Jules Crittendon:
All I have to say is it’s easy to condemn soldiers for killing, to call it murder, to imagine with what clarity one would perceive a situation and act, at a distance of thousands of miles and worlds away. Haditha isn’t the first time that happened. It would not be that hard to understand why, if the politics weren’t a part of it, in their utter ignorance of the realities of combat and their horror of it, they might rush to condemn the killing of innocents. But it is hard to understand, even given the politics, why when faced with utterly unambiguous atrocities, they actively try to set the conditions for more. I hope they choke on this.
Powerline has reveals this interesting fact:
...the Times cites just one expert who voices what is evidently the paper's own disappointment at the collapse of the case against the Marines: Eugene R. Fidell, who is identified as "an expert in military law in Washington." Mr. Fidell has the article's money quote:“It does surprise me to see that the killing of seven women and children by grenades and rifles, for the purposes of clearing structures, is being treated the way this investigating officer has treated it."
Where did the Times go to find an expert who would articulate the house view of the Haditha killings? Well, to be fair, I think Mr. Fidell is indeed an expert on military law. He is also, however, married to Linda Greenhouse, the hyper-liberal reporter who covers the Supreme Court for the Times--a fact that the paper did not consider it necessary to mention. So the Times didn't have to look far for an expert whose opinion would give the right conclusion to an article on how guilty Marines beat the rap.
Evidence that the Hadita "atrocity" was an al Qaeda set-up with the willing particpation of John Murtha, Time magazine reporter Tim McGirk, and the usual suspects including - of course - the NY Slimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment