June 10, 2006
A Haditha Coverup? Not what you would expect.
QandO tipped me off to a possible hoax in Haditha. I have no idea what happened in Haditha, nor do any "bloggers" who weren't there. The Marines that were there know, the investigators possibly know, but much of the media and bloggers, especially those that are bent on fostering a new "My Lai" for Iraq are blowing smoke.
A good example is the "coverup" of the initial reporting. Sweetness and Light has a GREAT post on some of the bs from our MSM. Go read it all. A teaser:
In fact, Time had originally reported that it was Human Rights Watch who had provided the tape. They then retracted that and claimed that it came from Hammurabi which works with Human Rights Watch. And now they have backed off even that.Note that even now Time still does not correct the intentionally false portrayal of the source of the videotape that they gave in all of their original stories and interviews."
American Thinker has also done a good job of questioning if there is a MSM "coverup." A teaser:
Evidence accumulates of a hoax in Haditha. The weblog Sweetness & Light has done an estimable service gathering together the articles which cast substantial doubt on the charge of a massacre of civilians at Haditha . Because the blog is too busy gathering and fisking the news, I offered and the publisher accepted my offer to put what he has uncovered in a narrative form.Go read it too, then come back and tell me what you think.Having done so, I can tell you that the story has a whiff of yet another mediagenic scandal like the TANG memos or the Plame “outing.†While the Marines quite correctly will not comment on the case pending the outcome of their investigation, I am not bound by those rules, and I will sum up the story for you.
A tip 'O the GM Derby to QandO
Posted by GM Roper at June 10, 2006 12:35 AM | TrackBackFirst I must assure you that I am in complete sympathy with the "accused" marines. I pretty much ascribe to the old saying that a dead Iraqi is a good Iraqi.
That said, it appears that if Rush Limbough (spell it linberger) puts it on air, it must be true, Rush would never rush to judgement, would he?
I am afraid your two sources are getting ready to "swift boat" this story. Why not wait until the military finishes their investigation?
Posted by James Melbert at June 10, 2006 01:56 PM
James, I agree, but not as you think. My "two sources" are investigating the media reports that have already come out and their sympathies lie with the Marines also.
I would also ask if Limbaugh puts what on the air? The story of the bungling MSM and Time mag? Or perhaps that the MSM and Time mag rushed to judgment without waiting for the military to finish their investigation?
Posted by GM Roper at June 10, 2006 03:25 PM
I think it should be the law that any corrections made by news sources be printed on the front page.
I bet there would be alot less "errors" made.
Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at June 11, 2006 05:44 AM
They'd need three front pages.
Posted by Pixy Misa at June 11, 2006 05:57 AM
James, GM is right. No one here is attempting to predict the outcome of the investigation. They're only exposing the MSM's attempt to do so along with their attempt to sway public opinion by again using "unidentified" sources. As per the usual, Time and other media outlets are so giddy at the thought of a "scoop" about a military cover-up they didn't question the motives of the leaker. They always use qualifiers like "Now this doesn't prove anything, but sources tell us ..." This kind of reporting is irresponsible and akin to the type we see in the checkout line at the grocery store. That's all we're saying. Just trying to get the facts we DO know straight.
Posted by Oyster at June 13, 2006 04:50 AM
