See-Dubya: Whiskey Pete’s Tall Tale
Given our host’s mysterious absence, I thought I would direct your attention to a minor blogospheric controversy. You’ve probably heard of, though not seen, a “documentary” by the Italian channel RAI about America’s use of White Phosphorus in Fallujah, in which the WP is called a “chemical weapon”.
Much of the controversy surrounds a fellow the interviewed named Jeff Engelhardt, who claims to be an eyewitness to the U.S. use of the weapons in Fallujah. But there are a few problems with his story, noticed by this guy, by Big Lizards, and then expanded a bit by me. Engelhardt’s grasp of the military lingo–as well as the mechanics of WP–is a bit iffy.
Well, believe it or not…now I’ve managed to find and transcribe an unedited copy of Engelhardt’s interview with RAI. It’s long but I think you’ll enjoy it, so click here to read it at the Jawa Report . First you should read at least one of those other links, though, so the, um, references within this exclusive interview transcript will make sense.
What happened to Patterico? Did he think he could leave & no one would notice?!?!
Susan (f31112) — 12/10/2005 @ 11:09 amWho is Patterio and what does he have to do with See-Dubya’s blog anyway?
Lew Clark (590c4b) — 12/10/2005 @ 12:55 pmWe also had a fairly extensive discussion on this topic earlier here. As I indicated in that discussion, the facts regarding Fallujah and the use of WP are easily researched.
Jeff Englehardt appears to me to be mostly full of himself and his perceived importance, but if you listen to him closely you soon discover that he understands little of what he thinks he “knows” either about Fallujah or Army tactics and equipment in general. No credibility as far as I’m concerned. Reminds me of the VVAW types towards the end of Viet Nam. You could always find several who had heard about … someone who had heard about … someone who had heard about an atrocity.
As I noted on the previous thread, he’s rather like the stock room clerk who, thinking he might impress a young lady or two, pontificates on the actions of the CEO as if he actually understands “the big picture” all the while maintaining that he has a better idea if people would just listen to him.
The so-called “documentary”, which I HAVE taken the time to watch, is poorly done, poorly researched, and virtually devoid of fact regarding the conduct of our forces in Fallujah.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 12/10/2005 @ 2:32 pm“…Jeff Engelhardt, who claims to be an eyewitness…”
This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It’s another deliberate distortion of events so opponents can bash US forces and GWB by association. Just another pea from the same debunked pod, a lie pushed by Dems, MSM, and the rest of the cut and run pantywaists.
They want to change the definition of WP and label it a “chemical weapon” so they can say the US uses such weapons. WP isn’t a chemical weapon, isn’t identified as such, but that doesn’t stop the Hate America First crowd. Facts don’t matter the them, it’s all finger pointing and lies from the self-important egos of dirty little cowards.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 12/11/2005 @ 9:28 am‘Sure is funny to hear you accuse other people of “finger pointing” Black Jack.
Tillman (1cf529) — 12/11/2005 @ 9:58 amRemember your own words?
“BTW Harry, have you ever dropped napalm from a helicopter or airplane?”
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 12/11/2005 @ 10:26 amHarry answered my question and wasn’t insulted. I’ll admit that it was a little personal though, wasn’t it? But it wasn’t what you think – I wasn’t trying to shame him.
Us Dems aren’t the devils you make us out to be Black Jack. (At least not always.)
Tillman (1cf529) — 12/11/2005 @ 11:10 amWhat about Beldar? Haven’t heard from him in months.
Xrlq (428dfd) — 12/11/2005 @ 11:27 amIf the shoe fits…
Dems refuse to see themselves for what they are, exactly the same way they want to deny their own words, or claim lofty goals to cover for base motives. Dems put Party first, not America, no never America. And, it shows. The message is getting out, loud and clear.
I haven’t heard a Dem say the good of the country comes before partisan advantage since JFK said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” JFK wasn’t without faults, but he was absolutely on target that day. Modern Dems could learn a little about American history and traditions from him.
How Harry took your insult is his business, and answering your question was no confirmation he wasn’t offended. I was. Your lame attempt to cover for yourself referenced napalm and said, “But if we use a torturing weapon like that against our enemies, how can we complain if they do the same?” You think that sort of low vindictive crap goes unnoticed?
