I Question the Timing. In Fact, I Already Questioned the Timing . . .
Reuters reported on Thursday:
The head of the U.S. Marine Corps briefed Rep. John Murtha on the Haditha case after the vocal war critic publicly said Marines had killed innocent civilians in that Iraqi city, the Corps said on Thursday.
(Via Gateway Pundit.)
This contradicts a passage in an L.A. Times article from May:
[Marine Commandant Gen. Michael] Hagee last week briefed key congressional leaders on the upcoming report. One of those, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a retired Marine colonel, said later that Marines “killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”
According to the L.A. Times, Hagee briefed Murtha, and Murtha “later” said that Marines killed innocents in cold blood. But we now know that’s wrong — at least according to Hagee.
I was suspicious about this claim at the time, and I wrote the Readers’ Representative in May to ask her to double-check it. I published my e-mail in this post, but never published the response, because it was so unsatisfactory that I didn’t think you’d be interested.
Now I do.
In that exchange, I specifically asked whether Hagee briefed Murtha before Murtha made his public comments about Haditha. The Readers’ Rep replied to say that he had.
But it now appears that the L.A. Times never contacted Hagee to find out whether he really had.
I’ll set forth the entire e-mail exchange below the fold, but the summary is this:
Q. Are you sure Murtha was briefed by Hagee before Murtha spouted off?
A. Yes. The report was accurate. Murtha was briefed.
Q. But was he briefed by Hagee?
A. The report was accurate.
Q. Well, I can see I’m not going to get a direct answer, so I’ll leave it there.
I am sending a follow-up e-mail today.
Here is the whole exchange:
On May 27, I sent this e-mail to the Readers’ Representative:
Jamie,
A recent L.A. Times story on the alleged Haditha massacre (Probe Finds Marines Killed Unarmed Iraqi Civilians, May 26), says that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) was briefed by Marine Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee before Murtha went to the press to denounce the killings:
Hagee briefed key congressional leaders on the upcoming report. One of those, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a retired Marine colonel, said later that Marines “killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”
Are you sure about this?
Murtha made his comments on May 18. Hagee briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee two days ago, on May 25. If Hagee briefed Murtha before May 18, I can’t find any evidence of it.
Can you check to make sure the assertion in the article is correct?
Thanks.
Patrick Frey
On May 30, she replied:
Yes, the story was correct; Murtha was briefed prior to his public statements.
Jamie Gold
Readers’ representative
I immediately replied:
Was Murtha briefed *by Hagee* before making those statements? If so, on what date?
On June 3, having received no response, I wrote her again:
I hate to be so persistent/annoying, but my original question was whether Murtha was briefed *by Hagee,* as the story said. You replied that, yes, Murtha was briefed. That wasn’t what I asked.
The reason I asked all this to begin with is that I had the impression that Murtha made his statements days before *Hagee* had briefed Murtha. So I was surprised to see in The Times that Hagee had briefed Murtha before Murtha’s statements.
I am wondering what the rank of the people was who briefed Murtha before he spoke publicly, and how solid their information was.
Also, The Times story seemed to suggest that the investigation was complete, by referring to the findings of various investigations. I know at least one local blogger who read it that way. It seems pretty clear to me that the investigation is still ongoing. Am I wrong about that?
When did *Hagee* brief Murtha? And are the investigations complete?
Thanks.
Patrick
On June 4, the Readers’ Rep wrote me:
My answer remains that what has run in the Times has been accurate.
I wrote back:
I guess I have no choice to leave it there. I find it strange that you can’t simply say: “Yes, Murtha was briefed by Hagee before making his statements about Haditha.” Ideally with a date when that happened. It reads to me like you are deliberately avoiding saying that, since I keep asking that, and you keep answering cryptically.
But I obviously can’t force you to say this clearly.
The Dan Rather meme “fake but accurate” seems to have infected the Times “My answer remains that what has been run in the Times is accurate”.
If that’s her answer, the Los Angeles Times Reader’s Representative is one of a very small number of people in the LA basin who believe that nonsense.
Arrogant, mendacious, and mealy mouthed twits.
Mike Myers (55ef4a) — 8/5/2006 @ 2:23 pmSeems Jamie Gold is representing interests other than those of the readers. But, what the heck, there’s no news in newspapers, and darn few readers or advertisers either.
So, what’s next, we find out the LA Times is run from Chicago?
Black Jack (d8da01) — 8/5/2006 @ 3:53 pmI smell chickenhawk. Cough, dorkboy, have you served or are you just another yellow elephant trampling round the net making a fucking ass of yourself.
waldo (e895b3) — 8/5/2006 @ 4:18 pmAnd congratulations for jumping on LE MEL. He really needed it. Too bad you don’t give the drunk in the WH the same treatment.
