And Now, The Rest of the Story . . .
There is another side to Haditha, and Allah has the details.
In other news of alleged American atrocities, Allah also has the unraveling of the “Zarqawi was beaten” story — the same one defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt found so compelling despite the lack of, you know, evidence, because it was reported by the AP . . . and, hey! they’re “not the National Enquirer”!
My favorite bit from Allah’s post is this account of competing versions of the event from eyewitnesses an eyewitness:
Just to show you how hard truth is to come by in Iraq, compare this account of the “beating” in yesterday’s Times of London to today’s report in the New York Times.
ToL:
Once the soldiers had established the man was not a threat, they started to kick him in the chest, said [Ali] Abbas and an Iraqi policeman also there. “They kept kicking him, shouting, ‘What’s your name?’, but the man only moaned and said nothing,” said Abbas.
NYT:
Another person who identified himself as a witness to Mr. Zarqawi’s final moments, interviewed Sunday on Al Jazeera satellite network, made no mention of soldiers striking the man and suggested that American soldiers tore open his clothing in what appeared an effort to revive him.
“The Americans came afterward, they took him out of the ambulance, put him on the ground, and ripped his dishdasha,” the witness, Ali Abbas, said in the interview on Al Jazeera. “They were pressing on his chest, wanting him to speak or to respond, and they brought a bottle of water but he didn’t take it.”
Heh. Someone oughtta introduce those guys to each other.
Ali Abbas. The Greg Packer of Arabia.
MayBee (8aec89) — 6/12/2006 @ 7:00 amAli says Packer is the Ali Abbas of America.
It’s all in your point of view.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/12/2006 @ 7:09 amBased on the recently released autopsy (massive internal injuries to the lungs, fractured right leg, cuts and bruises on head) Mr. Zarqawi might have felt like he got stomped to death; blast overpressure from a nearby bomb will do that to you.
Of course Mr. Zarqawi was missing the fractured ribs and sternum that would have resulted from a Brooklyn style stomping that might have been ordered by a Don Corleone. But I’m certain that the Jeralynn Merritts of this world will look at the injuries and say “This was a ‘stealth stomping’.” Bush Derangement Syndrome is fatal to your reasoning ability.
Mike Myers (3a4363) — 6/12/2006 @ 8:38 amHow shocking, two different eye witnesses give two different accounts about the same event. Man bytes dog.
But actually, I accept your general point about the conflicting stories. Such initial reporting deserves skepticism.
Nonetheless, the military should do a better job of keeping their story straight too. Now they’ve found out that he lived for about an hour after the attack? Stay tuned to this story since there will be more surprises…
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 6/12/2006 @ 9:27 am“But actually, I accept your general point about the conflicting stories. Such initial reporting deserves skepticism”
“Nonetheless, the military should do a better job of keeping their story straight too. Now they’ve found out that he lived for about an hour after the attack?”
Humm, what’s wrong with this picture? If you think the news services deserve skepticism in their initial reporting, why not afford the same to military reporting? Sauce for the goose…
Ray (be81f9) — 6/12/2006 @ 10:12 amIf you think the news services deserve skepticism in their initial reporting, why not afford the same to military reporting? – Ray
Two reasons Ray:
1. We expect our military to tell the truth. (Whether they do or not is debatable.)
2. The military personnel interviewed were not just some random people who happened to be on the scene. They are (or at least should be) more professional about their information. For example, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, who was interviewed, is not just some guy on the street. In fact, he is the “spokesman for the military in Baghdad.”
Maj. Gen. William Caldwell talked as if Zarqawi’s death was almost immediate after the bombing, when now there are reports that he was alive for almost an hour.
What a toothless “gotcha” Ray. But you have no qualms about showcasing your ignorance, do you?
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 6/12/2006 @ 10:59 amActually, my example of the military’s apparent inconsistency above is not a good one (but tangential to my main point anyway). There were actually conflicting accounts from Caldwell about other matters – like how many died in the bombing. But I’m a good hearted person, and war is hell. So I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that there isn’t a cover-up, just mistakes in their reporting. I’m not trying to make Caldwell look bad, but his story has morphed a bit. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/world/middleeast/11scene.html
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 6/12/2006 @ 11:43 am“How shocking, two different eye witnesses give two different accounts about the same event. Man bytes dog”
Wasn’t the whole point that it was the SAME supposed eyewitness in both accounts?
CStudent (59bfb8) — 6/12/2006 @ 12:28 pmJust Who is Showcasing Ignorance?
CStudent gets a B. Two different newspapers, the Times of London, and the NY Times, both write about the death of Zarkawi, both quote the same eyewitness, and then print diametrically contradictory reports of Zarkawi’s last minutes based on the same eyewitness account.
Yet somehow it’s the US military who needs to pay more attention to keeping the story straight. It’s the same old song and dance every time. The words may change with the event, but the loony tune is always the same, and the tap dance never ends.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 6/12/2006 @ 12:40 pm“1. We expect our military to tell the truth. (Whether they do or not is debatable.)”
We expect to press to do the same. Initial reports are often incorrect in the particulars, that’s why their call INITIAL reports. Final reports are usually issued after people have been given time to investigate all the possible witnesses and a coherent reconstruction of the events can be assimilated.
“Maj. Gen. William Caldwell talked as if Zarqawi’s death was almost immediate after the bombing, when now there are reports that he was alive for almost an hour.”
