized documents be returned.

I resisted the urge to make an immediate comment on this, and instead decided to sleep on it and mull things over. Now that I have, think I like the President's intervention even less.

I first noted on Wednesday and much more qualified experts have confirmed, there is no apparent validity at all to the argument by legislators that they have some sort of Constitutional protection from their offices being searched.

Congressional offices have no special protections under the Fourth Amendment compared to other offices, and the FBI did get a duly sworn search warrant from a federal judge. Nor does the Speech or Debate clause seem to be even an plausible impediment to the execution of a search warrant.

No, the more I look at the President's decision to intercede in this case by impounding the seized documents for a 45-day period, the more I dislike his decision.

There was no compelling legal reason that I can ascertain for the President to intercede in this matter, even though he has the apparent power to do so. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, the Justice Department, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation went well beyond the legal standard in their search of Jefferson's Congressional office, perhaps to the point of showing too much deference to his status as a congressman.

No, the "reasoning" here is purely political in nature, as Bush as paused (but not stopped) the investigation so that Denny Hastert and the rest of the Republican leadership can pull their heads out of their collective… well you know.

From this perspective, President Bush overreached, using the power of the Executive to interrupt the Legislative branch's constitutional right to make complete fools of themselves by continuing to exhibit such constitutionally ignorant, publically repellant and arrogant behavior.

The great casualty in Bush's intercession is some much-needed congressional hubris.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:02 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 25, 2006

Ignoring the Rule of Holes

You've got to hand it to House Speaker Denny Hastert: he's all about novel interpretations:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert accused the Justice Department Thursday of trying to intimidate him in retaliation for criticizing the FBI's weekend raid on a congressman's office, escalating a searing battle between the executive and legislative branches of government.

"This is one of the leaks that come out to try to, you know, intimidate people," Hastert said on WGN radio Thursday morning. "We're just not going to be intimidated on it."

Asked later Thursday whether he thought he Justice Department retaliated against him with the leak, Hastert replied: "All I'm saying is, here are the dots. People can connect any dots they want to."

[snip]

Within minutes of that report late Wednesday, the department issued the first of two denials that it was investigating Hastert. The speaker demanded a retraction from ABC News, which stood by its story. Hastert on Thursday threatened to sue the network and reporters and executives for libel and defamation.

So Hastert believes that the Justice Department is trying to "you know, intimidate people," by first leaking false information about him to an ABC reporter, and then almost immediately and officially contradicting the false information in the strongest of terms. One would think if the Department of Justice was truly out to stain the Speaker as he maintains, they'd let the stain "set," and not issue a near immediate denial of the charge against him.

Of course, logic hasn't factored into much of what the Speaker of the House has uttered in the past week, so perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised at his foolish consistency.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:20 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Poisoned by (not so Il)legals

Via the Raleigh, NC, News and Observer:

Sixty or more schoolchildren might have been exposed to mercury in a series of incidents that led Wednesday to the closing of a Durham elementary school and the evacuation of a church and seven homes.

Oak Grove Elementary School on Wake Forest Road was closed early Wednesday, a day after four students brought unknown quantities of the hazardous substance there. A Durham man who police think gave them the mercury was arrested Wednesday.

[snip]

State and county officials on Wednesday pieced together a sequence of events that they say they think began Friday night when Carlos Guerra, 21, who works for an air-conditioning company, went to an East Ramseur Street church and gave an unknown amount of mercury to four youngsters.

Garner police charged Guerra, of 311 LaSalle St., No. 3001H, with stealing the mercury from a Garner job site Friday.

"I don't think he knew what he was dealing with," said Lt. Don Paschall of the Durham County Sheriff's Office, which is investigating. "He was referring to it as 'magic water.' "

Health officials say Guerra gave the mercury in cups to four children at Iglesias De Restauracion, a storefront church east of downtown. On Tuesday, the officials say, the four children brought the mercury to school, wiped it on others and sprayed it from spray bottles on three school buses and in at least one classroom.

This is the story currently being reported by the media, but that may not be the entire story.

There are questions about the citizenship status of Guerra, as well as some of his victims. I have attempted to contact the Durham County Sheriff's Department and three reporters at local news organizations for comment, and hope to have confirmation of his status later this afternoon.

Roughly 65 percent of North Carolina's Latino population —more than 300,000—are illegal immigrants.

Update: I just got confirmation that Guerra is here legally.

He's just an idiot.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:19 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Seeing Yellow

ABC's Brian Ross is reporting on his blog The Blotter that Speaker of the House Denny Hastert is the target of an on-going FBI corruption investigation:

Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

Part of the investigation involves a letter Hastert wrote three years ago, urging the Secretary of the Interior to block a casino on an Indian reservation that would have competed with other tribes.

There's just one problem with that theory: The FBI denies the story, and Hastert himself is demanding a full retraction.

Despite the denials and request for a retraction, Ross is sticking to his story… sort of:

ABC's law enforcement sources said the Justice Department denial was meant only to deny that Hastert was a formal “target” or “subject” of the investigation.
"Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation," one federal official said tonight.
The investigation of Hastert's relationship with Abramoff is in the early stages, according to these officials, and could eventually conclude that Abramoff's information was unfounded.

Gentlemen, start your parsing.

In the original article, Ross was quite careful to only say that Hastert was “in the mix,” a vague, rather nebulous statement that most readers would interpret to mean that Hastert was most likely the target of a criminal investigation. Indeed, the Reality-Based Community (an oxymoron if there ever was one) seems to be exactly under that impression in their update, and the ambiguous wording is also apparently interpreted in a similar fashion at Booman Tribune, The Carpetbagger Report, and Washington Monthly, all leading liberal political blogs.

But these blogs were hardly alone. Mainstream news sources such as Bloomberg were also taken in by Ross's too-perfect parsing, declaring:

U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert is under investigation by the FBI in the corruption scandal involving former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, ABC News reported.
ABC News, citing unidentified Justice Department officials, said the information involving Hastert was provided by lobbyists who are now cooperating with the investigation.

Reuters and even local ABC stations were also apparently taken in.

Ross provided an initial report with carefully constructed sentences that are phrased in such a way that even the best of minds inferred that Hastert is most likely the target of the investigation.

Bravo, Mr. Ross. Very well played.

So what is occurring here? Are professional journalists (Richard Esposito and Rhonda Schwartz also contributed to the ABC reports) ginning up excitable bloggers and less careful fellow journalists to establish smears they can then plausibly deny as being mere misinterpretations?

Ross's own sources seem to think so:

You guys wrote the story very carefully but they are not reading it very carefully," a senior official said.

Hastert may be a number of things, but he is not the focus of a Congressional corruption probe.

Ross's purposefully misleading, barely justifiable reporting seems to be a classic case of sensationalism, and would appear to cross into the ethically-challenged world of yellow journalism.

Denny Hastert may or may not be found to be of interest in Congressional corruption investigations, but one thing we now know to be true: the reporting of Brian Ross, "ABC News' Chief Investigative Correspondent" is not to be taken at face value.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:01 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 24, 2006

Oh, Deer

Ladies and Gentlemen, your tax dollars at work:

According to an AP story, the National Park Service needs to thin the elk herd in Rocky Mountain National Park. Officials estimate that it will cost $18 million to accomplish this.

The New Editor has other, more rational ideas.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:54 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.2291 seconds.
36 queries taking 0.1803 seconds, 438 records returned.
Page size 448 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.