Hiding Behind the General

from Joe Klein - TIME

The nature of military leadership is congenital optimism; officers are trained to complete the mission, to refuse to countenance the possibility of failure. That focus is essential when you go to war, but it lacks perspective. That’s why civilian leaders—the Commander in Chief—are there to set the mission, to change or abort it when necessary. The trouble is, George W. Bush’s credibility on Iraq is nonexistent. And so he has placed David Petraeus, an excellent soldier, in a position way above his pay grade. He has made Petraeus not just the arbiter of Iraq strategy but also, by default, the man who sets U.S. policy for the entire so-called war on terrorism.

This is just an excerpt, but it’s a critical point.

I’d add to it. In the United States, the military respects the civilian leadership. We’ve never had a coup in this country, and there is no such thing (as in some countries) of “disgruntled generals affecting the outcome of elections.” For the military to have such a proper and deferential relationship to its civilian superiors is very very important. When the President and the SecDef set policy, I want the generals to carry it out.

Klein’s phrase of “congenital optimism” is a good one, but don’t think of it as a pejorative. In the context of their responsibilities, “congenital optimism” is required of our military leaders.

If our involvement in Iraq is a problem, it was caused by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of Bush’s civilian team. Tommy Franks, Richard Myers, Rick Sanchez, Ray Odierno, George Casey, Admiral Fallon, David Petraeus, and the rest have been doing their best with the resources allocated to carry out the missions they have been tasked with.

It’s clear where to place blame.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator on 19 Sep 2007 at 2:35 am

    Cheney: War in Iraq was right move at right time…

    Vice President Dick Cheney Cheney lavished praise on four-term congressman Sam Graves, but he spent…

Comments

  1. rabit wrote:

    Amen! Remember, it’s been the policy of this administration from the very beginning to listen to the generals, but only the ones that say exactly what they want to hear. The ones who don’t, get pushed into early retirement. Had they listened to the right people instead of forcing them all out, we would not be in this crisis. There is something fundamentally un-American about the Bush Administration.

    Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 4:25 pm

  2. DavidC wrote:

    If our involvement in Iraq is a problem, it was caused by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of Bush’s civilian team. Tommy Franks, Richard Myers, Rick Sanchez, Ray Odierno, George Casey, Admiral Fallon, David Petraeus, and the rest have been doing their best with the resources allocated to carry out the missions they have been tasked with.

    I’ve had this argument with others. Obviously the administration bears the lion’s share of blame for the way Iraq has been mishandled. But the military leadership is not above criticism and shares in the blame. It wasn’t the Bush administration that neglected to train for counterinsurgency operations, it was the Army leadership that preferred force on force engagements and did not prepare the Army to fight our most likely type of war. And it took years to adapt to conditions in Iraq.

    The administration didn’t plan and carry-out our failed military strategy for the occupation. As commander-in-chief Bush gets plenty of blame for not realizing that things were not working and persisting for years. But it’s also up to the military command to formulate the most effective military strategy for the mission they are tasked with. They didn’t do that. Anyone who knows anything about the U.S. Army knows that its preferred training emphasized force-on-force engagements, and treated counterinsurgency as a poor stepchild. That attitude had nothing to do with the current administration. The army failed to prepare effectively for an occupation and counterinsurgency. And they took way too long to change failed policies.

    Remember, it’s been the policy of this administration from the very beginning to listen to the generals, but only the ones that say exactly what they want to hear.

    That’s a cop-out for the military leadership. Obviously if administration finds support for its preconceived notions among part of the high command, it is naturally going to be more likely to listed to them than to the naysayers. But high-ranking generals have a duty to make military facts clear to the civilian leadership whether it risks their careers or not. I don’t recall any mass resignations.

    Had they listened to the right people instead of forcing them all out, we would not be in this crisis.

    Yes, obviously if they had done many things different things would be different. Not too surprising.

    There is something fundamentally un-American about the Bush Administration.

    Oh please. It’s just as easy to say there is something fundamentally un-American about much of the BDS infected left.

    Posted 19 Sep 2007 at 7:41 pm

  3. rabit wrote:

    Oh please. It’s just as easy to say there is something fundamentally un-American about much of the BDS infected left.

    Oh really? If it’s so easy, then let’s see you give one example.

