July 12, 2007
Gee, Who do You Pull For?
The good news, of course, is that either way, someone detestable is
going to lose:
A U.S. citizen once convicted of running a private jail in Afghanistan for terror suspects and torturing them has sued The Associated Press, alleging it engaged in defamation, libel and slander.
Jack Idema, a former Green Beret from Fayetteville, N.C., filed the lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan seeking at least $110,000 and other unspecified damages.
Idema, who listed a current address in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., was convicted of charges including torture and operating a private jail and was sentenced to 10 years in prison in Afghanistan in September He was later pardoned by Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and left that country in June.
In his lawsuit, Idema accused the AP of ignoring truths about his work in Afghanistan to generate a "hot salient and torrid story of abuse in Afghanistan" to compete with a CBS story about allegations of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
He also accused the AP of reneging on promises not to publish photographs and videotaped images provided by Idema or his lawyers unless it obtained publishing rights from his licensing agent, Polaris Images.
Dave Tomlin, AP associate general counsel, said: "The whole lawsuit is nonsense. The claims that reflect on the integrity and professionalism of AP staff are especially outrageous."
That last line, by Tomlin...
It made me laugh.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
01:02 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I am glad to hear that Idema is now back in the USA and as for the integrity and professionalism of the AP well we will finally have evidence in a courtroom of how silly that notion is.
Posted by: Jaded at July 12, 2007 02:49 PM (0lpqx)
2
Idema is my favorite vigilante whackjob ever. Karzai probably pardoned him to get him out of pul-e-charki prison, because a couple years ago a massive riot was sparked when a few inmates tried to kill him.
Hopefully this lawsuit goes better than his one before, when he tried to sue stephen spielberg for making a movie about him (Peacemaker) and not giving him credit.
Posted by: paully at July 12, 2007 05:44 PM (jiuMy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Lazy, Stupid, or Wilfully Ignorant?
Frankly, Jules, I don't think it is
any of those.
I don't think these news organizations are lazy, as they can churn out one story after another on how the Iraq War was a mistake and a failure and by the way, Bush is tanking in the polls.
They aren't stupid, either, or we'd catch them faking the news far more frequently than we already do.
Nor do I think that they're willfully ignorant, as far too many critics have told them precisely what they are doing wrong, and loudly enough that an honest journalist would have certainly heard them.
No, what we are dealing with in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press is the purposeful subjugation of journalism to an anti-Bush, anti-U.S. political agenda.
"DonK," who claims to be a veteran Associated Press reporter, had this to say in the comments of Laws, Sausages, and Journalism:
As a former AP newsperson (15+ years), the deterioration of the AP's product makes me ill. The AP used to concentrate on the facts; Analysis and opinions were clearly labeled. However, under the new administration of Tom Curley, there seems little question that standards for verification have fallen sharply and the emphasis on facts over opinion has all but disappeared. The anti-Bush (and anti-US) tenor of AP reporting these days is appalling and makes me embarrassed for my former employers and some of the people I used to work with, who know better.
Update: In the comments, former journalist Jay K. proves my point (my bold):
it's one thing to make wild a** claims about an anti-bush/anti-america agenda in the press. it's another to explain realities like judith miller and bob woodward. i spent fifteen years as an award winning journalist before making a career change. it is based on that experience that i say if the press was doing it's job, and not just acting as administration stenographers, we would most likely not be in iraq, al queda would probably not be back to full strength, and the cheney administration would have never been elected to office in 2004. perhaps you are confusing editorial pages with journalism. journalists ask hard questions. it seems that in the last six years the only real journalists have been working for the mclatchy papers.
Perhaps unwittingly, Jay K proves my point. He strongly suggests that journalists take the role of activists, and that if they had done their jobs, then, "we would most likely not be in iraq, al queda would probably not be back to full strength, and the cheney administration would have never been elected to office in 2004."
The problem, which "DonK" noted above and another journalist obviously agrees with, is that the media are a special interest group, that is overwhelming aligned with the Democratic Party by 9-to-1 or more.
That the Salon.com readers slobbering in the comments disagree with that assessment does not make that fact any less true.
Update: Heh.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:51 AM
| Comments (35)
| Add Comment
Post contains 505 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Anti-Bush, anti-US agenda???
Put down yer crack pipe and stop sipping the Kool-Aid. The criminals Bush and Cheney are the most incompetent and corrupt Administration in US history. They lied the country into the present Iraq quagmire, created a billion new enemies around the globe, destroyed the armed forces readiness and fitness, failed to respond to Katrina, populated the Justice Department with Regent Law School retards and career yes-men, outed covert CIA agents in unlawful retaliation for a citizen's criticism, gave $27,000,000,000 in no bid contracts to fraudulent defense contractor Halliburton, and in general have screwed up the country in every way possible, and you blame the press for it's "anti-Bush agenda".
Pathetic. Truly pathetic.
Posted by: robert lewis at July 12, 2007 09:12 AM (+J4wd)
2
Re: robert lewis' reply.
And BINGO was it's name O.
Posted by: Robert at July 12, 2007 09:52 AM (VTtVl)
3
Hmmm... missed your Bush=Hitler comparison, but other than that, you hit most of the Salon.com talking points.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 12, 2007 09:57 AM (HcgFD)
4
These attacks on the NYT, WaPo, and AP are truly a case of shooting the messenger. Ignore the message (as articulately listed by Robert Lewis) all you want, folks, but reality has a way of biting back.
Posted by: Max at July 12, 2007 10:06 AM (VRb5p)
5
George W. Bush was elected to the office of "President," not "America." It is possible to be in favor of America while still being opposed to George W. Bush. For some of us, it is not only possible, but it is a moral imperative.
I voted for him in 2000. I served under him from 2000-2003. And I recruited over 200 more people to do the same. Every day he makes a liar out of me to those 200 people.
Posted by: Brian at July 12, 2007 10:28 AM (Bhe/R)
6
What is the press guilty of THIS time in respect to Iraq? Not reporting the good news? They can't even beyond the green zone safely (except in Kurdistan, oops, northern Iraq) to see all the "good news" out there in the paradise of Iraq without a real risk of death, injury and/or dismemberment.
This war is a FIASCO up down left right and sideways. Not only was it unnecessary, but it was flubbed horribly at every point there was an opportunity to turn it around. The press could pack up and NEVER report again on Iraq, and it would still be a disaster. And as for being too liberal, I would castigate the press for not showing the real face of this war. I can't recall the last time I saw a news report with the sight of actual human blood, especially on US soldiers, and yet we continue to produce 4-5 dead American soldiers or contractors and 100-200 dead Iraqis every day, day in and day out, like a metronome, and other than raw statistics, you never actually get a sense for what a screaming disaster it is. Even the stats are horrifyig enough, which is why most sensible people have given up after four long years on this conflict. And, to top it off, we hear from the government itself that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever.
So what exactly is the strategy here? Can these guys possibly blow it any further?
And the press is guilty how in all of this? By reporting that it sucks over there?
Posted by: pswiderski at July 12, 2007 10:35 AM (+plyi)
7
CY is just doing his part to prepare the "stabbed in the back" meme that will explain every failure in Iraq. It's not that an incompetent circle of idiots mismanaged the occupation of Iraq, it's the journalist anti-war left cabal that irrationally wants to destroy their own country. The Dolchstosslegende lives on...
Posted by: Random Guy at July 12, 2007 10:36 AM (X1Llr)
8
robert forgot to add the part about conspiring to hide the truth about 9/11 and presiding over the worst economy in 50 years as well.
But given the "reporting" from the MSM outlets like the AP and NYT, opinions like his aren't surprising.
Posted by: iconoclast at July 12, 2007 10:37 AM (TzLpv)
9
Hmmm... missed your Bush=Hitler comparison, but other than that, you hit most of the Salon.com talking points.
Bob,
This is beneath you. You may not agree with everything robert lewis said, but blithely dismissing them with the Bush=Hitler irrelevancy is a dodge.
The truth is, we are at a place in Iraq where every solution we have is terrible. The blame for being in this place can be placed directly at George Bush's door.
They've screwed the pooch at almost every turn, and let politics trump all other concerns, attempting to cut combat pay, cut money for post schools, and if you think the AS Attorney DOJ flap is a nothing story, as so many on the right believe, I have two Asst. US Attorneys who served under this and the previous administration who tell a much different story.
Both served in NYC putting away some of the baddest of the bad, showing more guts than a lot of those who are defending these firings.
In my 57 years, I have yet to see an administration as venal and incompetent as this one and I wonder just what they'll have to do to shake the faith of you remaining 28%.
And if you think the WaPo is liberal, you don't know Fred Hiatt.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at July 12, 2007 10:56 AM (KwXSc)
10
The only thing that would shake the faith of the remaining 28% would be GWB switching political parties. Most of these right-wing blogs aren't really pro anything, they're simply anti- anti-liberal, anti-free inquiry, anti-social change, etc. Like many fringe groups, they define themselves, and maintain cohesion by their opposition to an enemy. You will search in vain for any coherent ideology, any consistent set of principles. All one can see is a bunker mentality, a stubborn opposition to The Enemy.
Posted by: louisms at July 12, 2007 11:42 AM (K5Tdv)
11
This is from today's editorial in
the liberal Washington Post:
Advocates of withdrawal would like to believe that Afghanistan is now a central front in the war on terror but that Iraq is not; believing that doesn't make it so. They would like to minimize the chances of disaster following a U.S. withdrawal: of full-blown civil war, conflicts spreading beyond Iraq's borders, or genocide. They would have us believe that someone or something will ride to the rescue: the United Nations, an Islamic peacekeeping force, an invigorated diplomatic process. They like to say that by withdrawing U.S. troops, they will "end the war."
Conditions in Iraq today are terrible, but they could become "way, way worse," as the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, a career Foreign Service officer, recently told the New York Times. If American men and women were dying in July in a clearly futile cause, it would indeed be immoral to wait until September to order their retreat. But given the risks of withdrawal, the calculus cannot be so simple. The generals who have devised a new strategy believe they are making fitful progress in calming Baghdad, training the Iraqi army and encouraging anti-al-Qaeda coalitions. Before Congress begins managing rotation schedules and ordering withdrawals, it should at least give those generals the months they asked for to see whether their strategy can offer some new hope.
Oh, those crazy moonbats of the Washington Post. And I'm not even counting the kooky commie columnists they feature like Charles Krauthammer and Johah Goldberg! When will those wacky lefties learn?
/snark
Posted by: David Terrenoire at July 12, 2007 12:03 PM (KwXSc)
12
it's one thing to make wild a** claims about an anti-bush/anti-america agenda in the press. it's another to explain realities like judith miller and bob woodward. i spent fifteen years as an award winning journalist before making a career change. it is based on that experience that i say if the press was doing it's job, and not just acting as administration stenographers, we would most likely not be in iraq, al queda would probably not be back to full strength, and the cheney administration would have never been elected to office in 2004. perhaps you are confusing editorial pages with journalism. journalists ask hard questions. it seems that in the last six years the only real journalists have been working for the mclatchy papers.
Posted by: jay k. at July 12, 2007 01:04 PM (yu9pS)
13
I can hear the heavy breathing of the BDS crowd, triumphant in their "dispair" at the Bush Administrations initiation and handling, of the war.
My only question is, who will this war's John Kerry be,and will he be able to pronounce Ghengis properly?
Posted by: Joel Mackey at July 12, 2007 01:42 PM (tGm4a)
14
Let's re-read Mr. Klebeck's statement, shall we?
"...not just acting as administration stenographers...journalists ask hard questions."
He is decidedly not in favor of agenda-driven advocacy. He is asking for journalism. A journalist does not take any source at their word, no matter who they are. A journalist does his/her own research, and reports the facts.
I don't see anything here disputing any reporting on the basis of the facts. You are objecting because you don't like what is being reported. Party affiliation doesn't matter when reporters are too star-struck, and too comfortable with their position in the royal court to ask hard questions or even try to get corroboration of administration claims. Like dear Judy Miller, but she wasn't the only one by far.
Are you saying that reporters
should just act as stenographers for the administration? Read Michael Gordon's typing for WaPo and you'll get your wish.
Posted by: ChemBilly at July 12, 2007 02:59 PM (l2Zli)
15
first of all i would appreciate it if you struck my full name from this thread. thank you.
second the last thing in the world i want is for journalists to become activists. the job of a journalist is to do their own research and to ask tough questions...the ultimate goal of these things is to reach the truth. the truth has no agenda. you may think it does if it doesn't match your agenda, but that is bias everyone brings to the table. my point, which you totally misread, is that if the journalists had asked hard questions and done their research then they would have found the truth about what we now know was cherry-picked intelligence in the run-up to the invasion and occupation of iraq. the perfect example of this is scooter libby feeding judith miller info, which she in turn wrote in the nytimes without question, and then cheney going on meet the press and saying "...see, it's right there in the ny times..." and tim russert not questioning him about it. they also would have reported the truth about a resurgent al-queda instead of simply miming the administrations repeated claims of having them on the run, and they would have reported what they knew about the leaking of a covert cia operative's identity before the 2004 election.
thank you again for striking my full name from the thread.
Posted by: jay k. at July 12, 2007 03:40 PM (yu9pS)
16
I served under him from 2000-2003
Ummm, Clinton was president through all of 2000, and a bit of 2001.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 12, 2007 05:52 PM (eBAGP)
17
What the ideologues of all stripes fail to realize is that the media does not skew to one side or the other. The media skews to median voter. Case in point, the median voter is currently disaffected with the Iraq war, so the media is disaffected by the Iraq war. Back in 2003, the media was all for the Iraq war because the vast majority of the country was. So there you go. The political blogosphere is distinctly non-median voters, so each side perceives the media as on the other.
Also, jay k, as much as you or I would like the media to report objectively, it is a clear minority position. Most people, whether they acknowledge it or not, want the media to reinforce their own prejudices. Case in point, last week, our gracious host informed us that a picture of some Palistineans hanging around a wall, was in fact, a human shield made of children. Why? Because it reinforces the notion that Palistineans are violent scumbags. Oh, and by the way, the media was biased for not reaching the same conclusion.
See what I mean?
Posted by: Shochu John at July 12, 2007 05:58 PM (i76c7)
18
CY:
I do not visit your site often. I do not know which way you lean. However it is clear that most of the posters on this entry are living in moonbat heaven.
Anyone who denies the problems of the media bias are just plain silly. It is not a matter of political sides. We should all want the truth.
The AP is a good example. An organization owned by 5,000 US news organizations with major media exectutives on its board. The purpose of the AP is to provide its members with the news, not a version of the news, but the most unbiased staight forward news possible. Why? because the 5000 outlets, and countless outlets around the world, rely on the AP for most news outside their geographical area.
What do the 5000 members get for their money.
See the post below for evidence of sloppy reporting "Laws, Sausages and Journalism."
While Laws, Sausages and Journalism shows up the stringers and the Baghdad office up as sloppy the Baghdad office and its stingers have forwarded, and the AP has accepted clearly eronious reprts more than once. The latest they were caught out on
20 beheaded bodies found
Contrast the above unverifiable attrocities with the following on site reporing by Michael Yon, complete with video, photographs.
Bless the Beasts and Children. Even though Michael offered the news free to any outlet willing to publish, there were no takers.
Posted by: davod at July 12, 2007 07:36 PM (RdotW)
19
It always cracks me up to read a bunch of 20 somethings commenting from their mothers basements trying to convince others that they are/were journalists. They can't even construct a grammatically correct sentence.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 12, 2007 08:45 PM (Lgw9b)
20
second the last thing in the world i want is for journalists to become activists. the job of a journalist is to do their own research and to ask tough questions
You're missing the point of this blog. It's agenda is to promote the common right-wing meme that the war is being lost because of the so-called MSM and some nefarious fifth column of left-wing irrational actors who want to bring down the country for unstated reasons (which is why it's always painted as some kind of dimentia). It's never EVER because the administration miscalculated, or because the whole adventure was a bad idea from the start. This is how agitprop, right-wing-style, works. Do a little research into the rhetorical strategies employed by the right-wing in Weimar Germany and you'll see the same dynamic at work. Nutty nationalists are the same the world over.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."
Posted by: Random Guy at July 13, 2007 12:28 AM (K1Emm)
21
"It always cracks me up to read a bunch of 20 somethings commenting from their mothers basements trying to convince others that they are/were journalists. They can't even construct a grammatically correct sentence."
I believe you meant "mother's" rather than "mothers".
Posted by: Rafar at July 13, 2007 01:45 AM (MHGae)
22
It would be "mother's" if one mother had several basements. I think he meant "mothers'" instead.
The original point is well taken, though. I quit the newspaper business more than a decade ago, and I can't believe that anyone with a keyboard thinks they do what journalists do. Of course, journalists have had a hard time lately doing what journalists are supposed to do, too.
Everyone knows what Miller did wrong in the run-up to the war, right? It has nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with bad reporting.
Posted by: PunditGuy at July 13, 2007 07:59 AM (1hdHG)
23
PunditGuy,
If the right wants to complain about crappy reporting, I'm standing here in my choir robes. And I'll target the NY Times and the Wasington Post because I expect better reporting from them than I do the Washington Times or the Weekly Standard.
But when I hear that tired old canard about
the liberal media, that's when I call BS. Fred Hiatt turned the Post rightward years ago and employ reporters with a distinct conservative bias like Susan Schmidt.
The Times hired a consumer reporter from Newsday (I've forgotten her name) who had built her reputation on consumer protection stories. Once at the Times they expected puff pieces like where to find the best selection of Prada and other consumer, as in consume, "news."
And the AP, one of Bob's favorite whipping boys, also hired Nedra Pickler, another wretched reporter with a rightward bias.
Look at cable news and you'll find some real crap. CNN is so awful I can't watch it, and that has nothing to do with any percieved bias. It's just bad. And MSNBC? Aside from Olbermann, all of their talking heads lean right. Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson? C'mon.
The media was probably liberal in the 70's. And with so few media outlets, conservatives had a right to angry. But today? Please. This dog is so old and tired, it won't hunt. It's time to put this thing to sleep.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at July 13, 2007 08:55 AM (KwXSc)
24
The media doesn't lean left?
Their checkbooks say different.
And citing individual conservative journalists in organizations containing hundreds of journalists doesn't disprove my point at all. They still break 9-to-1 Democrat overall, always have, and in some organizations, are closer to 100%.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 13, 2007 09:02 AM (HcgFD)
25
Ah, but the devil is in the details: "MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission."
143 TOTAL. Out of more than 100,000. Not only that, but "Many of the donating journalists cover topics far from politics: food, fashion, sports."
So the left has 125 (out of the 143) who donated money. 0.125% of the total. The right has the majority of the (corporate) owners of the MSM, the folks who actually get to decide what you see, hear and read.
As Liebling said, "Freedom of the press belongs to him who owns one."
I'd happily trade you......
Posted by: dr,luba at July 13, 2007 11:16 AM (AT7hL)
26
>>he right has the majority of the (corporate) owners of the MSM, the folks who actually get to decide what you see, hear and read.>>
You mean like Ted Turner? So tell me about all the right wing bias coming from MSNBC and Olbermann? How's Dan Rather doing? You remember Dan, the guy who let a fabricated story be passed off as new because it hurt Bush? How many newspaper editorial pages endorsed Bush?
Disney won't release the Path to 911 TV series on DVD because it makes Clinton look bad. Anyone know where I can get a copy of Fahrenheit 911 on DVD?
Posted by: Are you serious? at July 13, 2007 12:05 PM (sedIg)
27
are you serious?
You do know that Ted Turner hasn't had anything to do with CNN for several years, right? That's Time-Warner now.
And Dan Rather lost his job.
Just like several columnists who criticized Bush after 9/11. They got fired because we can't have people criticizing
le petit dauphin, can we? So they got canned.
And Michael Moore had to find a new distributor for F 9/11 when Disney backed out of its contract because of heat from the right even before anyone had seen the movie.
And Rick Kaplan turned CNN to the right and then moved on to MSNBC where he hired liberals like Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, and Michael Savage.
General Electric, a major defense contractor owns NBC. Westinghouse, another major defense contractor, owns CBS. And who's head of their holding company's board of drectors? Frank Carlucci of the Carlyle Group. Disney, who gave $640K to W's 2000 campaign, owns ABC. Who owns Fox? Rupert Murdoch, hardly a lefty.
I've already mentioned the head of the Washington Post's editorial page, Fred Hiatt. He's no liberal. Even the right's biggest boogeyman, the NY Times has David Brooks, Stanley Fish (whose current column sides with Clarence Thomas), and Tom Friedman who supported the Iraq war from jump street.
Now tell me about the liberal voices heard at the Washington Times (owned by Sun Myung Moon or, as he likes to be called, the Messiah) or the left-leaning columnists at the WSJ. There are none.
The myth of the liberal media is a favorite one among the right because it allows them to conveniently dismiss any news that does not conform to their preconceived notions, much like our president.
I applaud Bob for setting specific stories right, as he's done a few time with the AP. But when he tries to paint the entire MSM as leaning left, I don't buy it. I read a lot, I watch the news, and I don't see it.
But boy, I see Ann Coulter on TV a lot. And Bill Kristol. And Pat Buchanan. And Bay Buchanan.
Well, you get the idea.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at July 13, 2007 05:21 PM (tk0b2)
28
Bob,
As a joke, it's always been my contention that if you spend your life covering politics, the sheer venality and hypocrisy of the right would turn you liberal if you weren't already.
But our liberal politicians have proven themselves to be just as repellant as the conservatives, ruining my joke.
Yes, reporters are more liberal than tax attorneys. No question. Just as there are more homosexuals in theater, more writers in bar rooms and more Republicans playing the links at Augusta.
But most reporters try to stay objective. Are they human? Of course. And the way they turn a sentence may lean more to the left than the right. I won't argue that point.
