O'Reilly Won't Face Haditha Honestly Like A Concerned American
Reported by Deborah - May 31, 2006
O'Reilly is on on a campaign to diminish the importance of the incident in Haditha turning it into an opportunity to smear concerned patriots like John Murtha who has spoken openly and critically about the incident and it's implications .Last night on the Factor, O'Reilly refused to objectively explore Haditha and it's ramifications choosing to single out John Murtha for speaking out saying,
"This has happened in every war, and the breakdown has to be dealt with effectively. But to draw a wider implication when 95% of the forces are performing heroically is brutally unfair. But Murtha indicts the military, and I'm mad about it. He doesn't have the stones to come on this program and back up what he says."
Tonight O'Reilly continued pointing fingers during his Talking Points segment blaming the "left wing" press and "the John Murtha's" claiming that that many people believe that Bush is evil and his policies led to Haditha and Abu Ghraib. Then he used the tired cliche about one bad apple which he changed to " one bad child" does not ruin a family. Taking the victim route, he wondering why people rejoice when bad things happen to this country. As usual he ended with a threat to anyone who uses this incident to "besmerch" the reputation of the country promising to "call them out" on the FACTOR.
An uneventful interview with Condoleezza Rice followed and O'Reilly tried unsuccessfully to get her riled up about the prospects of his " left wing press' attacking Bush and Rumsfeld over Haditha. Rice, appearing detatched and unconcerned, spouted some talking points about Haditha but would not engage in his game.
O'Reilly did not mention the concern expressed by Congressman Murtha about the stress our troops are dealing with that might have motivated the violent reaction in Haditha. Murtha told Charles Gibson,
" The reason we’ve lost the hearts and mind is these troops are under tremendous stress. Day after day these explosive devices go off, and if they don’t kill them that day, they hurt somebody, they wound somebody. And I see them at the hospitals. I see - they don’t know who the enemy is, they don’t know who they’re fighting, Iraq – and then they kill innocent people. There’s no question in my mind about what happened here. There was no gunfire. They killed four people in a taxi and then in addition to that, they went into the rooms and killed them. And I don’t know how many were involved in it, but it’s something that we cannot excuse. I can understand it, but it can’t be excused."
Comment: Why isn't the great " culture warrior" showing any concern for the anguish and confusion our young soldiers are feeling fighting this war. If O'Reilly really cared about our troops, he would try to make their experience real to the American public and he would try to open his own mind to the possibility that there are serious problems within the military creating unending chaos and heartbreak for everyone. If he were really a concerned American, O'Reilly would face Haditha squarely instead of encouraging a Swift Boat consciousness in his impressionable viewers.
What ever happin to the BOR line he said about what he would do if there were no WMD found in Iraq?
Posted by: theroachman at May 31, 2006 11:22 PM
Attack the messenger, blame Clinton....faux's schtick is too predictable and oh so sad.
Posted by: Dr. Matt at May 31, 2006 11:31 PM
"An uneventful interview with Condoleezza Rice followed"
That's funny. On my tv an interview with Gen Batista followed the Talking Points memo. Is there some reason you chose not to report on his segment?
Posted by: truthteller at May 31, 2006 11:44 PM
Reap what you sow mutha fkers!!!!your disdain IS coming back to roost!!!!Whats the differenence ?USA USA uSA breeds murderers!!!!
Imagine the fucking hue and cry if they were our citizens that were shot in warfare or otherwise.
But hey they are only Arabs.................
Posted by: Leetle Bra Ha at May 31, 2006 11:48 PM
Posted by: truthteller,
"That's funny. On my tv an interview with Gen Batista followed the Talking Points memo. Is there some reason you chose not to report on his segment?"
That's funny. No one cares one way or the other. Is there some reason you chose to focus on the minutia and ignore the subject of the post?
For O'Reilly to say a combat decorated 37 year Marine veteran, "doesn't have the stones to come on this program and back up what he says" is laughable.
Posted by: Robrob at June 1, 2006 12:10 AM
at's funny. On my tv an interview with Gen Batista followed the Talking Points memo. Is there some reason you chose not to report on his segment?
Posted by: truthteller at May 31, 2006 11:44 PM
___________________________________________________
Truthteller,
Sorry to disappoint you but there is nothing sinister about the ommission.My dog went after a deer and was headed into the street, While I retrieved him, my husband changed the channel.
Posted by: deborah at June 1, 2006 12:11 AM
This may be slightly off subject but the Crooks And Liars website has a great example of Fox News incompetence: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/31.html#a8514
Go check it out, have a laugh, and leave a comment.
Posted by: Eric at June 1, 2006 12:15 AM
Question: Why can't Mr Murtha, in all his conviction and media obsession appear on the Oreilly Factor?
Is he shy? nervous? Did his tough no-nonsense ex-marine machismo suddenly wilt away?
I know why. Because BOR will not permit the dodge-the-question-attack-Bush tactic he has successfully used against lousy journalists like Anderson Cooper and Paula Zahn. Only in the Oreilly factor will Murtha be forced to respond to the Washington Post article written by a previously accused marine who was vindicated by autopsy evidence. Do the marines deserve due process? Can they have their day in court? Should they be given the benefit of the doubt?
This isn't attacking Murtha the messenger, like he claimed in his infamous interview with Anderson Cooper, This is requesting fairness from a US congressman on behalf of our marines.
Only in the Oreilly Factor will he face questions people in the Washington Post and Nytimes or CBs or CNN will never ask.
Did anyone see the interview with Gen Batiste - the anti-Rumsfeld crusader? He got grilled and looked like blackened catfish as Oreilly tortured him with common sense questions, a job the MSM failed to do. If a NYorker commits a crime, does that make Pataki a bad leader?
That the alleged Haditha massacre has wounded most Americans psychologically is unquestionable. Our rage is no less than Mr Murtha's, but it is not a US congressman's job to fan the fire of hate against these few, yet-uncharged marines. Can Murtha leave the sensationalism and smear campaign to the insurgents and Al Jazeera?
Posted by: Jelly at June 1, 2006 12:27 AM
Huh, something must had gotten the troll upset.
I've seen this sort of list before and it still cracks me up that there are idiots out there who really believe ours or any other Government has the time, computing power or inclination to search out all internet postings containing "rare" words like; joe, solo, virus, condor, sport, etc...
Posted by: Robrob at June 1, 2006 12:29 AM
Jelly...STFU
Thousand have died because people like you would not speak up and against tragedies like the Haditha massacre.
Posted by: theroachman at June 1, 2006 12:48 AM
Sorry to disappoint you but there is nothing sinister about the ommission.My dog went after a deer and was headed into the street, While I retrieved him, my husband changed the channel.
Posted by: deborah at June 1, 2006 12:11 AM
=================
Another case of the left-wing animal kingdom conspiring against O'Reilly.
Posted by: The Other Dan at June 1, 2006 12:48 AM
Jelly,
Murtha said it before (and was whacked by the right wing)... he's just saying it again... The Bush Administration is destroying the military and he wants them pulled out immediately. You don't have to agree with his assessment, but clearly his agenda is to help the poor forgotten soldiers who are out there losing their lives and their minds.
GWB can resign and then nobody will blame him for playing guitar and doing photo-ops while poor Americans die (a-la-katrina)
Posted by: Just Sayin' at June 1, 2006 12:49 AM
Jelly, dear,
People don't go on FOX or on O'Reilly because they don't respect them and don't care to waste their time. The Factor is a circus, for clowns, by clowns.
Posted by: chrish at June 1, 2006 12:56 AM
And to answer your question... Why give a partisan liar like O'reilly the ratings boost he so desperately craves? Obviously, a man like Murtha has much more important things to do with his time.
Posted by: Just Sayin' at June 1, 2006 12:58 AM
~~~~~~~~
Why can't Mr Murtha, in all his conviction and media obsession appear on the Oreilly Factor?
~~~~~~~~~~~
That's like asking why Wladimir Klitschko (the IBF/O heavy weight champ) doesn't appear on WWE. O'Leilly is a joke.
Posted by: Dr. Matt at June 1, 2006 01:01 AM
Did anyone see the interview with Gen Batiste -
the anti-Rumsfeld crusader? He got grilled and looked like blackened catfish as Oreilly tortured him with common sense questions:
By Jelly Belly
I seen it, and didn't see any "blackened catfish"???
Batiste (a life long military man)made his points and O'dumbass spewed WH talking points and defended everything Bush, like he always does.
Fox Drones see what you want, here what they want, and disregard the rest.
What a bunch of losers the 31% are...
Posted by: Dolpfan at June 1, 2006 01:28 AM
Jelly, O'Reilly was indignant and bitching yesterday that Murtha wouldn't come on his show, as he does all the time when a guest turns him down.
This is my question: Why does O'Reilly feel that people are obligated to answer to him when he so often refuses to answer to others? O.K., he's an egomaniac, but shouldn't he at least set an example?
When he shot his mouth off about inviting al Queda to bomb San Francisco, neither he nor Fox responded to the San Francisco Chronicle.
O'Reilly called the Chronicle a radical-left newspaper. Well, some people might think O'Reilly and Fox are a radical-right network. And sure enough, he misrepresented Murtha's remarks yesterday, claiming Murtha was smearing every soldier in the military.
Every time I've seen Murtha, he's been pretty clear that he thinks the troops are being put in an untenable situation and he blames the leadership for that.
Posted by: The Other Dan at June 1, 2006 01:30 AM
Precisely my point. I wouldn't give nonsense hosts like O'Liely the time of day. Why boost his ratings? O'Leily's going down like a rock in water, and he's a broken record. He and Vanity are from the same mold, but just with different asses for heads. They blow the lines out, and there is nothing behind it. Difference being O'Liely taunts and insults to get his guest to appear.
Three cheers for anyone who refuses being on his circus. It's not journalism, it's pure and simple propaganda. That may explain why he has so many right winger-zingers on his circus. They love the light he gives them, and he makes them look like they are worth something. It serves NO PURPOSE whatsoever to go on his show if you don't agree with his rude, warped logic. You only pay HIM homage, and who the hell wants to do that? You see Murtha on enough other networks...does that tell you anything?
Maybe O'Leily and Vanity should start appearing on other networks to try to boost their sinking ratings?? Problem is, they might have to show what's behind their taunts, accusations, BS and sniping.
Posted by: ITryToBe at June 1, 2006 01:37 AM
O'Lielly's radio show got dumped from the AM shock jock lineup on KXNT here in Vegas. Replaced by a local rightwinger. LOL
Now, if only DrugLimbaugh, and Seannie Boy Vanity would only follow suit. I am praying for the day..............
Dnurse
Posted by: Dnurse,Pbd at June 1, 2006 01:55 AM
O'reilly is just another faggot-ass wimpy civilian who feels like he can criticize military people who have actually served. Fuck him. You can tell by looking at his fat fucking neck that he doesn't even exercise.
Posted by: matt at June 1, 2006 02:50 AM
Maybe O'Leily and Vanity should start appearing on other networks to try to boost their sinking ratings?? Problem is, they might have to show what's behind their taunts, accusations, BS and sniping.