Chickenhawk. That’s original. *Yawn.* Maybe I should write it up at the Wiki. Oh, wait …
Anwyn (03d912) — 8/5/2006 @ 4:22 pmThis is a test comment. Sorry the content is less humorous than usual.
Test Commentary (af44b2) — 8/5/2006 @ 4:36 pmIn response to your question concerning the prediction of snow today:
My answer remains that the weather forcasts run in the Times have occasionally been accurate.
Amphipolis (fb9e95) — 8/5/2006 @ 5:10 pmWTF is #3 talking about?
Did I miss something?
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 8/5/2006 @ 5:31 pmDwilkers, best I could figure, “waldo” apparently believes that having served in the military will make one more likely to join Murtha in smearing the military. Because it’s about “truth.”
Anwyn (03d912) — 8/5/2006 @ 5:43 pmDwilkers, you didn’t miss anything. It looks to be most likely some residual contamination left over from the TBogg misadventure.
You hang around in Moonbat caves, you find guano in the most peculiar places.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 8/5/2006 @ 5:48 pmI served 9 years active and 13 years reserve and counting. Murtha needs to BOHICA to a bayonet.
TCO (6d6f51) — 8/5/2006 @ 5:50 pmI see that chickenhawk stuff on lefty blogs all the time. If it gets directed at me, I ask the complainer to compare DD 214s. That’s the last I hear from them. If they were taking 68-year-old docs, I’d go. A friend of mine, a 60-year-old retired British medical officer was called up but was judged too old to go to Basra so he stayed in Britain filling for a younger medical officer. Even that would be OK. I was a corpsman almost 50 years ago and an army officer after that. Murtha is an appropriator. He long ago forgot what it was to be a Marine or he wouldn’t be slandering the troops. Maybe he should read Pantano’s book. It is great and he might learn something.
Mike K (416363) — 8/5/2006 @ 6:09 pmChickenhawk? I tire of seeing this – as if only those who served in the military should have an opinion on the rightness (of course, the same label would never be put on someone who might argue the contrary point) of sending troops into battle. I wonder if Clinton was ever tagged as a chickenhawk? No, of course not.
I wonder if the same people who throw that label around would mind calling the police if their homes were being robbed? And, I wonder what their reaction might be if the police, once called, asked: have you ever been a police officer? If not, sorry, but, you know, enforcing the law can be dangerous stuff. And, how could you possibly ask us to endager our lives if you haven’t, like, walked a mile in our shoes?
Anyone attempting to form a logical argument that only those who have served in the military should be able to send the boys in uniform into harms way should be laughed at: they are intellectually bankrupt, and from that point forward, ignored.
Eric (9c67f7) — 8/5/2006 @ 8:10 pmThey call me a chickenhawk all the time. I didn’t serve, but I was a Navy wife for 26 years and have a Commendation from Admiral Zumawalt saying what a good little Navy wife I was. I volunteered a lot of my time as a family liason during years where the military didn’t much care what was happening to families back home. The favorite phrase was, “you knew he was in the Navy when you married him.” It was nothing like today. My spouse was gone a total of 10 1/2 years in the first 13 years we were married. I would have gladly traded places with him on many occasions.
I’m 61 years old now, recuperating from a broken back, and if I could think of a way to be useful to the military, I’d be there in a heart beat. If this makes me a chickenhawk, then I wear the title proudly. Defeat the senile old man, elect Diana Irey!
Sara (Squiggler) (47b627) — 8/5/2006 @ 9:07 pmPatterico, I’ve been checking in all day waiting for you to post this.
I’m puzzled why Hagee and the DoD took so long before refuting the long publicized reports and Murtha’s claims that his outrageous comments were factually based, that is the substance of his military briefing.
I can’t imagine I’d have done that in their position. Some have said they didn’t want to prejudice the case by publicly discussing the facts.
clarice (c49871) — 8/5/2006 @ 10:16 pmI don’t buy that.
I think it would have been the better course to say while we will not comment on the substance of a confidential briefing we want to make clear that we never spoke to Murtha until after he made that statement.
[…] • Patterico discovers Jack Murtha wasn’t the only one talking out of his ass about the date he was first briefed by General Hagee on Haditha. […]
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Lazy Sunday (d4224a) — 8/5/2006 @ 11:16 pmClarice my guess is they just stayed out of it until they were forced by some circumstance to comment. Murtha is on the Armed Services committee and the USMC chain of command is going to stay away from disagreeing with anyone in that position unnecessarily. I understand you being baffled about it but to me it isn’t that remarkable. It isn’t like the Marine Corps leadership to get involved in a political battle if it isn’t necessary, and Murtha was probably their sugar daddy to some extent for a long time. The political reality of him being where he’s positioned himself is difficult for them to adjust to I’d guess.