    Oh I hear now that Bush Delusion Syndrome is contagious and can be caught through prolonged contact with TRUTH. It does seem to be an epidemic now, effecting a large percentage of the United States population and even the armed forces fighting in Iraq, and the entire world.

    All joking aside, Michael Moore was attacked for his unpopular portrayal of Bush in Fahrenheit 9/11, but ever since Katrina played out like a repeat of the events as Moore portrayed in his movie, the mainstream has continuously shifted right into Michael Moore’s camp.

    For me it’s simple. Michael Moore, for speaking the truth when it was unpopular, is a true American patriot. It’s people on your side, who vilified him and dishonestly attempted to undercut his message to prolong the lie that are the haters of free speech and liberty, and THAT is treasonous and un-American.

    It’s no wonder that so many on your side defended Scooter Libby. It’s no wonder that Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel called the Republican party hijacked by incompetents.

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 1:43 am

  4. rabit wrote:

    Yes, obviously if they had done many things different things would be different. Not too surprising.

    Yes, to bring this back on topic, where exactly were you 3 years ago? Were you part of the group of outraged people speaking out against these things as they were happening, or were you part of that other group that accused them of Bush Delusion Syndrome?

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 1:48 am

  5. DavidC wrote:

    For me it’s simple. Michael Moore, for speaking the truth when it was unpopular, is a true American patriot. It’s people on your side, who vilified him and dishonestly attempted to undercut his message to prolong the lie that are the haters of free speech and liberty, and THAT is treasonous and un-American.

    You defend Michael Moore and his anti-American propaganda and then wonder why people on the right consider many left-wingers un-American? Look in the mirror.

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 9:09 am

  6. commissar wrote:

    David,

    Not giving you a hard time here. Really. But I have a question.

    Here it is Sept 2007. Let’s not worry about how we got to where we are now in Iraq. From this day forward, looking ahead, … what is/are our mission(s) in Iraq, and what’s the order-of-magnitude commitment, and what does success look like?

    In 2-3 paragraphs. (E.g. “We are there to stop Al Qaeda from taking over the Mideast.It’ll take many tens of thousands of US soldiers decades. Success would be OBL’s head on a pike.”) Please don’t discuss my example; it’s just to demonstrate the format of what I’m trying to get at.

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 10:59 am

  7. canuckistani wrote:

    I’ve always been baffled by the American tendency to act like soldiers are greater than mere mortals, and any failure to “support the troops” is the gravest political sin possible. This uncritical worship of the military leads to situations where the architects of the war - the civilian leadership - hide behind the general on the spot, and accuse anyone trying to exercise their legal right of oversight of “not supporting the troops”.
    Nonsense. I’ve made the point before. The troops are your servants, not your masters. They serve you, the people, and you have a right to expect them to live up to your standards, not the other way around. You don’t have to support them if you think they are doing wrong, and if they lend themseleves to the political opportunists, you don’t have to respect them.

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 11:41 am

  8. commissar wrote:

    Canuckistani,

    I cannot disagree strongly enough with this statement:

    and if they lend themselves to the political opportunists, you don’t have to respect them.

    How about this “If they lend themselves to doing anything other than the mission(s) tasked to them by their civilian leaders, with the resources those civilian leaders allocate, … then we don’t have to respect them.” Or .. then we have serious problem with our constitutional democracy.

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 1:15 pm

  9. DavidC wrote:

    You don’t have to support them if you think they are doing wrong

    The soldiers don’t decide policy. They carry out military missions based on policies decided by the civilian leadership. Just because one disagrees with administration policy and use of the military, doesn’t make it ok to vilify those who have to carry out their orders.

    That’s not the same thing as saying the military is above criticism. There’s nothing wrong with criticizing the military leadership if you think it is doing a poor job. But that’s different than attacking a general’s integrity with no basis.

    Let’s take General Petraeus as an example. If you want to argue that his strategy and recent achievements in Iraq represent short-term gains that don’t affect the miserable political picture, and you question his report as overly optimistic, then that’s one thing. But if you call him a political shill for the administration you are directly attacking his personal integrity. By doing this you imply that he doesn’t believe in his own mission, and that he is simply going along with the administration for selfish career reasons.

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 1:38 pm

  10. DavidC wrote:

    Commissar,

    Here it is Sept 2007. Let’s not worry about how we got to where we are now in Iraq. From this day forward, looking ahead, … what is/are our mission(s) in Iraq, and what’s the order-of-magnitude commitment, and what does success look like?

    Good question. I wish I had a good answer. As I see it, we have backed ourselves into what is basically an open-ended commitment in Iraq. I know most people think the war has been going on too long and that things aren’t moving fast enough, but from a historical perspective I think it is way too early to make any sort of judgements about what might develop in Iraq, not even considering the entire region as a whole.

    In light of the current status of Iraq, my personal idea of success at this point would be a greatly weakened insurgency, a capable Iraqi standing army, and a more or less stable state that is at least loosely allied with the United States — but one that is more of a strategic asset than a burden, as it is now. In line with that I think our mission is primarily counterinsurgency/training, along with deterring overt foreign interference/aggression. I believe that it is likely that we will have to have some significant military presence in Iraq for the next 10-20 years or more.

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 2:13 pm

  11. canuckistani wrote:

    Commissar-
    That’s why you’re The Commissar and I’m just a peasant. You are absolutely right.

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 3:02 pm

  12. rabit wrote:

    believing and spreading any story about U.S. atrocities whether they are obviously false or merely still unproven.

    Oh really? Now name one U.S. atrocity that was reported by the lefty blogosphere that was “obviously false or merely still unproven.” Perhaps you’re thinking of that Jamil Hussein incident with Michelle Malkin. That really blew up in her face, didn’t it. In a proper and just system, her entire credibility as a journalist would be zilch, but instead Fox News gives her a TV show. Rewarding incompetence is so completely against American values.

    Disparaging any military figure that agrees with the administration as some sort of politicized hack.

    Wrong. It is American to exercise the right to criticize ANYONE, regardless of who they are. When Petraeus sits in front of Congress, and the American public, and attempts to deceive us with misleading statistics, it is American to speak up and call a spade a spade.

    Emphasizing every possible negative of the war while refusing to recognize any positives, in an unseemly desire to declare defeat while the war is still in progress. And doing so with total disregard for the impact on morale and our allies, and playing right into enemy propaganda.

    Oh, I’m so shocked that you still believe these republican talking points. You apparently believe that schools being rebuilt, that we originally destroyed, is good news. Or that restoring 1/10th the electricity to Iraqi neighborhoods that they had before we went in there is good news. Or a soldier giving a flower to an Iraqi child who’s entire family was killed by an IED.

    No, those aren’t the stories that people find newsworthy. It’s the 11 dead civilians, killed by employees of Blackwater and Cheney’s

    What’s newsworthy is the 11 innocent Iraqi civilians by Blackwater civilians, Cheney’s little republican experiment in disbanding the military and turning it over to private militias. You can see that’s working out splendidly.

    I could go on and on.

    Oh please, but I think you’d just continue repeating yourself. None of the things you’ve listed thus far are anti-American. Everything you’ve said boils down to “Keep your mouth shut!” which is Stalinist Russia values, not American values. Too bad for you, we don’t take kindly to people who tell us to shut up in this country.

    You defend Michael Moore and his anti-American propaganda and then wonder why people on the right consider many left-wingers un-American? Look in the mirror.

    How can over 70% of the entire population of the United States who now side with Michael Moore on the Iraq war be…..anti-American? Can you even see yourself in a mirror?

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 5:07 pm

  13. DavidC wrote:

    I am not joking.

    Unfortunately I’m not surprised.

    That republican talking point just keeps getting weaker, doesn’t it

    So let me get this straight. Someone that doesn’t automatically assume the U.S. acted on the basis of bad motives is using Republican talking points? Ok. Thanks, I’ll stick with the Republican talking points instead of the America-the-root-of-all evil talking points.

    It’s because we know the facts. Alan Greenspan says “It’s was mostly about oil.” Well, shouldn’t you have LISTENED instead of ATTACKED those who said it in 2002?

    No, you apparently can’t differentiate between facts and opinions. You don’t seem to understand what Greenspan actually said, and in any event his opinion is hardly unassailable.

    Freedom to speak the truth even if it’s unpopular is profoundly American.

    Who said it wasn’t. But your definition of “truth” needs work.