Posted by: ITryToBe at June 1, 2006 01:37 AM
From Drudge:
CABLE NEWS RACE
MON., MAY 22, 2006
VIEWERS
FNC O’REILLY 2,105,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,666,000
FNC GRETA 1,494,000
FNC HUME 1,341,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,215,000
CNN KING 885,000
CNN DOBBS 702,000
CNN BLITZER 592,000
CNN COOPER 590,000
CNN ZAHN 527,000
CNNHN GRACE 487,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 471,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 406,000
Take that you CONTEMPTUOUS PRICK!
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 03:10 AM
Jelly,
There's a very simple reason Murtha will not appear on O'Reilly. If his office is even halfway competant they will have noticed how Fox News and its commentators have utilized propaganda techniques to literally excise controversial statements from his interviews and speeches. They have categorically ignored the overall message as well as literally 90+% of the words he has used. He's not a fool. He knows when the game is rigged. Nothing he could say would change their interpretation so there is no point in aiding them by sanctioning them.
That being said, I feel Murtha's office should be releasing statements to this effect every time major outlets choose to mangle his intended message. It is no longer business as usual when it comes to media spin. Without someone pushing back against these people it will only be a matter of time before the assassinations begin.
To those who would say President Bush has received the same treatment, you've already lost the argument before it begins. The Fourth Estate exists to oversee the government, not act as its apologist. It is a private watchdog which must expose facts and question authority so that imperfect leaders are led to more perfect decisions. The premise that Fox News and self-identified conservative radio hosts are simply here to give a voice to the White House is a fallacy. The voice of the White House is the President, and his staff. When that line begins to blur and dissent is seen as a matter of conspiracy, insanity and personal gain we have failed as a nation and as people.
This goes for liberals as well as conservatives, the shrillest of each 'side'. It just so happens the right has more than the left, and more in high places.
This will take generations to fix
Posted by: wait a minute at June 1, 2006 03:59 AM
BOR in 2003:
"Here's, here's the bottom line on this for every American and everybody in the world, nobody knows for sure, all right? We don't know what he has. We think he has 8,500 liters of anthrax. But let's see. But there's a doubt on both sides. And I said on my program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right? But I'm giving my government the benefit of the doubt. . . ."
Posted by: Josh Grant at June 1, 2006 04:30 AM
The notion that FNC is pro-American and the Nytimes is anti-American isn't some far fetched myth. It is true.
Take the issue of Iran. Anybody with an American heart, anyone who claims to be anti-war, anyone looking for a diplomatic solution and wants peace should have welcomed this bold move by condi rice to talk with the hitler-esque madman of Iran.
Read today's NYtimes. A novice might think their audience are the mullahs of Tehran. The Washington Post runs a story that almost praises Iran for using their nuclear threats to make Bush squirm. The BBC invited an anti-American reprobate to claim Bush gave in because of his falling poll numbers. This shameless former Powell chief of staff insinuated the onus for peace wsn't on Iran, but on the Bush admnistration and he knew he could go unchallenged by the anti-American BBC where his lies would fall on fertile soil.
Only Fox News has singled out the real devils of this debate - the Chinese and Russians. Not the Nytimes, not the Wpost, all of them seem to be shielding the chinese from their truly evil role in sudan, the Congo, Iran and Cuba. These were the same dishonest newspapers that published editorials pushing for the US to talk with this Axis of evil country. Now they got their wish, the Nytimes is asking if Bush deliberately pushed this policy hoping it would fail? This, from what should be America's premier newspaper?
Lets be honest: Many in Washington and the media do not want a diplomatic resolution that might look like a Bush victory - even if it is, in reality an AMERICAN victory, and a victory that might spare the kind of bloodshed we are seeing in Iraq.
Many profess their desire for diplomacy, but the truth is that they are enjoying this charade. You see them appearing in foreign TV trying to make this about the US, not about an Iranian regime that has denied the holocaust and has vowed to eliminate an entire country.
The Nytimes might not be so dangerous if they weren't so cherished in the arab and muslim world who foolishly mistake their fiction for facts.
Fox news may have their flaws, but they are clearly on our side - America's side, the Ntimes is not.
Posted by: Jelly at June 1, 2006 04:36 AM
BOR more recently:
O'REILLY: "Well, first of all, I have no feelings, as everyone watching the Factor knows. I mean, just totally numb. I am a sociopath."
Posted by: Josh Grant at June 1, 2006 04:36 AM
If a NYorker commits a crime, does that make Pataki a bad leader? -Jelly
No.
But if someone in Pataki's office, especially on the insides of his administration commits a crime, Pataki is a bad leader.
Also, if Pataki were to have an inhumane drug policy, like "Shoot to Kill" and some cops went to shoot a 50 year old homeless man and a few kids smoking a joint in a car, I'd call Pataki a bad leader.
- Dickie
Posted by: Dickie Simpkins at June 1, 2006 05:17 AM
I haven't been able to quite determine whether Jelly is a) a die-hard troll, b) a spoof, or c) just totally disinvolved with reality but anyway.
Fox News barely qualifies as a news outfit in that they occasionally just report events (but only if their is no real political spin that can be placed on the story). Fox News is, by and large, the antithesis of what a true news organization should be. Their coverage of events would barely even qualify as superficial and they have a nasty habit of highlighting the most prurient aspects of a story (Serial Killer in Florida? Let's show Jiggly Beach boobs). Whereas most reputable reporters try to keep their personal biases out of a story as much as possible (not always an easy task) and try to report the facts of a story, Fox News reporters revel in their biases. Fox News reports seem to start with a headline and a conclusion, then the story is conconcted from a "witch's brew" of spin and heavily filtered facts. If a fact would somehow negate the predetermined conclusion, it is unceremoniously chucked out with the garbage, or it gets mercilessly spun into agreement.
Basically Fox News is nothing but a 24-hour opinion channel. It's anchors are singularly ill-informed if not simply uninformed. They play, not to reason and intellect, but the very basest fears and emotions of their target audience. They are the Morton Downey, Jr. Show of 24 Hour News Channels. When they do have opposing viewpoints (which has been getting increasingly rare of late) it is only to provide the anchors with some target for abuse and bullying (BOR v Glick), because their arguments are seldom capable of withstanding the light of day, much less a reasoned debate. Why do you think O'Reilly refuses to face any opponents except on his show, where he can not only cut off their mics on air but can also go back and have the resordings re-edited to show him in the best possible light?
Posted by: Robert Serrano at June 1, 2006 05:50 AM
JELLY why is it that O'Reilly will not debate AL FRANKIN?
Posted by: JOHN T at June 1, 2006 07:35 AM
"Fox news may have their flaws, but they are clearly on our side - America's side"
Jelly,
no one at fox would piss on you if you were on fire.
No one at fox gives a shit about you, your friends, or your family. wake up for fucks sake.
Posted by: Office Ed at June 1, 2006 07:36 AM
o'lielly or handjobbity vs MURTHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
THAT IS HILARIOUS
MURTHA is a MAN
with a PLAN
you will NEVER see him interview by little chickenhawk bullshit TWERPS like those two ridiculous smear mongers.....
for good reason
they could not get away with their HALF TRUTH, SMEARS AND MISINFORMATION with a REAL WAR VET LIKE JOHN MURTHA
it is to laugh out loud just thinking about it...
I'd pay to see MURTHA as Handjob or Olielly would yell and try to cut him off....their typical tactics with the pseudo dem worms they keep around...like the milquetoast Colmes, eh?
Anyone see FRANKEN kick billy's as at that book fair?
HILARIOUS, look it up on CSPAN
Posted by: woke dude at June 1, 2006 08:29 AM
CABLE NEWS RACE
MON., MAY 22, 2006
VIEWERS
FNC O’REILLY 2,105,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,666,000
Take that you CONTEMPTUOUS PRICK!
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 03:10 AM
uh, current population of the good ol usa= 297, 734, 137
so, by my calculations, your fellow morons watching faux govt bullshit talking point network is barely 10% of the population here in the usa....ie...even less than the supposed 31% still with their heads up kkkarl's butt cheeks....
what's it smell like up there?
btw, O'lielly ALWAYS claims he has 6 million viewers but never gets that rating or even close....
why do you think they call him OLIELLY, eh?
Posted by: woke dude at June 1, 2006 09:04 AM
Robert Serrano said it well. FOX, with its very misleading fair and balanced moniker, is fooling its viewers. The news of the day becomes heavily biased opinion pieces with outrageous remarks/titillating video thrown in to keep it "interesting". Between the ridiculously leading chyrons and the voice intonations of the "reporters" and hosts, it's immediately obvious where they are taking each news item - whether it's actually the truth or not.
Unfortunately, much of the time, facts only seem to get in the way for this network. I can't tell you the number of times that I'm shaking my head in disbelief when FOX "news" pundits choose to leave pertinent facts out of their coverage because it may make a lib look good or a conservative look bad. And I'm not talking about obscure, bizarre info here - I'm talking about easily proven facts that other news outlets are mentioning in their coverage.
And to John T's question about BOR debating Franken - I'd love to see that. Just like I'd love to see Media Matters' Brock debate BOR. These will never happen though because BOR is too much of a coward to let Brock and Franken use his [BOR's] own words and actual facts against him.
Posted by: dd at June 1, 2006 09:05 AM
"He doesn't have the stones to come on this program and back up what he says."
Hey Billy Boy (and I do mean boy) why don't you met him on neutral ground like the Larry King show where you can't control the mike. Come on Mr. Bill show us what kind of stones you have or should I say pebbles in your case. What a punk.
Posted by: Switchblade at June 1, 2006 09:13 AM
BLO claims that he "invited" Murtha on the show but that might be just another lie. He said the same thing about Paul Krugman not having the "stones" to come on but Krugman stated that BLO never invited him - despite Krugman's numerous letters and e-mails requesting to come on the show. And who could forget this interchange between BLO and a radio caller:
"I've been in combat. I've seen it. I've been close to it. And if I'm... my unit is in danger, and I've got a captured guy, and the guy knows where the enemy is, and I'm looking him in the eye, the guy better tell me. That's all I'm gonna tell you. He better tell me. If it's life or death, he's going first."
O'Reilly: We've got a caller. Roger. Roger from Portland, Oregon. What say you Roger?
Roger: Yeah, hey, Bill. First things first. You just said you've been in combat, but you've never been in the military, have you?
O'Reilly: No I have not.
Roger: Then why do you say you've been in combat?
O'Reilly: Why do I say that, Roger? Because I was in the middle of a couple of firefights in South and Central America.
Roger: But you were a media guy.
O'Reilly: Yeah. A media guy with a pen, not a gun. And people were shooting at me, Roger.
Roger: People might think that you actually were in the military.
O'Reilly: Oh... We don't want to mislead anybody. But I made it quite clear... quite clear in many, many circumstances --
Roger: [mumbles something about being, or not being, "fair and balanced"]
O'Reilly: [quietly disconnects Roger] Yeah. Hey listen, Roger. You can take your little "fair and balanced" uh... snip remark and shove it, okay? You're not getting on this air. Um... You, mister macho man, have never come close to anything I've done, down where I've been. So take a walk and... uh... 'nuff said."
From About: Political Humor
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 09:26 AM
"The notion that FNC is pro-American and the Nytimes is anti-American isn't some far fetched myth. It is true."
It's true only to those misguided people who come to a decision, then look for facts to support that position. It's true only to those who don't have two brain cells to rub together, and don't know how to read critically.