Oh, Waldo? I smell dumbass. This post isn’t about the war. Its not about Murtha. It isn’t even about the LATimes coverage of Murtha, strictly speaking. It is about an e-mail exchange between Patterico and the LATimes’ reader representative.
Hey I know. Why don’t you go take a flying fuck on a rolling donut?
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 8/6/2006 @ 4:32 amHey boys and girls (and those who are a little age-challenged to wear that tag)
The reason I brought up chickenhawks is that there is a surfeit of them on the web (I didn’t notice too many of the servicemen and women who commented here who have a website) urging America on to greater folly in the Middle East.
If the web had have been around during Vietnam you would have had the same type of inexperiencd fools mouthing off how America should “bomb them back to the stone age”.
And if they had had their way it wouldn’t matter if there had been 50,000 American deaths and 1/2 million casualties, or 10 times that number, thrown away on a futile war that didn’t achieve a fucking thing; why should they care? Their ass is never going to be on the line and they don’t really give a fuck anbout anyone else, so they can shoot their mouths off as much as they like. It’s called the ‘Rush Limbaugh syndrome’; or how about the Richard “Dick” Cheney, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz,I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Jeb Bush, Saxby Chambliss, Tom DeLay, William “Bill” Kristol, Dennis Hastert, Danforth Quayle, John Ashcroft, Roger Ailes, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, William “Bill” Bennett, “Newt” Gingrich, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, William “Bill” O’Reilly, Michael Savage, Jerry Falwell, “Pat” Robertson syndrome.
And you all know that this doesn’t scratch the surface of this scum pond. Thousands more are infesting the web and Fox and co., talking it up big about how America should butcher more and more people in the name of peace and democracy, just like It did in Vietnam.
I mean really; John Murtha is a highly decorated veteran who is now elected to Congress. Who’d have the better sources for finding out what went on in Haditha (which, given the antics in Abu Ghraib and plenty of places elsewhere, seems to be fairly obvious), Mr. Murtha, or a pontificating blogger who’s never been near a battlezone or served in the armed forces? I’m betting on the ex-marine.
So go ahead Patterico, blurt away; split hairs on whether this person spoke to that person or whatever. Start up your pissy little arguments that will let you hammer away on your keyboard slinging limp-assed insults from the safety of your home; just know that you’re tagged, along with the rest of the big-mouthed cowards listed above.
.
waldo (c3bf11) — 8/6/2006 @ 5:14 am413 words, and not a damned thing said.
waldo, the reason you brought up “chickenhawks” is that you’re an idiot and you’re incapable of discussing the issue at hand on its merits.
Or, in other words, the submoronic “chickenhawk” argument is the sum total of what you’ve got to work with. Pity, that.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/6/2006 @ 5:19 amI’ve been lurking, but not commenting– until now. I feel the need to address Waldo and his asinine “chicken-hawk” comments. You see, I served for a year in Iraq with my PA National Guard Unit, B co (forward) 2/103rd Armor. I even gave my real name and rank if you wanna google it. There for, I am going to hold you and all of the lefty/”Progressive” anti-war folk to the same standard that you try to hold the wingnuts– unless you have served, shut the hell up. You are not allowed to have an opinion on the war. Sounds unreasonable, doesn’t it? Because it is, and you know it. The “chicken-hawk” appellation is only applied by those with no mental capacity for reasoned thought and debate, so they resort to playground shouts of “stupid head!” You know what the funny thing is? The vast majority of us who have and are serving in Iraq want to stay the course and finish the job, so if the decision to stay or go was left entirely up to us (and let’s be real, you’d never in a million years actually care what one of us baby killers says, does, or thinks) we’d stay. I think it’s far past time to put “chicken-hawk” to rest.
LordDilly aka CPL Nick Dilmore (60abf9) — 8/6/2006 @ 7:07 amI’m a two-time combat veteran (OIF and OEF) and Airborne Infantryman. Waldo I find your arguement to be disgusting. We do not have military superiority precisely because our Founding Fathers did not want it that way. Military guys tend to be good at blowing stuff up and fixing the aftermath. God knows I do not have the patience for politics and leave it to men that are better suited to the task.
We do not want the decision to go to war based solely on guys like myself. Soldiers tend to be conservate politically and hard-nosed on defense. I have personally seen how American military involvment has made the world a better place. In other words I’d be more hawkish than most here. And I’ve experienced actual combat.
