Dan Rather must have been involved somehow.

Regardless of one's feelings/thoughts about the war, Stolen Valor and such obvious lies (and note please, bush did NOT lie, he gave the NIE as it was given to him) shame the person making the accusation and our military.

I might add that a lot of the more liberal sites are just as mad at this fakery as anyone.

Posted by GM at May 24, 2006 12:53 PM

Notes to folks that want to stop phony guys who claim to be in the military and have done either truly amazing/heroic deeds or truly awful/criminal deeds. You'd be surprised how many are out there. I was.

1. They always claim to be: Special Forces, Rangers, Marines, snipers, SEALs, etc. None are ever in supply, motor transport, ammunition storage, etc.

2. All claim to be highly decorated.

3. Ask them what units they were in...specifically. How long were they in them. What type of training did they have to go through to become so qualified.

4. Ask them what their MOS was. Where did they go through jump school, ranger training, etc.

5. What was the name of their platoon commanders, company commanders, etc.

6. How long they served and what does their DD 214 say (honorable, honorable conditions, general, bad conduct, dishonorable).

7. Ask them about the capabilities of various weapons. Rifles, pistols, grenades, machine guns, shotguns, etc.

OK, if you've done your homework...or served in the military...you should be able to ferret out the phonies pretty easily.

I am amazed that major newspapers, magazines and tv networks actually assign reporters to cover military operations and do not require them to do lots of preparation for such assignments. Most reporters can be told almost anything and they believe it as they haven't served themselves and/or haven't read a hefty bunch of books to assure that they know what to ask and...well, the difference between a dumpster and an M1A1 tank.

Of course, there are plenty of folks in all walks of life that feel free to blather on about milops when they really know damn little. Another note: One need not have actually served in uniform to be quite informed. Sir John Keegan is one of the best military historians I can think of and due to physical problems wasn't able to join HM services. Reading lots of books, journals, etc. is necessary

Posted by tad at May 24, 2006 01:53 PM

The thing is, why tell a lie when the truth will do? I don't believe that American troops have ever intentionally slaughtered civilians in Iraq but I do believe that collateral damage has lead to the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians over the past few years. That's the truth and that's horrifying enough for me.

Posted by e. nonee moose at May 24, 2006 02:27 PM

And why do you "believe" that thousands of Iraqis have died due to collateral damage. Based on what? I am NOT denying it, rather I am just checking your sources. Did Americans kill lots with bombs, SAF, arty fire? What?

How much effort does the U.S. go to avoid harming innocent...or even, not innocent but no actual evidence ill intent...civilians?

How many Iraqis have been killed by terrorists...on purpose? Just asking.

Posted by tad at May 24, 2006 03:56 PM

Our weapons are pretty sophisticated in targeting. But, I do suspect that a few civilians who got too close to Saddam Hussein's hideouts took a hit in some cases. I remember when our intelligence was certain that Hussein was in a certain restaurant, so our forces blew the smithereens out of it with a laser bomb. Only thing is, Hussein had just sneaked out through a secret tunnel. If I lived in Iraq and saw Hussein walking towards me at that time, I would have run as fast and as far as I could to get away from him. He would be like the Grim Reaper. There had to be some residents who got caught in the crossfire from the terrorists, too. Overall, though, I think that we have had a terrific record at protecting innocent people in the combat zones.

Posted by Woody at May 24, 2006 06:02 PM

This collateral damage is bogus, first of all there is a war going on in Iraq. Second, why is it the
Americans are always blamed for the collateral damage. That sounds like a leftist talking point, blame the good guys first, and trash the American Military.

Then we are accused of 'torture' but no one says anything about the beheadings, or the torching of civilian corpes and hanging them on a bridge.

Also I would add to Tad's question what is the Re-enlistment code on the DD-214.

As far as taking those buildings, I have always believed they should bring back the old 'Flame Tanks', torch the building then search it. Anyways it saves alot of bullets that way.

Posted by Mark at May 24, 2006 06:03 PM

Speaking of one particular action...I thought the use of, I believe it was, six TOW missiles on the two story building that Saddam Hussein's sons were it was a stroke of tactical genius.

No collateral damage there.

Posted by tad at May 24, 2006 06:50 PM

Has the US done unspeakable things in this war?
Yes see the Abu Grab incident.

Have other attrocities occured?
Can't say but with what is leaking out of Gitmo and other secret internment camps chances are good.

Do people lie?
Duh! Especially when it means you can get your close up Mr. DeMille.

Should we not believe stories of attrocities?
No. To use a Republican line, "Trust but verify."

Have innocents been hurt?
Duh! To believe that a TOW missle system, which btw has been scrubbed for more advanced systems, is a stroke of "tactical genius" is just plain gulability. For the stats on the TOW go here. Basically it punches through heavy armor and bunkers which in layman's term is big bada boom. Remember an explosion kills three ways: heat, concussion, and shrapnel. Of those three two can project out much further than the initial blast. So it is pure gulibility to believe that no innocents were killed and/ or injured.

So where am I going with this?
Being a liar seems to be the theme of the day. Our government lies to us so lets lie about them. I think that we oust the whole lot of them and send a message to our elected officials that we are the boss and we will not tolerate dishonesty. So this election year lets play trade up for a newer model until we get people who belong in congress. This fellow who lied well... I can think of far more creative things to do with him.