But reporters cover stories they're assigned. Editors assign stories. If editors are told that their news division has to turn a profit, then staff is cut and suddenly, events get covered instead of ideas. It's cheaper. Investigative journalism is expensive. Much more expensive than covering Paris Hilton or having two talking heads on TV "debating" an issue by yelling at one another.
And who turns the news divisions into profit centers? Boards. And who dominates the boards? Republicans.
Are you going to tell me that when the chairman of GE gets a call from Dick Cheney, he puts the VP on hold? Not on your life. Especially if he played golf with him the day before.
Cheney says he's unhappy with all the negative stories about the environment. The chairman of GE calls a guy and says, check into this. That guy calls a guy, then that guy calls a guy and suddenly, a story gets spiked and Katie Couric runs a piece on the "positive side of global warming" (and no, unfortunately, I'm not making that up.)
No one applies the thumb to the newsroom, not directly. But as Phil Donahue said recently, he was told that if he had a liberal on, he had to have two conservatives to balance it out. That's pressure from above.
They canceled Phil from MSNBC, even though he had the highest ratings of the network. But Tucker Carlson? He's had two or three shows, all ratings flops, and yet he still gets a slot.
Come on, Bob. The days of liberal control of the media are over. Money buys media and liberals are notoriously broke. Even SCOTUS has said that money is speech. Those who have money get more air time. Those paying for more air time get more access.
An anecdote: When Supersize Me came out, Paula Zahn of CNN had Morgan Spurling, the director, on her show. She gave him about 10 minues, all the while undercutting the message of his movie by saying things like McDonald's isn't the worst offender, surely, and don't all restaurants do this, etc.
Then she followed that segment with a puff piece with a McDonald's spokesperson who had 20 minutes to talk about the healthful additions to McDonald's menu.
At the time I wondered how much advertising McDonald's buys on CNN every year. Of course, we were never told that.
Bob, I believe you believe that liberals control the media, but I'm asking you to consider that maybe this old conservative canard is a ruse. Because liberals don't control the media. Conservatives don't control the media. Corporations control the media.
Here's an exercise you can do for yourself. In the next week, count how many business reports you hear on TV, radio, even NPR. Then count how many labor reports we hear. The answer will be zero.
One of the reasons I spend so much time writing comments on this and other blogs is to ask all of you to lift your heads above this false dichotomy of left and right. We're all being played for suckers.
Take a look around. Once you strip away the ideology, I think you'll see a very different world.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at July 13, 2007 09:38 PM (tk0b2)
29
The pronounced and epidemic liberal bias of the mainstream media is the primary reason the right wing has come out in rampant support of the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
It's the only way they will get their lonely voices to be heard.
Heheheh.
Posted by: shrimplate at July 14, 2007 08:19 AM (SW1hZ)
30
The truth is, we are at a place in Iraq where every solution we have is terrible.
Really? The prospect of having to invade mainland Japan during WWII was "terrible" considering the loses we took in the Okinawa invasion. Over 12,000 dead in under 3 months.
Iraq isn't even remotely close to that level of "terrible" yet. IMO, some proper perspective is in order here.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 14, 2007 10:35 AM (EI+1K)
31
Iraq isn't even remotely close to that level of "terrible" yet. IMO, some proper perspective is in order here.
WWII is just such an inappropriate analogy, I don't even know where to start. We were fighting industrialized nations and fielded armies, not insurgents; something like 16 million served in the US armed forces; wounds were much more fatal in the 1940's...the list just goes on and on.
Tell me, PA, what's the 'magic number' of dead/wounded US soldiers that will make you give a damn about their losses?
Posted by: Random Guy at July 14, 2007 12:12 PM (X1Llr)
32
Tell me, PA, what's the 'magic number' of dead/wounded US soldiers that will make you give a damn about their losses?
Tell me what's at stake and I'll tell you what I'm willing to tolerate to beat it.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 14, 2007 10:00 PM (EI+1K)
33
Well, it looks like what's at stake is several trillion dollars of oil revenues guarunteed to US and Brithish oil companies as part of the oil sharing agreement. As it stands, if the aggreement is passed as part of the benchmarks for withdrawal, it will divvy up about 80% of the oil to American a British oil companies, with no conditions attached. No wonder Bush is planning to keep 50,000 troops there indefinately. How many dead are worth all that money? Your call.
Posted by: Randy at July 15, 2007 06:49 PM (fcfl8)
34
1) The "liberal media" chased Whitewater for 8 years. They dismissed the Downing Street Memos in less than 24 hours.
2) They point out the hypocrisy of Edwards saying he cares about the poor, yet he gets $400 haircuts.
Still haven't seen or heard them mention Cheney's distaste for taxes, while the majority of Halliburton revenues comes from Gov't contracts (paid with dirty tax money).
If a "liberal" reporter wants to keep his job, he better toe the company line.
BTW, Phil Donahue lost his job despite having his station's highest rated show.
He also questioned the legitimacy of going to war with Iraq.
Why? Because his employer had a monetary interest in making sure we went to war.
Posted by: Robert at July 16, 2007 08:54 AM (bJEyy)
35
Are we talking about Michael Yon and eating Iraqi babies here?
Posted by: Davebo at July 16, 2007 01:08 PM (vdjgh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 11, 2007
Murtha's "In Cold Blood" Slur Fails to Impress Marine Hearing Officer
In November of 2005, Democrat John Murtha (Okinawa), accused American Marines of
cold-blooded murder:
A US lawmaker and former Marine colonel accused US Marines of killing innocent Iraqi civilians after a Marine comrade had been killed by a roadside bomb.
"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," John Murtha told reporters. The November 19 incident occurred in Haditha, Iraq.
Today, a Marine hearing officer said that charges against the first Marine coming to trial should be dropped:
The government's case against a Marine accused of fatally shooting Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha lacks sufficient evidence to go to a court-martial and should be dropped, a hearing officer determined.
The murder charges were brought against Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt for killing three Iraqi brothers in November 2005.
The hearing officer, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, wrote in a report released by the defense Tuesday that those charges were based on unreliable witness accounts, insupportable forensic evidence and questionable legal theories. He also wrote that the case could have dangerous consequences on the battlefield, where soldiers might hesitate during critical moments when facing an enemy.
"The government version is unsupported by independent evidence," Ware wrote in the 18-page report. "To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."
A final decision on whether or not to drop the case will be made by Lt. Gen. James Mattis.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:49 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.
1
This is NOT getting the coverage it deserves or shall we say the coverage it would be getting if the recommendation was for a court marshal.
Thanks for covering it!
Posted by: DF at July 11, 2007 03:16 PM (a0orE)
2
Yay! Murtha should be the one court-martialed.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 11, 2007 05:30 PM (VNM5w)
3
Yay! Murtha should be the one court-martialed.
F, YEAH! COURT MARTIALED BECAUSE HE...what, now? I missed the memo.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 11, 2007 06:04 PM (n4OkD)
4
CY:
"In cold blood" is a
slur? From what I found of the details, it's a simple
description of the situation:
The news came in anticipation of the results of the military's investigation, which found that the 24 unarmed Iraqis—including children as young as two years old and women—were killed by 12 members of Kilo Company in the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division.
Say what you want about the intent of the soldiers, or what they expected to find, or where they thought the firing was coming from--you can't convince me that the two-year-old was an armed threat.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 11, 2007 06:14 PM (n4OkD)
5
Only the naive and the disingenuous use wikipedia for source material.
Posted by: Actual at July 11, 2007 07:20 PM (u0mU5)
6
Holy cow, I didn't realize that Sharratt's parents are Murtha's constituents:
Sharratt said she and her husband also are enraged with Murtha, in whose district they reside, saying they believe he spoke out during his re-election campaign without the benefit of firsthand knowledge. They haven't tried to contact the congressman or his staff, believing that could harm their son's case.
"When this is over and done with, that's another story," Sharratt said.
Link via Opinion Journal
.
Posted by: capitano at July 11, 2007 07:29 PM (+NO33)
7
Only the naive and the disingenuous use wikipedia for source material.
First, Actual, bite me.
Second, point me to the link that proves that the kid was packing heat.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 11, 2007 07:35 PM (n4OkD)
8
Ad homs and wikipedia source material.
You're quite the skilled debater, Doc.
I wasn't in Haditha and neither were you.
It's combat. Stuff happens.
Let the Marines sort it out.
Posted by: Actual at July 11, 2007 08:00 PM (u0mU5)
9
John Murtha is an ex-Marine.
One of two that I know of.
The other is Lee Harvey Oswald.
Posted by: N. O'Brain at July 11, 2007 08:08 PM (PmWhP)
10
No, Actual, if this is the definition of "ad hominem"...
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
...then I'd say that, with "disingenuous" and "naive," you cracked the seal on those. Oh: also with the whole not-answering-the-argument thing.
I've had it up to
here with the namecalling bushwah, as well as the condescending "me am smarter" attitude from people who, upon further interaction, I realize wouldn't have been intelligent enough to erase the stray pencil marks on my SATs.
I know that I'm making two big assumptions here--first that you're conservative and, second, that you're a fool. You've had two posts to prove me wrong, though, and you haven't done much in that direction.
Do you have nothing else up your sleeve, Dr. Science? Have you no other retort than the personal attack? I challenged you to produce the link that shows that the two-year-old was armed when this attack happened or hold your tongue.
If you don't like my links, then bring a better one of your own or just pipe down. I come to this site precisely to avoid the kind of crap you're laying down. This neighborhood's better than that.
Also: take your "stuff happens" and stuff it right up your arse. I can't fathom how an actual human being could have that attitude about the death of a two-year-old.
When it comes right down to it, though, I really don't want to understand that kind of mindset.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 11, 2007 08:21 PM (n4OkD)
11
I sure hope whoever the Marine suing Murtha is weighs in with both barrels!
http://murthamustgo.blogspot.com/2007/07/rep-murtha-running-for-cover.html
EXCERPT:
..."Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is being sued by one of the accused Marines for libel. He had told The Philadelphia Inquirer that Gen. Michael Hagee had given him the information on which he based his charge that Marines killed innocent civilians."...
The photo here of Murtha receiving a Bronze Star is prominently displayed on a "Vets For Murtha" website. Question: Why would the award be given in a dimly lit gym with noone looking on?
http://www.vetsformurtha.org/node/12
Copied the photo and lightened it. Nobody but some officer and an aide. Seems real suspicious to me. Like, you think they didn't want anybody to see it awarded? And you know, no copies of his supposed (2) purple hearts can be found.
Posted by: 1st Cav RVN at July 11, 2007 11:19 PM (sNmFO)
12
Doc,
Nice strawman you got going there. Yes some civilians were killed in the engagement however, the Marines are not to blame but the subhuman scum who use civilians as camouflage and you know it. Because of the so called humanitarians that insist these subhumanÂ’s have Geneva convention protections the terrorist subhuman scum see no reason not to continue to use civilian populations as shields and cover. People like you are the reason terrorists get away with this over and over again with no consequences and will continue to do it, you and those like you are the reason those kids died and why civilian populations are so victimized by terrorists! The minute we start summarily executing these subhumanÂ’s will be when they stop doing what they do. It's your's and all the other bleating libtards fault this continues to happen, how does it feel to have the blood of innocents on your hands?
Posted by: Oldcrow at July 12, 2007 07:55 AM (q7b5Y)
13
Oldcrow, you're responding to what you wish I'd said, rather than what I actually said. Had you read my post instead of responding in some Pavlovian snit of "bleating libtards blah blah blah blood on your hands blah blah blah people like you," you would have seen that my argument was with the fact that CY characterized Murtha's description of the killings as a slur.
You may or may not applaud the killing of children, as Actual does up above, but you can't tell me that the two-year-old was a threat. I mean, you
can, I guess, but you'd look like a fool if you tried.
Also:
he minute we start summarily executing these subhumanÂ’s will be when they stop doing what they do.
You mean kind of like the way there's no violent crime in Texas?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 12, 2007 08:11 AM (Hn6CT)
14
Listen, people, I'll get off the soapbox if we can, at the very least, agree that the killing of unarmed children is not something to be cheered or shrugged off lightly.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 12, 2007 08:20 AM (Hn6CT)
15
Listen, people, I'll get off the soapbox if we can, at the very least, agree that the killing of unarmed children is not something to be cheered or shrugged off lightly.
Are you saying you're pro-life, Doc?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 12, 2007 08:50 AM (HcgFD)
16
According to yesterday's LA Times, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service had information that would have cleared the marines before their hearing, but failed to release it to the defense. An Intell officer had a recorded minute-by-minute account of the engagement. Basically, they all got Nifonged.
The whole thing looks like a political set up job, driven by a Time Magazine article based on a doctored stringer video tape. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Murtha could be presumed to have had classified knowledge about the incident, making his statements very damaging. At a minimum, he owes these men a public apology.
BTW: Murtha wasn't a real marine. He was a reservist activated for a year at DaNang to get his ticket punched.
Posted by: arch at July 12, 2007 10:11 AM (pKbp9)
17
As soon as the cells actually become a child, I'm right with you, CY!
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 12, 2007 10:47 AM (Hn6CT)
18
Oldcrow,
"subhuman scum ... these subhumans... the terrorist subhuman scum" - these are the very words, the Nazis used to deny the protections of the Geneva Convention to WW2-POWs and -partisans in eastern Europe 65 years ago. This language reveals an attitude that should be very alarming.
he
Posted by: he at July 12, 2007 04:23 PM (B0mLC)
19
I served with LtGen Mattis about 12 years ago, when he was CO of the 7th Marine Regiment - he'll review everything and probably have the charges dropped against this Marine. He's one of those that will cut through the BS to get to the truth - and hand you your @$$ if you lie to him.
Posted by: fmfnavydoc at July 12, 2007 08:53 PM (I6QiV)
20
Sorry he but that dog don't hunt.
You see the members of the armed forces who were captured in WWII wore uniforms, were members of the armed forces of a signatory nation and carried Geneva conventions ID cards. AQI is none of these. The partisans in WWII were covered by the Geneva conventions and by the way we the U.S. and allies executed many german soldiers that were caught in the wrong uniform or civilian clothes as spies. And last but not least read
this story and tell me AQI members are human beings. Below is a quote from Michael Yon's post:
"At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family."
Still want to argue we are dealing with Human being's here? If you say yes then you are a fool.
Posted by: Oldcrow at July 13, 2007 07:51 AM (q7b5Y)
21
DW, yes "in cold blood" IS a slur against those Marines, of the worst kind. Being from one formerly of our own so he presumes to carry the authority of having been-there-done-that, which, ala Sen. John Kerry, he has not. His baseless accusation carries a traitorous sting that will not go unanswered.
Grab your juice box and put your football helmet on, the short bus is here for you kid.
If you think for one effing second that a United States Marine, in combat, saw a two year old, raised his rifle, sighted in and shot a child, you have boldly plunged an entirely new strata of ignorance. Or maybe I just haven't run across you before.
You weren't there, nor was I, and it's damn sure Murtha wasn't. Maybe a grenade blew a refrigerator onto the kid. Maybe he stepped on a detonator for an IED they were making when the raid happened. His mom could have wrapped him in an explosive blanket which would have made him a legal target. We don't know and Murtha sure as hell didn't when he blabbed "murder in cold blood' to a more than willing bloodthirsty media, a week before he could have been briefed.
Commandants of the Marine Corps do not hang around Congressional Offices jabbering details of daily sitreps.
You latch onto the lefty narrative of dead kid =bad Marine faster than a hobo on a ham sandwich. Possessing no knowledge of the real facts. Now that the evidence is exonerating SSgt Werlich and his squad one by one, by facts assembled by the INTELL OFFICER WHO RECORDED THE ENTIRE ENGAGEMENT, the liberal hope of an Iraqi Mai Lai is swirling down the drain, hopefully taking Murtha's political career with it.
When your "viable cells" can do a little more than pass the SAT, maybe you'll have credibility on the subject. Until then, I see an name-tag and a hairnet in your future.
Posted by: Smokin at July 14, 2007 07:27 AM (BZfBT)
22
As soon as the cells actually become a child
And that would be when?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 15, 2007 12:43 AM (EI+1K)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Laws, Sausages and Journalism
A little bit of
cross-referencing reveals that the photographer "Talal" mentioned in Michael Yon's dispatch
Second Chances is Associated Press photojournalist Talal Mohammed.
In "Second Chances," Yon recounts:
To see what the AP might have by way of reliable, mainstream, news resources, on the morning of 07 July, I asked Talal, an Associated Press stringer in Baqubah, if he had heard about the Al Hamari murders, and our conversation went something like this:
“Yes,” answered Talal.
"How many had been killed?" I asked.
"35," answered Talal. Not "about 35", but precisely 35.
"How do you know?" I asked.
"A medic at the Baqubah hospital told me,” Talal said.
“What was the medic’s name?” I asked.
“I don’t know,” answered Talal.
“You didn’t ask?”
“No,” he said. Talal said a doctor told him the same thing, but that he did not know the doctor’s name. He had not asked. Besides which, Talal said, the doctor and the medic were afraid to give their names.
“How were the people killed?” I asked.
“They were shot,” answered Talal as he motioned shooting with a pistol.
“Did you tell someone at AP headquarters in Baghdad?” I asked.
“Yes,” answered Talal.
“Who did you tell?” I asked.
“I don’t know,” answered Talal.
The International Herald Tribune on July 10 makes it clear that Talal's account—an account in which he didn't know the medic or doctor he cited, and didn't bother to ask their names—was received by someone at AP in Baghdad, who felt quite comfortable running the account, not matter how vaguely sourced:
The fight underlines the struggle in Diyala Province, where militants believed to be from Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia have reportedly left mass graves of victims in areas under their hold.
[snip]
Soldiers have found whole streets and buildings wired with explosives, bomb and weapons factories and prisons run by extremists - and, Iraqi officials say, the bodies of 35 people slain by militants and dumped in a village on the outskirts of Baquba.
Michael Yon's solid documentation—the units involved, their commander's names, the exact GPS coordinates of the site, video, and still photographs of the bodies, and a face-to-face meeting between Yon and AP reporter Robert Reid—and we get al Qaeda "reportedly" left mass graves.
In the second graph, through the magic of the AP's Baghdad Bureau, a nameless medic and fearful anonymous doctor are now, "Iraqi officials."
Otto von Bismarck was once credited with stating, "To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making."
As we gain a greater understanding of how one vague, phoned-in account after another is squeezed into an Associated Press casing and squirted across the wires, we're forced to face the reality that like sausages, many of the "facts" in an Associated Press story are those we'd never swallow for a second if we knew what went into them.
Update: What do you know... it only took a week-long blogswarm, but AP finally published on the massacre documented by Michael Yon.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:59 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 507 words, total size 4 kb.
1
But no mention of the children that were found in those graves, beheaded.
Posted by: lauraw at July 11, 2007 12:37 PM (nr9o0)
2
At what point are we allowed to say that the media are literally enemy propagandists? Why is this being allowed to continue? At what point can something concrete be done about it?
Posted by: Sam at July 11, 2007 12:43 PM (JMLfo)
3
What's with the 6 bodies then morphing to 35 later in the article?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 11, 2007 12:54 PM (bwMN7)
4
"To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making."
Yup and you get mad cow disease and the patriot act.
Posted by: vinnie at July 11, 2007 01:23 PM (eYbR0)
5
I noted the same warping of the story to give credence to their stringer- witout proper source- and downplay key points of Yon's story. They are far from turning off their terrorist-supporting news filtering.
Simple goal: Bush must fail and be blamed for that failure (thus the rush to cause catastrophe before the elections). Letting the terrorist win and millions of Iraqis to suffer and die is OK, as long Bush is the loser.
Posted by: Mike O at July 11, 2007 01:27 PM (9+kYv)
Posted by: Tully at July 11, 2007 02:08 PM (kEQ90)
7
Did I say something wrong?
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at July 11, 2007 03:22 PM (Cy7OH)
8
Freedom of the Press has become a combination hunting permit and license to lie, cheat and steal the honor of good men and women and hide the faults of those that are dishonorable.
It needs to stop. If it does not of their own shame and realization of their malfeasances, the honest citizens of this Nation will stop them in the only way that they understand.
Profit.
Since our government won't do anything about it, cutting their profits might.
But if that does not work, there are Americans that will go a few steps further, and no one will like that.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Posted by: Papa Ray at July 11, 2007 06:36 PM (KYECy)
9
As a former AP newsperson (15+ years), the deterioration of the AP's product makes me ill. The AP used to concentrate on the facts; Analysis and opinions were clearly labeled. However, under the new administration of Tom Curley, there seems little question that standards for verification have fallen sharply and the emphasis on facts over opinion has all but disappeared. The anti-Bush (and anti-US) tenor of AP reporting these days is appalling and makes me embarrassed for my former employers and some of the people I used to work with, who know better.
Posted by: DonK at July 11, 2007 10:33 PM (AjlLX)
Posted by: Uncle Ralph at July 11, 2007 11:55 PM (3poli)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 10, 2007
Peekaboo
I see you.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:35 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 5 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Hmmmmmm.....
Well, you got someone's attention anyway.
Posted by: dazedgonebye at July 10, 2007 05:45 PM (onj4J)
2
19 minutes and only 2 page views? Either a sloooow reader or the must be in a board room with your site up on the projection screen.
Posted by: sickboy at July 11, 2007 02:31 PM (S4Q5o)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What is It?
I guess got a very interesting email request from Brian at
Snapped Shot, who wanted me to take a look at this AFP picture published on
Yahoo News.
The caption states that the woman in the photo claims that the bullet in her hand hit her bed during an overnight raid by U.S. forces in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood.
But there are a few inconsistencies in her story, or at least, odd observable phenomena surrounding what she's holding in her hand.
For starters, lets look at an enlarged, cropped version of the photo, focusing on the bullet.