Talked as if? The military spokesman can only give information as relayed to him by others.
“The military personnel interviewed were not just some random people who happened to be on the scene.”
Gen. William Caldwell was not on the scene and was not an eye witness. We have several eyewitness accounts of what occurred, as you yourself have pointed out. How is it that civilians can be accorded leniency about different accounts yet the military is not? The military personnel are just as human as civilians and can suffer from the same distortion of perspective as a civilian.
Here’s a direct quote of Caldwell’s statement to the press on June 9th.
“As with any operation that ever occurs, first reports are never 100 percent correct, and we do continue to follow up to make sure we have established exactly what the facts were on the ground.”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/09/caldwell.transcript/
You can take it to mean anything you want. Lord knows you don’t trust the military to speak the truth.
Ray (be81f9) — 6/12/2006 @ 1:07 pmSee Ray, these guys don’t miss much as it is. If there is anything at all wrong with what I say, they’ll almost always catch it.
You got me there C Student. The two stories are from the same witness. I’m surprised Patterico himself didn’t correct me on that one. But Caldwell needs to get his story straight too. But there are almost always inconsistent reporting when a story is new like this.
Right Black Jack, like you’ve never made a mistake here.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 6/12/2006 @ 1:32 pmPsyberian, can you give an actual example of Cadwell giving two different stories, or do you just expect us to take your word for it? Patterico gave an actual example of conflicting stories, all you’ve given us is an allegation.
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 6/12/2006 @ 2:10 pm…can you give an actual example of Cadwell giving two different stories…
Just follow the link in #7 and read it. That’s why I included it.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 6/12/2006 @ 2:17 pmFor what it’s worth, I was “picked” by my company to attend American Red Cross training. When using CPR we were told to talk to the person & ask him/her what’s your name/were do you live…etc. To see if they are coming around. Also, you can break bones real easy doing this too.
Mike in NY. (496906) — 6/12/2006 @ 3:24 pmPsyberian said: Just follow the link in #7 and read it. That’s why I included it.
Yes, like the Oracle of Delphi, we should believe the New York Times, since they have a spotless, unbiased record of accuracy.
Paul (c169e9) — 6/12/2006 @ 3:53 pmMike,
Just as a followup. They told us in medical school that 30% of the time, when CPR is done right, ribs get broken. So, I guess the lesson is: don’t choke on anything or become the target for 500lb bombs or you’re liable to get a rib busted.
Adam (40d1a3) — 6/12/2006 @ 4:55 pm“See Ray, these guys don’t miss much as it is. ”
Psyberian,
“These guys” may not miss much, but you seem to. I posed a rather large response to you and you seemed to have missed that. Does that mean that you agree with me? Inquiring minds want to know.
Ray (be81f9) — 6/12/2006 @ 6:31 pmWho cares if Zarqawi was alive for an hour or if military personnel beat the crap out of him in that time? He deserved it & if somebody did, they deserve a medal.
sharon (fecb65) — 6/12/2006 @ 6:50 pmRay, you’re just trying to nit-pick everything I say, which is why I’ve been less than respectable to you. So no, I’m not going to respond to all of your remarks every time because they’re often weak criticisms. The people who frequent this blog are very intelligent (many of them are attorneys in case you didn’t know), so most of them recognize quibbling when they see it anyway.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 6/12/2006 @ 7:06 pmGuys:
The story as reported by Caldwell did change. As Cori Dauber explains, the military has a saying: first reports are always wrong.
She also says that first reports indicated that a child was killed in the attack, which is not so.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/12/2006 @ 7:25 pmAnd Psy,
Yeah, you did kinda miss the whole point of the post.
I would have corrected you, except, I was working. Damn day job.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/12/2006 @ 7:26 pmPsyberian,
When you make a post to me directly I assume you want me to respond. How silly of me!
I’m ‘nitpicking’ things you say as I find them to be ignorant, disrespectful, or just plain incorrect.
But please don’t let me hurt your feelings!
I guess Psyberian doesn’t like it when people point out his fallacies, but he loves to point out the fallacies of others and the fallacies of our government. Typical hypocrite.
Psyberian, you have a tendency to think your smarter than some of the other posters here. That’s obvious with your “The people who frequent this blog are very intelligent” statement. Apparently you don’t think I’m very intelligent. That’s rather presumptuous of you isn’t it? You also don’t think people of such low intelligence as myself should post here or are not worthy of discussion with you.. That’s rather elitist of you as well.
Well, until Patterico asks me to stop, I will continue to make counter arguments to the statement you and other post when I disagree with those statements. I don’t care if you thing they’re worthy of your response or not.
Ray (be81f9) — 6/12/2006 @ 10:50 pmThis is wat i believe………….
I think we are ALL, liberals included, thrilled to see this maniac gone. But we can refrain from insulting a man who’s son was beheaded on a television? He’s been though quite a bit, no? You would ve NO IDEA what’s that like,eh? Perhaps calling him “insane” is a tad insensitive…..even if he says something you dont agree with.
Thomas (681bce) — 6/13/2006 @ 12:46 amI believe Zarqawi’s death was an oppurtunity for the new government to “turn the tide” ,Even President Bush said , “The ideology of terror has lost one its visible and aggressive leaders”.
Emily (370a1f) — 6/14/2006 @ 12:45 am