| Proud Veteran-American? Please Don't Miss Veterans as an Ethnic Minority |
|
Thursday, 04 January 2007
|
|
|
Posted by Bill Faith on January 4, 2007 at 05:41 PM in Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, Jamilgate, Media Malpractice | Permalink Comments Posted by: MinorRipperm [Totally irrlevant trollshit deleted.] Posted by: MinorRipperm | Jan 4, 2007 7:36:02 PM Posted by: Adam Waldorf Bill Faith says, "Color this old dog very, very skeptical. So, the Iraqi Police may or may not arrest some dude and claim he's Jamil, then they may or may not put him in a line-up where the AP people can claim "Yes we see him but we aren't going to identify him; must protect our sources, y'know," and we're all supposed to just forget about all those sole-sourced stories that still don't check out? And our source for all this new-found knowledge is ... the AP?" Editor & Publisher says, "Hussein was not the original source of the disputed report of the attack; the account was first told on Al-Arabiya satellite television by a Sunni elder, Imad al-Hashimi, who retracted it after members of the Defense Ministry paid him a visit. Several neighborhood residents subsequently gave the AP independent accounts of the Shiite militia attack on a mosque in which six people were set on fire and killed." Color this old dog skeptical of that old dog's skepticism. This old dog thinks that old dog knows good and well his side of the story is fried. The whole premise hinged on there being no such police officer as Jamil Hussein. What we have is a sloppy, transparent cover-up by the United States and Iraqi governments and an unfortunate gullability on the parts of certain bloggers. It's time to wisen up folks, you're being lied to, stop getting played for fools. With all due sympathy and sincerity, Posted by: Adam Waldorf | Jan 4, 2007 9:30:33 PM Posted by: Bill Faith Well, gee whiz! If E&P says it's true then I guess that settles it. Silly me. ... Like hell! He still reported 61 stories that no one else can verify. If he does exist, which I still seriously doubt, the son of a bitch deserves to be hanged. Posted by: Bill Faith | Jan 4, 2007 10:26:22 PM Posted by: Adam Waldorf "Well, gee whiz! If E&P says it's true then I guess that settles it. Silly me. ... Like hell! He still reported 61 stories that no one else can verify. If he does exist, which I still seriously doubt, the son of a bitch deserves to be hanged. Posted by: Bill Faith | Jan 4, 2007 10:26:22 PM " That's pretty harsh, Bill. He hasn't been accused of so much as supporting the insurgency and he deserves to be hanged? On what charge? Only those on the ground can verify stories. Have you been on the ground in Iraq? How are you so sure that these stories are false? It seems a tad presumptuous to assume that you know more than an actual lawman on the ground in Iraq. I wonder if Jamil Hussein were the source for stories about peace, love, and schools being built in Iraq would you be so doubtful of his existence? again with sincerity and civility (it's good we are talking to each other!), Posted by: Adam Waldorf | Jan 5, 2007 12:06:08 AM Posted by: Bill Faith I just deleted the first of two comments that I'm pretty sure were just alike. OK, so I'll admit hanging's a little extreme. I'd settle for jail time. Since I'm still not convinced Jamil exists to begin with it doesn't really matter. *Whoever* has been making up bogus news stories has helped convince the American public that things are worse in Baghdad than they really are, and I want to see someone suffer for that. Realistically the best I can hope for is to see some people fired, probably some AP reporters who've been sitting by the phone taking calls from anonymous sources and reporting them as fact. Posted by: Bill Faith | Jan 5, 2007 1:06:51 AM Posted by: Adam Waldorf The American people aren't exactly hanging on the AP's every word on this. Most of us just get the broad strokes i.e. 3,000 dead American soldiers, no accomplishable strategic objectives, no WMD, the generals say we cannot win, stuff like that. We see our boys dying for no reason but the Bush administration's need to not lose face and we say "no more." The AP is not the reason why a majority of the American population has turned against this war. At the same time there does not seem to be a good deal of evidence to contradict the AP's reporting. According to our own government, by the end of August 2005, 63 Iraqi civilians were being killed by insurgents every day. Human Rights Watch, Iraq Body Count and Iraq's own Interior Ministry all think that figure is low, and brother, that figure is just plain staggering. Iraq is not a bed of roses, at this point it isn't even a bed of cactuses, it's more like a bed of knives and IEDs. I'd love to believe you though Bill, I, like every American, would prefer to leave Iraq victorious, so please give me some proof that things aren't as bad as the AP and our own government say they are. sincerely, p.s. I accidentally hit post twice last time, so thank you for deleting one of my posts:) Posted by: Adam Waldorf | Jan 5, 2007 2:02:09 AM Posted by: Bill Faith So now we've identified the actual issue we'll never see eye to eye on. That part about saving face is a lot more important to me, and to most of my pack, (see http://www.oldwardogs.us/ ) than I have any hope of making you