While we don't have anything in the camera's frame and we don't know an exact size of the woman's hand to help determine size and scale, we can tell right off the bat that whatever this is, it is not any variation of 5.56 NATO ammunition issued to American forces. The shape is wrong, there are no markings consistent with U.S. 5.56 NATO ammunition, the object in the picture is far too large to be a 5.56 bullet, and quite obviously, it has no discernible jacket.
And while it might be closer in size to the 7.62 NATO chambered for some U.S. weapons systems (including M240 machine guns and M14 rifles), we once again run into the problem of the object's shape being far too rounded for most common 7.62 loadings I'm familiar with (including those generally issued to the military), no jacket, and no markings.
The object is also too rounded in shape (and perhaps too short) to be most the most common variations of .50 BMG bullets I'm familiar with, and quite frankly, only one .50 BMG military loading that I know of comes close.
The M903/M962 SLAP is a tungsten-core saboted 7.62 armor penetrator is the only non-jacketed round .50 BMG-round that I can think of that would have the color this bullet does, lack of markings, the ability to withstand impact with little to no deformation, and the lack of easily observable rifling on the bullet (due to the sabot grabbing the rifling, then being discarded in flight). The problem with this theory is that unless it hit some major masonry on the way in (this armor piercing bullet designed to punch through personnel carriers and vehicles), it would not have been stopped by her bed.
Are there any weapons experts out there who can definitively ID this as a U.S. bullet, or are we looking at something else?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:43 PM
| Comments (39)
| Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Consider the source of the pic. nuf said.
Posted by: 1sttofight at July 10, 2007 04:28 PM (4bQib)
2
How could the bullet have hit the woman's bed and still retain its shape?
Posted by: Stefan at July 10, 2007 04:40 PM (Xx4xo)
3
If the bed was wood and the bullet had been slowed down sufficiently... I think it would retain it's shape. It also depends on how far away it was fired from.
At least it's a rounded bullet shaped... based on the picture on the referenced SLAP site, it's not nearly "sharp" enough.
Anyone know what a 7.62 AK round looks like?
Posted by: SGT Jeff (USAR) at July 10, 2007 05:03 PM (yiMNP)
4
Anyone know what a 7.62 AK round looks like?
Intimately. Not even close.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 10, 2007 05:08 PM (HcgFD)
5
It's weird - the more I look at it, the more I think, "arrowhead."
Posted by: SGT Jeff (USAR) at July 10, 2007 05:17 PM (yiMNP)
6
Never examined spint ammo, but... honestly, it looks like someone said "I need a bullet head!" and this is what they were handed....
Posted by: Foxfier at July 10, 2007 06:26 PM (V3JE4)
7
That looks like horizontal banding there... which, if correct, makes it look to me like what she's holding is the product of a lathe. Needless to say, no one produces bullets on a lathe.
Regardless, that's no
U.S. bullet.
Posted by: Russ at July 10, 2007 07:36 PM (9X0tX)
8
A few things seem odd, especially in the enlarged image. First is that appears to resemble a FMJ round, but FMJ rounds usually have a spherical radius on the tip, this "round" appears to have what we call in the machining industry a "tit", which occurs from having a cutting tool located below center of a rotating workpiece. Not a very predictable feature since it is not controlled and would therefor cause inconsistant trajectory.
Second the lack of rifling marks on the spent round and the existance of prior mentioned "tit" which would have received some degree of blunting having even hit a feather pillow at velocities in excess of 2200 feet per second, hollow points would even show signs of mushrooming, especially in smaller caliber rounds that naturally travel at higher velocities, an example being 22-250 BTHP rounds that disintegrate upon impacting a single blade of grass when fired at the higher end of reloading recommendations.
Third, there appear to be 3 radial rings for crimping a case neck into. 3? I've only ever seen 1 as that's all that is needed to crimp a cartridge neck into regardless of the powder charge. 2 of the rings after the start of the ellipse forming the point and are useless. Surface tearing caused by a form tool will
cause a similar appearance and a mis aligned form tool can also cause the "tit" mentioned before.
Finally, the cross section appears to be about 2/3 the cross section of the index finger holding the slug taking into account the oblique view of the finger, placing it at least in the 7.62 category, what we see of the slug is greater than 2 times its diameter, half a diameter is exposed between the finger and first "crimp" groove. The fingers need something to hold on to as do the rifeings need a surface to create spin, the slug must be pushing an inch long if not longer.
The photos look like a hoax.
Posted by: R30C at July 10, 2007 09:18 PM (3+0jc)
9
It is not entirely impossible for someone to be struck by a spent round. Remember that, at Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel was hit by a Japanese machine-gun bullet which just bounced off and did no harm beyond smudging his uniform. The present claim will stand or fall on other factors.
Does anyone out there know enough to have an opinion on Soviet/Russian and Iranian ammo?
Posted by: Bleepless at July 10, 2007 09:31 PM (pC/p3)
10
It looks a lot like the Soviet/Chinese manufactured 7.62mm (only pictures I could find quickly here http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mmerkel/pages/ammunition.html) used for AKs. NATO rounds have a more gradual slope. I have to admit that I've been out of the Army for 10 years and there have been at least 2 generations of small arms in US inventory since then.
R30C is correct, at a mini minimum the round would have marks from being forced through a rifle at a couple thousand fps. It would also would go through the bed and lodge in the wall if it were stone, go through the wall if it were plaster.
The only way this could have landed on her bed in the state it's in - is if it fell out of the soldier's ammo pouch.
Posted by: Doug Halsted at July 10, 2007 09:42 PM (dHBXx)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 10, 2007 09:50 PM (HcgFD)
12
It is *possible* that if a window was open and someone fired a round up into the air as Iraqis are prone to do and the round landed on the bed as it's velocity was spent.
It would be simply coincidence that it happened during any kind of US activity unless there was some Iraqi Death Blossom going on a mile or so away.
Posted by: crosspatch at July 10, 2007 11:29 PM (y2kMG)
13
it's a suppository for an enema which must be taken by all AP stringers and photogs cuz dey r full of sh*t.
Posted by: reliapundit at July 11, 2007 01:32 AM (Y6c1T)
Posted by: David at July 11, 2007 01:39 AM (8LpVz)
15
I confess to coming here as a liberal troll to make pretty much the exact same comment as reliapundit. So now let me change that to:
It's the chip shoved up rethuglican bloggers to keep them in touch with Karl Rove (and keep them pure for Grover Norquist.)
Posted by: anon at July 11, 2007 02:33 AM (D24vK)
16
Does the possibility that a fresh unfired round was handed to her in order to take a photo to go along with the story impeach her narrative in any significant way?
I think not.
Thanks for playing.
Posted by: spartacvs at July 11, 2007 06:40 AM (rKW6M)
17
I've got a few flavors of 7.62x54R on hand and it doesn't look like any of them.
I think its a ball point pen with a metal casing.
Let's not forget -- AFP's faked pictures ignited the intifada. They're real pros at faking news.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 11, 2007 06:45 AM (bwMN7)
18
"That looks like horizontal banding there... which, if correct, makes it look to me like what she's holding is the product of a lathe"
"It's weird - the more I look at it, the more I think, "arrowhead.""
That's the first two things I thought when I saw the pic. It looks like it was machined rapidly on a manual mill, rough and not something that would be shot from a bore. It doesn't look like lead (which would be too soft to "machine") but it could be almost any material. It has a lack of "sheen" like it was being used for something. I would think that "if" it had been fired from a weapon and lodged in her bed (which i doubt) there should be some deformation or some lateral scrape lines. I see neither.
I'd be real surprised if it is tungsten. It's too crude looking.
Posted by: markm at July 11, 2007 07:12 AM (hVOTO)
19
From elsewhere:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/busted-bogus-baghdad-bullet-story.html
Posted by: markm at July 11, 2007 07:52 AM (hVOTO)
20
I think that the idea that in Iraq, a country awash with weapons and ammo, someone would actually fake a bullet is just silly. Give someone a bullet as a prop, I can believe, but actually turn one out specially for the purpose...
Posted by: Rafar at July 11, 2007 08:04 AM (kkgmI)
21
Does the possibility that a fresh unfired round was handed to her in order to take a photo to go along with the story impeach her narrative in any significant way?
I think not.
Well, nobody ever accused a Tbagg reader of being intelligent, have they?
According to the caption, she claimed it was this specific bullet that hit her bed. As there is no other evidence presented at all--not the bed, nor anything else--publishing this photo hinges on this being not only a random bullet, but the specific bullet that hit here bed.
If this is not the bullet, her story and the caption are false. Period.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 11, 2007 09:01 AM (HcgFD)
22
Stringer photographers using props? That's unpossible!
Passion of the Toys *Insert meme stating that you should do a websearch, since my content was blocked*
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 11, 2007 09:07 AM (oC8nQ)
23
Several problems.
1/ Unless it did have the jacket, it should show signs of being fired.
2/ It is the wrong color for most standard rounds, so it would have to be 50 cal or greater.
3/ How did it make it to the bed without going through at least a window?
Seems to be that this photo even without considering the source is fisher than the entire us fishing fleet after a good haul.
Posted by: sonofdy at July 11, 2007 09:22 AM (2jwEz)
24
A fine example of lathe work done at Green
Helmet's Machine Shop!!
Posted by: Tincan Salilor at July 11, 2007 09:28 AM (L4HGI)
25
I don't see the significance. She was in a fire zone. If this truly is a previously live round, how does it mean anything that the round came near her. I don't know about the rest of you, but this is a fairly common occurance in the US. With the amount of gang warfare and cops that indiscriminately fire their weapons with a large amount of ammo expended, I have seen numerous situations were bullets were found where they are not supposed to be.
As far as my reaction to the picture, it appears that the bullet was never fired. Almost the same as the bullet found on JFK's stretcher in Parkland after he was declared dead.
Posted by: David Caskey at July 11, 2007 09:42 AM (G5i3t)
26
"I don't see the significance."
No, neither do I. Most stories out of Iraq these days seem to be desperately trying to keep the viewers attention by either;
1) Tying developments to events that happen to Americans.
2) Putting up pictures of exceptionally big attacks (Car bombings, etc).
3) Putting up "human interest" fluff involving death and destruction.
Frankly the news out of Iraq is pretty dull and depressing. To get your ratings you need some connection.
"I don't know about the rest of you, but this is a fairly common occurance in the US. "
Really? Good Lord...
Posted by: Rafar at July 11, 2007 10:00 AM (kkgmI)
27
when people hold just a bullet, with no cartridge, they would normally hold it up between thumb and forefinger. The way she is holding it suggests there is a cartridge still attached, or the shaft of a target arrow and someone else mentioned. It *does* look like the tip of a target arrow one would use in an archery range.
Posted by: crosspatch at July 11, 2007 11:32 AM (y2kMG)
28
It looks like an 8 MM mauser round.
Posted by: TH at July 11, 2007 11:44 AM (8DaCp)
29
SLAP round still seems most plausible.
As others have mentioned there is no visible engraving from barrel rifling as would be expected from any bore caliber round. Sabots, being sub bore caliber, do not show engraving.
It does not appear to have a jacket or any gilding metal that I recognize and does have the coloration of machined tungsten.
If it is made of tungsten this could also be a useful explanation of why it doesn't show any significant deformation.
It is difficult to tell it's size relative to her knuckle, but 7.62mm is certainly in the realm of possibilty. Given the limited number of calibers in common use there by all combatants (5.56mm, 7.62mm, 12.7mm and .50 cal) it appears bigger than the smallest and smaller than the biggest, so most likely is a 7.62mm.
As to why it came to rest near, but not through, her bed? All ballistic projectiles run out of gas eventually and bullets - especially ridgid monolithic solids - do some very intersting things, especially when they ricochet and/or tumble.
Her grandson may have found it in the street.
Ultimately, a bullet coming to rest somewhere in a combat zone, especially one that does no harm, strikes me as less than newsworthy.
Posted by: ThomasD at July 11, 2007 12:15 PM (gMIZD)
30
I think that the idea that in Iraq, a country awash with weapons and ammo, someone would actually fake a bullet is just silly.
AP feels the need to fake news in a country "awash" in real news. Sounds silly, yet they do it routinely.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 11, 2007 12:56 PM (bwMN7)
31
I've torn down old (i believe WWII era) 50 cal. rounds and stripped the jacket off the bullet (In my younger days there was nothing I wouldn't break down to see what it was made of,) and this looks similar the the steel core found in those rounds. Rough machining marks from the lathe and all. Assuming they're still made the same way the slug in the picture will have been clad in a copper jacket in much the same way the lead core of any other full metal jacket bullet. The cores I exposed were surprisingly non-uniform, presumeably they were turned on a manual lathe and in a hurry -- don't know. As I recall, neither core had as rounded an ogive as the one shown here, but they were both rounder than the jacket, with the resulting space in the fore of the jacket stuffed with lead. I used a micrometer to measure them, so they were definitly 50's.
Posted by: dmoss at July 11, 2007 02:14 PM (UiHv+)
32
dmoss beat me to it. It looks like a steel-cored armor-piercer with the copper jacketing stripped off.
Posted by: Tully at July 11, 2007 02:24 PM (kEQ90)
33
I go w/ Avenger. It´s never been fired, it´s never hit anything w/ any measurable velocity. It´s a ball point pen, that´s why she´s holding it like that.
Claes Henrikson
major/Swedish armed forces.
Posted by: Claes Henrikson at July 11, 2007 03:51 PM (/PyxO)
34
Call me crazy but that looks like some sort of .50 muzzleloading bullet.
http://www.gdhenson.com/clients/pioneer/uploaded_images/sharp41t-780735.jpg
In my opinion, it was never fired from a weapon.
Posted by: sickboy at July 11, 2007 04:28 PM (S4Q5o)
35
"It looks like an 8 MM mauser round."
Yeah, my Dad had an 8mm Mauser and it did look almost just like that. The "armor piercing" rounds had a steel jacket that looked much like the one she is holding too.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/35/180px-8mm.jpg
I have also read that we often find many old Mausers in insurgent weapons caches.
The marks on the bullet are probably from where the vice or pliers were applied to pull the bullet out of the cartridge.
Posted by: crosspatch at July 11, 2007 08:41 PM (y2kMG)
Posted by: crosspatch at July 11, 2007 08:46 PM (y2kMG)
37
Look very, very closely at that bullet. It is a lead bullet with a steel jacket. You can see where the jacket has peeled off on the left side of the projectile, down near the old woman's thumbnail. See it...?
Does the US make (or use) any saboted steel-jacketed rounds (no rifling marks)? Who does?
Posted by: Jay Stranahan at July 13, 2007 02:43 PM (nS4XC)
38
I doubt it isa U.S. fired projectile. It looks too big to be a 7.62/.308 cal. and shaped wrong for any of those round in U.S. service, or russian or chinese ammo for AKs. Also, 99% of those have a copper fmj and this does not.
Now as stated, the muhj, AQ, and the insurgents are known to use 8mm mauser. Fired from a very worn rifle, it may lack rifling and old surplus ammo is sometimes that color. Fired a long distance, it would have destabilized and started tumbling, basically becoming a bullet shaped rock tossed from afar.
I'd say, it is possible it was spent and came in through a window possibly open for coolness at night and flopped on the bed. It may even be related to the U.S. raid as an object fired AT them. The AFP and most leftist loons will blame Bush and the Military anyhow, no matter who fired it.
Posted by: JP at July 13, 2007 04:35 PM (VxiFL)
39
ps
I have seen some very worn bores in old K98s (and many other rifles) and they still fired well, and more acurate than the typical muhj sniper is capable of.
Posted by: JP at July 13, 2007 04:40 PM (VxiFL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 09, 2007
AP: Screw the Facts, Protect the Narrative
As
noted Saturday, the Associated Press has ceased being a wire service of journalists, and has fallen to become little more than an agency of lazy transcriptionists.
Seeking an excuse to explain why AP would run a faked claim of a sectarian massacre based purely upon hearsay, Associated Press Director of Media Relations Paul Colford attempted to claim that these anonymous sources were reliable (obviously, they aren't) and claim that an American military spokesman supported those claims. He has, despite a specific request to do so, failed to provide the name of the alleged military source.
Further, Colford stated that the Associated Press did not run Michael Yon's Bless the Beasts and Children exposure of a real massacre because:
With regard to Michael Yon, the Iraqi police and the U.S. military – to our current knowledge – have issued no statements to the AP about 10-14 bodies being found on June 29 in a village outside Baquba, even though the military, according to Mr. Yon’s online account, were involved in the discovery.
Ah... no press release, then no story?
Why, then, do we need the Associated Press at all?
Sadly, Colford's transcriptionists could have easily verified the story, if they were so inclined.
I'm sure you remember the old axiom, "A picture says a thousand words." Presented in context, this photo shows everything that is wrong with the Associated Press.
On the right in this photo is Associated Press Special Correspondent Robert Reid in the back of a Stryker in Baquba Saturday morning. He was just 3.5 miles from the site where Iraqi and American forces dug up the bodies of between 10-14 men, women and children that locals say were slaughtered by al Qaeda.
Directly across from Reid, taking this picture, is the man that chronicled the grisly discovery in words and in pictures... Michael Yon.
Yon and Reid spoke about the carnage Yon documented. Reid was within four miles of the gravesite excavated, and had precise GPS coordinates to view the site for himself. And yet, when Reid goes to press what does he write about the massacre Yon wrote about in al Hamira?
Nothing.
Not one word.
American military PAOs know well of the massacre Yon documented, from General Petraeus' PAO Col Steven Boylan, to Brigadier General Bergner's PAO Major Elizabeth Robbins, to LTC James Hutton of MNF-I.
The Associated Press, ostensibly a news-gathering organization, did not apparently ask these sources about Yon's account or what their soldiers had witnessed. Nor did they apparently ask any other American or Iraqi PAOs.
Why?
That is a question the Associated Press doesn't seem willing to answer.
Update: Michael Yon has posted his latest dispatch from Baquba, where he discovers that the number of bodies at at al Hamira (or as he later found out the correct spelling, al Ahamir) may have been much larger than the 10-14 originally thought:
Today, there are indications that the massacre might be much bigger than what I initially reported in “Bless the Beasts and Children.” Shortly after I published “Bless the Beasts and Children,” I asked a local Iraqi official about the village and the graves. The Diyala Provincial councilmen, Abdul Jabar, went on video explaining why he believes that there might be hundreds of people buried in the area, and he said the correct spelling is actually al Ahamir. (Most Iraqis’ names seem to have variant spellings.)
It will be interesting to see if that claim turns out to be accurate.
But this isn't the only item of note by Yon.
While Paul Colford and the Associated Press earlier seem to intone that they had no account of the al Ahamir discovery of the bodies of beheaded, massacred families (and thus, were waiting for military PAOs to drop the story), it appears an Iraqi stringer working for AP was in the area the entire time. He places the massacre body count as being much higher (read Yon for the details), and says he informed AP in Baghdad.
Guess who is at AP HQ in Baghdad? Kim Gamel.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:53 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 689 words, total size 5 kb.
1
I think your frustration lies in an expectation that AP be some kind of fact finding/reporting organization. Once I came to realize that they are nothing more than the a propaganda outlet, the stuff they print no longer bothered me so much.
An information outlet can produce news or opinion or they can print news that is selected and written in such a way as it reinforces an overall opinion and that is basically what AP does.
They have a political agenda that is pretty clear. Once you accept that, the frustration melts away. Just read alternative sources of news.
Posted by: crosspatch at July 09, 2007 12:32 PM (y2kMG)
2
The military has not issued a press release about the bombing in Amerli, either, yet AP seems to be punching out the headlines about it quite well. I'm waiting for MNF info because I'm just a leeetle bit suspicious that there are fewer than 100 dead, far fewer, and not the 150 that AP is reporting.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins at July 09, 2007 02:54 PM (hASmp)
3
AP's basis for using an unconfirmed story has to do with content. If it's an allegation that women and children were killed by US bombing, it's fair game. If it might tend to reflect poorly on the enemy, or positively on US forces, can't be used. Simple.
Posted by: McCarroll at July 09, 2007 03:55 PM (LcLIn)
4
Crosspatch,
The problem is that most people seem to think that the AP
et al are still "objective" or "neutral", when in fact they've become captive to one political point of view.
And so the nation's perception of the fighting in Iraq gets poisoned by the AP's (and others') lies, and John Q. Public doesn't have a clue.
Worse, he doesn't seem to
want a clue.
So don't just tune the Lame-stream Media out, pass the word around that there's more to these LSM stories than meets the eye or ear.
Posted by: Hale Adams at July 09, 2007 04:26 PM (pmRe8)
5
McCarroll and Chuck are absolutely correct. The AP is nothing more than a western version of Al Jazeera. Of course that would be the New York Times
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 09, 2007 04:29 PM (Lgw9b)
6
Woops that was supposed to read McCarroll and Crosspatch although Chuck has a point too.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 09, 2007 04:30 PM (Lgw9b)
7
It would be just so nice to poke the AP in the eye with a sharp stick and fill that weasel's helmet with bile and excrescence - and then take all their jobs away. No more coffee and donuts.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 09, 2007 05:02 PM (VNM5w)
8
Well, at least in this case the AP decided NOT to cover it rather than to mis-report it. There are other alternatives, such as going directly to your local paper and pointing them to Mr. Yon's generous offer. It doesn't *have* to be on a wire service to get published.
Posted by: crosspatch at July 09, 2007 05:43 PM (y2kMG)
9
Well, what do you expect from AP?
They haven't hit us with a "Free Bilal Hussein" screed in a while. Did their favorite jihad insider get sprung, or did he confess?
Ap is really hoping that the rule of law does NOT get established in Iraq. They have blood on their hands -- American blood, other Coalition blood, and veritable buckets of Iraqi blood.
The Iraqi courts haven't been shy about giving out death sentences. Justice for Bilal Hussein sounds great. Heck, it swings.