Alot of words to say STFU, don’t you think?
Now on to the Times. Good catch, Patterico. If it can be proven that Murtha was briefed by Gen Hagee then the court will have to throw out the case. If he hasn’t the anti-war crowd will take a blow. Its a win-win situation. Although I would rather have the Marines exonerated than have their case thrown out on a technicality
Jason (84a87d) — 8/6/2006 @ 7:16 amWaldo, if you would like to argue the Iraq war and US policy in the Middle East on its merits, I’m sure plenty of people here would be game to go a couple of rounds. But, you have not done that. Instead, you list a bunch of names, and throw around the ultimately meaningless and nonsensical term “chickenhawk”. Perhaps I am obtuse, but how does that advance the argument that you are making (actually, not sure what you are arguing)?
Arguments based sheerly on emotion and rhetorical devices rarely have a chance of succeeding, let alone turning anyone’s own thoughts on the matter.
Eric (9c67f7) — 8/6/2006 @ 7:31 amWaldo said:
Yeah, let’s imagine.
Barry Goldwater would have beat LBJ in 1964, Walter Cronkite would have been chased off the air after his Tet Offensive reporting and John Kerry would have been branded a traitor for his slanderous 1971 Senate testimony. That’s just off the top of my head.
The blogosphere has been the Great Equalizer and counterstrategy to the incessant lying of liberals. Just ask “internet inventor” Al Gore or John Kerry (presidential aspirations) Dan Rather or Eason Jordan (broadcast media) or Jesse Macbeth (who tried to pull a John Kerry by spreading “slaghter of innocents” lies.)
Paul (8a9b7c) — 8/6/2006 @ 7:32 amOops! Misspelled “slaughter.”
Paul (8a9b7c) — 8/6/2006 @ 7:36 amDwikers, Undoubtedly you are right, but undoubtedly General Hagee represents a dispiriting politicization of the military, when currying favor with an ass like Murtha to the extent of covering up his slander of the troops takes precedence over–you, know, like standing up for them.
clarice (c49871) — 8/6/2006 @ 10:07 amRe: Waldo’s chicken hawk comment listing abunchofpeopleweallknow:
How about adding these names: John Adams, Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson. I’m sure there are bunches more. None of these men should have spoken a lick on war because none of them ever fought in one.
Right?
For the record, I haven’t served either. But my husband’s deployed right now, and my brother’s going in October. They both agree with the “chicken hawks,” by and large. So does just about every other military person I know, and being a Navy wife that’s about all I associate with these days. Do the opinions of military personnel really count for more? If so, then how about a roundup of military bloggers and their opinions? I bet they’re closer to the “chicken hawks” than to the plain old chickens.
I’m sure they’d speak up even more for themselves, if they cound find time between “butchering” people in Iraq etc. — who have in reality butchered our people and who will continue doing so if we don’t send our brave men and women over there to stop them.
But please keep talking. Freedom of speech means freedom to say stupid stuff, too.
Jamie Wilson (80bbca) — 8/6/2006 @ 10:08 am[…] Here’s the e-mail I sent to the Readers’ Representative today regarding the paper’s apparent misstatement regarding when General Hagee briefed John Murtha about Haditha: Jamie, […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Letter to the Readers’ Representative Regarding Hagee’s Briefing of Murtha (421107) — 8/6/2006 @ 1:06 pmIf the web had been around during Vietnam, I would have learned sooner what a worthless, lying son of a bitch John Kerry was, would probably have enlisted, and wouldn’t have to listen to the chickenhawk bullshit from pissants like you now.
B Moe (cf48a4) — 8/6/2006 @ 2:09 pmIf most of us agree that the whole chickenhawk appelation is really just a way to say: you don’t have the right to have an opinion, and we also agree that in so saying the arguer has revealed themselves as both annoyingly stupid and without a valid argument, why then do we, when responding to the application of the term, feel the need to list our military histories?
Seems to lend credence to an otherwise ridiculous and vapid argument.
Eric (9c67f7) — 8/6/2006 @ 3:42 pmBecause it shows up the fundamental disconnect of the argument.
1) They say “chickenhawk,” which as far as it goes in actual argument really just says “If you had served, and seen your buddies dying for this, you would agree it’s not worth dying for.”
2) Immediately refuted by the military among us, that obviously the majority of people who join the military do it precisely because they believe there are objectives worth dying for.
3) That being the case, all “chickenhawk” has left is being a word to shut people up. The presence of military folk (thanks!) just proves that’s all “chickenhawk” is.
Anwyn (03d912) — 8/6/2006 @ 3:50 pmActually Waldo’s comment-#17 above and his use of the term “chicken hawk” simply proves that he’s an Ignoranus.