understand. When I came home from Nam we were still winning, contrary to what Uncle Walter and the rest of the MSM were telling the American public. We didn't lose in Viet Nam, we lost on American TV screens. The Viet Cong didn't follow us home but the jihadis will, and I'll do everything in my power to stop the MSM from helping that happen. Posted by: Bill Faith | Jan 5, 2007 2:25:56 AM Posted by: Adam Waldorf So if we're winning then why don't we just take our win and go home? If these Jihadists are going to follow us home does that mean we have to stay in Iraq forever? Did anyone sign up for that? Can the American populace be expected to put up with endless war? I am afraid that to do what you are suggesting would require the end of American democracy (since the voting public is pretty clearly fed up with this war) and if victory in Iraq requires that then I don't think it is worth it. Our volunteer force is under great strain, what if these Muslim Holy Warriors decide to go ahead and hit us while we're still occupied with Iraq? Will we be able to adaquately defend the homeland? The Holy Warriors have shown an ability to multi-task, they've all but retaken Afghanistan while still helping to make Iraq an untenable situation. It should be pointed out, though, that Iraq is not fly paper, the people we are fighting there, by and large, are Iraqis that were not Jihadists before the occupation began, it is questionable at best whether they would continue to fight us if our soldiers were not occupying their backyard. sincerely, Posted by: Adam Waldorf | Jan 5, 2007 3:18:13 AM Posted by: Adam Waldorf I wanted to make another point seperate from my last post. The mainstream media, the so-called liberal media has actually been more than fair to this war and to the Bush administration. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and network news have uncritically reported every assertion and every distortion that the Bush administration has made. Each of these organizations has steadfastly refused to fact check Bush and friends in real time and when they eventually get around to it the story is reliably buried deep inside the paper or as an aside in a story about the newest spin. The media is doing the best they can to shine and polish this war but 3,000 dead American soldiers is pretty much impossible to spin. The American public is far less concerned with Iraqi civilian deaths than with their own countrymen being in harm's way. I have twin cousins in Iraq, I want them home, I know their mama wants them home and having talked to one of them on leave over the summer I can tell you at least one of them wants to be home. Posted by: Adam Waldorf | Jan 5, 2007 3:32:10 AM Posted by: Bill Faith Adam, it's been loads of fun but our little chat has come to an end, even if that means I have to start deleting comments or lock out your IP. You obviously feel a strong need to express yourself online; fortunately it's a free country and there's nothing to prevent you from starting your own blog. I'm a combat veteran who'd rather see a few more American soldiers die in Iraq than to see my daughter and grandson die in a terrorist attack at home. Unlike some of my friends that died in Viet Nam, every one of them is a volunteer. Unfortunately, you've been letting the MSM tell you what to think so long that I have about as much hope of making you see the light about that as I do of teaching my 5 year old nephew Differential Calculus. I have no desire to waste my time on either endeavor. Have a nice life, Adam. Posted by: Bill Faith | Jan 5, 2007 3:57:20 AM Posted by: Peeperkorn "That part about saving face is a lot more important to me, and to most of my pack..." It may come to pass that what's best for your country also wounds your pride, offends your honor, etc. I hope you understand that distinction. Don't worry about the honor of the U.S. It is a legal fiction, an imaginary entity, albeit a great one. Stirring figures-of-speech aside, it has no feelings, interests, or soul. I mention this because pretending otherwise allows people to conflate their own feelings with those of the imagined whole, and to argue with apparent selflessness that something must be done to preserve the national honor. Your "pack," however distinguished, is small. Your service was selfless. Your concern with saving face -- yours and your friends' -- is understandable. But it is uncharacteristically selfish. A growing majority either does not share this concern or finds its importance secondary. Perhaps you should propose some other means of salvaging your honor. Do not force us to drag you along. Do not bet your feelings will be judged as more important than the national good. You lost that bet once already. Posted by: Peeperkorn | Jan 5, 2007 6:37:56 PM Post a comment Comments accept simple HTML for formatting and linking. Comments are moderated and may not appear on the site immediately. Comments in violation of our comment policy will never appear on the site. TrackBacks TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451e4ed69e200e5506f147b8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jamil identified, facing arrest?:
"Jamil Hussein development: "Faces arrest?"" from Michelle Malkin Tracked on Jan 4, 2007 7:50:21 PM
"Jamil Hussein Found?" from Flopping Aces Tracked on Jan 4, 2007 10:11:35 PM |