Posted by: Kevin R.C. O'Brien at July 09, 2007 06:10 PM (M0UTi)
10
Powers-that-be are doing a fine job of messing things up by themselves. No conspiracy required.
Posted by: John Bryan at July 09, 2007 07:14 PM (yGOyP)
11
When
AP doesn't follow its own code of ethics, it is well and fair to point them out as unethical and unwilling to stand up to
their own, published standards.
AP is not to be trusted without multiple, reliable sources for confirmation on anything. Until they can find their code of ethics and hold themselves to it and demonstrate it, that is how I treat them. An unethical organization with no standards to speak about, and that goes for *everything* they do.
Posted by: ajacksonian at July 09, 2007 08:39 PM (oy1lQ)
12
From a British perspective (I am) I noted that John Simpson of the BBC has a report up on his interview with General Petraeus in Baqubah today on their website. No mention of the massacre of course despite being within 4 miles of the site, just like AP. No surprise with Simpson and the BBC of course, but worth noting the universality of what Bob is commenting on here.
Posted by: John Riddell at July 10, 2007 08:50 AM (j/p6S)
13
John Simpson also didn't mention five roadside bombs (about 20-30 killed, mostly policemen it seems), ambushes killing policemen, a suicide car bomb, 3 civilians deaths by US soldiers, a couple of kidnappings of generals, 12 kidnap murders, a gun battle between IED layers and Iraqi police who caught them, and a handful of tortured bodies in and around Bagdhad.
If he isn't going to mention these (Which happened the day of the interview), why on Earth would he mention the Yon story?
I know that if it bleeds it leads, but in Iraq there is so much blood splashing about it is hard to see why this story is so exciting. If you want to big up a story about Iraq improvements, why pick one where, basically, US troops arrive too late to save anyone or catch the bad guys, rather than the one above where Iraqi troops catch and engage a bunch of IED layers.
Posted by: Rafar at July 10, 2007 09:19 AM (kkgmI)
14
Just to make it clear look at this page, Monday's security events;
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3516/Iraq_Security_Developments_-_Monday
So why should everyone write about Yon's story when they all pretty much ignore the events in the article above? The descriptions are viceral and the pictures evocative, I'll admit, but, when the stories above are pretty much ignored, what is so special about it?
Posted by: Rafar at July 10, 2007 09:26 AM (kkgmI)
15
John Simpson also didn't mention five roadside bombs (about 20-30 killed, mostly policemen it seems), ambushes killing policemen, a suicide car bomb, 3 civilians deaths by US soldiers, a couple of kidnappings of generals, 12 kidnap murders, a gun battle between IED layers and Iraqi police who caught them, and a handful of tortured bodies in and around Bagdhad.
Which of course all happened within walking distance of newly found mass graves, right?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 10, 2007 09:39 AM (bwMN7)
16
"Which of course all happened within walking distance of newly found mass graves, right?"
You want to walk 4 miles around there?
But no, they all happened that day. And similar happened the day before. And the day before that. And....
In fact Simpson didn't mention any security incidents at all in his piece. Reporters rarely do if you notice. It has become background noise. But he should have mentioned this story because...because what?
Does it not seem likely that people aren't shouting about Yon's story because it is a "Dog bites man" story?
Posted by: Rafar at July 10, 2007 10:01 AM (kkgmI)
17
You want to walk 4 miles around there?
I'd probably take a jeep with A/C.
But no, they all happened that day.
Wow - compelling! I'll bet lots of things happened on that day. Within 4 miles of the reporter though? Not so much.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 11, 2007 06:49 AM (bwMN7)
18
"Wow - compelling! I'll bet lots of things happened on that day. Within 4 miles of the reporter though? Not so much."
I'm completely missing your point now I suspect.
Simpson didn't mention any security incidents at all in his report. It wasn't that sort of report, but this lack of mentioning Yon's story is being stitched into the "The MSM want us to lose" storyline regardless.
Just so I can check, while I may not understand your point, you do get mine, don't you? That Yon's story of Al-Q killings is just background noise in terms of a normal day in Iraq.
Posted by: Rafar at July 11, 2007 08:02 AM (kkgmI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 07, 2007
AP Responds to DecapiGate
As most
CY readers know, I
sent a letter to Associated Press Director of Public Relations Jack Stokes and several of the AP Board of Directors on July 5.
I—along with many other bloggers, and a few journalists, it seems—were curious as to why the Associated Press would so willingly run a poorly-sourced and ultimately false story of a sectarian mass beheading, while passing up the freely-offered, well-documented, carefully photographed eyewitness account of an al Qaeda massacre by noted combat correspondent Michael Yon.
Yesterday afternoon, July 6, I was contacted via email by Paul Colford, Director of Media Relations (not Jack Stokes, another AP fact error) for the Associated Press with his response.
Here are the relevant sections:
APÂ’s initial version of the story about 20 headless bodies in Iraq, reported on June 28, was attributed to two Iraqi police officials who have been consistently reliable sources for AP. They were unnamed because Iraqi police officers often will speak to reporters only if they are guaranteed anonymity, for security reasons.
As is our practice, we kept reporting the story and noted that another police officer, also known to be reliable, had heard the same report of decapitated bodies found on the banks of the Tigris River near the city of Salman Pak, but this officer said a police visit was called off because clashes between police commandos and extremists made the area too dangerous.
However, the police in east Baghdad told the AP that the bodies had been recovered and were en route to the Baghdad morgue.
In addition, a U.S. military spokesman said that U.S. aircraft had spotted what appeared to be bodies on the banks of the Tigris north of Salman Pak.
On June 30, the AP, along with other news organizations that had been following the story, reported that the U.S. military had declared the reports of 20 beheaded bodies to be untrue.
With regard to Michael Yon, the Iraqi police and the U.S. military – to our current knowledge – have issued no statements to the AP about 10-14 bodies being found on June 29 in a village outside Baquba, even though the military, according to Mr. Yon’s online account, were involved in the discovery. We have consistently reported on atrocities committed by insurgents in the Baquba area.
In a war that has claimed the lives of five AP journalists, including three since last December, we take seriously our role in reporting the news reliably and fairly despite the dangerous environment.
This is my response, emailed to Mr. Colford.
Mr. Colford,
Let's be blunt about what you mean when you claim, "Iraqi police officers often will speak to reporters only if they are guaranteed anonymity, for security reasons."
The fact of the matter is that because so many Iraqi police officers were leaking false information to the media—the Associated Press being the single greatest offender—the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior earlier this year slapped a gag order upon all active duty Iraqi police officers not formally designated as press contacts in an attempt to cut down on inaccurate information and purposefully planted propaganda.
AP's most infamous police source, Jamil XX-XXXXXXX [named redacted for blog publication], known to the world by the pseudonym Jamil Hussein, was one of many police officers told point-blank not to provide stories to the press. XX-XXXXXXX was cited in particular as an example of a particularly bad source, as 38 of 40 stories sourced to him by the Associated Press could not be verified by any other news agency or government source as having actually occurred, and the vast majority of those stories coming form outside of his precinct, where he would have no direct knowledge at all.
When you state that you keep their names hidden for security reasons, you mean nothing more or less than that you are trying to keep their named hidden so that they will not be arrested and thrown in jail for violating their orders and Iraqi law.
You claim that these two anonymous police sources have been reliable in the past.
Sir, I hope that the Associated Press is a little more worldly than to fall for one of the oldest propaganda/intelligence tricks in the books. Dime-store spy novels are full of stories of spies and secret agents that pass along little truths to establish trust, in order to deliver disinformation once they are trusted. Apparently, the Associated Press has not learned that lesson.
In this instance, your two distant sources were quite wrong, as was your source who told you that the decapitated bodies have been recovered.
Further, I'd like for you to provide me the name of the U.S. military source who you claim said bodies were found on the banks of the Tigris, so that I can ask him myself precisely what information he relayed.
Interestingly enough, you seem to be claiming that you need to have some sort of press release from the U.S. military to run with Yon's story.
What an interesting double standard the Associated Press has incorporated.
You'll run a false sectarian massacre based upon hearsay evidence from anonymous police officers that are violating their own orders, as absolute, unequivocal fact, without any official comment or support whatsoever,
-BUT-
When you are offered—free of charge—a story citing named U.S. and Iraq officers and named U.S. and Iraqi units, taking party in the discovery and recovery of bodies from an al Qaeda massacre by perhaps the most well-regarded and highly respected combat correspondent of the entire war, with copious photo evidence, you suddenly need an official military press release before even considering it?
Perhaps I'm not a professional journalist, but I do know that if a journalist hears something interesting--say, an account of a massacre just a little more than three miles way--than he shouldn't wait on a press release before springing into action. He should immediately start asking questions. If he's going to merely rely on press releases, he isn't a journalist, he's a transcriptionist.
Your reporter Sinan Salaheddin was merely a transcriptionist for a pair of anonymous sources that the U.S. military seems to regard as insurgent propagandists. I would like your assurances that these sources will never be used again, and that Salaheddin, who has used disreputable sources such as XX-XXXXXXX in the past, will have his work more thoroughly vetted before publication, and that AP's Baghdad editor, Kim Gamel, who has also been know to publish stories from questionable sources, be more thoroughly supervised as well. Quite franky, I think their continued pattern of behavior in publishing poorly-sourced and ultimately false stories should warrant their termination, but I am not in the position to make that call.
I do know, Mr. Colford, that AP Special Correspondent Robert H. Reid is presently no more than a few miles for the site of the massacre that Yon reported.
Perhaps Reid will be viewed with more credibility than Yon and his multiple eyewitnesses and photographs, and perhaps as much as the insurgent propagandists with whom the Associated Press continues to place so much trust.
As noted above, Michael Yon told me via email this morning that AP Special Correspondent Robert H Reid is in Baquba, and I think he has pretty good evidence supporting that claim:
That's Reid (right) in the back of a Stryker armored vehicle just 3.5 miles from the scene of the ambush Michael Yon documented in Bless the Beasts and Children. Hopefully, he'll get the story out about the massacre at al Hamira, even though al Qaeda is suspected, and this doesn't fit the sectarian violence storyline AP seems to prefer.
Update: AP's/Mr. Colford's response to my rebuttal:
We have nothing further beyond yesterday's response.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:37 AM
| Comments (28)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1285 words, total size 8 kb.
1
We have nothing further beyond yesterday's response and please stop pointing out our lies and evasions, it makes us upset. Furthermore, please stop contradicting our general storyline with facts, that also makes us upset.
Posted by: Michael at July 07, 2007 11:25 PM (A5s0y)
2
In this day and age, with digital cameras and internet access, is it not asking too much for AP editors to require photo proof of outrageous stories such as this? AP knows they were burned by the Jamil Hussein story, but they keep repeating it.
Seems the only way to get AP's attention is to CC their Board members. Keep it up.
Posted by: Corky Boyd at July 07, 2007 11:31 PM (0qK8F)
Posted by: Miss Orange at July 08, 2007 12:44 AM (ZE+lT)
4
AP's agenda is clearly to help induce a US capitulation so that the Democrats' heavy investment in an American defeat [preferably a humiliating one, judging by the tenor of the story lines these Bolshie correspondents file] will be rewarded with four years in the WH. As a bonus, this would be a further capture of the press by the international left, and eventual destruction of Israel & diminishment of US resistance to the multiple insanities an aggressive Islam promotes.
And finally, Castro's wettest dream would come true.
Posted by: daveinboca at July 08, 2007 01:13 AM (muPb3)
5
This "response" from AP is little more then the fist class fools rearranging the deck chairs on the MSM Titanic.
Any claim that these soon to be Starbucks barristas had to the title "journalist" is long gone. The mask has dropped revealing the ugly face of pompous, arrogant idiots claiming to be "journalists" but are really little more then the propaganda spewing whores of the Islamofascists.
Memo to Jack Stokes:
Enjoy that fat paycheck while you are still getting it, boy. You will be unemployed soon. The simple fact of the matter is that your organization along with the rest of the MSM are no longer the gatekeepers of information. With every lie you tell, every story you refuse to report truthfully, every story you spin you reveal your true face to more and more people.
Posted by: Ennis at July 08, 2007 01:49 AM (Eq4KY)
6
To paraphrase that propaganda poster popular in San Francisco...
Support our troops-frag a MSM "journalist".
Posted by: Ennis at July 08, 2007 01:51 AM (Eq4KY)
7
Question the questioners, and you'll see the American press corps crumble before your very eyes.
They never can answer our questions, can they?
The AP can't explain why they're running phony massacre stories, while studiously avoiding well-documented massacres committed by al-Qaeda....
The alphabet networks can't explain why they're clamoring for prison time for Scooter Libby, while actively covering up Sandy Berger's deliberate theft and destruction of classified terrorism reports from the National Archives....
The New York Times can't explain why they're running bogus allegations by phony Iraq War veterans on the front page, while burying news of the foiled JFK terrorism plot back on page 37A....
Shouldn't we be getting answers to some of these questions on videotape?
Isn't it time to start questioning the questioners?
Wouldn't you love to see a documentary comprised of nothing but ambush interviews with the luminaries of our inherently dishonest American press?
Posted by: flatwater at July 08, 2007 01:53 AM (A5s0y)
8
..."you are trying to keep their named hidden so that they will not be arrested and thrown in jail for violating their orders and Iraqi law."
It's called a free press. Of course they protect their sources: why would you want it otherwise? Would you object to AP reporters protecting say, Cuban sources that would otherwise be sent to jail because of the information they provide? Your neo-fascist views on the supression of a free press are unbecoming in a democracy.
Posted by: Joe Cypherpunk at July 08, 2007 03:15 AM (iBHYO)
9
Dear Mr Owens,
Please rest assured that the story of the 20 headless men is %100 true.
Let me explain.
You see, I was one of the 2 Iraqi police officials who reported the beheadings to the AP. Unfortunately, the other police official is nothing but a heartless coward and wishes to remain anonymous, so I am left on my own to recount this gruesome story to you.
Although the AP reported that we had learned of the beheadings from the Iraqi Interior Ministry, who sent troops to the village to investigate the incident - nothing could be further from the truth.The reality of the matter is, that me and police officer No. 2 (heartless coward) saw the gruesome massacre up front, with our very own eyes.
You see, that morning, June 28, had turned out to be a real dreary morning for us - no massacres, no alleged massacres - nothing, nado, zilch! Just a real depressing morning! So, me and my buddy decided to stroll off to the village of Um al-Abeed, near the city of Salman Pak. You see, I like pizza, and Um al-Abeed is the only village around these parts where you can actually find genuine American-style pizza. Well, anyway, as we entered the village, we heard this loud commotion - screaming, yelling, you name it! My buddy pleaded with me, "let's get the hell out of here, before we both get skinned alive!" But I refused to turn back. We were policemen after all, and besides, I was dying for that mouth-watering delicacy you Americans call, "Pizza". There was no turning back now - not at least until I had my slice of pizza!
So we ventured on, and lo and behold what did we see? 20 men with their hands and legs bound, about to be shot to death!
Suddenly a guy with a gun - who was ordered to shoot these poor fellows - realizes he doesn't have enough bullets in his gun to knock off all 20 of his hapless victims. So he tells his pals, "Guys, it's time to activate plan B".
Suddenly, these despicable vermin drew these ghastly looking swords from their scabbards. I ran over to them and tried to stop them. "Please!" I pleaded with them. "Why must you behead all 20 of these people? Just behead one of them and let the rest go home!"
"No, we will not do that," one of the men replied.
"Why not?" I asked him.
"Because 2 heads are better than 1, and 20 heads are better than 2," he replied defiantly.
I thought his answer made sense at the time, but when I got home I realized he had cleverly pulled the wool over my head - and over the victims' heads too.
And that's about it, Mr. Owens. No need to burden you with the rest of the gory details.
And yes, I did manage to get my slice of pizza... It was okay, I guess, but it's kind of hard to savor a delicious slice of pizza when you've just witnessed 20 people getting their heads sliced off.
And Mr. Owens,If you're really interseted in hearing more about the beheadings, I would be more than happy to conjure up.... I mean.... to fill you in on the rest of the story. I've also got lots of other fables.... I mean ... atrocities ... to tell you.
Please feel free to contact me.
My name is Jamil. And I'm captain of the Iraqi police dept.
Just call the AP headquarters in Iraq and ask to speak with Captain Jamil XX-XXXXXXX
Everybody knows me over there.
Thank you for your time.
Posted by: Jamil XX-XXXXXXX at July 08, 2007 03:26 AM (aTZaE)
10
wow, you guys are really awesomely insane
especially loved the "pshaw, 'protecting sources' - here's the
real story!" bit, that's some tinfoil-hat stuff right there
Posted by: cbmc at July 08, 2007 05:59 AM (ikU+6)
11
At what point in time do we organize an effort to economically punish the AP for being a willing propaganda source for Radical Islam?
Think how hard it would be to boycott any media production which utilized AP services! hey are everywhere.
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at July 08, 2007 07:00 AM (6dNk5)
12
Why are they protecting "sources" that feed them false stories? I thought part of the ethics of reporting was that anonymity was void if the source lied.
And more importantly, why won't they pick up a well-documented story?
Posted by: Rob Crawford at July 08, 2007 09:04 AM (bH9q3)
13
AP is now pretty much on my "killfile" list. I check the originator of every story I read and ignore anything by AP.
Needless to say alot and MMM stories now go unread.
Heh... of course I read the blogs though and with every other AP story being challenged I sill seem to get stuck reading them. Go figure.
Posted by: atadOFF at July 08, 2007 09:40 AM (C4uCu)
14
Names, places, dates, photographs, evidence - we aren't fooled by your stinkin baubles and trinckets meant to distract us from our mission - a journalism caliphate.
Okay, okay, an Islamist-Journalist caliphate.
Posted by: IamAP at July 08, 2007 10:04 AM (xmbb7)
15
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run -
Web Reconnaissance for 07/08/2007
A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the dayÂ…so check back often. This is a weekend edition so updates are as time and family permits.
Posted by: David M at July 08, 2007 10:23 AM (a6/vQ)
16
the AP wants America to LOSE
they want al qaida to WIN
they want us to withdraw our troops so as to deny them VICTORY
AP also likes CASTRO,,, not sure whats up with that maybe there COMMUNISTS as well as terrorist sympathizers
Posted by: Karl at July 08, 2007 11:44 AM (Qb7T6)
17
Karl:
What motive can you name for the AP wanting al Qaeda to "win?"
While you're at it, what motive can you name for the oft-repeated "Liberals want al Qaeda to win?"
Difficulty: the motives you come up with cannot be insane.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 08, 2007 04:31 PM (rOzFR)
18
Dear Mr Owens: Note the third paragraph in the excerpt you gave us of Mr. Colford's response to you:
"However, the police in east Baghdad told the AP that the bodies had been recovered and were en route to the Baghdad morgue."
Couldn't that be easily checked? Granting that Iraq is a violent place, I should think that the arrival of 20 headless bodies wouldn't be a business-as-usual event. Further, since "the police" told AP that the bodies had been recovered, it should not be hard to confirm this.
For Doc Washboard: I don't agree with Karl that AP wants al-Qaeda to win. But I think it beyond doubt that they want Bush to lose. Time and again, the AP hasn't even followed its own procedures in investigating and reporting stories. I should like to hear your take on why the AP could not send a reporter to confirm Michael Yon's article on the massacre. Mr. Yon wrote an article, complete with pictures. Yet the AP hasn't heard anything from the American military about Mr. Yon's article, ergo nothing to report. How far would such an approach have gotten the AP on its investigation into the massacre of Korean civilians by American soldiers in 1950 if they had followed that attitude?
Why do "liberals want al-Qaeda to win?" Again, it is more wanting Bush to lose. The liberals may get their wish, and force a situation where "Bush" does lose. If so, the events following will be a headache and a half for the world. Not just Bush. If this is too hard for you to understand, look what happened to the Congressional Republicans who had Billyboy in their impeachment sights in the fall of 1998, ran their midterm campaign on it, got nowhere, impeached Billyboy, got nowhere, and now have to face the boomerang spinning back at them. Multiply the consequences by a billion, and you will have a taste---no more---of what will happen when "Bush" loses.
Is the momentary exultation when "Bush" loses worth it? Any more than Bush's idiotic "Mission Accomplished" in the spring of 2003 was justified?
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster
Posted by: Gregory Koster at July 08, 2007 06:26 PM (2faSg)
19
Mr. Koster,
The headless bodies were never picked up or delivered... shocking, I know, considering the anonymous police source that supplied this story.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 08, 2007 06:41 PM (HcgFD)
20
"...the Iraqi police and the U.S. military – to our current knowledge – have issued no statements to the AP about 10-14 bodies being found on June 29 in a village outside Baquba, even though the military, according to Mr. Yon’s online account, were involved in the discovery."
What a bunch of journalism lusers! Back in the day, while in university, I used to be a photo stringer for the local UPI bureau. (hey, it was beer money.) Back then, we would get "attaboys" from higher-ups when we beat AP by five minutes. Or if the Washington Post used a UPI picture instead of an AP one. That sort of competition kept AP honest. It kept us hustling for news.
Now, with that level of competition history, it's obvious to me AP's people are a bunch of journalism wimps and lusers. In those days I just talked about, when the other guys got something, the immediate response was to check out things, so we could either play catch-up, or to knock the story down. We didn't hold press releases or official statements in much regard -- we went and saw what was happening. AP apparently doesn't do that today very well.
For an AP higher-up to assert "no statements... about bodies being found" is a reason for not pursuing the story only demonstrates their lack of ability at the journalism trade. They're intellectually bankrupt, and utterly incompetent as journalists.
One has to wonder what stories Michael Yon would be cranking out if he had the resources AP's throwing away.