Waldo says: If the web had have been around during Vietnam you would have had the same type of inexperiencd [sic–Waldo’s misspelling, not mine] fools mouthing off how America should “bomb them back to the stone age”.
The “inexperienced fool” who is famous for that qoute is one General Curtiss LeMay. By Waldo’s definition, LeMay could not have been a “chicken hawk”. He’d led US Air Force bomber forces in both Europe and Japan in WWII–and had created the Strategic Air Command. During the Viet Nam war (while mounting a campaign for President by the way) LeMay opined that if he were President, there wouldn’t be American boys dying in Viet Nam because he would bomb North Viet Nam back into the stone age.
By the way Waldo, since you seem to be “historically challenged” LeMay also devised the B-29 fire bombing raid strategy over Japan in the spring of 1945. His first big fire bomb raid on Tokyo in April or May that year burned out some 68 square miles of urban Tokyo and killed more people than either of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Now there’s a guy who is “very experienced” about bombing people back into the Stone Age.
But because LeMay can’t be accused of being a “chicken hawk” the Ignoranii (plural of Ignoranus) who cohabit with Waldo’s thought patterns tell us he’s the only sort of person who is qualified to make military decisions.
Don’t get me wrong–generals such as LeMay and McArthur, Russian Field Marshals such as Zhukov; England’s Lord Wellington, etc all have or had their uses. They are Dogs of War, and when their chain is slipped, they know how to wreak havoc on their nation’s perceived enemies. But there must be civilian control of the leash.
LeMay and McArthur, if let loose, could well have gotten us into another atomic exchange in the early 1950’s. Truman fired McArthur–and should have. LeMay went before the electorate (or tried to) and the civilian citizens of this country turned his Presidential bid down cold. They were smarter than Waldo is today.
I’m “age challenged” to be numbered among the “boys and girls” that Waldo sneers at. But I’m not intellectually or historically challenged.
Waldo is still at the kindergarten playground stage; he’s learned that if he just talks nice and shares his blanky with the other kids, things will work out. And if another kid is aggressive, why he’s just a chicken hawk and the teacher will make him sit in the corner and take a time out. (Could Waldo be thinking about Miss Kofi?)
The world doesn’t work that way; while war may be, in Von Clausewitz’s phrase “the continuation of politics by other means”, decisions about going to war must be made by elected civilian officials rather than by the generals and other “non chicken hawks”.
Waldo uses the term “a decorated war hero” to describe Murtha. I’m not certain what Murtha did to get his decorations–and Murtha has been remarkably chary about releasing his military records concerning the citations. But, I’ll give Waldo his point and say Murtha is a decorated war hero–heck Waldo thinks John Kerry is a decorated war hero.
But you don’t necessarily want decorated war heros to make decisions about going to war. After all, Hitler had served, and quite bravely, with decorations and all in WW I. He was wounded too, although the Austrian Army didn’t give out Purple Hearts. Decorated and Wounded War Hero Adolf Hitler also fancied himself to be a great military genius (the most florid title he gave himself was “GROFAZ” or Grosster Feldherr um aller Zeit–that translates to Greatest Field Commander of All Time). No chicken hawk was Uncle Adolf–but he decided to start WW II in Europe.
Waldo, go read some history before you engage your mouth and fingers again.
Mike Myers (55ef4a) — 8/6/2006 @ 6:04 pmA better and more reasoned post I have not read in quite some time. Well done, Mike.
Eric (09c569) — 8/6/2006 @ 7:29 pmHey guys and girls
Great thread, eh? And take note how no-one who commented on my post disputes the Vietnam analogy.
waldo (9567c8) — 8/7/2006 @ 4:08 amAmerica did real good there, eh. Stayed the course, stayed the course, and stayed the course some more and where did it get you? Tell me, what did it achieve besides millions of dead people?
And if you think this time it’s going to be different, here’s a few similarities for you:
• Distance from Indiana, America to Hanoi, Vietnam – 8091 miles (13021 km)
•” ” ” ” Baghdad, Iraq – 6412 miles (10318 km)
• Threat to America from those countries – none in both cases
• Reasons for invasion by U.S. – false in both cases
• Countries attacked (Vietnam and Iraq) weak militarily and economically, after previous sustained hostilities caused by colonial foreign powers and corrupt leadership
• US presence reviled by citizens of invaded countries.
• Civilian death toll – enormous
• Early completion of war assured by US leadership.
• Conflict escalates, leading to harsh methods (including torture, rape and murder) utilized by US.
• Ineffectual elections are held in an atmosphere of armed conflict, the U.S. being the occupying force.