It’s so typical of the presumptuous climate of hate for our military prevent in the MSM and in the American academy these days. Pampered school boy half-wits sneer and look down on the troops, all the while making excuses for bloodthirsty butchers. Shameless ungrateful preening turncoats.
If Dems don’t want to be seen for the devils they so obviously are, they should stop talking and acting like devils. And, as a good first step, they should apologize when they’re wrong.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 12/11/2005 @ 12:21 pmBlack Jack, I don’t believe that either party wants to destroy America. Why would they? Life must be hard for you trying to save America every day from the evil Democrats. Usually there are two sides to every argument and some worth in both views of controversial issues.
But instead of just hurling insults at each other, it is better to try to see each side’s point of view and talk about policy rather than simply demonizing the other side’s motives. Now I’m guilty of questioning Republican motives too, but I do make an effort to try to steer clear of it most of the time.
As far you’re claim that I insulted Harry, I still don’t see why you charge me with that. Are you against saying anything negative whatsoever about the military? Is it insulting just to bring up napalm?
Tillman (1cf529) — 12/12/2005 @ 5:22 am“I still don’t see why you charge me with that.”
You don’t see it? Really, Tillman, or, are you just pretending and playing dumb?
First, you asked Harry if he had dropped napalm. Next, you identified napalm and WP as “weapons that cause great suffering.” Then, you attempted to equate the use of napalm with torture, “But if we use a torturing weapon like that against our enemies, how can we complain if they do the same?”
So, Tillman, in these times, and in the context of the Iraqi war, you want to draw similarities between the use of napalm in Vietnam, with the use of WP in Fallujah, then include both as “torturing” weapons. You twist words to slime our troops with bogus charges.
Harry just happened to be kind enough to explain a few facts to you. But, in your contempt for US Armed Forces, and in the arrogance of your smug, self anointed, oafishness, you can’t simply apologize and move on.
PS: You can save the Pollyanna two-step, and the crocodile tears, I’m not buying it. But, if you want to prove me wrong, tell me why you admire the US Armed Services and the men and women who defend America. Tell me how grateful you are these brave troops defend America, and explain your debt to them, and how your life is easier because others fight for your life and liberty.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 12/12/2005 @ 10:22 amHere’s another link you guys should check out that debunks some of the things that DailyKos was peddling, the supposed Pentagon memos from 1991 talking about WP as a chemical weapon: A Farewell to (chemical) Arms
And my take here: Norway Used Chemical Weapons
Seixon (8a026e) — 12/12/2005 @ 12:06 pmBlack Jack, there is nothing wrong with stating the obvious. Napalm is a horrible weapon and so is WP if it is being used to burn people to death. So I thought that if Harry used it, he has had a long time to get used to the idea that he did drop napalm on the enemy. So I still don’t see it as an insult – although it was really none of my business I’ll admit.
I don’t believe that I owe you this since you’re so damn insulting, but here it is anyway: My respect for the military has actually grown lately since we found no WMD and most of them still are loyal to the cause. Anyone who experiences war and comes out of it OK has my respect. Some of my best friends were in the military, so I’m not a total stranger to it. One of my friends – a co-worker who was a smart, admirable man fought in Vietnam. He said that he was praying that you would get shot because his feet would hurt so bad marching endlessly. I respect the military, but that doesn’t mean that I have to like Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.
Tillman (1cf529) — 12/12/2005 @ 5:19 pmSince I seem to have gotten into the middle of a discussion, please permit a few observations.
Black Jack, I see your point about Tillman’s questions but honestly didn’t take them in the same way you did. I also admit that I share your disappointment and obvious frustration with much of the rhetoric from the left. Truthfully, the antiwar generation of the 60s and 70s that I grew up with was not much different from the demonstrators I see on TV today. Many are idealistic young people who believe that if we can just talk out our differences with our enemies everything will be fine. They are sincere, naive and, unfortunately, wrong. There are also a fair number who, coming from wealthy families, feel guilty that they have it so good in this country. Their opposition to all things American is really rebellion against their parents. These are the ones flying the Viet Cong and NVA flags or this generation’s equivalent.