Posted by: Sam Damon at July 08, 2007 10:00 PM (xQL1O)
21
"Doc Wastrel":::
What motive can you name for the AP wanting al Qaeda to "win?" While you're at it, what motive can you name for the oft-repeated "Liberals want al Qaeda to win?"
dont I wish i knew!!!
why dont you tell me after you emerge from your hot oil massage
Posted by: Karl at July 09, 2007 12:58 AM (Qb7T6)
22
"I should think that the arrival of 20 headless bodies wouldn't be a business-as-usual event."
As has been pointed out repeatedly, in Bagdhad, the arrival of 20 or so tortured, beheaded, shot or otherwise murdered bodies a day is routine. At times it drops to 15 or so, at other times it rises to 60 or so.
Posted by: Rafar at July 09, 2007 04:06 AM (kkgmI)
23
What motive can you name for the AP wanting al Qaeda to "win?"
The media is vested in the "Iraq is an unwinnable civil war" story. This is the Cronkite legacy of Vietnam. Not only does the media tell us what's going on now, they are required to correctly 'analyze' the situation and tell us what is going to happen in the future. If they can't tell us what is going to happen, then they aren't living up to their Vietnam heritage of predicting the future. The media can no longer just report what happens, they have to tell us what it means. Now that they have told us what is GOING to happen in Iraq, they have an interest to print stories that back up their claims, and ignore those that go against what they have fortold.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 09, 2007 08:40 AM (oC8nQ)
24
What motive can you name for the AP wanting al Qaeda to "win?"
While you're at it, what motive can you name for the oft-repeated "Liberals want al Qaeda to win?"
Doc, isn't it obvious?
First, let's face the fact that journalists are overwhelmingly Democrats, with many of the country's largest news organizations and wire services coming from strongly self-reinforcing liberal enclaves such as New York and Washington D.C. There is nothing wrong with journalists having political opinions--they are only human--but as one opinion is so widely shared, it makes seeing multiple sides of an issue very difficult, and balance impossible.
Second, as reading many Democratic politicians, liberal blogs, and liberal op-eds in this nation's newspapers readily show, Democrats don't feel that the outcome of the war in Iraq will have any direct bearing upon us here, doubts that al Qaeda has the ability to strike us again (many on the truther fringe doubt they struck us at all), and feels (and self-reinforces) that President Bush is a greater threat to America than terrorism (If you feel that, you've proven my point).
It isn't that liberals or the media want al Qaeda to win, it's just that they so thoroughly hate George Bush , Dick Cheney, etc, that they are willing to do or say almost anything to see that these men lose, and “their war” is something that they an be beaten in.
Further, many liberals think that the war is already over; a lost cause, with no chance of success. They have bought 100% into this mindset, which is why they typically cannot address the ups and downs common in conflict, and focus exclusively on the downs. They view our soldiers as little better than murderers when they aren't trying to portray them as victim/children/cannonfodder, while they simultaneously try to paint a picture of Iraqis as innocent pastorals victimized for oil, while also trying to paint them as blood-lusting primitives hell-bent on mindless slaughter.
When you look at it from the liberal perspective that our own executive branch is a greater threat to our nation's present liberty, that al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism really isn't that great of a threat, and that Iraq is a lost bloodbath that will descend into mindless violence not matter if we are there or not, the you can readily understand why liberals in general support a defeat of "Bush's war," and why those liberals in the media also come at their reporting from this mindset.
AP runs a poorly-sourced claim of 20 beheaded bodies as fact because it fits with what they expect to be happening. It's just more sectarian violence that results from Bushitler's illegal war, right? Reporting the al Qaeda atrocity chronicled by Yon is a bit more problematic: it shows al Qaeda not to be an illusion, and provides a reason why we should still be in Iraq. It harms the narrative and the "established truth." therefore, they'll ignore it if at all possible, and come up with news an interesting excuses to avoid publishing it, such as the sudden new requirement for a press release.
So yes, Doc, liberals and the Associated Press are hoping that al Qaeda wins, they just aren't introspective or intellectually honest enough to admit that, and have constructed all sorts of interesting arguments and defense mechanisms to avoid facing the fact that they are championing an al Qaeda victory, an abandoning of democracy, and rooting for an American defeat.
ThatÂ’s the interesting thing about evil: few people who serve it actually think they are doing anything wrong, and typically think they are doing right and are working for the betterment of mankind. Emotion, divorced from logic and attached to a narrative, gives them that delusion.
But it is a delusion to think that an American President is the greatest threat to our democracy. It is a delusion to think that a terrorist group that has killed thousands of Americans in America is not still plotting to carry out more attacks. It is delusional to think that the Iraq War was about stealing their oil. It is delusional to think that al Qaeda would consider a U.S. withdrawal as anything other than a victory, and delusional to think that any nation in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world would have any respect for our nation if we quit and turn Iraq over to become a genocide.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 09, 2007 09:12 AM (HcgFD)
25
Well, CY, I was hoping Karl would take a stab at that one, because he's frankly such a fool that I was looking forward to his flubbering about with his exclamation marks and his urgent capitals. When you do it, the outcome is relatively reasonable and, thus, no fun at all.
At least you didn't go so far as many on the Right have gone--people like the
shrieking harpy Atlas Pam, who seriously suggest that Liberals are a fifth column who want to establish a Muslim theocracy in the U.S., where we can submit to our new ayatollah overlords.
I'm going to focus on one weak link in your chain of reasoning.
Democrats...[doubt] that al Qaeda has the ability to strike us again (many on the truther fringe doubt they struck us at all)
The Lefties I know and read don't think that at all. We've been struck before, and we'll be struck again. It's the "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" meme that has us shaking our heads. After the London tube bombing, Madrid, Fort Dix, JFK, the London car bombs and Glasgow, it has become abundantly clear that they can fight us over here
and over there, simply by sending a few guys over here while the rest fight over there. I've lost count of the times Righty posters on this site have assured me that the war in Iraq made it impossible (and that's what many of them said: "impossible") for terrorists to fight in Iraq and elsewhere simultaneously.
Every time I've mentioned the need to protect our points of entry and to inspects ships, planes and so on, I've been called a liar, the idea being, I suppose, that, since I'm a Lefty, any concern I profess about homeland security must be a clever, evil ruse. There has also been ample use of the
specious argument that our military cannot possibly be used for security in the homeland.
Finally: I do think that the GWOT has allowed the President to do things that I don't like. A short list includes the following: inventing the "enemy combatant" designation solely for the purpose of avoiding international standards of POW treatment; "extraordinary rendition"; pursuing the use of warrantless wiretaps when the FISA courts exist precisely to deal with the "ticking bomb" scenario; et cetera.
Again, it would have been more fun to hear how Karl dealt with this.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at July 09, 2007 10:05 AM (HMrjt)
26
"It's just more sectarian violence that results from Bushitler's illegal war, right? Reporting the al Qaeda atrocity chronicled by Yon is a bit more problematic: it shows al Qaeda not to be an illusion, and provides a reason why we should still be in Iraq."
See, this is what I wonder about. Yon's piece strikes me as a tale of utter barbarity in Iraq, unleashed by the invasion of 2003 and the subsequent failure to achieve security and stability.
The story about the 20 beheadings strikes me as a tale of utter barbarity in Iraq, unleashed by...oh you can see where I am going with this.
The ultimate storyline is pretty much the same isn't it?
"it shows al Qaeda not to be an illusion, and provides a reason why we should still be in Iraq."
Well, with all respect, no-one claims that there aren't Jihadis blowing up innocent women and children in Iraqi market places, nor that they are enforcing a viscious brand of Islam of populations that are unreceptive to say the least.
When you hear of people criticising the "Al-Quaeda in Iraq" narrative it is usually a pretty nuanced criticism based on careful use of terms. If you take Al-Q to be the group based around Bin Laden then it is a much more complex question than if you take Al-Q to be a generic name for Islamist Jihadi mass-murdering bombers who hate Americans.
Still, that is splitting hairs in many ways. The main point is that no-one claims that Al-Q (in the more general sense) aren't active in Iraq right now. If you disagree, please present me with an example of this argument. Not a link to someone splitting the hairs, but to someone who disagrees the the broader definition.
"So yes, Doc, liberals and the Associated Press are hoping that al Qaeda wins, they just aren't introspective or intellectually honest enough to admit that, and have constructed all sorts of interesting arguments and defense mechanisms to avoid facing the fact that they are championing an al Qaeda victory, an abandoning of democracy, and rooting for an American defeat."
And this is just silly. Al-Q couldn't win in Iraq in a million years. At best they are a minor faction in a complex inter-group scramble for power. As the Sheiks in Anbar have shown, they would kill the Al-Q types when they found it convinient to do so. Even if they managed to deal with the obvious fact that their more powerful Sunni protectors were just waiting to turn on them, how are they supposed to wrest control of Bagdhad from the Shiite Army and Police force?
Unless you mean that Al-Q winning in Iraq is just a matter of them being able to point to the running US forces and saying "You see, we defeated the Great Satan" in which case I'd suggest that they are also winning by being able to tie you down in Iraq and watching your country becoming less and less co-operative and more divided than ever.
As for the delusions;
"But it is a delusion to think that an American President is the greatest threat to our democracy."
He is in the position to do the most damage, you must admit that. That's why governments have to be held to account in democracies.
"It is a delusion to think that a terrorist group that has killed thousands of Americans in America is not still plotting to carry out more attacks."
It is. It is also delusional to think that occupying Iraq is going to affect that planning in any meaningful way.
"It is delusional to think that the Iraq War was about stealing their oil."
Yes, it certainly is. Stealing the oil is absurd. What were US soldiers going to put it into barrels and sneak it into Texas? Ha!
Of course, if you argued that it wasn't about controlling Iraq, and the oil there, then it would be you who was delusional. To imagine that Great Powers don't think of oil as a strategic asset to be protected and controlled is just a joke. Sticking a massive military force in the oil hearlands of the planet was just a co-incidence, yes?
Why do people still try to point to one reason or another for the Iraq war. It was obviously a confluence of reasons, oil being one of them.
"It is delusional to think that al Qaeda would consider a U.S. withdrawal as anything other than a victory, and delusional to think that any nation in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world would have any respect for our nation if we quit and turn Iraq over to become a genocide."
And the war in Iraq has done what for your standing in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter)? Do you think that hanging on in a pointless manner because you are concerned that a bunch of bearded gits might crow about it is making you look good.
Such an argument is like a kid crashing his car in a race and defending himself by saying "The Jocks called me a chicken and were making cluck cluck noises"
Posted by: Rafar at July 09, 2007 10:13 AM (kkgmI)
27
It is a great pity that journalists are not willing to investigate one another. It seems clear to me that, if a representative of ANY OTHER INDUSTRY gave a cock-and-bull story like this one, he'd be investigated and reported endlessly.
Mr. Colford writes like someone with something to hide... which should be the equivalent, for journalists, of waving a red cape in front of a bull. But it isn't.
Should journalists ever wake up -- and realize that a lot of red meat is just waiting to be picked up, at the price of betraying some of their own -- the feeding frenzy could go on for years.
Bring it on.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Posted by: Daniel in Brookline at July 09, 2007 12:33 PM (ETuqd)
28
Powers-that-be are doing a fine job of making themselve look bad in ALL their dealings, domestic and abroad. No conspiracy required.
Posted by: John at July 09, 2007 07:06 PM (yGOyP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Associated Press Prints Immediate Correction
As many of you know, I
sent an letter on July 5th to the Associated Press Director of Media Relations Jack Stokes and members of the Board of Directors. This letter asked "when does a massacre matter?" and asked Stokes and the AP Board why they were willing to run the suspicious claims of distant anonymous sources as fact in reporting a mass beheading that sounded sectarian in nature, but had not taken up Michael Yon on his offer to run--free of charge--a first-hand, eyewitnessed, videotaped and photographed account of an al Qaeda massacre discovered by Iraqi and American troops.
Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Paul Colford announced himself in the opening of his response to my questions as the new Director of Media Relations at the Associated Press. He indicated he would like a call or email acknowledging his response.
I acknowledged that I got his email and told him I'd respond within the next day, and also asked if he wasn't the third person in that role this year. Linda Wagner, an accidental source of useful information during the Hurriyah/Jamil "Hussein" scandal, quietly decided that she needs to go back to college and resigned from her position not very long afterward.
Since then, as the screencap below shows, Jack Stokes has been listed on the AP's Contact page as their new Director of Media Relations.
Mr. Colford responded:
The third person in this position?
Not at all.
My predecessor, Linda Wagner, was the AP's first director of media relations.
I am the second to hold the position.
Jack Stokes remains with the AP, working for me. His title has always been media relations manager.
I then sent Mr. Colford the link to the Associated Press Web site Contact page, which has shown Jack Stokes as the Director of Media Relations since at least late April.
Then, for the first time I can recall, the Associated Press issued an immediate and unquestioned correction:
At the very least, this shows that have the capability to correct their inaccuracies, if not the inclination.
As for the fake massacres the Associated Press will report, and the real massacres they won't, I'll address Mr. Colford's response, and provide my rebuttal sometime in the very near future.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:08 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 381 words, total size 3 kb.
July 06, 2007
A Hunting We Will Go
The response to my
letter to the Board of Directors of the Associated Press and AP Media Relations Director Jack Stokes was overwhelming, and apparently,
continues to grow.
I noticed in the comments to my post (and some of those linking to it) that many people seem genuinely interested in writing to the Board of Directors of the Associated Press directly.
According to the Associated Press, this is their Board of Directors:
William Dean Singleton – Chairman
Vice Chairman and CEO
MediaNews Group Inc.
Denver, Colorado
Gary Pruitt – Vice Chairman
Chairman, President and CEO
The McClatchy Company
Sacramento, California
R. Jack Fishman
Publisher and Editor
Citizen Tribune
Morristown, Tennessee
Dennis J. FitzSimons
Chairman, President and CEO
Tribune, Co.
Chicago, Illinois
Victor F. Ganzi
President and CEO
Hearst Corporation
New York, New York
Walter E. Hussman Jr.
Publisher
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Little Rock, Arkansas
Julie Inskeep
Publisher
The Journal Gazette
Fort Wayne, Indiana
jinskeep@jg.net
Mary Jacobus
President and Chief Operating Officer
The New York Times Regional Media Group
Tampa, Florida
Boisfeuillet (Bo) Jones
Publisher and CEO
The Washington Post
Washington, D.C.
Mary Junck
President and CEO
Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Davenport, Iowa
David Lord
President
Pioneer Newspapers, Inc.
Seattle, Washington
Kenneth W. Lowe
President and CEO
E.W. Scripps Company
Cincinnati, Ohio
Douglas H. McCorkindale
Retired Chairman
Gannett, Co. Inc.
McLean, Virginia
R. John Mitchell
Publisher
Rutland Herald
Rutland, Vermont
john.mitchell@rutlandherald.com
Steven O. Newhouse
Chairman,
Advance.Net
New York, New York
Charles V. Pittman
Senior Vice President-Publishing
Schurz Communications Inc.
South Bend, Indiana
Michael E. Reed
CEO
GateHouse Media, Inc.
Fairport, New York
Bruce T. Reese
President and CEO
Bonneville International Corp.
Salt Lake City, Utah
Jon Rust
Publisher
Southeast Missourian
Co-president, Rust Communications
Cape Girardeau, Missouri
jrust@semissourian.com
Jay R. Smith
President
Cox Newspapers, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia
Jay.Smith@coxinc.com
David Westin
President
ABC News
New York, New York
H. Graham Woodlief
President, Publishing Division
Vice President,
Media General Inc.
Richmond, Virginia
You'll note that I only have four active email addresses (inserted above) for the 22 directors... several email addresses that I once had appear to have been changed, and some of the emails I sent yesterday bounced.
My letter had a chance of getting to just four members of AP's Board of Directors and AP Media Relations director Jack Stokes, if that email was not screened and summarily deleted by a "helpful" administrative assistant somewhere along the line. To date, I've had no response whatsoever by anyone at the Associated Press.
Sadly, I'm crunched for time today, and cannot hunt down the email addresses, phone and fax numbers, and mailing addresses of these 22 board members myself...
I'm wondering if someone out there can do what I cannot.
If you can track down this information, please post what you have found in the comments. I'll then update the list above. There seem to be quite a few of you who are highly upset with how the Associated Press keeps repeating a pattern of false stories without so much as a retraction or correction, and ignoring real stories.
You deserve a chance to take your complaints to the very top.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:59 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Just a note, CY. I seached for about 3/4's of them without luck. To contact pretty much all of them, would have to go through the 'press relations' or the main 'contact us' pages of their respective company websites.
Looks like they have successfully cocooned themselves from any sort of responsibility or accountability. Not that that bothers me too much, AP is not indispensible and I'd be happy to see them go out with a bang or a wimper.
Posted by: Dusty at July 06, 2007 11:27 PM (GJLeQ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 05, 2007
Palestinian Body Armor
Very brave, don't you think?
Is it simply a defect in the character of Palestinian militants that they use a wall of civilian youths to discourage Israeli soldiers from returning fire?
In most other parts of the world, I'd expect "freedom fighters" to attempt to protect their own civilians, encouraging to leave the area of hostilities, perhaps even endangering themselves to protect the people for which they claim to be fighting.
This thought is perhaps merely a western notion, as this kind of civilian abuse—can it really be called anything else?—is well-documented and frequently observed in Gaza.
All too often, this abuse leads to the headlines and photos the militants so obviously crave:
The journalists covering the conflict (here, Ibraheem Abu Mustafa of Reuters) refuse to provide the context of how a child could have been injured in a clash against Israeli forces, nor do they ever chide the Palestinian militants for endangering children and other civilians for using them as nothing less than body armor.
It is perhaps something approaching a miracle that in this engagement stretching back to yesterday, that nearly all of the dead on the Palestinian side have been Hamas and allied militants, including the Hamas field commander in central Gaza.
Israel, of course, gets little to no credit for their very selective use of force by the world media, perhaps due to the fact that most of those reporting for the Associated Press, Reuters, and other news agencies comes from men with names like Irbahim Barzak, Ibraheem Abu Mustafa, Nidal al-Mughrabi, Mohammed Abed, and others that might be culturally less inclined to see such restraint.
Nope, no inherent bias on display, at all.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:25 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Bet the first pic is a scam photo. Like
pallywood. If the gunman was crouched slightly and leaning against the wall while
actually shooting at someone, those kids would be much more frightened than curious, as they seem to be.
But I've become jaded on palestinian reporting.
Posted by: Kevin at July 05, 2007 02:04 PM (1cRKV)
2
hose kids would be much more frightened than curious, as they seem to be.
Why be frightened when you KNOW there won't be any return fire?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 05, 2007 05:41 PM (gQtXT)
3
Color me similarly baffled. I see a bunch of fellows hanginging around a wall, with only one fellow armed. Nobody looks younger than a teenager (as far as I can tell from the back), nobody looks like they are being held against their will, and nobody even looks scared.
I don't think this photo shows what you think it shows.
Posted by: Shochu John at July 05, 2007 06:53 PM (rYbfy)
4
French resistance body armor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Member_of_the_FFI.jpg
Very brave, don't you think?
This is actually LESS lame than your attempt at a point because this picture clearly has children in it.
Posted by: Shochu John at July 05, 2007 07:14 PM (rYbfy)
5
Oh yea, the frog is clearly in a more likely pose to be firing than the pali. Very compelling "evidence" you got there.
Rolling with it though, many of the French were commies. Commies have never been averse to using kids as bullet sinks and land mine detectors.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 05, 2007 07:23 PM (gQtXT)
6
It's not "evidence", Avenger. It's completely unfounded conjecture about events I couldn't possibly know of based on a photo I found on the internet. If I concluded my commentary with a condemnation of the MSM's failure to reach the same bizarre conclusions I do, I could probably guest blog here without anybody noticing the difference.
Posted by: Shochu John at July 05, 2007 08:42 PM (rYbfy)
7
Palestinian are so crazy even Arabs will not deal with them. How crazy does noe have to be to get to the point where even Arabs are going "Hey man, these guys are nuts, I want none of this"?
I like my Gaza Strip and eggs sunny side down and burnt to a crisp.
Anyway, I would consider it an honor and a privilege if you would add my blog "The Tygrrrr Express" www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com if you feel the quality is high.
I learned of your website through the Rottweiler's website, since I like his humor.
Happy 4th!
eric
P.S. If I already asked you, my bad in advance.
Posted by: eric at July 06, 2007 12:17 AM (M3KTQ)
8
I've seen something first-hand that's on topic, and I probably wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it myself. I was in Mahmudiyah in late '04 on the west side of town, in a cluster of identical multi-story apartment buildings that we called "the ghetto". That day we were recovering a stolen ambulance, that we didn't want to end up as a VBIED. There was a 6-8 round burst of AK fire, and as I was scanning the windows, I saw a woman on the second floor stand her baby up in the window as she watched.
Imagine what steps you'd take to protect your children, then compare and contrast.
Upon hearing a string of automatic fire, her first reaction was to put. her. baby. in. the. window.
Awesome.
(btw, the fire was the ING doing their Yosemite Sam routine that they love so much...which was also awesome.)
Posted by: brando at July 06, 2007 12:49 AM (rDQC9)
9
So Israel is exonerated for being the world leader in killing children? Ahhhhh, I feel so much better as an American knowing that. My tax dollars are only funding the killing of children who WANT to be killed! And so, if the Jews preemptively declared war on Germany in 1933, then.....Germany is exonerated for WINNING that war! Sure, the holocaust probably happened, but it feels good not to have to keep BLAMING the Nazis for it.
Posted by: BannedChatter at July 06, 2007 05:20 AM (zFLaW)
10
I love the smell of crazy in the morning!
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 06, 2007 09:43 AM (H+Y7x)
11
Commies have never been averse to using kids as bullet sinks and land mine detectors.