    It is an illegal war

    In your opinion. Plenty of us disagree. Again, you confuse your opinion with a fact. And as usual you miss the point. We are now in the war. Screaming about it being illegal does no good and only helps feed enemy propaganda.

    Only someone who has no faith in American principles of freedom of speech believe that Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore could ever undermine any war.

    Who said they didn’t have freedom of speech? Last I checked both of them were still roaming free. And Moore is a very wealthy, highly successful director. I guess I missed all the restrictions on his free speech. And you apparently don’t understand how important propaganda is to a war effort, particularly this type of war.

    The only people in this country who undermine the war are the ones who started

    Hmm, that must be BDS logic.

    the ones who attack freedom of speech, particularly those who vilify Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan to undermine their message rather than attacking their message directly.

    Typical left-wing nonsense. Criticizing anti-
    American lunatics like Cindy Sheehan is somehow an attack on free speech. I know the left doesn’t believe this, but your opponents also have free speech. Criticism is not an attack on free speech.

    Was it all worth it, to you?

    We’ll have to wait and see. It’s way too early to pass any sort of historical judgement on the Iraq War. In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s still in progress. If we throw up our hands in defeat and abandon Iraq to whatever fate awaits it, then no, it won’t have been worth it.

    Oh really? Now name one U.S. atrocity that was reported by the lefty blogosphere that was “obviously false or merely still unproven.”

    You say this. And then you follow later with:

    It’s the 11 dead civilians, killed by employees of Blackwater and Cheney’s

    What’s newsworthy is the 11 innocent Iraqi civilians by Blackwater civilians,

    Thanks for proving my point. You have just convicted Americans (Blackwater employees) of murdering innocent civilians on the word of Iraqi officials, before a U.S. investigation has barely even begun. Why isn’t it possible that Blackwaters explanation of the incident is the true one? You don’t have the slightest clue what actually happened in that incident, but you are ready to believe the worst about fellow Americans. Unfortunately that’s all too typical on the left.

    Everything you’ve said boils down to “Keep your mouth shut!”

    You have reading comprehension problems. Show me where I said that speech should be restricted. You (and any other American) has every right to spout whatever nonsense you want, regardless of whether or not some consider it un-American. But I, and others have the right to criticize you for it. And that includes the right to call you un-American or unpatriotic. Bear in mind that you referred to Bush as un-American before I said anything. Don’t start name-calling if you can’t handle the response.

    How can over 70% of the entire population of the United States who now side with Michael Moore on the Iraq war be…..anti-American?

    Who said they were? Are you actually trying to pretend that everyone who is now sick of the war agrees with everything Michael Moore says? Just because people agree on a single point, for all sorts of varying reasons, doesn’t not imply general agreement.

    Posted 20 Sep 2007 at 5:56 pm

  14. commissar wrote:

    David,

    re: your #11.

    Whether it’s a good thing or not, I don’t know, but something like what you laid is most likely what will happen. I don’t mean the outcome, but a continuing U.S. presence in the face of unresolved violence & problems in Iraq.

    Considering the U.S. as an entity, we don’t have the political will to leave Iraq, just as we don’t have the political will to commit a million troops.

    Posted 21 Sep 2007 at 9:11 am

  15. rabit wrote:

    So let me get this straight. Someone that doesn’t automatically assume the U.S. acted on the basis of bad motives is using Republican talking points? Ok. Thanks, I’ll stick with the Republican talking points instead of the America-the-root-of-all evil talking points.

    A talking point is a little brainwashing mechanism to make people like you think in slogans than using your own common sense. Don’t assume anything, you know the facts, you’ve seen the constantly shifting justifications for the war. A person with common-sense sees BushCo’s inability to justify their actions can fairly conclude only two things, that they didn’t HAVE any justification except their own ignorance or they have one but don’t want to level with the people funding and dying for this war.

    But not you. You’ve got a convenient little talking point that retards any ability for you might have of a nuanced understanding of what critics of the Bush Administration are actually saying. In your mind, Bush critics reflexively blame everything on the US. It serves two purposes, 1) to cause you to reflexively attack any critic of the Bush Administration, and 2) excuses you from ever honestly evaluating the things that she has said, from her own mouth. The

    No, you apparently can’t differentiate between facts and opinions. You don’t seem to understand what Greenspan actually said, and in any event his opinion is hardly unassailable.