"the Nytimes is asking if Bush deliberately pushed this policy hoping it would fail? "
A perfect example - that is NOT what the Times article said, which is clear to anyone with the ability to actually read and understand what they read. The Times was repeating what others had said, it was NOT their position. And they were not saying that anyone simply hoped the policy would fail, but rather that it's failure could show just how stubborn and unwilling to negotiate Iran's leaders were. Big, big, big difference, but I guess that was lost on poor Jelly. Jelly should stick to the New York Post. It is written at a 6th grade level, so he'd be more likely to understand it.
Posted by: Stosh at June 1, 2006 09:50 AM
The Marines shot a three-year-old girl through the head in cold blood. Anyone who defends or diminishes that war crime is a Nazi, and I mean that literally.
Posted by: DanH at June 1, 2006 09:53 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The notion that FNC is pro-American and the Nytimes is anti-American isn't some far fetched myth. It is true.
~~~~~~~~~~
ROFL!!!!!! Drink some more kool-aide, moron. Why do you radical extremists believe your opinions are "facts"?
Posted by: Dr. Matt at June 1, 2006 10:00 AM
~~~~~~~~~~
The Nytimes might not be so dangerous if they weren't so cherished in the arab and muslim world who foolishly mistake their fiction for facts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prove it, nitwit.
Posted by: Dr. Matt at June 1, 2006 10:01 AM
~~~~~~~~
This shameless former Powell chief of staff i
~~~~~~~~
Why do you hate US vets?
Posted by: Dr. Matt at June 1, 2006 10:03 AM
He doesn't have the stones to come on this program and back up what he says."
=================================================
I'm sure Congressman Murtha would equate appearing on Falafel Man's Variety Hour with an appearance on Howdy Doody . .
Posted by: Liz PbD at June 1, 2006 10:08 AM
~~~~~~~~~
That the alleged Haditha massacre has wounded most Americans psychologically is unquestionable.
~~~~~~~~
LOL!!! Oh reeeeeally?! How has it "wounded" you? Don'y your dare speak for Americans, you useles POS.
**Matter of fact, to all that read this: how has it "wounded" you?! Let us know how your "wounds" are doing!
Posted by: Dr. Matt at June 1, 2006 10:12 AM
June 01, 2006
The Haditha Story
By Jed Babbin
No matter how quickly military investigators work, and no matter how firmly any crimes are punished, the anti-war left won't be satisfied unless Haditha becomes the lever that pushes President Bush to admit the war was wrong and set a time to withdraw from Iraq. My Lai - the March 16, 1968 massacre of about 500 Vietnamese by US soldiers - was first covered up and then exploded in headlines, courts-martial and congressional hearings. (Maureen Dowd, one of the New York Times's hyperliberal columnists, has already labeled Haditha a "My Lai acid flashback.") Screamed about by protesters, shown endlessly on television news, My Lai and the court-martial of one of the perpetrators, Lt. William Calley, provided the final political nail in the coffin of American involvement in Vietnam. We withdrew from Vietnam in 1975, abandoning our allies and hanging our heads in shame. This is the political result the left wants from Haditha, and we cannot allow it to happen for one very big reason. The Vietnam War ended in Vietnam, leaving America incapable of taking action in defense of itself or its allies for decades. The end of the war against the terrorist nations won't occur in Iraq, and we must be prepared - psychologically and politically - to continue the fight. When we lost Vietnam the enemy didn't follow us home. Radical Islamists will. If they win, we will literally lose America.
If it were up to Cong. John Murtha, Duke University rape case prosecutor Mike Nifong would be transferred to the Haditha case. Fortunately for both the victim and the accused, the military justice system doesn't satisfy media hunger for the bread and circuses of civilian criminal trials. Those who may be charged with war crimes won't be arrested after dramatic chases down Los Angeles highways, nor will we be subjected to judges and lawyers preening before the television cameras during the trial. But because the military justice system moves much slower than politics, and because of the opportunity it poses for the antiwar crowd, the Haditha incident will create three lasting effects that will carry through to November and beyond.
First, the left will use every tool at their disposal to ensure that the Haditha incident becomes synonymous with the entire Iraq war. Abu Ghraib proved a propaganda bonanza for the terrorists and nations such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia that want us to withdraw from Iraq in defeat. Haditha - regardless of what the facts may turn out to be - will be used ceaselessly and purposefully to eliminate American support for the Iraq war and to demonize anyone who still supports it. Haditha will become the Orwellian centerpiece of the Democrats' claim that they support the troops. "They've been there too long," Murtha and his ilk will cry. "We have to bring them home before they kill more babies." And then the Dems, feigning concern for our soldiers, will offer them psychological counseling when they return. The political fallout will be enormous, and it will damage both the ongoing war efforts and our troops' morale
http://www.realclearpolitics.com
Another great article about the Real concerns of liberals.
Posted by: 2008 at June 1, 2006 11:14 AM
~~~~~~~~``
the anti-war left
~~~~~~~~~~
The majority of the country is anti-war. Oops. It proves that you radical extremists are so far from mainstream.
Posted by: Dr. Matt at June 1, 2006 11:23 AM
real clear, eh?
sure that's not nu clear?
heh,heh,heh
more war vet bashing by
"we support the troops as long as they die and get maimed for our profiteering owners and never speak up when they return or expect us to provide the care and benefits promised when we joined"
chickenhawk lil w/neocons and their RABID supporters
like
0H8
Posted by: woke dude at June 1, 2006 11:36 AM
Another great article about the Real concerns of liberals.
Posted by: 2008 at June 1, 2006 11:14 AM
---------->>>
Nope, wrong again there, sport. The /real/ concern of The Normal Majority(c) is to stop the senseless waste of thousands of American and Iraqi lives, tens of thousands of maimings, billions of wasted tax dollars, and the slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians, in what Pat Buchanan describes as the "largest strategic blunder in US History" - the Bush war of neocon idiologies justified by grossly exaggurated WMD threats, which were proven to be completely false, and "intelligence fixed around policy".
*["The Normal Majority"(c), are known as "liberals" to cancervative idiots. The Normal Majority(c) constitutes the vast majority of Americans who thinks Bill O'Reilly is full of shit; Sean Hannity and other cancervative AM radio hate-jocks are assholes; Fox News is bullshit right-wing propaganda; the war in Iraq is a pointless waste of time, money, and lives; Intelligent Design is fucking stupid; Bush sucks, etc., etc., etc...]
Posted by: Biorsghost at June 1, 2006 11:36 AM
As usual, 2008 doesn't properly cite his source. The website containing the article is RealClear politics, a website containing articles by right wing authors such as the above by Jed Babbin "a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. He is a contributing editor to The American Spectator and author of Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States (with Edward Timperlake, Regnery 2006) and Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think (Regnery 2004)."
Regnery Press - featuring books by David Horowitz, Ann Coulter and other inmates of the right wing loonie bin - including the abstinence queen Maggie Gallagher who took money from the Bush administration to push her/their sick agenda on her radio show. The founder of Regnery (William Regnery) is a white supremacist who actually tried to start an all white dating service.
So 2008 what do you think of the murder of innocent civilians? Do you think this war is a good thing? Do you think that it is going well and has enhanced the image of the US. No cut & paste - just some simple answers - maybe even a full paragraph explaining YOUR take on the issue!!!
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 11:40 AM
2.08 and his radical extremist ilk think it's ok to murder civilians (since they are out of the womb they are free game) and to cover-up their murders.
Posted by: Dr. Matt at June 1, 2006 11:44 AM
Take that you CONTEMPTUOUS PRICK!
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 03:10 AM
--->>>
Oh geez, another cancervative assclown trots out Fox News ratings, as if that proves anything other than (sadly) there are a lot of idiots in this country. However, the good news is:
February 2005 to February 2006 25-54 year old Prime Time demographic percentage change:
7:00 PM
Fox Rpt Smith: -6%
8:00 PM
FXNC
O'Reilly Factor: -21%
9:00 PM
FXNC
Hannity & Colmes: - 17%
FXNC
On the Record: - 22%
Hmmmm... pretty big dips in the "money" demographic in prime time, huh?
Source:
www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/feb06vs05.pdf
Posted by: Biorsghost at June 1, 2006 12:03 PM
The occupation of Iraq was always a bad thing, Haditha is unlikely to be an isolated incident. It still doesn't compare to Fallujah, when a large city was surrounded and then they killed anyone still inside.
Posted by: Alex Thorpe at June 1, 2006 12:06 PM
"we support the troops as long as they die and get maimed for our profiteering owners and never speak up when they return or expect us to provide the care and benefits promised when we joined"
=================================================
Woke Dude's comment says it all in one sentence!!
Posted by: Liz PbD at June 1, 2006 12:06 PM
I don't know when the insurgents have time to fight. According to Jelly they sit around and read the NY Time and the WASH. Post.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 12:06 PM
"The Haditha Story"
You know, I don't doubt that there is a fringe, small group of people who fit the description in that piece. But the idea that all of "the left" (and, by not-too-subtle implication, "Democrats") supports such wild-eyed fantasies is, of course, ridiculous.
The article shows me a lot of paranoia, conclusion-jumping, and diversion. No facts are given, just a whole lot of supposition. Dire, scary supposition, the kind some people will soak up without any critical thought. But baseless, nonetheless.
The piece also shows a complete lack of understanding of the end of the Vietnam war. Or, more accurately, a description of Vietnam that is skewed to "prove" a very dubious point. "Dubious"? Nah, that's giving it too much credit. It is a partisan viewpoint, totally lacking in objective reasoning or factual basis.
Bottom line - it's just more RealClearProgaganda.
Posted by: Stosh at June 1, 2006 01:03 PM
I don't know why every conservative talks about winning in Iraq. What are we trying to win? I thought we brought down the government, took over the rule of that country a brief period of time. Set up elections for a democratic government. Is that not winning a war. I will tell you what you conservatives mean by we must win the war in Iraq.
GW messed up in going to Iraq. His though his balls got very big when he saw some success in Afganistan, he decided I am going to get bigger balls & go to Iraq. So he uses Fox's tactics in disregarding the facts that make his reason for war look bad & uses only the facts that look good. Congress in their support & respect for a President's right to declare war give him their support.
He goes there does all the cool military stuff with far superior weapons to the Iraqis, topples the government & then goes wait a minute what do we do now (my balls have overgrown my 1 functioning brain cell). He then turns the military into a police force (his next blunder with this, lets send the national guard to the border). Now they find they have created more terrorists by doing this.
This then becomes the conclusion. We have to win the war against the terrorists. Murtha feels we can do nothing good by staying the course in Iraq. I agree with him.
Posted by: fox is funny at June 1, 2006 01:14 PM
It's amusing that 2008, Jelly and others just don't simply seem to understand what Haditha actually means for us in Iraq. Do you think lambasting public figures who talk about it is 'winning hearts and minds'? Do you really think that it's our talking about it that's damaging our image?
Sorry, but whatever the circumstances of how it happened the fact remains that Americans shot and killed little children. If our reaction is to blame the victim and the messenger, what the hell does that say about us?
Posted by: wait a minute at June 1, 2006 01:18 PM
Iraqi PM says Haditha killings a terrible crime
Reuters, June 1, 2006
...Many Iraqis believe unjustified killings by U.S. troops are common, but few have been confirmed by investigations.
"The crime and misery of Haditha ... is a terrible crime where women and children were eliminated,"
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a news conference after a cabinet meeting on Thursday.