YES!!! also they EAT children when there larder runs low
commies are SUBHUMAN
Posted by: Karl at July 06, 2007 02:40 PM (6LcER)
12
Upon hearing a string of automatic fire, her first reaction was to put. her. baby. in. the. window.
YES!!! a shot baby is a PR VICTORY
thats the VALUES the jihadis have
Posted by: Karl at July 06, 2007 02:46 PM (6LcER)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Building on a Foundation of Socks
There exists a
well-known parable spoken by Jesus in the Book of Matthew, Chapter 7, that uses the example of foolish builders who build houses on the sand, only to watch those houses wash away in the flood because it had weak foundations.
Writing today at The Moderate Voice, Jeb Koogler builds his house upon the sand of noted sockpuppet Glenn Greenwald, questioning the role of al Qaeda in Iraq:
About two weeks, Glenn Greenwald wrote a widely-cited post that questioned the oft-stated notion of a strong al-Qaeda role in the Iraqi insurgency.
That the Bush administration, and specifically its military commanders, decided to begin using the term “Al Qaeda” to designate “anyone and everyeone we fight against or kill in Iraq” is obvious. All of a sudden, every time one of the top military commanders describes our latest operations or quantifies how many we killed, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as “Al Qaeda.”
Greenwald goes on to point out that such statements are misleading, given that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that al-QaedaÂ’s role in Iraq is quite small. Indeed, most studies have found that, rather than a large presence of foreign al-Qaeda fighters, the Iraqi insurgency is largely made up of disaffected Sunnis, Saddam loyalists, and ex-Baathists.
The problem with building his post upon Greenwald's theory is that Greenwald's claim is demonstrably false; a simple review of the MNF-I web site's press releases, feature stories, and daily stories shows conclusively that the military only cites al Qaeda as an actor in a clear minority of cases, typically less than a third of the time, even as surge operations are heavily targeting al Qaeda cells as part of Operation Phantom Thunder.
Perhaps in the future, Koogler should base his posts on a more solid factual foundation and go directly to the source (MNF-I) instead of repeating the already discredited claims of a known partisan dissembler such as Greenwald.
The only think more dangerous than building one's house upon a foundation of sand is building that same house on a foundation of sockpuppets.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:16 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Where's the normal blog swarm attack from the hive in response to this. Everyone must still be distracted by Libby or embarrassed by the truth.
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 05, 2007 05:42 PM (0pZel)
2
The more that one stretches the truth, the worst things are going to get. Tying all opposition in Iraq to al-Queda has been a major PR campaign by the Bush administration. Like every other thing that they have attempted to do, the consequences of this action was not factored in when they discussed the domestic PR implications of the campaign. Al-queda was a minor group worldwide before the USA decided to invade Iraq for it's oil. Many Muslims shunned them, and they were regarded as violent extremists. Now, with the occupation of an Arab state combined with the PR campaign to call all factions in the Iraq civil war al-Queda, they are a major player, drawing recruits from almost every Muslim state on the planet to fight against our guys in Iraq. This foolish PR campaign is literally killing American troops, and has turned a minor nuisance into a major terrorist threat by giving it legitimacy that it didn't have before. The way you win wars is with overwhelming force, clear thinking and taking the fight to them. Not with domestic PR campaigns.
Posted by: persimmon at July 05, 2007 10:44 PM (nUWIw)
3
Persimon,
What part of CY's site of less than one third of articles from MNCI mention AQI did you not comprehend? AQ a minor group? Riiiight I suppose a minor group besides AQ caused the Black Hawk down incident in Somalia or how about the Khobar tower bombings or the African embassy bombings or could it be the USS Cole maybe? Yup sounds like AQ was a "minor" terrorist group before we invaded Iraq alright and oh yeah forgot one minor attack it happened on Sept 11 2001 note two years before the invasion of Iraq but Meh why let facts and reality get in the way of your BDS right? And the invasion for oil thing is just stupid, think about this now put aside your BDS for a minute and ask yourself, what would be the best way to ensure an oil supply from Iraq with Saddam in charge? Hint look to Saudi Arabia and you get a clue instead of invading you make friends with the dictator dum dum. No we did not invade to get the oil and while we are on that subject invading a country for their oil would be perfectly legit it is a strategic resource after all and if we ran out of it the entire economy would collapse and the country and a good part of the civilized world with it. Forunately for us we only get 14% of our oil from the middle east oops I guess that blows a big gaping hole in your libtard talking point about invasion for oil also but then it is to easy since anyone who believes anything the sock puppet says is a low grade embicile anyway. And lastly the trully huge irrefutable FACT that jsut kills all of your libtard talking points and that is DRUM ROLE PLEASE "WE HAVE NOT HAD A SINGLE TERRORIST ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL NOR OUR INTERESTS OVERSEAS(EMBASSIES) IN FIVE YEARS" coincidence maybe? I think not.
Posted by: Oldcrow at July 06, 2007 02:18 AM (q7b5Y)
4
I don't know about politics, Oldcrow, so however you wish to compartmentalize me is your business. Most of what you wrote is difficult to understand. I read everything and study on it, and have come to the conclusion that the war is over oil and keeping that commodity traded in dollars. If we were fighting terrorists worldwide we would be putting resources into that instead of running a cost plus war in Iraq. What we are doing in Iraq has spiraled out of control, due to the mistakes of Rumsfeld and Bush. We are 563 days away from the end of those mistakes, then a solution to Iraq can commence, whatever it is.
Posted by: persimmon at July 06, 2007 03:27 AM (nUWIw)
5
Uh yuh like I said BDS a terminal case of eyes wide stupid. So tell me exactly how are things spiraling out of control in Iraq? Come on name one battle we have lost, one objective AQI or AIF have achieved come on just one example based on facts not feelings that show it is "spiraling out of control" as you put it. Oh and nice try you did not address a single one of my points and yea in 563 days if a Dhimmi or whack job like Ron Paul gets in office it will be less than a year before we have another terror attack in the U.S. because after all in yours and those like you thinking it is a criminal problem not a military one. Funny I seem to recall another Dhimmi Administration using that approach and it got us all the terror attacks I mentioned.
Posted by: Oldcrow at July 06, 2007 05:01 AM (q7b5Y)
6
"So tell me exactly how are things spiraling out of control in Iraq?"
Have you seen the state of the government in Iraq recently? It is clearly falling apart. Without the government there is no political settlement, without the political settlement the surge is an excercise in futility.
""WE HAVE NOT HAD A SINGLE TERRORIST ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL NOR OUR INTERESTS OVERSEAS(EMBASSIES) IN FIVE YEARS" coincidence maybe?"
It may sound rather pedantic, but your Embassy in Bagdhad is mortared most days now.
Posted by: Rafar at July 06, 2007 07:17 AM (kkgmI)
7
That is most certainly rather pedantic Rafar, embassies countining as U.S. soil and all. Would you like to join persimmon in explaining where we are not fighting teroism worldwide?
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 06, 2007 09:38 AM (H+Y7x)
8
Have you seen the state of the government in Iraq recently? It is clearly falling apart.
As a practical matter, its no worse than the Taiwanese legislature...where open fist fights on the floor are common.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 06, 2007 11:49 AM (gQtXT)
9
I do not agree, Mr Oldcrow. Al-Queda has grown in strength and legitimacy while you are claiming that we have already won the war against them because they haven't attacked American soil. But there are 30,000 dead and wounded Americans from the current Iraqi occupation. The American military is in bad need of an expensive refitting before they will be able to respond effectively to any domestic terrorist threats. The standards for the soldiers have been lowered, and the less said about the integrity and courage of the senior American military leadership, the less they will be embarrassed. There is currently no plan for success in Iraq. The Bush administration is just playing out the string until the end of their term in office, then it will be somebody else's problem. The democrats are going to let him do what he wants in hopes that there will still be this unpopular war going on when the '08 elections come around. In the meanwhile, this PR campaign to sell the war to the American public is working out quite well for al-Queda, drawing both manpower and money to Iraq. It has literally become a hands on training ground for terrorists. As the tactics of our opponents become more and more sophisticated, and their recruiting becomes easier (due in part to the boomerang effect of this domestic PR campaign) our own army over there grows weaker. It is not a blueprint for success, it is the makings of a failure. You wish very much to ignore this, but that is the reality of the situation. And if we don't watch out, we are going to get one of those spineless democrats as a president, who will attempt to pull out of Iraq.
If they do that, we will be right back over there within a decade. Not for the terrorists, but for the oil and currency exchange.
Posted by: persimmon at July 06, 2007 03:08 PM (nUWIw)
10
Al Quaeda has grown in legitimacy??? Sheesh, the hive-mind speaks.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 06, 2007 05:14 PM (VNM5w)
11
Currency exchange? Who is this bozo? Why do we have to go over there for a currency exchange when we've got them every two blocks in most cities?
Plus, we're going to use the U.S. military to fight terrorism domestically? Tanks in the street type stuff?
Keep me away from the crap he's smoking please!
Posted by: daleyrocks at July 06, 2007 06:43 PM (0pZel)
12
"Tying all opposition in Iraq to al-Queda has been a major PR campaign by the Bush administration."
Except that they're not doing that. Not by a long shot.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at July 08, 2007 09:16 AM (bH9q3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
When Does a Massacre Matter?
I just sent the following to Associated Press Director of Media Relations Jack Stokes and the Associated Press Board of Directors.
When does a massacre matter?
I ask this question, because on Thursday, June 28, The Associated Press—and to a lesser extent, Reuters, and a small independent Iraqi news agency—ran stories claiming that 20 decapitated bodies had been found on or near the banks of the Tigris River in Um al-Abeed, a village near Salman Pak, southeast of Baghdad, with sectarian violence strongly implicated.
There were no named sources from this story from any media outlet, and the two anonymous Iraq police officers cited in the widely-carried AP account were nowhere near the scene of the alleged massacre, with Um al-Abeed being roughly 12 miles from the southeast edges of Baghdad, and Kut being 75 miles away, respectively. Further, in the Associated Press story by Sinan Sallaheddin, the massacre claim itself was purposefully distanced for the dubious location of the anonymous police officers by an account of a bombing in Baghdad.
This claimed massacre never happened, and was formally repudiated by the U.S. military on Saturday, June 30, who ascribed the claims to insurgent propaganda. To date, the Associated Press has refused to print a retraction or a correction for this false story, just as it has failed to print a retraction for previous false beheading stories.
Apparently, correcting misinformation you've disseminated ranks low on the list of Associated Press priorities.
At the same time, the Associated Press has refused to run the story of a verified massacre in Iraq discovered on June 29 and supported by named sources, eyewitness statements, and photographic evidence provided by noted independent journalist Michael Yon in his dispatch, Bless the Beasts and Children.
I would like for the Associated Press to formally explain why they are willing to run thinly and falsely sourced insurgent propaganda as unquestioned fact without any independent verification, but refuses to publish a freely offered account by a noted combat corespondent that some consider this generation's Ernie Pyle.
Is it because the massacre documented by Yon was conducted by alleged al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists, and could not be ascribed to sectarian violence? It certainly could not be because of cost, as Yon has offered both his text and pictures to any and all media outlets free of charge. It could not be because of a question of validity, as his account was photographed, videotaped, and witnessed by dozens of American and Iraqi soldiers, some of them named, who could easily be contacted by the Associated Press for independent, on the record confirmation.
Why is the Associated Press willing to run the claimed of a false massacre on June 28, but unwilling to report a well-documented and freely-offered account of a massacre that was discovered just one day later?
I await your response with interest.
Actually, I don't expect a response at all, but if they should respond, I'll be sure to publish it.
Sadly, I think Glenn's source is correct.
07/06/2007 Update: Actually, it's a non-update: 24 hours after sending the letter above to various Associated Press directors and their director of media relations, the Associated Press has not responded in any way, shape, or form.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:12 AM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
Post contains 547 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 05, 2007 09:54 AM (CmXp+)
2
Glen's source is blunt, but frighteningly accurate. The media is like the husband who comes home and beats his wife because he gets picked on by his boss.
Wikipedia:
Displacement (psychology)- In psychology, displacement is a subconscious defense mechanism whereby the mind redirects affects from an object felt to be dangerous or unacceptable to an object felt to be safe or acceptable. For instance, some people punch cushions when angry at friends; a college student may snap at their roommate when upset about an exam grade.
Displacement operates subconsciously and involves emotions, ideas, or wishes being transferred from their original object to a more acceptable substitute. It is most often used to allay anxiety.
In scapegoating, aggression is displaced onto people with little political power such as minority-group members.
Displacement can act in a chain-reaction, with people unwittingly becoming both the victim and perpetrator of displacement. For example, a man is angry with his boss, but he cannot express this so he hits his wife. The wife hits one of the children, possibly disguising this as punishment (rationalization). The child kicks the dog.
Though displacement is usually used to refer to the displacement of aggressive impulses, it can also refer to the displacement of sexual impulses.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 05, 2007 10:40 AM (oC8nQ)
3
Very unusual -- I'll be looking for a reponse as well...
Posted by: Orlin at July 05, 2007 01:44 PM (wrRbk)
4
I'd be more interested in discovering how much stock in AP is owned by Saudi Arabians. Also, how many of the upper management staff are of Middle Eastern origin.
Posted by: RebeccaH at July 05, 2007 01:51 PM (A5s0y)
5
RebeccaH: I think you're confusing AP with Reuters.
The Associated Press, according to their own account "is a not-for-profit cooperative, which means it is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. They elect a board of directors that directs the cooperative."
They are owned by their newspaper members, so they are owned by the people who own local newspapers: Dow Jones, Gannett, the Times Company, Times-Mirror, etc. etc.
Reuters on the other hand, is indeed owned by a private company in which stock can be purchased, and I think - but have no source to cite - that there is a strong Saudi connection.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/08/institutional_failure_at_reute.html
Posted by: Ko Rection at July 05, 2007 02:05 PM (9J3GN)
6
Don't hold your breath waiting for a response from those lying fools, unless you look good in blue. AP won't report anything they believe puts a positive light on the Bush administration and a negative one on the enemy. They obviously have chosen sides, and it ain't us, folks.
Posted by: MacCarroll at July 05, 2007 02:07 PM (LcLIn)
7
Thanks for staying on top of this. The AP will eventually have to acknowledge the al Hamira massacre if people keep up the pressure. "This generation's Ernie Pyle"? Yes. I agree.
I hope the AP responds.
Best,
Michael
Posted by: MichaelB at July 05, 2007 02:25 PM (fnd+P)
8
Why don't we ALL start emailing them about it?
Posted by: DaveS at July 05, 2007 02:33 PM (1R6cr)
Posted by: Orson at July 05, 2007 02:43 PM (cpxvj)
10
AP, Reuters... let 'em rot. No informed intelligence grants either one a grain of credibility. Whoever's interested can garner all relevent reporting, complete with links, directly off the Web. Old media --print and TV-- are worse than useless, incompetent propagandists for murderous Islamic terrorists, like Yeats' "Leda and the Swan" (qv).
Over decades now, insolent twerps miscalled "journalists" have devalued "network news" well below zero. How odd, that no competitor has arisen to provide integrity and talent... maybe Michael Yon could start an agency.
Posted by: John Blake at July 05, 2007 02:51 PM (A6Y0s)
11
I guess they figure that it evens out in the end: to them, one massacre is pretty much like another, so the one they wrongly reported makes up for the one they didn't report.
http://shieldofachilles.blogspot.com
Posted by: John Rohan at July 05, 2007 02:54 PM (2rUVY)
12
I just sent the following to Associated Press Director of Media Relations Jack Stokes and the Associated Press Board of Directors...
Would you care to share their email addresses (or did you go snail mail)? The only email on their site --
"For general questions and comments;or to contact a specific employee" -- is an 'info' address ... which, I strongly suspect, is deleted unread.
Posted by: Paul in NJ at July 05, 2007 03:13 PM (LLXHh)
13
What about the simpler explanation that the decapitation stories are simply far more sensational than what appears to be just another terrorist attack in a country that has seen so many?
Posted by: jim at July 05, 2007 03:27 PM (LxkVn)
14
What about the simpler explanation...
So fake sensationalism trumps actual news? Sweet.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 05, 2007 03:38 PM (gQtXT)
15
As noted above, the AP is a co-op owned by media companies. These Media companies own your local newspapers.
I suggest we print the above letter, with permission of course, and forward it to the advertisers in our local papers. Advertisers like the car company that flys that huge American flag. Lets see if those flag waving companies will truly support America and boycott newspapers that use AP to dessiminate al Queda propaganda.
Posted by: Joel Mackey at July 05, 2007 03:57 PM (tGm4a)
16
The real reason that AP does not retract their false stories is because there is no price to pay for spreading falsehoods. if papers refused to buy their product, if politicians kicked AP out of press conferences, and if consumers refused to buy their product until they cleaned up their act, then they would change so fast it would make your head spin.
Posted by: Harry at July 05, 2007 04:00 PM (C/Uhe)
17
...you should try emailinging it to the A.P. hacks
AND cc: as many members of congress as possible at the same time.
Maybe if twenty or thirty Reps and Senators, probably none of whom are the least aware of this pattern of deceit by the AP, contact them there will at least be some public acknowledgement by A.P. of it's indefensible misrepresentations and bias.
Posted by: bubba at July 05, 2007 04:42 PM (r0Bun)
18
I'm asking this not as a taunt but as something I really don't understand, having been following events only loosely: why does the media fail to follow Yon's reliable report of a massacre, while at the same time reporting another, false, massacre story? It seems to contradict the notion that there is a basic interest to hide or report such stories.
Posted by: John at July 05, 2007 04:50 PM (jnh3V)
19
"What about the simpler explanation that the decapitation stories are simply far more sensational than what appears to be just another terrorist attack in a country that has seen so many?
Posted by: jim at July 5, 2007 03:27 PM "
Mate, read Michael Yon's dispatch - many of the victims, including children, were beheaded. there is a gruesome photo just of the heads.
Posted by: pete m at July 05, 2007 05:08 PM (BM+uj)
20
Ko Rection: I think, too, there might be some confusion between Reuters and UPI. UPI used to be owned by an Arab corporation which included some Saudis, but mostly Lebanese and, if I recall, some Libyans. But that was at least 10 years and probably five sales ago. I don't know who owns UPI these days but the organization has clearly seen better days. It seems to be shifting its operations to the provision of video imagery.
Reuters (and Agence France Press) make use of a large number of local stringers and full- and part-time local staffs in their operations outside the UK. This allows them to get far more placement for stories with bylined names that look familiar to local media (and therefore that media's readership). Whether this is direct cause/effect for the slant of some stories or represents a real difference in how the same story is seen from different vantage points is left to the student to determine....
Posted by: John Burgess at July 05, 2007 05:27 PM (T84VL)
21
why does the media fail to follow Yon's reliable report of a massacre, while at the same time reporting another, false, massacre story? It seems to contradict the notion that there is a basic interest to hide or report such stories.
Yon's story doesn't damage Bush, indeed it helps make his case.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 05, 2007 05:44 PM (gQtXT)
22
Whats the difference between a catfish and AP?
One is a slimy, foul-smelling bottom feeder, and the other is a fish.
Posted by: Dave at July 05, 2007 07:34 PM (FViNA)
23
Er. . .actually, the mainstream media is more like the completely unharmed wife, who is not only allowed to make false accusations of abuse against her innocent husband and get away with it, but even profit from doing so.
The sadly ironic part is how that far superior analogy does not even appear on the radar of most commenters or readers directly because of years of exactly the same kind of biased propaganda by the same mainstream media. A similar lying favoritism is consistently shown towards wives and mothers in particular and females in general, in comparison to the near-universal blaming, condemnation and dehumanization of husbands and fathers in particular and males in general.
Even the conservative cartoonist team Cox & Forkum engaged in father-bashing this last Father's Day, characterizing fathers as being more interested in the tax write-off benefits their children provide than in being loving and caring fathers -- see http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/001133.html , and
http://www.johncoxart.com/2007/06/sketch_book_2.html#comments
The mainstream media treats the troops, republicans, conservatives, and so on much as it consistently treats men in general, and just as graphically differently from how they treat the communist dupe protestors, democrats, liberals, and so on, and women in general.
I think that the less that people use examples straight out of that same mainstream media axis of bigotry -- against the troops, republicans, conservatives, and men in general -- to illustrate their points, the better off we'll all be.
At the very least, let's not further reinforce their influence over us by repeating their bigotry for them. Please.
Posted by: Acksiom at July 05, 2007 08:41 PM (kRpz5)
24
Advertisers provide essentially all the income that news providers get. They choose the providers based on circulation figures.
AP sells news stories that may or may not be true. False news stories do not reduce circulation any more than true news stories raise circulation. They just need to be stories about whatever is in style this week. The newspaper doesn't even need to worry about being sued because that is AP's problem.
Retractions are a pain in the neck and embarrassing. So they don't happen. Or if they do, they are buried where they don't get noticed.
Think about the way western journalists work. They go to a different country and sit in a hotel. If they were to go to where things were happening, they might get shot. So they pay "stringers" to tell them things that the journalists don't check on. The journalists write it down, send it in and get paid. The editor,who may have never met the journalist, much less the stringer, rewrites the story so it looks better. He adds a picture and sends it to newspapers. Another editor makes sure that it fits in the paper between furniture, Frosted Sugar Breakfast Bombs and disposable diapers. This frequently involves cutting something crucial out.
So, the story goes from the stringer to the journalist to the editor to the other editor to the reader. What are the odds that it is accurate? The stringer never reads it, and he is the only one with who can judge. There is little evidence to suggest that these stringers are devoted to the truth, a lot of evidence to support the idea that they have agendas, and none at all that they are adverse to picking up a couple of bucks with a bogus story.
The hometown newspaper owned by Conglomerated Media has a staffer who thinks that the stringer is wrong. What can he do? The local management doesn't have the authority to fire AP or send his own correspondent overseas.