• Neighbouring countries are targeted for hostilities by U.S.
• Escalating US death toll and false justification of the war causes many within the US to denounce the war; those people are then subjected to charges of ‘treason’ and other jingoism by those who will not concede America’s culpability under any circumstance.
Look, I knew when I wrote here that I was going to get flamed. I’ve copped it from many sites like this, from Misha’s AIR to Powerline but because of my past involvement with the US military, it’s my duty to do something to try to alert America to the mistake it is once again committing.
This war is wrong. It will not be won; the only people who make any profit are the usual suspects who profit from war. Oil companies, munitions firms, banks, they’ll all make a dollar at the cost of human suffering and misery. Bush has already said that he’s going to leave it for future presidents to sort out. What will Dubya do? He’ll retire to enjoy his family oil fortune,which is quite a bit bigger now.
That you guys think that the war is a good idea is the same ill-advised mindset that drove the supporters of the American war on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. You’re wrong, as they were, and the only thing that America will be left with is the sorrow of wasted and destroyed lives and the tears of the people who loved them.
Oh, and sorry, but I just read this from the New York Times:
“As America’s military experience in Iraq grows ever more nightmarish, it is becoming clear that President Bush’s strategy comes down to this: Keep holding to a failing course for the next 29 months and leave it to the next administration to clean up the mess.”
waldo (9567c8) — 8/7/2006 @ 4:32 am“Great thread, eh? And take note how no-one who commented on my post disputes the Vietnam analogy.”
I suspect the reason no one commented on your comparison to Vietnam is that they thought it was too idiotic (and pedantic) to do. I mean, the “this is another Vietnam” shtick has been tried on every conflict America’s been involved with since, well, Vietnam. It’s no more true now than it has been in any other instance. But let’s look at your points:
“America did real good there, eh.”
Actually, yes, it was doing “real good there.” We were backing up allies and fighting communism. That’s pretty good.
“• Distance from Indiana, America to Hanoi, Vietnam – 8091 miles (13021 km) Baghdad, Iraq – 6412 miles (10318 km)”
I’m sure you can explain the relevance of the distance. Or maybe this is just too subtle a distinction.
“• Threat to America from those countries – none in both cases”
Actually, you are wrong in both instances. The theory behind getting involved in the communist takeover of Southeast Asia was to avoid what had happened in Eastern Europe after WWII. It was also designed to contain the cancer known as communism and help democracies from succuming to it. And Iraq was no threat? At the risk of boring everyone who knows Saddam’s multiple sins, you don’t think trying to have an American president assassinated was a threat to America? Or helping terrorists by allowing them to train in your country?
“• Reasons for invasion by U.S. – false in both cases”
Sorry, no “false” reasons for invading Iraq. We knew Saddam to be a ruthless and dangerous dictator. The world community was convinced he had WMDs and was trying to get nuclear capability. He deliberately broke numerous U.N. resolutions and thumbed his nose at sanctions (so loved as an effective tool by lefties). He bought off countries in the oil for food scandal so he could continue doing as he pleased. None of these reasons was false.
“• Countries attacked (Vietnam and Iraq) weak militarily and economically, after previous sustained hostilities caused by colonial foreign powers and corrupt leadership”
And this is relevant because…?
“• US presence reviled by citizens of invaded countries.”
Which citizens reviled us? The ones who were in power or the ones put in woodchippers?
“• Civilian death toll – enormous”
Welcome to war. Tell the insurgents to fight in open fields and you will see a dramatic drop in civilian deaths.
“• Early completion of war assured by US leadership.”
Yes, this is true of every war since the Revolutionary War. Relevance?
“• Conflict escalates, leading to harsh methods (including torture, rape and murder) utilized by US.”
And the terrorists used none of these, I guess. How about adding: “Terrorists use women and children to conduct terror campaigns in an attempt to break the American will”? You leave that out, I see.
“• Ineffectual elections are held in an atmosphere of armed conflict, the U.S. being the occupying force.”
Nothing ineffectual about the Iraqi elections.
“• Neighbouring countries are targeted for hostilities by U.S.”
I guess if neighboring countries harbor terrorists, they are likely to be targeted. Again, you could say the same thing about most conflicts in which the U.S. has participated.
“• Escalating US death toll and false justification of the war causes many within the US to denounce the war;”
“Escalating”? There’s quite a difference between the number of dead Americans in this war vs. the Vietnam War. What a red herring. And those “denouncing” this war were the same ninnies who thought sanctions would make Saddam behave himself.
“those people are then subjected to charges of ‘treason’ and other jingoism by those who will not concede America’s culpability under any circumstance.”