I certainly also share your more general observation that much of the leftist rhetoric at least seems to emanate from a visceral hatred of Bush, even to the point of wishing the country and our soldiers ill as long as Bush is harmed politically in the process. These are the people suffering from BDS. Spokesmen for this point of view include Senator “the troops are terrorizing children and women” Kerry, Representative “bring the troops home immediately after the election” Pelosi, Senator “the war was cooked up in Texas” Kennedy, DNC Chairman “we can’t win” Dean, et al.
On the other hand, there are still a number of honorable democrats such as Senator Lieberman, Congressman Hoyer, and a fair number of Representatives from various southern states, who still place country above party, so I don’t think your observation is universally true … yet. Unfortunately, I do think it is becoming the prevailing view among democrats almost to the point of becoming “mainstream” at this point. And, oddly enough, it won’t help them win elections, whether they choose to believe it or not.
Of course there are a fair number of people who simply disagree with taking the country to war. Fine. It is their right as Americans to disagree. I just happen to have the opposite opinion. History will be the final judge. We can have a discussion about several particular sets of facts, such as we have been doing regarding the use of WP in Fallujah. Fair enough.
Personally, if I sense that someone has an open enough mind to listen to facts about which I have some level of expertise, such as military operations, I offer my opinion for what it’s worth. My take is that both Black Jack and Tillman are genuinely interested in discussing these sorts of facts. Unfortunately, responding to this particular “journalistic expose” can become the “never ending story” because we’ve been basically challenged to prove a negative – hence the obvious frustration in Black Jack’s comments. This particular “expose” is yet another example of throwing horse hocky against the barn door, hoping some will stick.
My general take on Iraq is that now that we’re there, what next? I really have little interest in arguing about how we got there, whether Bush lied, whether intelligence was bad, or any other such concerns. There is only one valid question in my mind: “What do we do now that we’re there?” Even Hillary agrees that we can’t just pack up and leave without completely destroying the ME for decades and destroying our national credibility along with it. Not to mention that we will bring the fight here.
Tillman, I took your questions as either challenging my knowledge of military tactics, on which I had admittedly much to say, or whether I was being consistent in my expressed beliefs that the military always seeks to minimize civilian casualties in the employment of force. I found neither possibility either too personal or otherwise insulting, so was more than happy to answer your questions.
I did and will take you at your word that you are simply seeking information concerning a subject about which you do not apparently have personal or direct knowledge and are looking for some context. As I stated, though I have never employed napalm, I have no personal, ethical or moral qualms about its use against strictly military targets including troops.
As far as it being a terrible weapon – you’re right, it is. That is at least part of the point. I would simply add that all modern weapons are pretty terrible. Artillery, mortars, MLR and B-52 ARC light bombardments aren’t particularly humane, either – they’re designed to blow you up. You should see what a simple M-16 round or AK-47 round does to the human body. Pretty terrible. Like I’ve said before, it’s really pretty silly to suggest that the use of WP as we employ it is somehow beyond the pale of civilized behavior or that its use somehow impugns our national reputation and character.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 12/12/2005 @ 9:42 pmActually Jawa came pretty close to the tones of the original interview.
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/video/correct_1.wmv
What a scam…
Wellington, the anti-hero (fab8f4) — 12/13/2005 @ 8:17 amHarry, thanks for your comments.
Unfortunately, I don’t share your take that Tillman is, “…genuinely interested in discussing these sorts of facts.” My take is that he’s only interested in twisting information to fit his preconceived antiwar and Hate Bush agenda. His words speak for him.
Yes, he’s obviously uninformed on the topic of military tactics, but he’s also making no effort to learn about how armed conflict is conducted. He doesn’t understand basic weapons or when, where, how, or why they are employed.
Additionally, like most young men who assume too much, Tillman makes no effort to understand the extent to which our troops go to minimize civilian casualties, nor does he grasp the additional dangers involved, or more importantly why reducing civilian casualties makes for more effective military operations.
In short, I think Tillman is typical of many young men today, full of pompous self-righteousness and silly antiwar Lefty nonsense. He has little real information or understanding, but thinks nothing of spouting off about weighty matters to men who know better. That how I see it.
Harry, many thanks for your service to our country. FIGMO.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 12/13/2005 @ 11:04 am