Nobody cares whether the stringers are correct except for news junkies like you and me.
Posted by: Yaakov Watkins at July 05, 2007 09:52 PM (Na8Fq)
25
Sinan Sallaheddin is responsible for another piece of fiction
CLICK HERE
Seems to be a pattern here. Maybe some investigation is in order.
Posted by: Roguewarrior100 at July 05, 2007 10:46 PM (ii74p)
26
The AP's e-mail addressing protocol is "first initial""last name"@ap.оrg. So Jack Stokes' e-mail address is jstokes@ap.оrg and you can deduce the rest of them from that.
Posted by: Gaius Obvious at July 05, 2007 11:32 PM (8sXg5)
27
Not to go too off-topic of this worthwhile letter and thread, but Acksiom, you make an excellent point, and I appreciate the consciousness-raising.
My heart goes out to all American men and boys in these emasculating times.
Posted by: Carol at July 06, 2007 12:21 AM (w/9Fe)
28
Most of the media make up a self selected elite in western societies. As such, they are separated from (and consider themselves above) ordinary folks and their opinions and experiences.
urthermore, too many are "professionals" - meaning people who take journalism courses from leftists and "progressives"/transnationalists and then, without even experiencing the real world, proceed to tell us everything from their "enlightened" perspective.
All too often, they develop what they call a "narrative" about an event and then stick with it in the face of all evidence. Naturally, a narrative which satisfies their inborn biases is chosen - one which casts conservatives and especially Bush in a bad light.
Try to imagine what America would be like with a balanced and responsible media. It wouldn't remotely resemble what we have today.
Posted by: John Moore at July 06, 2007 12:41 AM (GjLhO)
29
Of course one could copy some of AP subscribers' advertizers with CY's post, supra.
Posted by: BigGeorge at July 06, 2007 01:27 AM (A5s0y)
Posted by: K T Cat at July 06, 2007 08:38 AM (KDU/K)
31
I'm going to bring down all manner of verbal abuse on myself by observing two points:
1. The AP report is not demonstrated to be false by the evidence given here. That evidence consists of a) a challenge to the reliability of the sources; and b) a denial by the US military. This suggests to me that the report is unreliable -- but not false. I looked up the AP report and it is difficult to ascribe any political motive to it. The report states: "Sporadic clashes had been under way in the Salman Pak area for several days, between Interior Ministry commandos and suspected insurgents, the Kut officer said. It was unclear whether the discovery of the bodies was related to the recent fighting."
2. The report by Mr. Yon is equally unreliable in its attribution of the massacre to al-Qaeda. While the massacre itself is undeniable, the attribution to al-Qaeda comes from anonymous sources.
The only strong conclusions we can draw here are that a) there was definitely a massacre as reported by Mr. Yon, but we don't know who did it; and b) there might have been a massacre as reported by the AP, but that report is unreliable.
I note that the Web has lots of chatter about this story, but it strikes me as a tempest in a teapot. There's no evidence here to support any conspiracy theories.
I apologize for using a false email address, but until I have established that there aren't any dangerous wingnuts here, I'd rather play it safe.
Posted by: Erasmussimo at July 06, 2007 09:29 AM (ef3yj)
32
I think it is because Yon is not inside the MSM network. To give credit to Yon would be giving credit to the NSM [New Stream Media] and they say the MSM always does the heavy lifting in news. Also the NSM has become the place to get accurate news and it along with radio have become very powerful. Witness the Illegal Alien bill in the House. This is part of the culture wars that have been going on. Yon does not fit the agenda of the MSM and it's "reporting".
Also this New Media needs it's own acronym. I just thought NSM because it was quick, easy and a slam on MSN
so how about a contest?
Posted by: Darrold at July 06, 2007 10:50 AM (Ctj6k)
33
Erasmussimo seem to want to know how we can know that the AP-recorded massacre was fake, and how we know the massacre Michael Yon wrote about in "Bless the Beasts and Children" at al Ahamir was real.
The first is rather easy to answer: we know that the Associated Press account of 20 decapitated bodies on the banks of the Tigris is false because--hang on to your hat--
there was not so much as a single decapitated body on the banks of the Tigris river where the massacre allegedly took place. Local Iraqi police couldn't find them, not could their American advisors. Nor could helicopter search teams that swept the area repeatedly.
It simply never took place, just like previous stories of mass decapitations that never occurred.
As for whether or not al Qaeda committed the massacre Yon documented, I'll like Mike
answer that himself:
Like many things in Iraq, the question of whether or not the murderers were al Qaeda is flawed from beginning. Al Qaeda is not a union, it doesn’t issue passports. What is al Qaeda but the collection of people who claim to be al Qaeda? Those responsible for murdering and burying those bodies in al Ahamir (or al Hamira) had the markers of al Qaeda, the same al Qaeda that had boastfully installed itself as the shadow government of Baqubah. The al Qaeda who committed atrocities in Afghanistan, New York…the list is long. As for al Ahamir, the massacre “walks like a duck.” It happened in duck headquarters. The people here say the duck did it. The duck laughs.
The Associated Press ran a poorly-sourced story because it fits their conception of what we should expect in Iraq, and helps to refresh the narrative with which they are most comfortable. Likewise, the massacre Yon uncovered eats into their preferred story of a war where we're only in the way of sectarian violence, and al Qaeda largely doesn't exist except because we are there.
We weren't in al Ahamir, and yet, al Qaeda struck anyway.
That is a reality they'd much rather avoid.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 06, 2007 11:37 AM (HcgFD)
34
Confederate Yankee, thanks for filling in additional information on the search efforts. Where did you get that information? It seems to me that, inasmuch as the date of the massacre is indefinite, the discoverers of the bodies would most likely have buried them immediately, in which case a perfunctory search would have found nothing. I'm not claiming that this is what in fact happened; we just don't have enough information on this to draw any conclusions. Perhaps AP should have written more uncertainty into their story. Again, I see no reason to impute dark motivations to their story.
As to the role of al-Qaeda in the other massacre, the only evidence presented is that the massacre "looks like" an al-Qaeda operation. That's pretty slim evidence. How does an al-Qaeda massacre differ from a Shia massacre or Sunni massacre? What are the "marks" to which Mike refers? Like the Um al-Abeed massacre, we just don't have enough information to draw any solid conclusions.
Posted by: Erasmussimo at July 06, 2007 11:50 AM (ef3yj)
35
the discoverers of the bodies would most likely have buried them immediately
And then promptly forgot they did it, failed to note an identifying marks or ID so relatives might be subsequently found, carefully disguised the fresh graves so nobody would notice them, and then faded into the woodwork, right?
Sure, I can buy that.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 06, 2007 11:53 AM (gQtXT)
36
I repeat myself:
I'm not claiming that this is what in fact happened; we just don't have enough information on this to draw any conclusions.
Posted by: Erasmussimo at July 06, 2007 12:12 PM (ef3yj)
37
Erasmus,
The sources are really, really bad. Let's just say they are very clearly rumor-based. It's a friend of a friend story if there ever was one.
Also, the body burying objection falls apart on examination. Bodies decompose and begin to reek quickly in hot weather. Have you seen the Mythbusters episode about Jimmy Hoffa? They buried two pigs in concrete, and the smell rose up extremely fast despite the thick concrete. Only a layer of silicone sealer kept the odor down.
If the bodies were taken elsewhere, there would have been some other record or evidence. (Decapitation creates a large bloodstain)
The AP was careful not to lie or omit the sources, but I think the reporter must not have wanted to wait for more verification or to run with an uncertain headline
Posted by: OmegaPaladin at July 06, 2007 01:34 PM (c24eK)
38
Let's just say they are very clearly rumor-based. It's a friend of a friend story if there ever was one.
Most definitely! This one is just too vague to draw any strong conclusions from.
Posted by: Erasmussimo at July 06, 2007 07:15 PM (ef3yj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Muslim Doctors Discussed Florida Terror Strike?
Considering this is the
Telegraph, I'd take this claim with a
grain of salt:
One message read: "We are 45 doctors and we are determined to undertake jihad and take the battle inside America.
"The first target which will be penetrated by nine brothers is the naval base which gives shelter to the ship Kennedy." This is thought to have been a reference to the USS John F Kennedy, which is often at Mayport Naval Base in Jacksonville, Florida.
The message discussed targets at the base, adding: "These are clubs for naked women which are opposite the First and Third units."
It also referred to using six Chevrolet GT vehicles and three fishing boats and blowing up petrol tanks with rocket propelled grenades.
I haven't been to Mayport in years, but I rather suspect that the method of attack described above would have been repulsed well shy of their stated military targets.
As for the strip clubs... well, they are certainly a much softer targets than a military base and I suppose they could have killed or wounded many people if they had competently been able to carry out an attack.
If there is anything to this story, I expect that we'll see the arrest of any suspects here in the United States very soon.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:23 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.
1
As one who has worked for years at Mayport including on the Kennedy you have to wonder about this story.
Don't the clowns know the Kennedy has been decommissioned and his being ready to be towed to the scrap yard?
Posted by: YardBird at July 05, 2007 09:34 PM (zjdbE)
2
That's not the point. Who cares if they actually sink a carrier or not? We got plenty more. And the major threat to AQ is not carriers.
They want propaganda victories. They want to look good and to make us look bad. Blowing up, or scratching the paint on, a long gray tub of metal with the name of a former US president, looks good for them and bad for us.
Just as, if it were a stand-up fight we'd win in a a week, if the killers had to only strike at useful, sane, valid targets, they'd soon be back to cribbage and camel-dating.
You tell me that AP, Reuters, NBC, whoever, would laugh it off if such a strike happened. That's their battlefield.
Posted by: nichevo at July 07, 2007 11:57 PM (Ak+g8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 04, 2007
Happy Independence Day
For one who was born and grew up in the small towns of the Midwest, there is a special kind of nostalgia about the Fourth of July.
I remember it as a day almost as long-anticipated as Christmas. This was helped along by the appearance in store windows of all kinds of fireworks and colorful posters advertising them with vivid pictures.
No later than the third of July - sometimes earlier - Dad would bring home what he felt he could afford to see go up in smoke and flame. We'd count and recount the number of firecrackers, display pieces and other things and go to bed determined to be up with the sun so as to offer the first, thunderous notice of the Fourth of July.
I'm afraid we didn't give too much thought to the meaning of the day. And, yes, there were tragic accidents to mar it, resulting from careless handling of the fireworks. I'm sure we're better off today with fireworks largely handled by professionals. Yet there was a thrill never to be forgotten in seeing a tin can blown 30 feet in the air by a giant "cracker" - giant meaning it was about 4 inches long.
But enough of nostalgia. Somewhere in our growing up we began to be aware of the meaning of days and with that awareness came the birth of patriotism. July Fourth is the birthday of our nation. I believed as a boy, and believe even more today, that it is the birthday of the greatest nation on earth.
There is a legend about the day of our nation's birth in the little hall in Philadelphia, a day on which debate had raged for hours. The men gathered there were honorable men hard-pressed by a king who had flouted the very laws they were willing to obey. Even so, to sign the Declaration of Independence was such an irretrievable act that the walls resounded with the words "treason, the gallows, the headsman's axe," and the issue remained in doubt.
The legend says that at that point a man rose and spoke. He is described as not a young man, but one who had to summon all his energy for an impassioned plea. He cited the grievances that had brought them to this moment and finally, his voice falling, he said, "They may turn every tree into a gallows, every hole into a grave, and yet the words of that parchment can never die. To the mechanic in the workshop, they will speak hope; to the slave in the mines, freedom. Sign that parchment. Sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the Bible of the rights of man forever."
He fell back exhausted. The 56 delegates, swept up by his eloquence, rushed forward and signed that document destined to be as immortal as a work of man can be. When they turned to thank him for his timely oratory, he was not to be found, nor could any be found who knew who he was or how he had come in or gone out through the locked and guarded doors.
Well, that is the legend. But we do know for certain that 56 men, a little band so unique we have never seen their like since, had pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Some gave their lives in the war that followed, most gave their fortunes, and all preserved their sacred honor.
What manner of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, 11 were merchants and tradesmen, and nine were farmers. They were soft-spoken men of means and education; they were not an unwashed rabble. They had achieved security but valued freedom more. Their stories have not been told nearly enough.
John Hart was driven from the side of his desperately ill wife. For more than a year he lived in the forest and in caves before he returned to find his wife dead, his children vanished, his property destroyed. He died of exhaustion and a broken heart.
Carter Braxton of Virginia lost all his ships, sold his home to pay his debts, and died in rags. And so it was with Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Rutledge, Morris, Livingston and Middleton.
Nelson personally urged Washington to fire on his home and destroy it when it became the headquarters for General Cornwallis. Nelson died bankrupt.
But they sired a nation that grew from sea to shining sea. Five million farms, quiet villages, cities that never sleep, 3 million square miles of forest, field, mountain and desert, 227 million people with a pedigree that includes the bloodlines of all the world.
In recent years, however, I've come to think of that day as more than just the birthday of a nation.
It also commemorates the only true philosophical revolution in all history.
Oh, there have been revolutions before and since ours. But those revolutions simply exchanged one set of rules for another. Ours was a revolution that changed the very concept of government.
Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people.
We sometimes forget that great truth, and we never should.
Happy Fourth of July.
Ronald Reagan
President of the United States
1981
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:23 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 932 words, total size 5 kb.
July 03, 2007
CNN: We Suck At Building Car Bombs, Too
In an effort to show what the failed
FAE car bombs in London and Glasgow could have done, CNN commissioned explosives experts at New Mexico Tech to build and detonate a similar device.
Unfortunately for CNN, they made it a little too much like the failed jihadi's device.
Note when you watch this David Mattingly report that at about 1:21, the expert says, "what will happen is that this entire car will turn into shrapnel."
Eh, not so much.
After a long-winded set-up, they finally detonate the car bomb in front of a hastily-constructed wood-framed structure no more than 10 feet--perhaps the width of a parking space--away from the blast.
Mattingly's audio at around 3:34 is priceless:
Watch in slow motion as the car is blown to pieces."
Well, the back and side glass blew out, and the windshield spider-webbed and the drivers door was flung open, but as the video clearly shows, this was not successful car bomb. the Jeep was not "blown to pieces" as Mattingly claimed, nor was the expert's claim "that this entire car will turn into shrapnel" even remotely true. If this had been a successful FAE explosion, that wooden building would have been flattened and scattered like matchsticks, along with the Jeep.
The expert even admits, "casualties would probably be fire victims."
Why? Because the bomb burned, and created a small blast, but utterly failed as a a fuel-air explosive bomb.
I was amused to watch Mattingly shift gears post-blast, and explain that if this device had gone off outside of a London club, "fire could have claimed many lives." Well, yeah, providing the nightclub didn't have any other doors, or a sprinkler system.
But the kicker was watching him walk approximately 30 feet to the rear of the vehicle to pick up a nut that dribbled that far from the blast, and try to explain that it could have caused casualties. Well, I suppose it could have, but considering my seven-year old daughter can chuck one equally as far, I doubt the damage would have been that severe.
For comparative purposes, here is a video clip of a much smaller successful fuel-air explosive detonation from Futureweapons.
As you can plainly see, the blasts aren't even remotely similar in effect.
In the CNN video, the only apparent ejection of any material with any force was one of the propane tanks they claim was ejected 150 yards. Interestingly enough, I didn't see that tank ejected in any of the blast video angles show above. Did any of you catch it?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:31 AM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I think you are being a bit disingenuous about the effects of a blast like the one that was shown.
First off, gasoline burns very hot, and would likely flash the clothing of those not directly inside the blast area to flame creating painful burns.
Second, this is an improvised car bomb. The bombs in Iraq are made from explosive filler from artillery shells and plastic explosives. In a situation like the one shown, it would be impossible to generate a thermobaric explosion because the propane disperses to fast. (IIRC, the gas used in FAE of the Air Force is propylene oxide, the fuel they used to run top fuel dragsters on.)
In the final case this is a terror weapon. The number of people killed directly by the weapon would be small. I would expect a large number of wounded and killed to be th result of panic following the detonation of such a device near a crowded place.
Posted by: MunDane at July 03, 2007 11:36 AM (Meq0P)
2
This is especially interesting in light of the many vocal Leftwing comments I've read who assert the Glasgow bombers couldn't possibly be Al Quaeda because of their lack of successful detonations.
I think the comments indicate a confusion of Iraqi IED's provided by Iran, with AQ ops elsewhere (and some innate cogitory confusion besides).
Posted by: DirtCrashr at July 03, 2007 11:37 AM (VNM5w)
3
The car, which looked like a jeep, didn't move at all and I suspect they left the back hatch unlatched and it certainly appears so from the way the man was putting down the back door just before they left for their mountain viewing area. Otherwise, it's more likely the explosion and flames would come out the side windows and maybe blow all the door off.
It also looks like the driver's side door was left ajar; it's delay wrt the flames out the back possibly due to the back seat redirecting the force of the explosion. I wonder if that was to make sure the hastily built wood building would be hit and at aleast catch fire.
I do think I saw the propane tank flying off and up to the right in the camera view from the front of the vehicle. You can see a small dark form leading the white cloud in the beginning but it is obscured shortly after by the rising flames.
I don't think it is too bad a story. But they should have emphasized that this reinactment only gives the viewer a minor idea of the London bombs effect if it was constructed properly. If I were CNN I wouldn't want to give people the idea there is a safe area at the front of the vehicle, but on the other hand, I'm glad they did use the lower one; it would give the terrorist more info. All in all, I think, maybe CNN did the right thing by showing their simple version.
Posted by: Dusty at July 03, 2007 12:24 PM (GJLeQ)
4
While it's funny to hear the exaggerated alarm in the CNN reporter's voice, and funnier still to hear the denial of idiotary intent by the white-haired anchor, the people who really come out looking bad in this piece are those poor souls from New Mexico Tech.
If they'd bothered just going down the road apiece to my alma mater, New Mexico State, I'm sure they could have gotten something that not only worked, but worked to prove their point.
Go Lobos!
Posted by: Ted T. at July 03, 2007 01:08 PM (m8fqe)
5
it would be impossible to generate a thermobaric explosion because the propane disperses to fast.
FYI - propane and gasoline vapor aren't explosive in high concentrations -- they NEED to be highly dispersed or the reactions snuffs themselves out.
Acetylene?...well that's a whole different story.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 03, 2007 01:57 PM (CmXp+)
6
Well, that is what the Scot Yard folks on TV were saying the first day - the actual bombs they found were grab-ass pieces of trash. Likely to burn up the car and those in it, but not doing much more than that. There would have been no concussion, and the nature of the blast would not cause the nails to act like shrapnel. It was more like a quick incendiary, but unless you use napalm it is unlikely that spreads to much of anything in a city like London.
I also saw the CNN "test" and laughed at its ridiculousness. I pictured them saying: "This is what the car bomb would've done to 17th century London". That was a WOOD chack for Chrissakes!
And everyone in the UK seems convenced that this is NOT Al-Qaeda. The attack was clownish and amanteur-ish. More likley a bunch of foreign nationals who felt like they "sold out" and needed to strike a blow. However, the US media outlets are shouting "Al Qaeda" and running prepared footage and fearures that they had rotting away in the basement.
Never let the story get in the way of the show.
Posted by: HP at July 03, 2007 03:22 PM (sbnij)
7
I think you guys are missing something basic, a fuel air explosive can never work in a car bomb because the accelerant needs to be dispersed into a large cloud before being detonated. The car chassis would prevent that dispersal because the initial explosion is not that strong, certainly not strong enough to bust open the carÂ’s frame and let the cloud expand. It was never going to work, these people are morons.
But what it does show is the sheer, disgusting malevolence of these jihadi filth. They were fantasizing about how many would be killed and burned in their mighty "fuel-air explosion", and the second car was positioned to kill the crowds of people fleeing from the first, a classic AQ tactic.
These people are filth. Excrement. They deserve death. Watching the PC British government squirm around trying to disassociate the word Muslim with terrorist makes me sick. When are they going to stop worrying about these animalÂ’s hurt feelings and start worrying about the safety of their citizens?
Posted by: Amos at July 03, 2007 06:38 PM (X6W8j)
8
That CNN clip is a hillarious hodgepodge of mixed messages.
Did you get a look at the propane tank after the explosion? I suspect that the rupture was caused by detonation cord or similar explosive attached vertically to the tank. Look at the slight inward curl of the rupture's edges and the condition of the metal. This would also correspond with the apparent speed and progression of the fireball. As well as the arraingement of containors in the boot. Hard to tell on the clip, but it looks like there is an initial explosion rather than fire, then a bursting forth of burning fuel from the car. I too agree that they rigged the car to allow the fireball to exit the drivers side towards the structure and possibly the rear hatch by not securing the doors.
This differs a bit from setting fire to the petrol fuel or vented propane gas and then causing a tank to rupture. By the way propane won't ignite if in a concentration greater than 9% by volume or less than about 3%.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZmbp_zO6rs
So far the British authorities have not suggested that the London/Glasgow plot's devices contained any high explosives to intiate a rapid rupture of the patio gas cylinders.
Either way though, the result in the CNN test or the recent plot is a Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion (BLEVE).
http://www.aristatek.com/explosions.aspx
Something fire safety engineers deal with all the time.
http://me.queensu.ca/people/birk/research/thermalHazards/bleve/safeDistance.php
When looking at that table keep in mind that it is for larger tanks than the plot's devices. Which were made up of 2 or 3 propane patio gas tanks size 25.4 litres/13kg or 9.77 litres/5kg. Which with intregal overfill valves and summer temperatures would have contained 80% or less.
These devices are not in any way a Fuel Air Explosion weapon. Which is a very different and difficult animal to construct and deploy.