    I know the difference between facts and opinions. I also know the value of the opinion of a Republican 20-year retired Chairman of the Federal Reserve versus the value of opinion of a fat, lazy, former welfare-taking drug felon of right-wing talk show host’s opinion.

    You evaluate the trustworthyness of your sources based on what you want to believe. If someone from the right says something contradictory to what you believe, they are accused of being ‘liberal’ or untrustworthy in your view so you no longer have to listen to what they say. It’s this self-defeating system of continued ignorance that stands in contradiction to everything that American stands for.

    Who said it wasn’t. But your definition of “truth” needs work.

    Oh, I make no claims of being perfect but unlike you, I’m not trying to propogate lies. Lying is not an American value. Quote me on that.

    n your opinion. Plenty of us disagree. Again, you confuse your opinion with a fact. And as usual you miss the point. We are now in the war. Screaming about it being illegal does no good and only helps feed enemy propaganda.

    Screaming about it now is the only way to end it. You want the war to continue, much like the Afghanistan war that had a lot to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Do you want to see the United States collapse like the Soviet Union did? Well, let’s see how many more trillions we pour into this war while China, Saudi Arabia and other countries buy us on the cheap. The knuckledraggers cry about immigrants overtaking this country but the real invasion is happening in board rooms of major corporations.

    Remember, most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Now, go watch/rent/borrow/steal Fahrenheit 9/11 and watch the part where Moore talks about how much of America is owned by Saudi Arabia. The figure will shock you. Of course, you won’t do this because you have better things to do, like call 75% of the American public anti-American and chearlead a war that can irrepairably harm this country.

    Who said they didn’t have freedom of speech? Last I checked both of them were still roaming free. And Moore is a very wealthy, highly successful director. I guess I missed all the restrictions on his free speech. And you apparently don’t understand how important propaganda is to a war effort, particularly this type of war.

    Ah, so you’re saying propoganda is good? Lying to the public is necessary. How anti-American is that?

    Hmm, that must be BDS logic.

    No, that’s common sense, something that 75% more Americans than you have.

    Typical left-wing nonsense. Criticizing anti-
    American lunatics like Cindy Sheehan is somehow an attack on free speech. I know the left doesn’t believe this, but your opponents also have free speech. Criticism is not an attack on free speech.

    You have every right to attack her on what she says, but instead, you ignore what she says entirely and spread complete lies about her, and accuse her of being crazy - She is a mother who lost her son serving this country, and she merely wants to know what justified his sacrifice - and you attack her for it. You should be eternally ashamed for it but I doubt you care. You’ve lost any grasp of what being an American really means. The enemy is Osama Bin Laden, not Cindy Sheehan.

    We’ll have to wait and see. It’s way too early to pass any sort of historical judgement on the Iraq War. In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s still in progress. If we throw up our hands in defeat and abandon Iraq to whatever fate awaits it, then no, it won’t have been worth it.

    Oh, it’s plenty of time to pass judgement on this war. How many lives of Americans will it take for YOU to accept the inevitable that us war critics already see. 58,000 American lives were lost forever in Vietnam. You are the same people that back then made the same argument, that now have to live with THAT on their conscienceness. Too ******* bad for those that died. I guess we just need to shut up and let the war keep dragging on for another 5 years, then you’ll still be saying it’s too early to pass judgement on this war.

    What exactly _IS_ winning or losing in Iraq? Will it have ANY impact on our national security here? General Petreaus was asked that point blank by a Republican senator and could not answer that. Nobody denies that Iraq is draining an astronomical amount of resources that could be far better spent protecting the homeland. The idea that terrorism could flourish in Iraq if we left is entirely bogus - if anything, terrorists would be run out of the country. Will it effect our national prestige? No, that’s already been shoved into the ground by this administration and dishonest, liberty-hating, pro-torture people on the right.

    There is only one solution and that is to get the **** out of Iraq, now! Let the Iraqis have a few years to figure out what kind of country they want, and get back to the number one priority - keeping Americans safe in this country, while killing every single agent of terrorism we can find.