Who has been called a traitor? The only people I ever see bring this up are the ones denouncing the war. Of course these are the same people shouting “jingoism” at the drop of the hat. The reason peaceniks are being sneered at is that they rarely ever have a decent answer. It’s always “Bush lied, people died” bumpersticker foreign policy. You want more respect, try giving a better answer.
This war is wrong. It will not be won;”
Yes, there’s a great foreign policy strategy. Got any more?
“the only people who make any profit are the usual suspects who profit from war. Oil companies, munitions firms, banks, they’ll all make a dollar at the cost of human suffering and misery.”
And the store owners and restaurant owners when peace returns. Oh, and the teachers and government employees. And the farmers and…well, you get the idea.
“Bush has already said that he’s going to leave it for future presidents to sort out.”
Um, why not quit twisting what President Bush said? What he said was that this was not a war that would be won quickly and that it will take future presidents to finish it. That’s not quite the same thing.
” What will Dubya do? He’ll retire to enjoy his family oil fortune,which is quite a bit bigger now.”
What, no mention of Halliburton? You’ve gotten all the other Michael Moore talking points in. Why not mention he’s got some ties to the Saudis? Anything else?
“That you guys think that the war is a good idea is the same ill-advised mindset that drove the supporters of the American war on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.”
I’m sure all those people killed by the Viet Cong thought Americans support for South Vietnam was ill-advised.
“You’re wrong, as they were, and the only thing that America will be left with is the sorrow of wasted and destroyed lives and the tears of the people who loved them.”
Wah! Wah! Wah! War is hell! We shouldn’t fight there because soldiers might die! What’s wrong, Waldo, is the attitude of people who keep insisting every conflict is “another Vietnam” because this is shorthand for “American has to lose.” If you think America can simply not get involved with conflicts throughout the world, then you obviously haven’t been paying attention to world events. Even when we don’t get involved, the “world community” expects us to go fix the problem. Look at Darfur. Or Lebanon. Or Bosnia. Or–take your pick of world problems.
sharon (03e82c) — 8/7/2006 @ 8:30 amThe Red Herring:
A rhetorical trick, designed to divert attention from the original issue by the introduction of some irrelevant topic. The Red Herring, Smoke Screen, or Wild Goose Chase are related fallacies employed in the attempt to “win” arguments by diverting attention to some issue other than the one under discussion.
On blogs, it goes usually goes something like this: Ostensibly in response to the subject, some unrelated but well known and highly controversial topic is mentioned. Enthusiasts rise to the bait, abandon the topic at issue, and plunge headlong into an emotionally compelling but pointless debate inapplicable to the original topic.
It is the sine qua non of the Internet Troll. Once the bread is on the water, the Troll waits for gullible victims. Advocates on either side of the controversial but inappropriate diversion rush into the fray as the Troll either stokes the coals or temporarily withdraws to the sidelines to gloat.
Take the bait, lose the argument, and waste time barking up the wrong tree. It’s that simple.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 8/7/2006 @ 12:22 pmSay Waldo, what was your “past involvement with the military”? Do you have a set of discharge papers and an old uniform that no longer fits? Or did you join a protest on campus to kick the ROTC out of the university? Inquiring minds want to know.
Mike Myers (55ef4a) — 8/7/2006 @ 12:27 pm“Great thread, eh?”
Well, getting better. You didn’t call anyone a chickenhawk this time.
Eric (9c67f7) — 8/7/2006 @ 5:51 pm“The Red Herring:”
Good point. I am as guilty of the wild goose chase as anyone else. What was this thread about, anyway?
Eric (9c67f7) — 8/7/2006 @ 5:53 pmWaldo said:
Note that a Democrat started our involvement in it in what would today be referred to as “peacekeeping” operation (JFK) and another Democrat escalated it (LBJ.)
LBJ screwed Vietnam up so bad that he couldn’t even win the primary in 1968 as the sitting president.
As for millions of dead people, look to the House and Senate Democrats, who abandoned South Vietnam in 1975, utilizing the same cut-and-run strategy that the Dems espouse today in Iraq.
Oh, by the way, the original subject of this thread was about how the LA Times seems to have contradicted itself in reporting the “fake but accurate” John Murtha briefing.
Paul (b182b9) — 8/7/2006 @ 7:47 pmAnd that “fake, but accurate” story has not been disputed one iota by waldo in all his slobbery blather about Vietnam.
