March 20, 2006
It never ceases to amaze me how liberals claim to "support the troops but not the war."
What utter liars they are.
Four months ago in the Iraqi city of Haditha, an IED exploded, killing one Marine and wounding two others. After the explosion, the Marines stormed a nearby building and killed 15 people. Three were children. The Pentagon has now launched a criminal investigation.
Those are the facts.
There is the possibility that the Marines did gun down innocent civilians as local Iraqis claim.
But it is equally as possible that one or more people inside the house opened fire upon the Marines in an ambush after the IED went off. It has happened that way frequently, and that exact scenario left ABC anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt seriously wounded, when the IED attack that wounded them was followed by small arms fire from nearby buildings. The attack was broken when coalition forces counterattacked.
Someone who truly supports the troops, even if they do not support the war, would want this incident fully investigated to uncover the truth. They would want to know the facts.
They would want to know if the Marines fired out of blind rage at the loss of their friends, and they would be equally interested in finding out if the Marines assaulted that location because someone inside fired upon them, as they claimed. Was it a slaughter of innocents, or were insurgents firing from within civilian homes? Were those that triggered the IED among the dead? We do not yet know, and some are already passing judgment.
Steve Clemmons states in his Washington Note:
Don Rumsfeld's Pentagon Investigating Another U.S. Military Atrocity.
When will Rumsfeld be held accountable and fired? [my bold. - ed]
A crime has not even been established, and yet Clemmons and his nauseous ilk have already deemed our Marines guilty, and presume to pass sentence.
Steve Soto at the Left Coaster is equally as charitable, asserting:
At a time when Rummy and others say that things in Iraq are better than reported, and that bad news is the result of bloggers and other enemies of the truth, we find out today that if it hadn't been for videotape, the Pentagon would have blamed the deaths of 15 Iraqis including children four months ago on a roadside bomb. In fact, based on a Time magazine article and the inconvenient videotape of the bodies, the Pentagon now confirms they have opened a criminal investigation to see if our own troops gunned down innocent Iraqi civilians and children as a result of that roadside bombing in Haditha. This comes at the same time that Iraqi police are now accusing US soldiers of executing 11 Iraqis last week, including a 75 year-old woman and an infant.
Maybe we can call a blogger's ethics conference now on why we are inferior to whatever propaganda is spewed by Rummy. You can bet that if Rummy could have snuffed out that Iraqi journalism student and grabbed that videotape, he would have. [my bold. - ed]
"Support the troops?"
Posted by Confederate Yankee at March 20, 2006 08:28 PM
The liberals are estatic anytime our brave heroes make a mistake and do their damnest to find fault when things go right as well (e.g. Fallujah and the White Phosphorous WMD condemnation). Quite frankly, I'm beyond being sick of hearing the lip service phrase, "I support the troops, but not the war." I've made my feelings about this false logic statement known in the past. I don't know why they can't be honest. Actually, I do know ahy, they're trying to get back into power and not supporting the troops is political suicide. So much for honesty in politics and politicians.
You cite a general who failed to get his assigned job done in Iraq (his successor has done a wonderful job), and who seemed to find fault with all the other generals who were able to get things done. It paints a picture of a sad man trying to justify his own failings.
Atleast you were honest enough not to try to say you support the troops. The fact that you constantly argue with them on this site would put that lie to rest rather quickly.
What 'troops' have I argued with on this site?
Of course I knew you would trash the general. And without offering a shred of evidence beyond your saying 'he' failed.
'Sad man' 'blaming others'? Nonsense. He shoulders his share of responsbility for what hasn't worked. Pity higher officials can't.
Eaton has been discussing our policy failures in Iraq for a couple of years now. Not exactly news anymore sadly.
Huge improvement in Iraqi self-defense capabilities after Eaton left his post?
I don't think so.
Arthur, check out another perspective on MG Eaton...
Thanks for the link.
'It was Clinton's fault.'
'The general is oldfashioned in his thinking.'
'The general is upset he wasn't 'promoted'.'
I think I'll stick with this:
After that embarrassment, which Eaton said he might have headed off,
Pentagon officials sent Lieutenant General David Petraeus, who had commanded the 101st Airborne Division during the invasion and the early occupation, to review the program and then to take over the training mission after Eaton completed his yearlong tour.
"Paul Eaton and his team did an extraordinary amount for the Iraqi Security Force mission," said Petraeus, now commander of the army's Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. "They established a solid foundation on which we were able to build as the effort was expanded very substantially and resourced at a much higher level."
Funny, Richard. You don't get "military-ese."
What is the name of the book used to "code" Army speech, specifically geared at making sub-channel (not exactly the right word) communication in performance appraisals?
The concept follows the "damning with faint praise" school of thought, and Petraeus seems to be making that coded speech. If that is what Patraeus meant, it might translate smeothing like this:
"Paul Eaton and his team did an extraordinary amount" translates to "they generated a tremendous amount of paperwork," where "establishing a solid translation" translates to "he didn't finish the assignment and someone else had to do it."
"the effort was expanded very substantially and resourced at a much higher level" translates into "we had to put a lot more effort into it and use more resources because of his failures."
Those of you who knew your sear from your buttplate feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Besides a rightwing blog or two it's impossible to find anything to suggest, as you do, that Eaton was incompetent or somehow had an axe to grind.
Sorry. I'll need more than Jason or your translation of 'military-ese'. Which branch of the armed forces did you pick up the lingo CY?
On the other hand there is an endless of folks trashed, swiftboated or otherwise lied about after questioning admistration policies during the run up to the invasion and the subsequent occuptation.
Sorry for the late response, CY, but your analysis is spot on the money. It is obvious that Richard was either never in uniform, or, if he was, his ego was stroked by reading a lot of meaningless jibberish about how great a Soldier/Marine/Airman/Sailor he was. Some need that stroking from time to time.
I always found it amazing that nearly 100% of commissioned officers were all in the top 3% of all officers. Major General Paul Eaton was surely in that 3% too, but the narrative is what is aleays telling. Saw lots of O4's get passed over for promotion to O5, and the narrative is what always told the tory very clearly.
Back to your Gallery, Richard. Hopefully you know a bit more about that subject.