He told Reuters this week he wanted investigations into Haditha and other cases. In an interview on Tuesday he said his PATIENCE WAS WEARING THIN WITH EXCUSES THAT THE U.S. TROOPS KILL CIVILIANS "BY MISTAKE"...
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID;=2006-06-01T171047Z_01_GEO128985_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ.xml
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 01:22 PM
U.S. Conducts Three More Probes Into Military in Iraq
June 1 (Bloomberg, June 1, 2006
The U.S. military, facing allegations that Marines killed civilians in November in western Iraq, is conducting at least three more probes into the conduct of its forces in Iraq, spokesman MAJOR-GENERAL WILLIAM CALDWELL said...
"There are THREE OR FOUR AT LEAST at this time," Caldwell told reporters in Baghdad in response to a question about how many other such incidents were under investigation. Caldwell didn't have any details of those probes, and didn't know their status, beyond that they're in "THE FIRST STAGES," he told a news conference carried live on the Pentagon Web site...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid;=aykYOCbMM9OQ&refer;=top_world_news
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 01:27 PM
Hmmmm... pretty big dips in the "money" demographic in prime time, huh?
Source:
www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/feb06vs05.pdf
Posted by: Biorsghost at June 1, 2006 12:03 PM
Your liberal rags are also losing in circulation.
By JULIA ANGWIN and JOSEPH T. HALLINAN
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 2, 2006
Circulation at Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times is likely to be off in excess of 6% of its most recently reported figures. Belo Corp.'s Dallas Morning News expects to report daily circulation down 9% and Sunday circulation down 13% from the year-earlier period. All projected figures are for the six months ended in March.
Take that you CONTEMTPUOUS PRICK!
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 01:29 PM
And 33% of the country (includes 2% African Americans) support Bush. What a mandate!
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 01:30 PM
For all those that keep talking about the "Liberal" media, please show me one that uses terms such as
Radical Right Wing
Far Right Wing
Far Radical Right Wing Looneys
Just replace Right with Left and you have Fox Fake News.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 01:38 PM
If O Reilly was as influantial as the trolls like to say he is, then why is it 3 out of 4 Americans think Bush sucks?
Posted by: 7 at June 1, 2006 01:39 PM
The right wing also loves to describe the left as "haters" - this from a group of people who accept the homical rants of Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and Pat Robertson.
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 01:41 PM
If OReilly was as popular as the trolls like to say he is, why could he not find 600 people to shell out $1500 to listen to him speak on that "Conservative Cruise?"
http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/archive/060605.html
Posted by: 7 at June 1, 2006 01:42 PM
CONTEMTPUOUS
Hey shoot, I'd suggest learning how to spell that before you keep using it.
www.dictionary.com
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 01:42 PM
The truth or an excuse to let superiors off the hook?
Newspaper Reports Officers Lied About Alleged Massacre
KWTX-TV 10 (Waco), June 1, 2006
...To make things worse, The Washington Post reports a U.S. military investigation will conclude that some officers GAVE FALSE TESTIMONY to their superiors. The superiors then FAILED TO SCRUTINISE the reports adequately....
http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/2912221.html
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 01:43 PM
And 33% of the country (includes 2% African Americans) support Bush. What a mandate!
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 01:30 PM
Who are you brave leaders on the left? Any quality potential Pres. candidates? I'm open minded. Show me what you've got. Their plan thus far is to do nothing and let Republicans/Bush implode. We are a country w/o leaders on either side. The House showing kahunas on Immigration bill. That is about it.
Posted by: s at June 1, 2006 01:45 PM
CONTEMTPUOUS
Hey shoot, I'd suggest learning how to spell that before you keep using it.
www.dictionary.com
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 01:42 PM
That was a typo. For pointing it out, you are a CONTEMPTUOUS PRICK!
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 01:49 PM
"Any quality potential Pres. candidates?"
I'd take anyone that got listed in the last Democratic Primary. And add Feingold.
Posted by: Alex Thorpe at June 1, 2006 01:51 PM
i love these posts. here we get to see the full range of what i like to call the "cowardice of conservitism". interesting. thanks news hounds!
Posted by: joecantwell at June 1, 2006 01:53 PM
i love these posts. here we get to see the full range of what i like to call the "cowardice of conservitism". interesting. thanks news hounds!
Posted by: joecantwell at June 1, 2006 01:53 PM
Explain yourself. Brave man behind the security/anonymity of the keyboard.
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 01:56 PM
Iraq to Investigate Civilians' Deaths
AP, June 1, 2006
...At a news conference, al-Maliki also said he had ordered his government to hold talks with the U.S. military over civilian complaints of mistreatment and to "formulate ground rules for detentions and raids."
"WE CANNOT FORGIVE VIOLATIONS OF THE DIGNITY OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE," the prime minister said.
When asked about Haditha, al-Maliki said "The Cabinet ... denounces these practices and will form an investigative committee."
"This is a PHENOMENOM THAT HAS BECOME COMMON among many of the multinational forces. No respect for citizens, driving over vehicles and killing on suspicion or a hunch," he said. "It's unacceptable."
The investigation into Haditha will be carried out by a special committee on justice and human rights, an al-Maliki adviser, Adnan al-Kazimi, told The Associated Press...
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/06/01/ap2787506.html
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 01:58 PM
That was a typo. For pointing it out, you are a CONTEMPTUOUS PRICK!
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 01:49 PM
_________________________________________________
Does that mean we're not friends anymore?
AAWWWWW!! SHUCKS.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 01:59 PM
~~~~~
Brave man behind the security/anonymity of the keyboard.
Posted by: shoot the wounded
~~~~~~~~
Yeah, I see what you mean, this coming from a brave "man" who goes by "shoot the wounded" and calls other "pricks" behind the security/anonymity of the keyboard.
Posted by: Dr. Matt at June 1, 2006 02:02 PM
OMG, Matt, you beat me to that one . .
Posted by: Liz PbD at June 1, 2006 02:05 PM
Great minds think alike, Liz. :)
Posted by: Dr. Matt at June 1, 2006 02:06 PM
Eh, he was begging for that one. I almost pointed that out, too.
Posted by: Alex Thorpe at June 1, 2006 02:08 PM
That was a typo. For pointing it out, you are a CONTEMPTUOUS PRICK!
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 01:49 PM
************************************************
I think that is the battle cry of 101st Fighting Keyboarders. ;o}
Posted by: Michelle at June 1, 2006 02:10 PM
CONTEMTPUOUS
Hey shoot, I'd suggest learning how to spell that before you keep using it.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 01:42 PM
LOL!!!!
This from the King of Dullards who lacks the ability to even spell his own name correctly
Hey john when are you going to switch over to FrankC today?
Remember this little gem from yesterday john / Frank?
Since my internets been out all afternoon
Posted by: john t at May 31, 2006 07:05 PM
Posted by: 2008 at June 1, 2006 02:11 PM
I'm otta here. Going to catch the last hour of Rush, then three hours of Hannity and three hours of FOX, and two hours of BOR radio show. Just another day at the office. What is this outfit called Media Matters? May have to check them out sometime. Good to be open-minded. I also watch Tucker Carlson on MSNBC just to keep it real.
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 02:18 PM
I'm still waiting for you to submit a well reasoned opinion of your own, 2008. Surely you're capable and not afraid to voice your own opinion, are you?
What scares you about making a contribution of your own?
You can either post a piece of your own or explain why you can't, otherwise it would be more appropriate to just change your alias to "Coward". It would at least be honest.
Posted by: Canadian Paul at June 1, 2006 02:19 PM
I'm still waiting for you to submit a well reasoned opinion of your own, 2008
Posted by: Canadian Paul at June 1, 2006 02:19 PM
Paul I come here to see what the Far Left is saying and to shine in a little truth from time to time.
That and I find wild rantings and liberal conspiracy theories to be entertaining.
Posted by: 2008 at June 1, 2006 02:24 PM
2008, I've yet to see you shine truth anywhere.
Posted by: Alex Thorpe at June 1, 2006 02:26 PM
I'll take that as a 'no, I'm not able to form an opinion of my own'.
Thanks, 200...I mean, Coward.
Posted by: Canadian Paul at June 1, 2006 02:28 PM
C Paul, this is how funny 2-8 thinks the mess in Iraq is.
WMDs? That stands for W’s Military Desertion?
Posted by: 2008 at February 13, 2006 04:15 AM
Hey 2008, yo uhave a nice butt man
Posted by: Eddie at February 13, 2006 04:19 AM
Thanks eddie!!!!! Want me to bend over and you can search for WMDs?!
Posted by: 2008 at February 13, 2006 04:21 AM
Only if I get to bend over for you so you can probe me first 2008.
Posted by: Eddie at February 13, 2006 04:22 AM
Mister, you got yourself a deal!!!!
Posted by: 2008
He'll say I fabricated it. But you can go down to the archives and look at Feb 13 2006
The thread is about WMDs.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 02:36 PM
2008, I've yet to see you shine truth anywhere.
Posted by: Alex Thorpe at June 1, 2006 02:26 PM
Alex I don't doubt that a bit.....
Posted by: 2008 at June 1, 2006 02:36 PM
Thanks, 200...I mean, Coward.
Posted by: Canadian Paul at June 1, 2006 02:28 PM
You are more than welcome, you did ask nicely after all
Posted by: 2008 at June 1, 2006 02:38 PM
That was a typo.
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 01:49 PM
Er...same "typo" in two different posts?
----------->>>
Your liberal rags are also losing in circulation.
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 01:29 PM
---------->>>
Perhaps, but at least they're not owned by cult leaders:
Moon Speech Raises Old Ghosts as the Times Turns 20
Washington Post/May 23, 2002
By Frank Ahrens
At Tuesday night's celebration of the Washington Times' 20th anniversary, its founder, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, gripped a podium at the Washington Hilton and delivered an impassioned, hour-long evangelical sermon in Korean saying he established the newspaper "in response to heaven's direction."
During the sermon, he set the course for the Times' next 10 years: "The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God." Later, he added: "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world."
By this point, several Times staffers had exited for the Hilton's bar, either because the party was alcohol-free or -- possibly -- because they needed a stiff drink.
Moon's sermon tossed gasoline on the long-smoldering embers that some Times staffers have spent two decades trying to extinguish: the accusation that their paper is a mouthpiece for Moon's religious movement, the Unification Church. Or, at best, a public relations outlet for conservative values and the Republican Party....
Posted by: BG at June 1, 2006 02:39 PM
CONTEMTPUOUS
Hey shoot, I'd suggest learning how to spell that before you keep using it.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 01:42 PM
LOL!!!!
This from the King of Dullards who lacks the ability to even spell his own name correctly
Hey john when are you going to switch over to FrankC today?
Remember this little gem from yesterday john / Frank?
Since my internets been out all afternoon
Posted by: john t at May 31, 2006 07:05 PM
Posted by: 2008 at June 1, 2006 02:11 PM
Here john think you missed this one
Half-Wit
Posted by: 2008 at June 1, 2006 02:39 PM
WOW 2-8, that really hurt my feelings.
In fact you paid me a compliment comparing me to Frank C.
Now if someone would compare me to you. That would truly hurt my feelings.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 02:44 PM
better half a wit than none.
lessthanzero
Posted by: lessthanzero at June 1, 2006 02:46 PM
I wonder if any of the trolls can give an honest answer as to why so many Americans dislike Bush? Why in a recent poll(http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002611668) do they, at a 2 to one ratio feel he is a worse president than Nixon? Why do 56% of them think going to war was wrong?
why do Americans hate our Freedoms?