Paul (b182b9) — 8/7/2006 @ 7:49 pmI don’t mind going down some of the rabbit trails trolls bring up. Some of them can be quite interesting. Usually, though, like Waldo, once you start questioning their logic, they stop answering and that is that. On with the thread!
sharon (63d8f8) — 8/8/2006 @ 4:19 amHey boys and girls
Congratulations on your shared satisfaction at supposedly flaming a troll.
waldo (c9d71d) — 8/8/2006 @ 6:28 amBut splitting hairs about who runs the futile wars your country wages doesn’t get you off the hook. And to whoever wrote…
“Oh, by the way, the original subject of this thread…”, this blog is political misstatement written by an inexperiencd chickenhawk, the same type of fool as the cretins who are running the war,who is in favour of America’s current return to full hostilities with a foreign nation, and indeed anyone who doesn’t meet the criteria of “you’re with us or against us.” Of all the arrogant childishness. No wonder you have the highest rates of imprisonment in the world.
And the sub-cretinous methods of this blog parsing who said what when is nothing so as to point out the folly of those opposed even if they’re a decorated veterans is beyond childish behaviour; it’s intransigent perverted stupidity.
As for Sharon’s “Actually, yes, it was doing “real good there.”
Do you really think that the deaths of millions of people is “real good”?
“We were backing up allies and fighting communism. ….I’m sure you can explain the relevance of the distance.”
Yeah, I’ll make it real simple for you kid; It’s a real long way away, around ten thousand kilometres. And it doesn’t matter if the people are communist, Muslim, or Catholic. The people don’t want you there. Ypu have no right to be there. You’re murdering, raping, and torturing people there for no good reason.
Soon you’re going to have to cut and run, as you did in Vietnam, (You lost!) and remember it was a Republican who did that, only because he had to, and only because the American people rose up against the Government and forced them to cease and desist, when they finally realised that the war was wrong.
And that’s what is going to happen again. But I’m sure Patterico will *yawn* that off as well, ’cause there’s always another war for a chickenhawk.
Sorry, long day-
And the sub-cretinous methods of this blog by parsing ‘who said what when’ is nothing but an straw-man technique, an effort to point out the supposed folly of those opposed even if they’re a decorated veterans is beyond childish behaviour; it’s intransigent perverted stupidity.
waldo (c9d71d) — 8/8/2006 @ 6:34 amwaldo,
Keep your comments substantive. I’ve gone on other websites and insulted people, so my hands are not clean. But they don’t help your argument. I’m trying a (perhaps temporary, perhaps permanent) experiment: getting rid of folks whose sole purpose is to lob personal insults or attacks. You appear to have substantive arguments under there somewhere; stick to those or go somewhere else.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 8/8/2006 @ 6:42 am“Yeah, I’ll make it real simple for you kid;”
Whoo hoo! I love being called a kid. Call me a “girl” next, and make my day.
“It’s a real long way away, around ten thousand kilometres.”
That’s only a planeride away. The distance makes no difference. Remember 9/11? Those guys weren’t born in the U.S.A. So, the distance of one country to another is irrelevant.
“And it doesn’t matter if the people are communist, Muslim, or Catholic.”
Yes, it does, since most Catholics aren’t running around shouting “Death to America!” and discussing the annihilation of Israel and the U.S.
“The people don’t want you there.”
You mean they wanted to go in the woodchippers?
“Ypu (sic) have no right to be there.”
Certainly do. That’s what happens in war.
“You’re murdering, raping, and torturing people there for no good reason.”
And Saddam had real good reason for doing so, riiiight?
“Soon you’re going to have to cut and run, as you did in Vietnam,”
Not unless you elect a Democrat.
“(You lost!)”
*sigh* Yes, all those peaceniks were so proud to watch the South Vietnamese get slaughtered. Or the ones hanging on to the helicopters. It brought a tear to their eyes. Probably yours, too.
“and remember it was a Republican who did that, only because he had to, and only because the American people rose up against the Government and forced them to cease and desist, when they finally realised that the war was wrong.”
What you mean is, a Republican kept a campaign promise to end the war after the Democrats created such a mess that there was no possible way to win.
sharon (03e82c) — 8/8/2006 @ 8:49 amPatt-
What about quips? If I’m mostly just interested in quipping, is that okay, so long as it’s on topic?
Dan Collins (208fbe) — 8/8/2006 @ 8:58 aman effort to point out the supposed folly of those opposed even if they’re a decorated veterans is beyond childish behaviour; it’s intransigent perverted stupidity.
Your point seems to be that Murtha is right since he’s a decorated veteran. Or maybe it’s that no one who isn’t a veteran can take an opposing position. The insults seem designed to provide camouflage for the basic idiocy/infantility of your argument, or maybe you can’t help yourself. You can repeat the “chickenhawks criticize a decorated veteran” a few more times but it won’t make any more sense then either.
Gerald A (dd601b) — 8/8/2006 @ 11:37 am