    Victory is an empty feel-good word that matters only to war cheerleaders like yourself but to everyone else, including the rest of the world, it’s how the game is played that matters. Bush has already has already made that war unwinnable.

    Posted 22 Sep 2007 at 2:05 am

  16. BloodSpite wrote:

    Now name one U.S. atrocity that was reported by the lefty blogosphere that was “obviously false or merely still unproven.

    Jessie MacBeth.

    Scott Thomas Beauchamp

    Posted 23 Sep 2007 at 10:09 pm

  17. BloodSpite wrote:

    Would now be a bad time to point out that the one group who has a even lower approval rating than Bush, is the entire US Congress?

    The one thats Democratically controlled?

    Posted 23 Sep 2007 at 10:19 pm

  18. rabit wrote:

    Jessie MacBeth.

    MacBeth who? Funny, I can’t ever recall reading about this guy in leftie blogs. Obviously, he wasn’t taken very seriously in the major leftie blogs. I think most people can spot a publicity-seeking, sociopathic liar fairly easily by their mannerisms, omissions of specific details, and whether they talk like a soldier. Perhaps you can find some better examples? No?

    Scott Thomas Beauchamp

    Again, you’re being lazy. Go read the wikipedia entry:

    The New Republic:

    We…spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers. Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp’s company, and all corroborated Beauchamp’s anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)

    And most interestingly,

    On August 6, 2007, the Weekly Standard’s blog reported that Scott Thomas Beauchamp recanted under oath to Army investigators

    And then,

    On August 7, The New Republic reported:

    “We’ve talked to military personnel directly involved in the events that Scott Thomas Beauchamp described, and they corroborated his account as detailed in our statement. When we called Army spokesman Major Steven F. Lamb and asked about an anonymously sourced allegation that Beauchamp had recanted his articles in a sworn statement, he told us, ‘I have no knowledge of that.’ He added, ‘If someone is speaking anonymously [to The Weekly Standard], they are on their own.’ When we pressed Lamb for details on the Army investigation, he told us, ‘We don’t go into the details of how we conduct our investigations.’”

    So, the Weekly Standard is owned by Fox News chairman Rupert Murdoch, and edited by William Kristol, the man many consider chiefly responsible for Bush’s Iraq policy. Either this man is fatally inept or deceptively sly, and his Project of a New American Century is about dismantling the US as a superpower. I hate conspiracy theories but PNAC sorta has that James Bond villian-esque sound to it. I wonder if PNAC secretly operates from a huge underwater facility disguised to look like an offshore oil refinery.

    Anyway, Beauchamp’s statements were backed up by his magazine’s own investigation. The Army claims they’re false, but will not discuss how they will press charges. So it’s mostly a he says/she says thing. The Army also said that Pat Tilman was killed by the enemy while charging a mount. I don’t believe the Army no more.

    Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 1:20 pm

  19. rabit wrote:

    Would now be a bad time to point out that the one group who has a even lower approval rating than Bush, is the entire US Congress?

    The one thats Democratically controlled?

    Doh - it was in steady decline since the Iraq invasion. And unfortunately there are still enough treasonous pro-war republicans in there to make it hard for the Democrats to get much done in terms of ending the war. Congressional republicans have a dismal approval rating, even lower than Bush’s. Congressional Democrats are still considerably higher.

    Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 1:42 pm

  20. canuckistani wrote:

    I didn’t follow the Beauchamp thing to closely, but as far as I can tell, the chief arguments against him seemed to be that tru-blue American soldiers would never desecrate a corpse/mock the disfigured/kill a dog because if they did, they would get in trouble.
    Now, frankly, I don’t know how much you admire American soldiers, but I wouldn’t blink twice to hear that Canadian soldiers had committed these acts, and what’s more, I wouldn’t care. NCO’s were born to deal with mickey-mouse **** like that. Consider me unsurprised that everyone else nearby clams up when the investigation comes along -”No sir, we didn’t see any of those crazy goings on”. My siblings and I used to be able to stonewall my mom, but she knew one of us was guilty.
    So don’t waste my time with this stuff. Call me when they kill civilians and then plant guns on them to make it look like self defense.

    Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 2:36 pm

  21. BloodSpite wrote:

    Would you prefer mayhaps this link regarding Scott Thomas?

    He was proven to be false, and not just by the Army.