Posted by: 7 at June 1, 2006 03:05 PM
Let's try this one more time:
So 2008 what do you think of the murder of innocent civilians? Do you think this war is a good thing? Do you think that it is going well and has enhanced the image of the US. No cut & paste - just some simple answers - maybe even a full paragraph explaining YOUR take on the issue!!!
Lots of US and Iraqi casualties (latest being particulary damning for the US)
Still think that the discussion is laughable???
Care to opine?
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 03:57 PM
If 2008 is being paid by Fox or the republican party, it would explain why he never offers his own opinion of a topic. Rather, he cuts and pastes a right wing site and appends one sentence at the end. He also cuts and pastes our comments and appends an insult or a droll, arrogant comment like "so funny." He once admitted that he reads this site for its comic value. I suspect that if he did editorialize, it might not pass muster with his pay masters (if that's the case). His only comment about the death of innocents was something like "there will be an investigation and justice will be served." Total disconnect with the real world - sad, really. He'll probably cut and paste this comment and either say he's laughing or call me a dullard, dolt, or half wit as these are the favorites from his limited lexicon of insults. But he's a proud 33% er!!!!
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 04:05 PM
lessthan....good to see you man
hope all is well...warmin' up some?
enjoy!
Posted by: woke dude at June 1, 2006 04:15 PM
"If 2008 is being paid by Fox or the republican party, it would explain why he never offers his own opinion of a topic."
I usually would discount the likelyhood of 2008 being a paid shill but Shepard Smith's recent on-air seeming concerns over what the Newshounds might think has made me reconsider.
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/06/01/ogling_womens_breasts_can_make_you_live_longer_only_on_studio_b.php
Posted by: Robrob at June 1, 2006 05:10 PM
Since my internets been out all afternoon
Posted by: john t at May 31, 2006 07:05 PM
Posted by: 2008 at June 1, 2006 02:11 PM
Here john think you missed this one
Half-Wit
Posted by: 2008 at June 1, 2006 02:39 PM
____________________________________________
So 2-8, you're accusing me of lying that my internet was out? When you accuse someone of lying then you need to have proof to back it up. Or else you just look like the ignorant fool that you are.
So where's the proof Little Man?
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 05:22 PM
behead oreilly
Posted by: greg at June 1, 2006 05:38 PM
But he's a proud 33% er!!!!
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 04:05 PM
Dick Morris appeared on BOR in the last few weeks to explain the low Bush poll numbers. They are exclusively due to high gas prices. Bush is being blamed for something that he has no control over. What is the answer? Hybrids? Drill in Anwar? Make a deal to drill off the coast of Cuba? In a capitalist society Bush can do nothing about these prices. The only answer is to start riding bicycles or walking everywhere and stop paying for gas. Maybe you want to move to an island and start your own communist price-fixing country? Until then, quit being a CONTEMPTUOUS PRICK!
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 05:40 PM
DICK MORRIS, man you've got to be kidding. The same protitute toe sucker Dick Morris? Man you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for credible sources.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 05:45 PM
Should have been "prostitute"
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 05:47 PM
shoot the wounded, this is for you
Honda, Toyota Soar as GM, Ford U.S. May Sales Fall
Bloomberg, June 1, 2006
Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. increased U.S. sales by more than 15% in May and General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. POSTED THEIR FOURTH CONSECUTIVE MONTHLY DECLINES as rising fuel prices pushed buyers toward cars.
...Toyota's gains were led by the new Camry sedan and Yaris and Scion small cars. "The pinch at the pump has made SMALL CARS part of the big picture, ALONG WITH HYBRIDS," Jim Lentz, head of the Toyota brand, said in a statement.
GM's car sales fell 16% as models such as the Chevrolet Malibu declined 40%. The automaker's truck sales were down 10%, and the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra full-size pickups both fell more than 10%. GM said it plans an 8.4% decline in third-quarter production....
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid;=ajW6NOrxcFtQ&refer;=top_world_news
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 05:49 PM
"The pinch at the pump has made SMALL CARS part of the big picture, ALONG WITH HYBRIDS," Jim Lentz, head of the Toyota brand, said in a statement.
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 05:49 PM
Long-term fix. Maybe Bush should have pushed alternative fuels sources more. Truth be known nobody cared when gas was $1.50/gallon. The jury is still out as to whether Americans will continue to buy more economy cars.
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 05:59 PM
GM is no longer the largest auto manufacturer -- Toyota passed them this year. It's what you might call a 40-year-overnight-success story. Doubt if you will, but GM will continue to shrink until it changes its way.
Lessons to be learned?
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 06:05 PM
GM is no longer the largest auto manufacturer -- Toyota passed them this year. It's what you might call a 40-year-overnight-success story. Doubt if you will, but GM will continue to shrink until it changes its way.
Lessons to be learned?
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 06:05 PM
I agree w/you. Are you sure this is not a trend? Weren't H2 HUMMERS selling well three years ago? America has short-term memory when it comes to energy. Hopefully that is changing.
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 06:08 PM
Three years ago, China, India, and the rest of the developing world were not consuming the amount of oil they are today -- and that will only increase. Gas will only continue to rise in the years to come.
Meanwhile, guess which country is building hybrid and electric car manufacturing plants? Here's a hint, the next car you might buy may have a little red book in the glove compartment...
Why compete when GM can wait for its luck to change?
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 06:22 PM
Why compete when GM can wait for its luck to change?
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 06:22 PM
I say do it all: ethanol, Hybrids, more drilling, conservation, lastly (most unlikely) better relations w/Venezuala/Iran/Saudi/OPEC.
Easy to say/hard to do any/all of these.
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 06:30 PM
Hybrid-Electric Vehicle (HEV) is an Ideal Choice for Chinese Auto Manufacturers
Research and Markets, May 19, 2006
...As a new rising energy saving and environment-friendly vehicle, HEV is an ideal choice for Chinese auto manufacturers, because the technology and the market of HEV are still increasing quickly. There is small gap between Chinese auto companies and their foreign counterparts. So, it provides a good opportunity for Chinese manufacturers to master the world-class auto technologies. Now, Chinese auto companies are facing great challenges, especially the shortage of R&D; funds, but if the HEV finally become the main vehicles, those who have the advanced technologies of HEV such as Toyota, WILL GET GREAT ADVANTAGES IN THE INTERNATIONAL AUTO MARKET.
The worst thing is if none of Chinese auto manufacturers mastered the self-developing technology, because they would probably all have to buy Toyota's HEV technology. Then, China's HEV market would be monopolized by Toyota. For Chinese government and those who want to master the self-developing technology, this is a "nightmare". So, MASTERING THE SELF-DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGY OF HEV IS THE ONLY WAY to prevent Chinese HEV market to be monopolized by some other foreign auto companies, such as Toyota.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/05/19/007415.html
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 06:32 PM
better relations w/Venezuala/Iran/Saudi/OPEC.
Easy to say/hard to do any/all of these.
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 06:30 PM
_____________________________________________
Yeah, especially when Iran has offered to have direct talks with the US but Bush has to add a bullyboy tactic to it demanding Iran give up nuclear development before talks can take place.
I don't think Bush wants to try and settle this through talks. He's set on going to war.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 06:45 PM
Oil is at the root of some of our largest problems: international relations, energy supply, global warming. The long-term solution is to leave oil behind, which is exactly what will happen during the course of the 21st Century.
But companies like Exxon-Mobil are EXTREMELY RESISTANT to change -- and they have the money, the lobbyists, and the insiders (Bush, Cheney) to delay the inevitable. The cost? New technologies will be invented and patented by other countries, not ours.
That's what the legacy will be if we continue with the status quo.
Texan sangfroid
April 27, 2006
...Rex Tillerson [CEO of Exxon-Mobil] is making a genuine -- and risky -- choice. Some rivals, such as BP, are PILING INTO RENEWABLES such as solar power. Others, including Chevron, have bought rival oil firms despite the cost. Still others, such as Royal Dutch Shell, have rapidly increased their spending on exploration and development. But Mr Tillerson says that he plans to run the company without making any bets on the oil price. THAT, IN ITSELF, IS A GAMBLE: if it remains high, and he sticks to his guns, THEN EXXON WILL LOSE GROUND TO ITS COMPETITORS.
http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=6850162
But it's not just Exxon's gamble, it's also the Bush Administration's gamble too, and anyone can see it's a LOSER!
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 06:45 PM
Yeah, especially when Iran has offered to have direct talks with the US but Bush has to add a bullyboy tactic to it demanding Iran give up nuclear development before talks can take place.
I don't think Bush wants to try and settle this through talks. He's set on going to war.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 06:45 PM
Are you saying that Bush should blindly trust Iran?
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 06:56 PM
Are you saying that Bush should blindly trust Iran?
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 06:56 PM
________________________________________________
What could it hurt from opening talks?
Why does Bush have to throw in demands and act like he's the ruler of the world?
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 07:06 PM
Why does Bush have to throw in demands and act like he's the ruler of the world?
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 07:06 PM
It looks as though he is trying to go through Europe and make demands involving uranium. He does not have many choices. Doubtful he will go to war of any kind after Iraq mess. He has to posture if nothing else. Iran does not respect perceived weakness.
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 07:12 PM
But I don't think anyone will back Bush to go to war with Iran except for the few neocons that are left. Especially after the mess in Iraq.
And I don't think the American people are going to stand for bringing back the draft, which he would almost certainly have to do.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 07:19 PM
China needs oil, Iran needs protection ...
Iran respects the fact that, because of deals negotiated with Russia and China, they can disregard anything President Bush has to say.
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 07:22 PM
Iran respects the fact that, because of deals negotiated with Russia and China, they can disregard anything President Bush has to say.
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 07:22 PM
If you can believe what you read, the only hope for Iran is their under 30 educated population. They are supposedly Pro-west. Unfortunatley, they are ruled by the minority religious fanatics that also have all of the weapons.
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 07:30 PM
Bush has nuclear weapons. He threatened to use them on Iran at one time. The weapon that he doesn't want Iran to have.
That would be like me telling my neighbor that I don't want him to buy a gun and if he does then I'll shoot him with one of my guns.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 07:39 PM
Reminds me of the oppressive government in North Korea, or did I mean Pakistan ... Egypt?
Oh well, it's not like it really matters. Once we liberate them, they will shower us with flowers and we will be best friends forever!
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 07:44 PM
Seeing what the USA did to Iraq, any country with oil needs to have a nuke.
Sad to say but true, bush would not have gone into Iraq if they indead did have the WMD.
Eric
Posted by: Eric of Montreal at June 1, 2006 07:47 PM
That would be like me telling my neighbor that I don't want him to buy a gun and if he does then I'll shoot him with one of my guns.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 07:39 PM
Here is a little secret. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia. None of these countries want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Half of the battle is making everyone aware of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Iran's Leader Renews Doubt Of Holocaust
Germans Should Shed Guilt, He Tells Magazine
Reuters
Monday, May 29, 2006; Page A14
BERLIN, May 28 -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said that Germans should no longer allow themselves to be held prisoner by a sense of guilt over the Holocaust and reiterated doubts that the Holocaust ever happened.