Posted by: Scimethod at July 03, 2007 06:42 PM (RWU2b)
9
Confirming purple avenger, take it from someone who was kicked out of high school and prohibited from taking any welding further classes because he filled a leg of a steel welding table with Acetylene and touched it off, it separated the leg from the table, caused the table to flip over and come to a rest against a wall 15 feet away. I thought it was funny back when I was 16. What was not funny was what happened after my parents found out about it, but I guess the libs have laws about what parents can do to correct their kids now-a-days.
Had there been an additional violent oxidizer, such as a tank of nitrous oxide or can of nitromethane, mixed amongst the propane and gas mixture, and all ruptured simultaneously, the results might have gotten a little closer to the carnage the wouldbe jihadis expected.
Posted by: R30C at July 03, 2007 08:12 PM (3+0jc)
10
Amos - they do deserve death, but unfortunately the "suicide car bomb" at Galsgow DID NOT EVEN KILL THE SUICIDE BOMBERS!
We've seen what home grown, amateur terrorists can do in Oklahoma City. Doesn't take much, but thank God it's somewhat difficult.
CNN looking to cash in on some fear mongering about terror...and failing miserably.
Posted by: HP at July 03, 2007 10:46 PM (sbnij)
11
R30C, Did a lot of the same except with large
banana balloons and wax paper fuse...The Doctors
in England didn't get it quite right this time
next time they will...Propane ,gas and c-4 or
ammonium nitrate you don't need a fuel/air bomb.
Max kill is the game and they will get it right.
Posted by: Tincan Sailor at July 04, 2007 09:56 AM (L4HGI)
12
They probably won't be using nitromethane -- its ~$250 for a 5gal can. I know because I called around pricing some a few days ago while looking to mix up a batch of model engine fuel.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 04, 2007 11:44 AM (CmXp+)
13
Yea, 8 doctors can't afford $250 for nitromethane.
These were not some homeless bums without brains. They would not have incinerated their strategic advantage (access, trust, mobility, lethal potential) unless they thought they would likely inflict a true act of terror with shocking death and destruction. Even though they botched it, they had a devastating plan.
Posted by: alfonso at July 04, 2007 01:02 PM (iqI7+)
14
Unfortunately they took the video down by the time I read your piece. But I do note that commenters and press don't seem to understand the enemy. They constantly are saying that they are or are not al Quaeda. I al Quaeda our only enemy? It seems to me that we should understand we are fighting Islam. The great majority of Muslims support the terrorist efforts of the extremist. So we need to use this English effort as an example of the make up of our enemy. Every Muslim is potentially a problem just as every German and Jap were in WWII.
Posted by: David Caskey, MD at July 04, 2007 02:13 PM (rWOKC)
15
To David Caskey, MD:
"The great majority of Muslims support the terrorist efforts of the extremist." ?
Please provide evidence of this. If you checked polling done in both the US and Britain, you'll find that a vast majority of Muslims do not favor any type of violence. Sure, there's a sizable percentage, mostly younger, who agree with violent means - mostly against Israel. But the great majority of Muslims reject violence and are as horrified by the senseless brutality of AQ as non-Muslims are.
The West needs to develop better intelligence of our foes by cultivating a relationship and understanding with Muslims and countries with large Muslim populations. A big change from what the US has been doing so far, to be sure - but a change of course is certainly in order.
Posted by: TGunderson at July 05, 2007 04:33 AM (xYFGL)
16
Gunderson,
I don't know were you got your stats, but most polls are indicating that Muslims by a significant majority have some sympathy for the terroist movement. If you bother to read the Korann, you will find that the principal of the religion is war and death to all that are not Muslim. We are past the point were "understanding" of these criminals will help. I highly recommend Hitchens book "God in not Great". Here he documents the hate of this particular religion. Of course he does so for all religions, but the point is that we need a far more aggressive approach for our war on Islam.
Posted by: David Caskey at July 05, 2007 09:41 AM (G5i3t)
17
The Media has it around 1-2% of Islam hold radical
views.I caught a interview of Bridget Gabrielle
who stated the number was more like 20%.Now if
you take half of the number btween say 2% and 20%
it will still give you around 140 Million radicals. Her other point was 80% of all Moslums do not like the western world.So there you have it
not a pretty picture how ever you choose to look
at it....One last point Steve Emerson claims there
are around 27 active cells here in the good old
USA...
Posted by: Tincan Sailor at July 05, 2007 09:44 AM (L4HGI)
18
Nobody seems to want to mention the real reason why the bombs fizzled.
When was the last time a doctor got anything done without using a nurse?
Posted by: J Bowen at July 05, 2007 11:12 PM (JDNzJ)
19
The surveys asked if they agreed with the violence, not if they would cause violence themselves. That's a big difference. None of the surveys have asked if the respondents would become terrorists themselves - the real question we're dealing with here.
Again, most of this hatred is towards Israel and the Palestinian disaster. And sure, there are lots of bad guys who want to inflict pain on America, but it's nothing close to the numbers you're talking about.
For the last six years, America hasn't helped itself regarding the Middle East, and the only way it can improve the situation is through shrewd diplomacy and smart, focused intelligence.
Again, finding common ground and winning hearts and minds amongst the vast majority of mainstream Muslims who denounce violence is a far superior approach to what Dr. Caskey is advocating. Basing one's understanding of a religion using a book by a highly prejudiced writer on such a broad subject as Islam is a mistake - unless that's the only view you want to believe.
Developing relationships with Muslim communities and countries rather than building walls will mean an increased ability to gain intelligence on the bad guys who use Islam as a cover for violence.
Again, most Muslims detest what is happening, just as the majority of Christians detest what, say, the Westboro Baptist Church does in God's name. Westboro may not be killing anyone, but there's a whole lot of ugly hate coming out of there because the Bible says so (or so their pastor, Fred Phelps tell his followers). In both cases, a minority of radical believers using twisted interpretations of their respective holy books leads to actions the majority cannot agree with.
Build bridges and open doors to those who want to help and then we'll be better able to learn who and where the bad guys are.
Is there a better way? Tell me if you think you know.
Posted by: TGunderson at July 06, 2007 05:06 AM (xYFGL)
20
Gunderson,
I thought that I would bring to your attention the fact that your exact statements were used by the Jews prior to WWII. You can see what happened to them.
Posted by: David Caskey,MD at July 06, 2007 10:45 AM (G5i3t)
21
Dr. David Caskey,
So the Jews were responsible for bringing the Holocaust upon themselves??? At this point, I'll just say goodnight and good luck. I'd rather not be involved in giving you an opportunity to air more noxious ideas to the world.
Posted by: TGunderson at July 07, 2007 12:58 AM (xYFGL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
These Are Not the Droids You're Looking For
Via a previous request to Multi-National Corps-Iraq, a picture of Iranian-manufactured TNT (top) and C4 (bottom) explosives captured in Iraq by coalition forces (click image for larger version).
U.S. EOD says a chemical analysis of these explosives matches those of known Iranian explosives. Because this analysis comes from explosives experts that are both (a) American, and (b) military; Glenn Greenwald is sure to allege they were actually manufactured by Halliburton in the White House basement over the weekend.
In related news, a senior Hezbollah officer working for his Iranian terror masters was captured in Basra and is singing like a bird, implicating Iranian involvement in the sophisticated January Karbala raid that left five U.S. solders dead.
Jules Crittenden separates the wheat from the chafe in the Times story, that seems to have received some "editorial help" back in New York before publication.
Update: As commenter "BohicaTwentyTwo" notes in the comments, if the explosives above are supposed to look like American munitions, they miss the mark widely.
Here is a picture of an actual M112 charge (PDF).
I don't think that Iran was seriously attempting to mimic U.S. charges (U.S. charges are marked with taggants, signature trace elements that determine not just the country of origin, but also the company). I think that they were perhaps just trying to muddy the waters enough so that a generalist media could avoid looking at the evidence too hard, while allowing apologists to deny that these were Iranian charges because they were printed in English instead of Persian.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:33 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Did they say who it was captured from out of interest?
Posted by: Rafar at July 03, 2007 09:04 AM (kkgmI)
2
Those cunning Iranians! They leave the markings on their mortar shells in English but with Iranian details, their rocket shells in Farsi and their c-4 blocks duplicate exactly the
US-made M112 Demolition Charge to confuse us poor liberals! How Machiavellian can you get?
Regards, C
Posted by: Cernig at July 03, 2007 09:06 AM (tBILO)
3
"In related news, a senior Hezbollah officer working for his Iranian terror masters was captured in Basra and is singing like a bird"
and if you waterboarded me and put me in stress positions for as long as I suspect they did with him, sooner or later I'd tell you I was working for the Iranians too...
Posted by: Arbotreeist at July 03, 2007 09:26 AM (N8M1W)
4
Cernig, what exactly would you expect it to say, "courtesy of the Iranian government?" Anyone can easily duplicate the printed text, what matter is the chemical composition, including precursors and trace elements.
Arbortreeist, do you have
any evidence to support your claim he was waterboarded or tortured in any way at all? Of course you don't.
It's so amusing to watch you bend over backwards to defend the Iranian government, while ignoring the much larger fact that an experienced Hezbollah operative was captured in Iraq and admitted his role in setting up attacks on American forces.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 03, 2007 09:47 AM (HcgFD)
5
Which means that those Iranian machiavellis are so cunning that they forge a wrapping that looks exactly like the U.S. one but then so incompetent that they forget to put explosives in that wrapping that don't point right back to them.
Possible, I suppose so. But I would want the U.S. military to release the chemical data for scrutiny and have an independent lab analyze some of the stuff and confirm it before I'd seriously entertain such a possibility.
Especially since Iran hasn't made such elementary mistakes of tradecraft in the past. As Former CIA field officer Robert Baer explained to Time magazine in April:
"In April 1983 an Iranian surrogate group blew up the American embassy in Beirut. Forensic investigators sifting through the rubble determined with a fair amount of certainty that the bomb maker had inserted explosives inside the firing chain, ensuring a "signature" was not left to tie the attack to Iran. Iran never claimed the attack, the suicide bomber was never named, and if it weren't for a still classified lucky break, we would have had no evidence the Iranians were behind it. It is unlikely in the intervening years Iran lost its touch. It certainly isn't clumsy enough to leave serial numbers or factory markings on weapons going to the Sunni insurgency."
There are good reasons, it seems to me, to be sceptical about the current narrative.
The same holds true for the captured Hizboullah agent. I want to hear far more about the circumstances of his capture and interrogation before I accept the story as written. Last year, the U.S. captured what it says are Iranian agents in Irbil. Unfortunately, the Kurdish regional government (U.S. allies) say - at the highest level - that they got the wrong people, fingered by the Mujahedeen e-Kalq terror group and then also interrogated by MeK interpreters, who told the U.S. military whatever they wanted to.
Regards, C
Posted by: Cernig at July 03, 2007 10:36 AM (tBILO)
6
But I would want the U.S. military to release the chemical data for scrutiny and have an independent lab analyze some of the stuff and confirm it before I'd seriously entertain such a possibility.
Funny you should mention that. I asked for two things when I got this photo:
A detailed EOD report on the chemical analysis, explaining in as much technical detail as necessary how the chemicals makeup of these explosives can been traced back to Iran, and;that a sample of these explosives be sent to qualified independent labs for verification.
we'll see what they are willing to do and can do regarding this request.
I think we can all agree through even a cursory look at popular culture that what we understand of forensic sciences has grown exponentially since 1983, just as we can all agree that if Iran is supplying weaponry, personnel, and training, that they would do everything that is within their power to avoid leaving "fingerprints."
But they have left fingerprints, haven't they?
We've inflicted serious casualties on at least one known Iranian weapons smuggling cell, capturing the two Iranian-trained Iraqi brothers that ran it, who have provided much of the information that has led to their cell's current break-up. We've captured five Iranian Quds Force members in Irbil (including named senior IRGC officers) attempting to hide behind diplomatic immunity, and still hold these men in prison. Hoe you can claim they aren't IRGC officers when we captured their Iranian military IDs along with them escapes me. We have captured literally dozens of Iraqi Shia that claim to have been trained in Iran, along with some of their weaponry. We can now add a senior operative of Iranian-supported Hezbollah.
We have captured so many people from Iran, with Iranian training, and belonging to Iranian-trained and sponsored terrorist groups within Iraq; that we have captured the weaponry they use as well is hardly surprising, if not expected.
Cernig, I think it is perfectly reasonably to be suspicious of vague claims, but we know exactly who these people are, and as this network is rolled up, we are continuing to get more stories that say the exact same things regarding training in Iran.
Please continue to be a reasonable skeptic, as it is important for these questions to be asked.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 03, 2007 11:12 AM (HcgFD)
7
Hi CY,
That's where i try to come from. I'm no fan of the odious bunch in Teheran, but find myself as their very VERY reluctant apologist in the face of a narrative that, for me, doesn't fit all the facts. I've a bad feeling that, like Iraq, the intel wonks are adding 2 and 2 and getting 5. In other words, there's some Iranian meddling but a lot of private black-market enterprise too, and the parts are being run together as one big scary conspiracy story. That didn't pan out to well last time. I think someone should say "hang on, that conclusion is a bit of a reach on the verifiable facts (not assessments, those are just guesses) you're telling us". So I do just that.
Regards, C
Posted by: Cernig at July 03, 2007 11:22 AM (tBILO)
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 03, 2007 11:26 AM (oC8nQ)
9
Let me see if I have this right. These explosives were made in Iran where the native language is.....English? No. Oh then they just label explosives in English so that when our troops, spies, intelligence(?) agents find them they can be readily identified. Oh, so that's the ticket. I bet they have big signs that are visible to our spy planes and satellites that say, in English, "Nookular Bomb Uranium Processing Plant." I bet that's how Israel and Boosh figured out how they were trying to make a Nookular Bomb. Boy are they clever!
Posted by: Bob the Biker Pilot at July 03, 2007 11:56 AM (b4NXR)
10
"Arbortreeist, do you have any evidence to support your claim he was waterboarded or tortured in any way at all? Of course you don't."
Do you have any evidence he wasn't? Of course you don't.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at July 03, 2007 11:58 AM (N8M1W)
11
What a stretch .... is this the best the propagandists can come up with ?
Posted by: Anarchistcpl at July 03, 2007 12:22 PM (jWvfJ)
12
Bohica, that is a very interesting link. They didn't get the markings correct.
Bob, etc: English is a common language in arms manufacturing, just as it is in the commercial aircraft industry. We'd actually expect English language markings on any weapons sytem designed for export. We'd only expect Persian on weapons systems designed solely for domestic use.
Arbortreeist, what evidence do I have that you aren't a clown-raping meth junkie with a glass eye and rickets? None whatsoever.
Interesting though, that you automatically assume that the default military interrogation technique is some form of torture, which I think says something more about your paranoia and distrust of the American soldier than it does about the military.
If you bothered to actually read the NYT story, you'd note that this guy didn't talk for months, and even volunteered that he would talk after May 1. And talk he has, as have most captured insurgents and terrorists. Other than hardcore al Qaeda types, most seem to like to brag about their exploits, so torture is hardly needed.
Considering torture elicits responses in very short order: minutes or hours depending on al Qaeda-like crude techniques, as long as days for stress positions and the like-minded psychological torture, but never more than a few minutes for waterboarding, then I'd say your lack of evidence for a torture case is readily apparent, though I wont be surprised to hear you call American soldiers worse that torturers... though never to one, of course.
You owe our military an apology, but I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 03, 2007 12:35 PM (HcgFD)
13
After Abu Ghraib and the reports of detainee abuse from U.S.-run prisons in Afghanistan and elsewhere, I don't give the benefit of the doubt to the military on this issue. Sorry.
Posted by: Arbotreeist at July 03, 2007 02:00 PM (N8M1W)
14
but then so incompetent that they forget to put explosives in that wrapping that don't point right back to them.
Not overestimating the competence of the MSM when it comes to weaponry is usually a pretty good bet these days. When you're dealing with people who don't know the difference between a machine gun and a cantaloupe, its pretty easy to feed'em any kind of BS and have'em believe it.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 03, 2007 02:02 PM (CmXp+)
15
The top two items shown are not US mil issue. Period. They lack the proper identifiers, the containers/wraps are all wrong, and the codes are missing.
They also show post-1996 manufacture dates. Any US-manufacture C4 or TNT of post-1996 vintage WILL have taggant-ID. If it doesn't have 'em, it's not US manufacture. My guess would be the displayed items lack taggant-ID and are otherwise chemically identifiable as other Iranian-manufacture ordnance.
Most ordnance on the international market, regardless of country of origin, is labelled at least partially in English.
Posted by: Tully at July 03, 2007 03:00 PM (kEQ90)
16
Arbotreeist
Since you make the claim of torture, it is on you to deliver the proof, not of others to prove there wasn't torture.
Striykermt
Posted by: striyker at July 03, 2007 11:09 PM (uRZwD)
17
Hey, CY-I have some land and a bridge to sell you.
Posted by: robert at July 04, 2007 09:25 AM (M6Wxc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Decapitating the Truth
More on "Decapigate," as posted exclusively at
Pajama's Media.
Note that the deception was worse at some levels and at some news outlets than first thought, and that oddly enough, only one news outlet actually had editors that were "fair and balanced" on this particular story.
The original CY post the broke the story is here and the follow-up containing the official denunciation is posted here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:27 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.
1
If I were paranoid I might suspect our own CIA is planting these stories to demoralize the other side within the agency.
Posted by: lonetown at July 03, 2007 07:53 AM (4rdee)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 02, 2007
Bless the Beasts and Children
I'll never understand why the media in Iraq finds it necessary to run poorly-sourced, suspect reports of false atrocities, when real ones are
so easy to find.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:14 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Um, just a guess, but maybe because they don't want to show the true nature of those committing the atrocities? That headless
men stories might have a more positive effect for their comrades than headless
children stories?
Nah. They wouldn't ignore real atrocities just to promote their preferred narrative. Not AP.
Posted by: Tully at July 02, 2007 06:53 PM (kEQ90)
2
To walk away from this pure evil, would in itself be evil.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 02, 2007 08:49 PM (CmXp+)
3
It is even worse than that they purposefully ignore stories like this, when was the last time a mass grave was uncovered in Iraq? Don't know? Howabout last week, more of Saddams victoms and what does the AP and other MSM outlets report about? Well it seems the Kurds up north may be torturing some detainees! I have come to the conclusion that most not all but most of the MSM is has made a choice to aid our enemies. As the saying goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Posted by: Oldcrow at July 03, 2007 03:09 AM (q7b5Y)
4
I don't understand the reasoning here. Do you think that the media are actually rooting for the beheaders? Do you think that they are deliberately trying to hamstring the US military?
Can I just ask what their motivation is in this theory?
Posted by: Rafar at July 03, 2007 03:56 AM (kkgmI)
5
Rafar, the media organizations don't exactly "root" for the terrorists, but I know of national and international journalists that have privately admitted to being ideologically opposed to the Iraq War, and for that matter, some who think President Bush was behind 9/11. People I trust have been there when they have made these statements.
Are they trying to hamstring the military? Without a doubt.
Because of their strong feelings against the war, these journalists and editors decisions of what stories are "newsworthy" is fatally compromised. They are incapable of framing the war in a balanced manner, and therefore incapable of presenting the full truth. This is why you constantly hear soldiers--both for and against the war, I made add--constantly and loudly complaining that the war they are fighting is not the one they see on television.
Mike Yon uncovered the story of an entire village wiped out by al Qaeda, and the story would doubtlessly inflame people against al Qaeda, perhaps leading us to dig in our heels and continue fighting. Thus, it isn't newsworthy, and it doesn't run. It isn't because they don't trust Yon's accuracy--a photo he took is perhaps the most famous of the war, and was recommended for some awards--but because they don't like that he is reporting mostly success.
The decapitation story, aa false as it was, was produced to "prove" the futility of a sectarian war and hasten our withdrawal. This is why the AP was willing to run with an unsourced or poorly sourced story. It fits their narrative.
This may come as a dramatic shock to many, but the course of the war has dramatically shifted, starting roughly a year ago. While it it too soon to declare we are winning--though some there have stated that--the fact remains that Iraq has become far more viable as a nation and as a representative democracy in the past 12 months. General Petraeus is fighting a brilliant war, much of it behind the scenes on the political and social levels, not to mention some of the present military successes of Phantom Thunder that the media clearly still does not understand the scope and success of... or perhaps they do, and would rather care not to share it.
The media, who contribute 9-to-1 to Democrats, has a clear bias against "Bush's War." They are infuriated enough at him over the lack of WMDs (and because of the shrieking of theri radical left wing base, which tends to call journalists horrible names if they run unbiased reports) to do what they can to make sure that this war is lost.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 03, 2007 07:27 AM (HcgFD)
6
Thank you for that, it makes the thinking behind such arguments more clear to me.
Posted by: Rafar at July 03, 2007 07:59 AM (kkgmI)
7
Danish cartoonists and The Queen of England are making more terrorists than we are. It doesn't take a flaming doctor to figure that out.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 03, 2007 08:43 AM (oC8nQ)
8
The phrase "Fake but accurate" resounds here. The story line is false, but it is what fits the pre-conceived narrative.
Posted by: wjo at July 03, 2007 09:40 AM (r6omM)
9
"The story line is false, but it is what fits the pre-conceived narrative."
That's partially true, but to make any meaningful point it presumes that the narrative (Civlians are being slaughtered every day and their bodies are being dumped) is false, when in fact it is true. Bodies are dumped everyday and have been for years now.
Posted by: Rafar at July 03, 2007 10:01 AM (kkgmI)
10
Do you think that the media are actually rooting for the beheaders? Do you think that they are deliberately trying to hamstring the US military?
Ummm....yes and yes.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 03, 2007 02:04 PM (CmXp+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
288kb generated in CPU 0.0508, elapsed 0.135 seconds.
70 queries taking 0.1011 seconds, 455 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.