    There’s also about 30 external links regarding Scott Thomas there. Also the Army has stated why they have silenced Scott, and they released the findings of their investigation.

    Furthermore Scott has signed a written statement saying that the article’s he wrote were false.
     Your Wikipedia entry is a tad behind the ball there.

    As for MacBeth, not only was he written about in Indy media, he was video taped for Peacefilms.org as well as Iraq Veterans Against the War. He was interviewed vy socialistalternative.org, and Eastern Arizona Courier not to mention The Daily Kos and The People’s Voice. I will give Markos points, however, when the fraud was discovered he also hung MacBeth out to dry. Oh and lets not forget Mujahideen Ryder who also hosted this guy.

    Regarding approval ratings I’d like to see your Source. According to Gallup:

    The latest congressional job approval rating (24%) is the lowest for the institution since Democrats took control of both houses in January, and is far below the 37% registered in February. The decline has been most evident among Democrats, whose ratings of Congress now match those of Republicans. Congressional job approval ratings are typically not positive, but ratings as low as the current one are uncommon. The poll also finds that only about one in four Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in this country, little changed since last month but still at its lowest point in over a decade.

    Not saying Repub’s are better, but looks they are both in the same boat.

    That was June 2007. Here’s August from Gallup

    Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.

    Typically, partisans view Congress much more positively when their party is in control of the institution, so the fact that Democrats’ ratings are not materially better than Republicans’ is notable.

    The nine-point drop in Congress’ job approval rating from last month to this month has come exclusively from Democrats and independents, with Democrats’ ratings dropping 11 points (from 32% to 21%) and independents’ ratings dropping 13 points (from 30% to 17%). Republicans’ 18% approval rating is unchanged from last month.

    Now who’s being lazy?

    But hey since you brought the challenge on, why not let me fire a couple more at ya.

    Here’s one of my favorite’s: William Arkin. Ward Churchill

    Oh wait, remember Haditha?.
    The reported execution style murders or systematic executions widely charged at Haditha have now been shown, in the text of the presiding judge’s opinion dismissing charges against LCpl Sharratt and the investigating officer’s recommendation to dismiss charges against LCpl Tatum, to have been fabrications. No matter what the outcome of the hearings and trials of the remaining two Marines (Tatum and Wuterich), it has clearly been established that there was no rampage and no execution style killings, as was widely charged and reported!

    Luke Elliot Sommer

    Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 3:09 pm

  22. r4d20 wrote:

    Michael Moore, for speaking the truth when it was unpopular, is a true American patriot.

    My favorite examples of Moore-style “truthiness” is from the beginning of Bowling for Columbine when he has a montage of clips leading up to 9/11. One of the clips is of Iraqi tanks and soldiers and the caption says “…Iraq invades Kuwait with US supplied weaponry”. I started laughing …because every single piece of military hardware in the clip was Soviet made.

    We did give military assistance to Saddam, but IIRC over 80% of the foreign military assistance received by Saddam was from the Soviet Union.

    In no Bush-fanboy but M.Moore is no hero or “truth-teller” - he lies when it suits his purpose as easily as Bush does.

    Posted 25 Sep 2007 at 6:14 pm

  23. rabit wrote:

    r4d20 writes:

    My favorite examples of Moore-style “truthiness” is from the beginning of Bowling for Columbine when he has a montage of clips…

    That’s one heck of a softball there, r4d20. How can that be a lie if you’ve just stated what Michael Moore said is true.

    In no Bush-fanboy but M.Moore is no hero or “truth-teller” - he lies when it suits his purpose as easily as Bush does.

    You may be no Bush-fanboy but you seem to think like one. Name one incident where Michael Moore willfully attempts to misinform/deceive/lie to the viewer in Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, or Sicko? I’ve played this game with a few conservatives, and one intellectually lazy liberal and they never come up with one that survives any real scrutiny and a minute or two with The Google.

    Posted 26 Sep 2007 at 12:55 am

  24. rabit wrote:

    Bloodspite:

    Would you prefer mayhaps this link regarding Scott Thomas?

    Read through it, not much there. And reading this so-called refutation, it is obvious that it’s all an agenda to discredit him than to get to truth.