This kind of crazy rhetoric should not be ignored. People in this region do not just make threats, they carry them out. (Suicide bombers) Deterence right now is the only answer.
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 07:48 PM
The USA invading Irac for no good reason shouldn't be ignored.
Eric
Posted by: Eric of Montreal at June 1, 2006 07:54 PM
It's amazing how you liberals are all so anti-American.
You people claim to "support the troops." You demand that we respect you and what you say (such as Murtha's comments and your support of those comments). You demand that we respect you when you say you the troops.
Then the first chance you get to dump on the military at large, you and Murtha take it, and that's exactly what's happening here in this whole episode with Haditha. Right now everything is ALLEGED.
Shut up, let the investigation happen, let justice be done. IN the meantime, just shut up.
The investigation into this matter hasn’t concluded yet, and making speculative, unfounded comments undermines the military. You folks are making dangerous assumptions and that’s not productive to anything. But you people can’t seem to help yourselves. You want the news to be what you want the news to be, damn reality, damn the truth. You’re almost excited about this incident. You’re already starting talk about how there is a cover-up going on, what did Bush know, when did he know it, how high up does all this go. Leave it to you lefties to be concerned about the death of citizens but only in certain circumstances such as making political hay.
Posted by: Sickofspin at June 1, 2006 07:55 PM
Here's aanother little secret. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia. None of these countries want the United States to be the only superpower. Half of the battle is not acting unilaterally, thus pushing those countries further away from us.
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 07:56 PM
Well, shoot,
It seems that the so called government body Bush put in place in Iraq agrees with Iran that Iran should be entitled to nuclear capabilities.
I wonder what Iraq has in mind.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 07:56 PM
Looks like there's enough evidence.
Attorney: 7 Marines, sailor face murder charges
8 to be charged in death of Iraqi civilian in April, defense lawyer says
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13090111/
Eric
Posted by: Eric of Montreal at June 1, 2006 07:57 PM
This kind of crazy rhetoric should not be ignored. People in this region do not just make threats, they carry them out. (Suicide bombers) Deterence right now is the only answer.
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 07:48 PM
Bush shares the same kind of bizarre "end time" eschatology as the president of Iran. Bush, at one time, was connected to the Rev. Hagee, out of San Antonio Texas - a "Christian Zionist" who believes that war with Iran is necessary to prepare the way for the second coming of Christ. This strange "theology" believes that the final battle of Megiddo will take place in Jerusalem after which point the Jews will accept Jesus. Thus, the adherents of this "religion" feel that war with Iran is inevitable. As pointed out in an earlier posting, they do not support the "road map" and oppose any dismantling of the settlements. Suffice to say, mainstream Jews want no part of them. An orthodox rabbi who does support them has close ties to Jack Abramoff, however. So combine Bush's messianic world view with pressure from the neo-cons to take over Iran and Syria and you do have a recipe for armegeddon. Besides, Bush will never get a congressional resolution to invade Iran.
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 07:59 PM
"Right now everything is ALLEGED."
Tell that to Marine Captain James Kimber: "It makes my blood boil to see my name lumped in with this MASSACRE, when I was in a different city not playing any role in this incident."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13087556/
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 08:00 PM
AHH!! Look sicko/mikey is telling everyone to shut up.
See mikey fought the whole VietNam war by himself. All other vets according to him are just a bunch of liers.
See mikey told a great great grandmother on here one time that her disabled VietNam war grandson was lying about his disabilities.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 08:02 PM
Looks like there's enough evidence.
Attorney: 7 Marines, sailor face murder charges
Posted by: Eric of Montreal at June 1, 2006 07:57 PM
Investigation still ongoing. America has this funny little thing called due process. Media coverage has been one sided thus far. Let process take its course. Maybe they will be found guilty. No charges as of yet.
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 08:04 PM
"Thus, the adherents of this 'religion' feel that war with Iran is inevitable. As pointed out in an earlier posting, they do not support the 'road map' and oppose any dismantling of the settlements. Suffice to say, mainstream Jews want no part of them."
BINGO!
Commentary & News Briefs
AgapePress, June 1, 2006
The head of a U.S.-based pro-Israel ministry says she is absolutely appalled at the latest act of appeasement by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Jan Markel, founder and director of Olive Tree Ministries, is disappointed at the recent White House meeting between Olmert and President George W. Bush. Olmert wants to remove isolated settlements from the West Bank, leaving that covenant land to Israel's enemies -- she contends, the Israeli head of state is "ANOTHER GODLESS LEADER, SO HE DOESN'T CARE WHAT THE BIBLE HAS TO SAY."
"Sure," Markell remarks of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, adding, "He's genuine -- genuinely interested in the total destruction of Israel, the way everybody else in the Middle East is."
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/12006h.asp
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 08:05 PM
The right wing Bushbots want us to shut up because somehow we are "hurting the troops." Well, shooting civilians in cold blood (and that is what happened - they didn't shoot their children and themselves ) and then trying to cover it up has already done the damage. But sshh, let's not talk about this because maybe it might then go away. Thankfully, Time magazine was on the job because if it were up to the Bushbots, this would have swept under the carpet and none would have been the wiser. The murder of civilians in Iraq (which extends beyond Haditha) has done irreparable damage - guilty parties need to be held accountable especially those higher ranking officers who knew and did nothing. What happened here puts every good soldier at more risk; because for every bullet fired into those innocents, there is one more jihadist signing up as we speak. Al-Maliki will be doing his own investigation on every incident involving American troops and civilians. The right wing critized Kerry for speaking out against atrocities in Vietnam; as they are now smearing anyone who dares criticize Bush's failed crusade. Killing civilians seems to contradict the principals of "freedom and democracy;" but the right wing is pro-life - what a bunch of hypocrites!
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 08:15 PM
If there are no guilty charges, even those Iraqis who support us will join the insurgency - and then we have Vietnam redux.
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 08:18 PM
Claudo,
I don't know if there's going to be that many Iraqis left in Iraq. A couple of weeks ago there was an artcle that said 1.5 million have already fled Iraq and more than 3 million have applied for visas to leave the country to get away from all the killing.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 08:27 PM
Hey woke/dude, what it is!
Sorry I missed you, I comes and goes like the wind.
Yup the ice fields are thawing and we may even see the sun once or twice before winter sets in again.
Hope you and yours are all doing super fine.
My heart is still pumping and the beat keeps on thumping.
And yes I think Diogenes did indeed live in a tub.
lessthanzero
p.s. and more or less on topic (so I don't catch heat)BOR is a dick.
Posted by: lessthanzero at June 1, 2006 08:28 PM
The right wing Bushbots want us to shut up because somehow we are "hurting the troops." Well, shooting civilians in cold blood (and that is what happened - they didn't shoot their children and themselves ) and then trying to cover it up has already done the damage.
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 08:15 PM
-----------
You and your ilk ARE hurting the troops. By your own words you've already convicted those Marines. How is that assumption in ANY way fair to the other men and women in service and in theatre? You undermine other troops with your comments. You feed anti-American zealots by perpetuating incidents. Your desire to make political hay out of an incident as opposed to just waiting for the investigation to take place before commenting is pathetic. What evidence do you have that there has been a cover-up? You don't have any. Murtha doesn't have any evidence either. If you don't know, just shut up. Let the investigation take place and justice be done.
Posted by: Sickofspin at June 1, 2006 08:35 PM
The right wing Bushbots want us to shut up because somehow we are "hurting the troops." Well, shooting civilians in cold blood (and that is what happened - they didn't shoot their children and themselves ) and then trying to cover it up has already done the damage.
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 08:15 PM
-----------
You and your ilk ARE hurting the troops. By your own words you've already convicted those Marines. How is that assumption in ANY way fair to the other men and women in service and in theatre? You undermine other troops with your comments. You feed anti-American zealots by perpetuating incidents. Your desire to make political hay out of an incident as opposed to just waiting for the investigation to take place before commenting is pathetic. What evidence do you have that there has been a cover-up? You don't have any. Murtha doesn't have any evidence either. If you don't know, just shut up. Let the investigation take place and justice be done.
Posted by: Sickofspin at June 1, 2006 08:35 PM
"Media coverage has been one sided thus far."
Let's see. The Marines first reported that these unarmed citizens died of a roadside bomb, but it was subsequently determined that they all died of bullet wounds fired at close range.
Hmmm....
How can we spin this to make FOX News viewers believe it's the insurgents/terrorists fault? I know -- a trumped up News Alert!
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 08:36 PM
This from Think Progress:
President George W. Bush has been named the worst president in the last 61 years by American voters -- with nearly twice the negative rating of Richard Nixon -- in a new poll by Quinnipiac University, RAW STORY has learned. Catch this and other breaking political news at Political Wire. More from their release:
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 08:38 PM
It's American to own up to our mistakes, take responsibility, learn from it and move forward.
But covering things up to protect a phony PR campaign? I equate that with the old Soviet Union.
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 08:39 PM
Hey sicko/mikey, maybe you're the one that ought to shut up and crawl back to your pitiful little blog.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 08:47 PM
Here it is Mikey - from the Christian Science Monitor
Officials suspect coverup of killings by Marines
Evidence found by investigators indicates Marine unit 'murdered' as many as 24 Iraqis.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
Two key lawmakers on Capitol Hill, one Democrat and one Republican, said on Sunday that they suspect that senior US military officers were involved in "covering up evidence of war crimes" by a Marine unit in Haditha, Iraq.
The Los Angeles Times reports that Sen. John W. Warner (R) of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Rep. John P. Murtha (D) of Pennsylvania said they did not yet have proof of an attempt to surpress evidence of the shootings of 24 Iraqi civilians last November. Both men added, however, that the amount of time it took to launch an investigation into the events that happened in Haditha "led them to suspect that officers up the chain of command were complicit in attempting to keep the incident under wraps." Mr. Warner and Mr. Murtha said Congress would hold hearings on the incident.
"It's been six months since this happened," Murtha, who was one of the first congressmen briefed on the incident by Marine officials, said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "It's very simple: They went out the next day, they knew there was something wrong. Two or three days later, they decided that these people were murdered ...
"It goes right up the chain of command," said Murtha, who has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the Iraq war. "Who said: 'We're not going to publicize this thing. We're not even going to investigate it'? Until March, there was no serious investigation. There was an investigation right afterward, but then it was stifled."
And Mikey, your beloved leader's failed crusade fuels anti American zealotry. And as far as "innocent until proven guilty" - we have a set of photographs taken by a marine which are very damning and the testimony of children who survived because they were protected by the dead bodies of their parents. Yesterday, an Iraqi woman about to give birth was shot at a checkpoint. Since the deaths of thousands of civilians during "shock and awe" through Fallujah (lots of collateral damage there) they have hated us. They had reason then and even more now.
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 08:50 PM
For any of you that doesn't know about sicko/mikey and his pitiful little blog. He once put a guys IP address up on the thread because he argued with mikey. So I wouldn't even think about going to his pitiful little site.
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 08:53 PM
You'll love this e-mail from Ward Churchill to Mikey:
From: Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 19:20:42 -0600
To: "Mike Thayer"
Subject: Re: You sir, have no honor
Your plea is noted, Mikey, but you are unworthy of its being granted.
The truth remains the truth, now matter how uncomfortable it may be for
you to wrap your fat head around it.
