The Nation is a mouth piece of the political left in America, and the political left and the mainstream media are jumping to treat Haditha as an Iraqi My Lai because they seek to undermine our country's efforts in Iraq and bring about an American defeat.

That we have removed a murderous dictator in Saddam and have given the Iraqi people the chance to chart a democratic future does not matter to the political left and the mainstream media. That we should wait until the Haditha investigation is complete and we really know the facts in deference to the service and the sacrifice that brave Marines make in putting their lives on the line for the country likewise does not matter to the political left and the mainstream media.

More important to the political left and the mainstream media is the treatment of Iraq as another Vietnam.

One might wonder why the political left and the mainstream media would want American defeat and the throwing away of the sacrifices made by brave American military service men and women; it would seem, and I think is, perverse.

There are, I believe, two reasons. One is that it is part of their world view to oppose the projection of American military power in the world. While many of us see America as what Lincoln called "the best hope of Earth" and America as the guardian of freedom and democracy and thus see our American military as nobly acting as liberators, the political left and the mainstream media see America as a destructive or negative influence in the world. The other reason is that Vietnam, for a brief period, seemingly led to the election of liberal Democrats. It is all about themselves.

Gosh, CY, we sure do have a bug up our butt about Murtha. 4 paragraphs (not counting the 2 one line sentences) under the guise of blasting the Nation but 2 of them are about Murtha. And about an Editorial (which is supposed to be an opinion). Same recycled quotes from past, same old rhetoric. It reminds me of the old magician trick where if you don't want the public to focus on what my right hand is doing, wave my left hand alot. Nope nothing to see at Haditha but oh my gosh, have you heard what Murtha said about it?!?!?!?!

Phil, What's your take on O'Riely's second statement in six minths that it was the Americans who murdered 87 Germans at Malmandy, France during WW II..? (hear him say it on C&L)

Has he lost his wings or just cracked his nut. Simply incredible.

hog

The partisan exploitation associated with this tragic event is just appalling. Because of the unnecessary firestorm generated over this tragedy our soldiers’ lives are going to be jeopardized even further by them having to second guess whether or not they are making a correct decision. With only a millisecond of hesitation, a soldier will probably die. We’ve already experienced soldiers dying due to an extreme desire to limit collateral damage.

Why do I make those comments? Because, I know the military’s propensity to over react when publicity shines unfavorably upon them. General Casey has already implemented mandatory training in response to the media firestorm. Will it work? Will it prevent US soldiers going berserk? Will it still permit split second decision making necessary to survive combat? It may have some positive effects, but at what costs? It may help to quell the fury of the media and some politicians. Beyond that, if a soldier’s soul is dark enough to permit murder, training and discipline will not compensate for that mind.

None of the preceding is intended to justify criminal activity or the unlawful cover up of the same. In the case of the military, the truth always has a way of coming out because of the shear number of people involved. I trust the truth will come out in this circumstance as well. I just wish the media and politicians would let the military investigation conclude and give the military judicial system a chance to work before they indict the convict president for war crimes (without due process, no less).

Phil - Its like shooting fish in a barrel. Its too ironic that you can condemn the left for passing judgement without the benefit of a trial and also condemn Hussein (murderous dictator) without that same benefit of a trial. (I don't doubt he is a murder, just pointing out the hypocracy).

Matt, that you could even make the comparison between Saddam Hussein and these Marines is horrific. Saddam’s genocidal tendencies are unquestioned, with thousands of pages of documentation, and thousands of witnesses and tens of thousands of victims (if not more) showing conclusively that he is the Butcher of Baghdad. In such instances of mass killings occurring constantly over many decades, there is a good reason that his trial is a mere formality.

These Marines, no matter how horrific there crime may turn out to be, would have committed their atrocities in a far more limited timeframe is far more stressful circumstances.

If you can’t understand just how bad your comparison is, I’ll have strong reservations about your ability to reason effectively.

First of all, anyone else find it ironic that a self-proclaimed right-wing blog is lashing out at a paper's editorial section for being ideological? So let me get this straight, it's ok for Confederate Yankee to spew out ideological rants but an editorial section of a national newspaper can’t? If you want other forms of media to stop the partisan bullshit, why don’t you start by doing the same?

Hell, I agree with you about Haditha, but attacking an editorial for editorializing is ridiculous.

Here’s an idea: If you want to change the shape of an editorial section, why not submit an editorial of your own? Stop complaining and take action.

Also, referring to your tangential statement on the situation in Iraq: If the situation in Iraq today is going better than we planned in 2002, we had some pessimistic planning. There’s well documented sectarian violence, politically-backed paramilitary groups, destroyed infrastructure, civilian flight to other countries, etc. This is not a pretty situation, but those are the facts. If we want to save the lives of our troops and the innocent Iraqis caught in the middle of the conflict, the America (Democrats and Republicans alike) and the new Iraqi government have to address these problems quickly and firmly. Saying these are realities are only the invention of the “liberal mainstream media” (a talking point if I ever heard one) is only going to deflect our focus from the issue. Problems need solving. Murtha’s bullshit and the right’s attempt obscure the problems on the ground in Iraq is not helping anyone. Now is not the time for partisan grandstanding; it’s the time for unity and action.

What Matt A is pointing out is that everyone should be considered equal in front of the law -- from the Marines to Saddam Hussein -- if we want to achieve justice. If passing judgments on Marines before their trial is over is prejudicial regardless of their innocence or culpability, then the same should hold for every other defendant, whether they're accused of stealing a pack of cigarettes or committing genocide.

This fact is extremely relevant in cases of crimes against humanity because the main legal strategy of defendants in these cases is to question the legitimacy of these proceedings. If you paid attention to the Milosovic trial, that's the exact strategy he took (along with dragging out the trial until his death). That's also the strategy Saddam has taken thus far in his trial. Judging him before the proceedings only adds fuel to his bullshit defense.

Also, don't forget that in places like Chile, Guatemala, and Nicaragua many people who suffered under the Untied States' military interventions might view the military in the same way you view Saddam. Are they justified to make the same assumptions you made on Saddam because of their cultural perspective and regional history?

CY has taken care of matt a's nonsense comparing the Marines to Saddam. I am glad CY did because my reaction on reading matt a's comment could not be printed.

As to Keram, with all due respect, I think that he is mistaken in reading CY's origianl post as an attack on the Nation for publishing an editorial. It was a well considered attack on the content of the Nation's "opinion." There is a difference. Having defended an editor in a major libel case that I argued before the New York Court of Appeals concerning the publication of a letter to the editor (I am a lawyer), I am well aware of the constitutional protections afforded to the expressions of opinion. But that does not shield expressions of opinion such as the Nation's recent editorial on Haditha from attack as utter, creepy nonsense unjustified by the facts. Too often I see people misuse the legal protection that we afford opinion for publication of sleazy, stupid policial and even personal attack that is not remotely justified by the facts.