    I don’t know if Beauchamp is a fraud or not, nor have I read ‘Shock Troops’ and have desire to, but here’s the way it looks to me. Beauchamp wrote an account of his experiences in Iraq that probably is not considerably different than those of other soldiers. But the right-wing bloggers show their true love of the troops by attacking a soldier for describing, well, pretty much what happens in war. So true to their chickenhawk/cowardly-lion nature, they will attack anyone, including a American soldier fighting for us in Iraq, who challenges that false reality of a lily-white war, while sitting at home on their fat asses, typing angry rants to their blogs with pizza-stained fingers.

    I think Beauchamp is owed the benefit of the doubt. The Chickenhawks do what they also do, undermine truth when it doesn’t fit their agenda. They are proven liars.

    He was proven to be false, and not just by the Army.

    And how the hell is a statement by the Army proof that the incidents Beauchamp cited were made up?

    There’s also about 30 external links regarding Scott Thomas there.

    Gotta love the way right-wing liar blogs circular-reference amongst themselves? Chasing down a link to a credible source is like Mr. Toads Wild Ride. A bit of innuendo on one blog gets linked on another blog as fact, and so on. Since you all hate the Mainstream Media and their lie-beral journalistic standards, you guys seem to operate in a vacuum of legitimate sources. It’s no wonder you right-wingers get everything completely wrong, every time.

    Furthermore Scott has signed a written statement saying that the article’s he wrote were false. Your Wikipedia entry is a tad behind the ball there.

    Did he really? Perfect example. Did you read the correction at the bottom of the article?

    Correction: The article originally said Beauchamp had signed a sworn statement that recanted the accounts in his three pseudonymous articles for The New Republic. He did not recant, but did not stand by his claims.

    Guess your MediaMythBuster’s article is a tad steeped in bullshit. Beauchamp did not sign any statement recanting his claims. Now, explain to me how he “did not recant, but did not stand by his claims.” I wonder how that works.

    Regarding approval ratings I’d like to see your Source. According to Gallup:

    You may have got me there, but my source is Gallup as well. This graph which shows Democrats at a 37% approval rating and republicans at 29% in August. You seem to have found newer figures elsewhere on the site. And it’s showing a little climb in approval ratings for Congressional republicans.

    Does this effect job performance? I think it mostly reflects that republicans polled are satisfied with their elected representatives for successfully stalling attempts by the Democrats to end the war, while Democrats are growing increasingly frustrated with their respective representatives unsuccessful attempts to end it.

    This link should put it in better perspective for you.

    Here’s one of my favorite’s: William Arkin. Ward Churchill

    Big yawn. The left have a few kooks you never really hear about. The right has Ann ‘Bomb The New York Times’ Coulter, Michelle ‘Bring Back Concentration Camps’ Malkin, Dinesh ‘Liberals were behind 9/11′ D’Souza, Brit ‘You’re statistally more likely to die in California than a US soldier in Iraq’ Hume, and I could really go on and list practically ALL of them. Your side isn’t just filled with kooks and opportunistic frauds, it’s literally driven by them.

    Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 3:36 pm

  25. rabit wrote:

    The reported execution style murders or systematic executions widely charged at Haditha have now been shown, in the text of the presiding judge’s opinion dismissing charges against LCpl Sharratt and the investigating officer’s recommendation to dismiss charges against LCpl Tatum, to have been fabrications.

    Stop right there!

    From Wikipedia, it states they were given immunity but it appears the incident did happen.

    Lt. William T. Kallop, who investigated the scene shortly after it happened:

    “The Marines cleared it the way they had been trained to clear it, which is frags first. … It was clear just by the looks of the room that frags went in and then the house was prepped and sprayed like with a machine gun and then they went in. And by the looks of it, they just . . . they went in, cleared the room, everybody was down.”

    24 Non-combative Iraqi civilians WERE assassinated in their own homes by American troops, some at close range, six were children ages 1 through 14. You say that this was all a fabrication?

    No matter what the outcome of the hearings and trials of the remaining two Marines (Tatum and Wuterich), it has clearly been established that there was no rampage and no execution style killings, as was widely charged and reported!

    WTF? Let me get this crystal-clear. You’re saying that this was all a fabrication?

    Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 3:37 pm

« Anabasis, Book 2, Ch. 5 - first part
Anabasis, Book 2, Ch. 5 - second part »