Now run along and play with the rest of the pond scum you count as
friends.
Posted by: claudo at June 1, 2006 08:56 PM
America has this funny little thing called due process. Media coverage has been one sided thus far. Let process take its course. Maybe they will be found guilty. No charges as of yet.
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 08:04 PM
shoot, do us all a favor, go to the dukey threads and enlighten your friends about due process, ok?
Posted by: woke dude at June 1, 2006 09:02 PM
shoot, do us all a favor, go to the dukey threads and enlighten your friends about due process, ok?
Posted by: woke dude at June 1, 2006 09:02 PM
You are right. Nifong made the mistake of trying that case in the press. After weeks of being outlawyered by the Defense, a lot of people are crying foul. Let due process take place in Durham also. Race aside.
Posted by: shoot the wounded at June 1, 2006 09:21 PM
I thought Due Process one of the prisoners at gitmo.
:)
lessthanzero
Posted by: lessthanzero at June 1, 2006 09:31 PM
I thought Due Process was one of the prisoners at gitmo. Was, was, was...
Geez damn fingers…
lessthanzero
Posted by: lessthancoherent at June 1, 2006 09:33 PM
This is NOT the Haditha massacre, but another under investigation...
New 'Iraq massacre' tape emerges
BBC, June 2, 2006
...The video appears to challenge the US military's account of events that TOOK PLACE IN THE TOWN OF ISHAQI IN MARCH.
...a report filed by Iraqi police accused US troops of rounding up and deliberately shooting 11 people in the house, including five children and four women, before blowing up the building.
The video tape obtained by the BBC shows a number of dead adults and children at the site with what our world affairs editor John Simpson says were clearly gunshot wounds.
The pictures came from a hardline Sunni group opposed to coalition forces. It has been cross-checked with other images taken at the time of events and is believed to be genuine, the BBC's Ian Pannell in Baghdad says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5039420.stm
Posted by: -R at June 1, 2006 09:48 PM
Yer doin a great job there rummie.
Eric
Posted by: Eric of Montreal at June 1, 2006 10:11 PM
Posted by: john t at June 1, 2006 08:53 PM
Thanks for the heads up on mikeys site and the way he operates.
Eric
Posted by: Eric of Montreal at June 1, 2006 10:16 PM
The Haditha Story
By Jed Babbin
The accelerating media feeding frenzy over the alleged killings of twenty-four Iraqi civilians in Haditha by US Marines last November is about to overwhelm American politics. Propelled by their most irresponsible war critics, the left will try use Haditha as it used My Lai thirty years ago: as a political tool to take apart America's support for the war and to shatter the legitimacy of our cause and the morale of our troops.
We don't know what happened in Haditha, an insurgent stronghold in Anbar Province. Unverified press accounts allege that members of Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, First Marines, were hit by an improvised explosive device and one of them was killed. Others, according to these reports, went on an hours-long killing spree to revenge their comrade's death, leaving about twenty-four men, women and children dead. Navy and Marine Corps investigators are at work, and other reports indicate that at least three Marine officers, including the battalion and company commanders, have been relieved of duty. It's also reported that more than one enlisted man has been detained pending charges about to be brought.
No matter how quickly military investigators work, and no matter how firmly any crimes are punished, the anti-war left won't be satisfied unless Haditha becomes the lever that pushes President Bush to admit the war was wrong and set a time to withdraw from Iraq. My Lai - the March 16, 1968 massacre of about 500 Vietnamese by US soldiers - was first covered up and then exploded in headlines, courts-martial and congressional hearings. (Maureen Dowd, one of the New York Times's hyperliberal columnists, has already labeled Haditha a "My Lai acid flashback.") Screamed about by protesters, shown endlessly on television news, My Lai and the court-martial of one of the perpetrators, Lt. William Calley, provided the final political nail in the coffin of American involvement in Vietnam. We withdrew from Vietnam in 1975, abandoning our allies and hanging our heads in shame. This is the political result the left wants from Haditha, and we cannot allow it to happen for one very big reason. The Vietnam War ended in Vietnam, leaving America incapable of taking action in defense of itself or its allies for decades. The end of the war against the terrorist nations won't occur in Iraq, and we must be prepared - psychologically and politically - to continue the fight. When we lost Vietnam the enemy didn't follow us home. Radical Islamists will. If they win, we will literally lose America.
If it were up to Cong. John Murtha, Duke University rape case prosecutor Mike Nifong would be transferred to the Haditha case. Fortunately for both the victim and the accused, the military justice system doesn't satisfy media hunger for the bread and circuses of civilian criminal trials. Those who may be charged with war crimes won't be arrested after dramatic chases down Los Angeles highways, nor will we be subjected to judges and lawyers preening before the television cameras during the trial. But because the military justice system moves much slower than politics, and because of the opportunity it poses for the antiwar crowd, the Haditha incident will create three lasting effects that will carry through to November and beyond.
First, the left will use every tool at their disposal to ensure that the Haditha incident becomes synonymous with the entire Iraq war. Abu Ghraib proved a propaganda bonanza for the terrorists and nations such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia that want us to withdraw from Iraq in defeat. Haditha - regardless of what the facts may turn out to be - will be used ceaselessly and purposefully to eliminate American support for the Iraq war and to demonize anyone who still supports it. Haditha will become the Orwellian centerpiece of the Democrats' claim that they support the troops. "They've been there too long," Murtha and his ilk will cry. "We have to bring them home before they kill more babies." And then the Dems, feigning concern for our soldiers, will offer them psychological counseling when they return. The political fallout will be enormous, and it will damage both the ongoing war efforts and our troops' morale.
On Tuesday, CNN -- eagerly anticipating the political impact -- reported that, "Some members of Congress have been told to brace for the fallout from potential charges of murder and cover-up..." The media will take up Murtha's charge that there is a cover-up because it fits neatly into their theory that President Bush lied us into that war. If Bush lied then, who wouldn't believe the Pentagon isn't lying now, and the Marines trying to cover up the massacre of innocents?
It will be easy for the left to drive this story into a frothing political rage because they will have the field to themselves. If anyone in the military chain of command (including civilian leaders such as Secretary Rumsfeld) says anything about the case that could be interpreted as prejudging it or attempting to influence the outcome, the charges could be dismissed under the military law doctrine that prohibits "command influence." So the Pentagon is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. Neither the press nor the libs in Congress would be satisfied if Rumsfeld promised summary execution of any malefactors. But if he did, and the charges were then dismissed for command influence, the same critics would be demanding his resignation for blowing the opportunity to punish anyone responsible for the alleged crimes. The fact that Rumsfeld and others won't say more will only fuel more political demands for his head - and others -- to roll.
The investigation may be completed as early as next month, but in a case such as this the decision to court-martial anyone will likely not be made for weeks or months. And in that time, all the John Murthas, the Maureen Dowds, and the Seymour Hershes of the world will be screaming in print and on the air, convicting the Marines, their leaders and every American who wants to win this war before any court-martial hears a single charge. They've already begun.
Murtha, on ABC's "This Week," said, "Who covered it up, why did they cover it up, why did they wait so long?" He's not only ready to condemn the Marines, but all their leaders. He said, "We don't know how far it goes. It goes right up the chain of command." Baloney. It's quite likely that some of the Marines involved, even their immediate superiors, tried to cover up the Haditha incident. But once the Time Magazine videotape was viewed by the staff of Lt.Gen. Peter Chiarelli - the multinational corps commander -a no-holds-barred investigation was begun. No one - among the military's senior leaders or civilian bosses - ever participated or tolerated any such cover-up. Murtha's accusations are as specious as they are cheaply political.
Second, it's no accident that Al-Jazeera was headlining Murtha's accusations more prominently than other media. The Al-J headline read, "US troops killed Iraqis in cold blood." Because of the media hype here and around the world, Haditha could become a synonym for American brutality equal to My Lai and will damage our ability to fight radical Islam around the world. And third, if as now appears likely, Marines are convicted of war crimes, Haditha could be a major blow to the morale of American troops everywhere.
We have thousands of troops in harm's way around the world. We cannot allow them to believe - as their fathers in Vietnam came to believe - that Americans regard them with the same scorn as those who may have murdered innocents in Haditha. Though he didn't say so, Marine General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, may have had Haditha on his mind when he spoke at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers on Memorial Day. Speaking from personal experience under fire, Pace tried to explain how a soldier carries on with death staring him in the face: "It is the fear of not doing our nation's duty that overrides the physical fear," he said. "That somehow our actions will not live up to the legacy of those who've gone before. That somehow our performance in battle (will) leave the Marine or soldier on our left or our right in harm's way."
Just as the few disgraced the many at Abu Ghraib, the very few who may have committed murder in Haditha will place a burden on the shoulders of every soldier, sailor, airman, marine and coast guardsman fighting terrorism. Each of us has a duty to not add to that burden, and to help relieve it as well. If those few Marines killed innocents in Haditha, their conduct is an aberration, not the norm. It is up to each one of us to ensure that the events of Haditha do not tarnish the brave and selfless service of the many who came before, or any who come after. Except for the aberrant few, the Marines are always faithful to America. In times such as this, we cannot fail to be faithful to them.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/the_haditha_story.html
Posted by: Sickofspin at June 2, 2006 01:00 PM
The Haditha Story
By Jed Babbin
The accelerating media feeding frenzy over the alleged killings of twenty-four Iraqi civilians in Haditha by US Marines last November is about to overwhelm American politics. Propelled by their most irresponsible war critics, the left will try use Haditha as it used My Lai thirty years ago: as a political tool to take apart America's support for the war and to shatter the legitimacy of our cause and the morale of our troops.
We don't know what happened in Haditha, an insurgent stronghold in Anbar Province. Unverified press accounts allege that members of Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, First Marines, were hit by an improvised explosive device and one of them was killed. Others, according to these reports, went on an hours-long killing spree to revenge their comrade's death, leaving about twenty-four men, women and children dead. Navy and Marine Corps investigators are at work, and other reports indicate that at least three Marine officers, including the battalion and company commanders, have been relieved of duty. It's also reported that more than one enlisted man has been detained pending charges about to be brought.
No matter how quickly military investigators work, and no matter how firmly any crimes are punished, the anti-war left won't be satisfied unless Haditha becomes the lever that pushes President Bush to admit the war was wrong and set a time to withdraw from Iraq. My Lai - the March 16, 1968 massacre of about 500 Vietnamese by US soldiers - was first covered up and then exploded in headlines, courts-martial and congressional hearings. (Maureen Dowd, one of the New York Times's hyperliberal columnists, has already labeled Haditha a "My Lai acid flashback.") Screamed about by protesters, shown endlessly on television news, My Lai and the court-martial of one of the perpetrators, Lt. William Calley, provided the final political nail in the coffin of American involvement in Vietnam. We withdrew from Vietnam in 1975, abandoning our allies and hanging our heads in shame. This is the political result the left wants from Haditha, and we cannot allow it to happen for one very big reason. The Vietnam War ended in Vietnam, leaving America incapable of taking action in defense of itself or its allies for decades. The end of the war against the terrorist nations won't occur in Iraq, and we must be prepared - psychologically and politically - to continue the fight. When we lost Vietnam the enemy didn't follow us home. Radical Islamists will. If they win, we will literally lose America.