Posted by Mike B at May 24, 2006 08:04 PM

Mike B: "Have other attrocities occured?"
"I can think of far more creative things to do with him."

Does anyone else see any irony in these two statements from the same fellow?

Mike B, suspected knowledge of atrocities and proof are two different things entirely. While I'm not carrying any water for this administration's conduct of this war, any of the newer models out on the floor right now (Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Edwards, Reid, & etc.) could not/would not have done any better and at least some evidence indicates that they would have done far worse.

I'd also be interested in the specifics of the so called "lies." What were they, who uttered them and what is your proof that they were indeed lies; a careful reading of this article http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008415 might disabuse you of that theory if you have an open mind. If you don't, if you are committed to the memes of the left, than don't bother because uttered truth may cause you to have a headache. Mistaken assumptions perhaps, but also you need to understand that no war is ever prosecuted the way it is planned. I don't know who said it, but the appropriate phrase is something like "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy."

As to the use of the TOW against the Hussein brothers, it was a good call, I know enough about the TOW having seen them used that while your glib explination of how they kill is accurate, there is no evidence at all that there was any civilian deaths in the killing of the Hussein brothers. In fact, as I remember the dispatches about the battle, everyone in the building was shooting at our troops. When you shoot at US troops, you can be pretty well assured that our troops will fire back. Too, I have no doubt that the commander of that unit took in the liklihood of any surrounding civilians before he called for the use of the TOWS.

Your points are the usual arguments of the left and truly don't hold water. But I don't expect you to understand that.

Posted by Armstrong at May 24, 2006 08:24 PM

Has the US done unspeakable things in this war?
Yes see the Abu Grab incident.

Would this be otherwise known as a strawman argument? (Dad, I'm bowing to your better knowledge of this type of argument.) Because unspeakable things have been done by SOME people, this makes it ok for this guy to lie his way into his 15 minutes?

Have other attrocities occured?
That is not the issue. The issue is THIS person and his reprehensible behavior.

His lie was geared to create the most vile feeling for the war.

This issue isn't about our government, management of the war effort or any of that. This person simply wanted his 15 minutes in a way that was calculated to put the most damning spin on things, regardless because he disagrees.
When someone does something like this, it makes the opposing party look like fools, whether or not they are. If he wanted his message to be truly effective, he should have gone another route.

Posted by Jennifer at May 24, 2006 08:38 PM

The TOW Comments were for tad.

The comments in general were about one premise: The timbre of our day is dishonesty. Therefore believe that the government lies to us. Coverups, minimalization, and revisionism are all forms of lies. The administration has lied. Give me some time and I'll find all of those lovely clips from this administration. Because this is the timbre of our day and our leaders lie to us the citizens have no problem lying about the government, nor anything else as long as it benifits them.

This government dems and pubs lie to us. Kerry lied to us that he would stay in until every vote was counted. Bush lied to us this week that not getting a warrant to data mine is not illegal. But these assertations are completely different topics.

Posted by Mike B at May 24, 2006 09:10 PM

Some folks can't see the forest for the trees. Attrocities. You talk about shooting kids and kinky games at a prison as attrocities. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were attrocities. For all our posturing and backslapping 'Aren't Americans great' B.S. we are the only ones to have ever used the Bomb. How many kids do you think got hurt there? How many are still getting hurt? The sooner we stop pretending we are no capable of accesing our inner bastard, the sooner we can do whatever it is we need to do to satisfy Haliburton and Dubya's flunkies and bring our troops home. At least until we attack another nation of little brown people.

Posted by The Bishop at May 24, 2006 10:35 PM

To pose as a soldier and make false claims designed to demonize soldiers, is just plain evil and should be punished to the fullest.
This coward (and others like him), should be publicly shunned by all Americans.

Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at May 25, 2006 04:10 AM

And why do you "believe" that thousands of Iraqis have died due to collateral damage. Based on what?

I don't mean just collateral damage due to bombing runs, although even with laser guided missles/bombs there was plenty of that to be sure, especially during the "Shock and Awe" phase of the war. I'm also talking about the case of Iraqi civillians caught in crossfires between U.S. troops and terrorists which is ongoing even today. And I'm not necessarily blaming our troops for that... to be sure the terrorists have blown up as many or more of their own people as we have.

But it's a fact that none of this would be going on if we weren't in Iraq. And I'm not convinced that there is a need to for us to be in Iraq from an American security standpoint. And I'm not convinced that we've made life better for the Iraqi people either in the short term or the long term.

Posted by e. nonee moose at May 25, 2006 06:50 AM

"At least until we attack another nation of little brown people."

I get so tired of the "brown people" statement. Were the Nazis "brown people"? Were the communist Russians "brown people"? Were the Japanese "brown people"? Because the vast majority of Islamic fascists are "brown people" we are suddenly bombarded with implications of racism and xenophobia. By this measure, we should never make any move toward stopping an evil ideology or agenda without first consulting the color of the skin of the perpetrators. Weak - really weak.

Posted by oyster at May 25, 2006 08:45 AM

Oyster:

I put the question to my students: EXACTLY how "white" do you have to be..to be "white"?

Here's another one:

To be Hispanic do you:

1. Have to speak Spanish?
2. Be a Roman Catholic?
3. Have dark hair and brown eyes?
4. Have a hispanic last name?

I rest my case...I know you know what I mean here.

Posted by tad at May 25, 2006 01:07 PM