From Al-Dura to Haditha
October 8, 2007
With an important finding in the investigation of the mother of all Pallywood scandals looming large this week–the France 2/al Dura case, we just might get a glimpse of the nature of the efforts prejudiced powers employ to shape media to their interests, at the expense of proveable realities (aka truth), quite possibly to the detriment of hundreds of innocent lives. Such manipulation has already been exposed during the conflict in Jenin and in the vidid photographs submitted by “trusty” stringers covering the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah.
As the case of against the Marines involved with the Haditha incident seems to have fallen completely apart, we have to ask why such an alternate reality–was allowed to dominate the international media narrative to the unquestionable harm to both the accused and to the military mission in general. The answer might surprise you–the whole thing could have been planned as an al Qaeda agitprop mission from the start, and controversy-hungry politicians in America may have been the intended targets. Congressman John Murtha, please step to the stand.
The military’s MURDER (important adjective you failed to include) case against the military has “fallen completely apart”… who woulda thunk it! Thank god - now Wuterich will most likely ONLY be charged with NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE! That must mean that the whole thing was just a ploy by al Qaeda to manipulate the media. What evidence do you have that the “reality” presented by the media is “alternate”? Did a new video showing the now dead woman and children of Haditha firing Kalashnikov’s at the Marines come to light? No? Well you should take another look at the “answer” link you provided above. As the commenter points out, there’s not much evidence to support the “al Qaeda agitprop mission” theory that you are championing.
I said clearly it “could” have been agitprop. This is a suggestion.
Jack Murtha said clearly “I know there was a cover-up someplace.”. This is a condemnation.
My theory lacks substantial evidence. Murtha’s condemnation lacked substantial evidence. But my suggestion didn’t fuel more than a year of famously selective outrage from the left, and perpetuate the myth (aka “alternate reality”) that Marines committed and then covered up a disgusting atrocity.
His purposefully controversial (and disgusting) remarks were intended to throw a lifeline to the anti-war caucus during one of the darkest hours of the war. He had no evidence of a cover-up then, and he doesn’t now. I mean, what an allegation to make WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE! Yet his implication stuck. . .
I don’t have spy plane footage of civilians firing at Marines, but we do have footage showing Marines clearing buildings according to ROE.
I’ll get to “cover-up” later but the Marines didn’t commit a disgusting atrocity? So how did those 24 unarmed men, women, and children die? “Well aimed shots to the head and chest” according to their death certificates. I wonder what the ROE is for unarmed children? If a cover-up is “an effort or strategy of concealment, especially a planned effort to prevent something potentially scandalous from becoming public” and the Marines press release on November 20, 2005 stated that “A US marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bomb in Haditha” and knowing what we know about how those people actually died then I think it’s fair to say that a cover-up occurred. Perhaps nothing elaborate but a cover-up nonetheless. Someone lied about what happened because the truth was pretty “scandalous”. Rhetorically, “cover up” is not a high hurdle to clear. Why don’t you have any harsh words for the Marine Corps veteran ultra conservative Republican congressman John Kline from Minnesota who said this: “There is no question that the Marines involved, those doing the shooting, they were busy in lying about it and covering it up — there is no question about it.”? I guess he was throwing a lifeline to the anti-war caucus.
Here’s your “ultraconservative” apologizing for his remarks, something Murtha has yet refused to do.
The Pentagon was quick to convict a dozen personnel for their involvement in the Abu Ghraib scandal, investigate Marines in Fallujah, and even expel some Marines from Afghanistan when they didn’t follow ROE. There are dozens more instances where our marines and soldiers have been prosecuted for certain crimes. Why should any of them be disparaged until they are indeed proven guilty?
Apologizing to avoid being sued - the courage is awe-inspiring! Marines didn’t follow ROE in Afghanistan, intentionally killed civilians, and are redeployed to a cush post in Kuwait. That oughta teach ‘em a lesson! But that’s military justice for you. Here’s a question: If the military jury finds that the military’s case against the military was unconvincing and Wuterich is acquitted, will you claim that justice has been served? Why would the military spend enormous amounts of time, energy, and money training men to kill and then punish them for killing? The military isn’t interested in churning out moral beings who ask questions. They want order following killing machines. In basic training you spend three hours on the Geneva Conventions and 13 weeks screaming “blood, blood, blood makes the green grass grow!” while learning how to kill in every way imagineable. School yourself on My Lai and you’ll see just how interested the military is in justice when the body bags are full of foreigners.
I dunno how to answer your question. Uh, no, because there’s still 24 innocent but dead civilians in the ground (?) Please twist my ambiguous response to your loaded question into any shape you please.
If the military jury finds that the military’s case against the military was unconvincing and Wuterich is acquitted, will you admit that Jack Murtha still slandered the vindicated individuals?
Obviously and unambiguously NO. I think I’ve made my lack of confidence in the military’s ability to police and prosecute itself pretty apparent. They won’t be “vindicating” anyone.