If it were up to Cong. John Murtha, Duke University rape case prosecutor Mike Nifong would be transferred to the Haditha case. Fortunately for both the victim and the accused, the military justice system doesn't satisfy media hunger for the bread and circuses of civilian criminal trials. Those who may be charged with war crimes won't be arrested after dramatic chases down Los Angeles highways, nor will we be subjected to judges and lawyers preening before the television cameras during the trial. But because the military justice system moves much slower than politics, and because of the opportunity it poses for the antiwar crowd, the Haditha incident will create three lasting effects that will carry through to November and beyond.
First, the left will use every tool at their disposal to ensure that the Haditha incident becomes synonymous with the entire Iraq war. Abu Ghraib proved a propaganda bonanza for the terrorists and nations such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia that want us to withdraw from Iraq in defeat. Haditha - regardless of what the facts may turn out to be - will be used ceaselessly and purposefully to eliminate American support for the Iraq war and to demonize anyone who still supports it. Haditha will become the Orwellian centerpiece of the Democrats' claim that they support the troops. "They've been there too long," Murtha and his ilk will cry. "We have to bring them home before they kill more babies." And then the Dems, feigning concern for our soldiers, will offer them psychological counseling when they return. The political fallout will be enormous, and it will damage both the ongoing war efforts and our troops' morale.
On Tuesday, CNN -- eagerly anticipating the political impact -- reported that, "Some members of Congress have been told to brace for the fallout from potential charges of murder and cover-up..." The media will take up Murtha's charge that there is a cover-up because it fits neatly into their theory that President Bush lied us into that war. If Bush lied then, who wouldn't believe the Pentagon isn't lying now, and the Marines trying to cover up the massacre of innocents?
It will be easy for the left to drive this story into a frothing political rage because they will have the field to themselves. If anyone in the military chain of command (including civilian leaders such as Secretary Rumsfeld) says anything about the case that could be interpreted as prejudging it or attempting to influence the outcome, the charges could be dismissed under the military law doctrine that prohibits "command influence." So the Pentagon is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. Neither the press nor the libs in Congress would be satisfied if Rumsfeld promised summary execution of any malefactors. But if he did, and the charges were then dismissed for command influence, the same critics would be demanding his resignation for blowing the opportunity to punish anyone responsible for the alleged crimes. The fact that Rumsfeld and others won't say more will only fuel more political demands for his head - and others -- to roll.
The investigation may be completed as early as next month, but in a case such as this the decision to court-martial anyone will likely not be made for weeks or months. And in that time, all the John Murthas, the Maureen Dowds, and the Seymour Hershes of the world will be screaming in print and on the air, convicting the Marines, their leaders and every American who wants to win this war before any court-martial hears a single charge. They've already begun.
Murtha, on ABC's "This Week," said, "Who covered it up, why did they cover it up, why did they wait so long?" He's not only ready to condemn the Marines, but all their leaders. He said, "We don't know how far it goes. It goes right up the chain of command." Baloney. It's quite likely that some of the Marines involved, even their immediate superiors, tried to cover up the Haditha incident. But once the Time Magazine videotape was viewed by the staff of Lt.Gen. Peter Chiarelli - the multinational corps commander -a no-holds-barred investigation was begun. No one - among the military's senior leaders or civilian bosses - ever participated or tolerated any such cover-up. Murtha's accusations are as specious as they are cheaply political.
Second, it's no accident that Al-Jazeera was headlining Murtha's accusations more prominently than other media. The Al-J headline read, "US troops killed Iraqis in cold blood." Because of the media hype here and around the world, Haditha could become a synonym for American brutality equal to My Lai and will damage our ability to fight radical Islam around the world. And third, if as now appears likely, Marines are convicted of war crimes, Haditha could be a major blow to the morale of American troops everywhere.
We have thousands of troops in harm's way around the world. We cannot allow them to believe - as their fathers in Vietnam came to believe - that Americans regard them with the same scorn as those who may have murdered innocents in Haditha. Though he didn't say so, Marine General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, may have had Haditha on his mind when he spoke at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers on Memorial Day. Speaking from personal experience under fire, Pace tried to explain how a soldier carries on with death staring him in the face: "It is the fear of not doing our nation's duty that overrides the physical fear," he said. "That somehow our actions will not live up to the legacy of those who've gone before. That somehow our performance in battle (will) leave the Marine or soldier on our left or our right in harm's way."
Just as the few disgraced the many at Abu Ghraib, the very few who may have committed murder in Haditha will place a burden on the shoulders of every soldier, sailor, airman, marine and coast guardsman fighting terrorism. Each of us has a duty to not add to that burden, and to help relieve it as well. If those few Marines killed innocents in Haditha, their conduct is an aberration, not the norm. It is up to each one of us to ensure that the events of Haditha do not tarnish the brave and selfless service of the many who came before, or any who come after. Except for the aberrant few, the Marines are always faithful to America. In times such as this, we cannot fail to be faithful to them.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/the_haditha_story.html
Posted by: Sickofspin at June 2, 2006 01:01 PM
Dear Woke Dude,
It's as simple as this. Most members of Congress, myself included, share some responsibility for getting us into Iraq. We've got to take responsibility for getting us out.
Since April, hundreds of thousands of you have joined me in calling for a change in policy, a change in course -- for Iraq, and for Americans here at home. Now let's turn the volume up higher. Washington needs to hear your voice.
The violence continues to spiral in Iraq. But, instead of a deadline to bring our troops home and put the future of Iraq in the hands of Iraqi leaders, we get half-hearted comments about past mistakes, and cynical political calculation.
Last month, I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 36 which calls for the withdrawal of our combat troops from Iraq by the end of this year. In the next few weeks, I am urging the Senate to take a strong stand on Iraq and pass this Resolution. It's time to put the future of Iraq where it belongs - in the hands of the Iraqi people and their leaders. Our valiant soldiers have done their job.
Tell your Senators: support Senate Joint Resolution 36 to bring our combat troops home in 2006
President Bush wants to stumble along, perpetuating his mistakes for the remainder of his time in office. He's even suggested that decisions about withdrawing all of our troops from Iraq will be for the next president to make.
And, instead of statesmanship, the president's top advisor, Karl Rove, is worrying that the war has put voters in a "sour mood" for the 2006 elections. He should be worried about the safety of our troops, not the job security of Republican congressmen.
It took President Bush three years to admit he was wrong to say 'bring it on.' We can't afford years to go by until he admits the standstill in Iraq today is wrong.
Tell your Senators: support Senate Joint Resolution 36 to bring our combat troops home in 2006
After months of squabbling and delay, we now hear that the new Iraqi government will complete its cabinet in a matter of days. So, it's time to act -- time to keep the pressure on.
Iraqi leaders have only responded to deadlines -- a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, a deadline to hold three elections, and their own constitutional deadline to establish a unity government.
Now we must set another deadline to get our combat troops out and get Iraq up on its own two feet. We must agree with the new Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by the end of this year.
Doing so will empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country, and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country.
Tell your Senators: support Senate Joint Resolution 36 to bring our combat troops home in 2006
Our soldiers have done their job, and America is grateful to them for their honor and sacrifice. Now it's time for the Iraqis to do their job of securing and governing their country and it is time to get our combat troops home in 2006. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces should remain.
We need blunt talk and clear plans -- and only pressure from you can force Washington to change course.
I am committed to forcing Congress to speak out on Iraq. Yesterday in Los Angeles I made it clear that I'm not going to stop fighting until we have a change in policy. I urge you to keep supporting our efforts to force action when lives are on the line and leadership is desperately needed.
Sincerely,
John Kerry
my reply to john?
BRING THEM HOME NOW!
Posted by: woke dude at June 2, 2006 01:44 PM
Sickofspin,
* Denying the Haditha massacre DOES NOT protect our troops
* Denying the follwoing cover-up DOES NOT protect our troops
* Accepting that U.S. Marines killed civilians DOES NOT tarnish our troops (as a whole)
Grow up!
Posted by: -R at June 2, 2006 02:43 PM
aint no mistake the Regressives are shitting their pants over this. As much as they try to spin it the worse it gets, and they know it. Watch them squirm, its about the only silver linning in this whole mess.
Posted by: 7 at June 2, 2006 02:49 PM
Olbermann exposes O'Reilly on Malmedy
While O'Reilly was debating Wesley Clark on his FOX show, Bill once again was short on the facts. It proves my theory once again that some talking heads will say just about anything to make themselves sound right.
Video-WMP Video-QT
(Full rough transcript)
Olbermann: The bodies at Malmedy were not found until a month later. There were 84 of them, all, American soldiers. More than half showed gunshot wounds to their heads. Six had received fatal **blows** to the head. Nine were found with their arms still raised **above** their heads.
The fact that O'Reilly got these horrible facts completely backwards -- twice -- offended even his own usually compliant viewers. From his program **Wednesday** night...Wrong answer.
When you're **that** wrong -- when you're defending Nazi War Criminals and pinning their crimes on Americans, and you get **caught** doing so -- **twice** -- you're supposed to say 'I'm sorry, I was wrong'... and then you should shut up for a long time. Instead, Fox **washed** its transcript of O'Reilly's remarks Tuesday -- its website claims O'Reilly said "In **Normandy**..." when in fact he said "In **Malmedy**..."
The rewriting of past reporting -- worthy of Orwell -- has now carried over into such on-line transcription services as Burrell's and Factiva. Whatever did or did not happen **later**, in supposed or actual retribution... the victims at Malmedy, were **Americans**, gunned down while surrendering -- by **Nazis** in 1944 -- and again, Tuesday Night and Wednesday Night -- by a false patriot who would rather be loud than right.
"In Malmedy, as you know" Bill O'Reilly **said** Tuesday night, in some indecipherable attempt to defend the events of Haditha, "U.S. forces captured S.S. forces who had their hands in the air and were unarmed and they shot them dead, you know that. That's on the record. And documented."
The victims at Malmedy in December, 1944... were Americans. **Americans** with their hands in the air. **Americans** who were unarmed. That's on the record. And documented.
And their memory deserves better than Bill O'Reilly.
We **all** do.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/01.html#a8537
Posted by: woke dude at June 2, 2006 08:00 PM
If a new yorker commits a crime does that make Pataki a bad leader??
thats the worst analogy I ever heard. New Yorkers don't work for Pataki. Pataki is not in charge of them. Soldiers are supposed to follow the direct commands of their commanders and leaders.
A better example would be if an employee was committing sexual harrassment on the job, then his Boss' command and effectiveness would come into question.
O'Leilly does that all the time, he sets up false analogies that his uneducated audience just eats up.
Like one time he was discussing a california law that allowed minors to get abortions without parental consent. he said that makes no sense, that school nurses can't give aspirin without calling home to the parents of the child.
Well, nurses aren't Doctors first of all, and don't have important medical and allergic information about the child second of all, if a child went into the hospital with an injury and was in a lot of pain the DOCTOR M.D. would have no qualm about administering pain medication on the spot. So O'leilly takes a completely false analogy, repeats it about 3 times and thinks he soundly won the debate. what a jackass.
And on top of all this,as mentioned several times above, trying to get to the bottom of Haditha doesn't mean you are trying to smear the whole armed forces.
And the man who calls the ACLU terrible for defending NAMBLA and the KKK, goes out and defends Nazis.
---
Fox News
Have you had your hypocrisy today?
---
Posted by: Hector Maquieira at June 5, 2006 10:51 PM
