No, he doesn't have to apologize because he served in Korea and Vietnam.

Who did kill those civilians, Rose?

Rosemary,

I think you might have jumped the gun on this one. Now, 99% of our Soldiers and Marines over there are trying to do the right thing, but there's still pockets of bad troops engaging in criminal behavior.

I'm not sure where I stand on Murtha, but I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt for two reasons - he served, and we share similar ideas.

This next statement is going to get me in trouble with my "dawgs" however: I think that Murtha's intentions are good and that he sincerely means well just as I think that Pres. Bush's intentions are good and that from the beginning he just wanted a stable, free, and democratic middle east while doing his best to protect us. I've never bought into the notion that Bush is "in it for the oil."

Of course he has friends and advisors whose motives are not as genuine, but I'm not cynical enough to believe Bush is evil.

As much as I despise Murtha, the fact that less than 50% of overseas military votes were counted in the 2006 elections pisses me off much more. Murtha is a washed-up has-been spiteful old man, anyone with sense sees it. I'd rather have an explanation as to WHY the votes of those serving (and their families) are being thrown away rather than counting - if ANYONE deserves to have their vote matter, those that bear the cost of the bill of Freedom are them.

I do know that he should have waited until an investigation had been completed before spouting off.

In the post below, you spouted off on a childcare issue under investigation, did you not? I suspect that you even have strong opinions about some individuals that have been cleared in a court of law. O.J. Simpson, for instance.

Murtha's comments were based on the indisputable fact that unarmed civilians were executed by US soldiers in their homes, and that a series of lies were made that were then immediately proven to be lies.

Murtha, as a veteran, probably has a more realistic view of war and the military than most, and doesn't share the somewhat over-romanticized view that many might have of their armed forces. Personally, I have enormous regard for the training, discipline, and humaneness of the US military, which I regard as one of the best in the world. But I would be astonished if some US forces did not crack at times under the enormous strain and frustration that they must face. We've already seen a number of atrocities at the hands of US soldiers. Why would it be so out of the realm of possibility that Haditha was not another?

Murtha did nothing in error other than to publicly acknowledge that at some times US soldiers can do wrong. In that regard, he joins the ranks of Kerry, Beauchamp, and others who have reported the same. Now he must be demonized and slandered in turn.

I'm not a Congressman, just an opinionated loudmouth that thankfully doesn't get followed by the Press. I'd be in heaps of trouble if I were.

It's also slightly weird to see one post that rightfully is outraged at taping a child's mouth shut, followed my another that is outraged at someone criticizing putting bullets into a child's head.

I was also outraged but I didn't automatically assume it was done by the U.S. marines. Maybe I'm naive but I just don't like thinking our brave fighters would do that. OTOH, bad things happen and we must look at the objective data. Who else could have taped the baby's mouth shut? Not many choice. Who in Iraq could have committed wholesale slaughter of women and children? The Marines? Maybe but doubtful. The insurgents? More likely since they have proven to be a bit more purposely barbaric.

Well, the facts seem to show that in Haditha the marines didn't kill people in cold blood. Instead it was a fog of war situation, with the marines confused about who was attacking them and from where. Murtha should know about the fog of war, too. We also know that enemy propagandists make it a habit to paint both accidental civilian casualties AND even cases where enemy fighters were thankfully killed as atrocities. Murtha should know about that, too.

Category errors are easy to come by for us civilians in the fog of war. American servicepeople have committed atrocities, but not many, and fewer all the time. American servicepeople have killed people by mistake, but not many by historical standards, and fewer all the time. American servicepeople are falsely accused of attrocities often, and more all the time. That's the real lesson, and I'm not wrong to want our elected leaders to have learned that lesson and to reflect their learning in their public comments.

Yours,
Wince

But this particular incident has all the indications that a sudden violent explosion that killed a popular soldier and injured two others triggered a bit of rage on the part of some of the soldiers involved.

Not from what I've read.

Murtha's comments were not at all out of line based on what he knew about the situation from military sources.

Given that he proclaimed their guilt so readily, I think not. I'm certain that he could have made his statements more carefully, emphasizing the whole "innocent until proven guilty" angle, or even the unreliablity of early reports.

The ferocity of the reaction that we've seen against Murtha and, more recently, Beauchamp speaks more to the mindset that US military forces can never do wrong, and that any suggestion whatsoever that some small number of soldiers might do bad things is completely unacceptable.

Not at all. This war will be lost or won depending on the mindset of the American people. That means that both public officials and the media should be protested against when their careless statements do damage to the morale of the American public. Murtha's statement was careless. Beauchamp's fiction was far more so. I have never objected to careful, measured commentary about atrocities committed by American soldiers.

One source of the ferocity is that some very loud elements of the American body politic have been unknowingly repeating a Soviet era disinformation campaign designed to smear American soldiers. These Soviet sourced smears are so egregious that I believe that our elected officials and our media should be bending over backwards to avoid even the appearance of repeating them.

In addition I believe that many people's anti-military statements and stories are simply anti-military bigotry, and should be met with the ferocity appropriate to that bigotry.

Yours,
Wince

I'd be more inclined to go with fog of war if they hadn't completely fabricated a story initially.

I haven't read that, either. Completely fabricated?

Watch the tar on that wide brush, Wince, it's getting all over the place.

Really? I think human beings are often bigotted. There are many people biggotted against African-Americans. There are many people biggotted against white Americans. There are many people biggotted against Jews or Catholics or Protestants or Muslims or Hindus or Sikhs. Have any of the Hindus at your workplace told you any Sikh jokes, or explained the historical reasons they think that Sikhs aren't very smart?

Do you really think there aren't many people biggotted against the military?

If you are accusing me of noticing that human beings often act like human beings, well, guilty as charged.

Also, I think you're making a pretty strong argument that propaganda value is more important that truth.

Churchill made a much stronger argument than I am making. I'm arguing for measured statements, careful words, and avoiding bigotry. OTOH, I believe the way Churchill phrased it was 'bodyguard of lies'. My arguments have fallen far short of the notion that propaganda value is more important that truth.

Yours,
Wince

Please note that there is a lot of repetition in these articles as background information is repeated.

I searched Google for StrategyPage articles to limit the size of the search. I have read other articles and commentary, but those are reflected here. Generally speaking, StrategyPage files Haditha stories under the Information Warfare section under the broader How To Make War category, which will explain both the headlines and broader context under which they are written.

Here's one of the articles I read:

There's No Such Thing as Worthless Lies

Another:

How The Media Assists al Qaeda

Another:

Turning a Battle Into a War Crime

Another:

How To Fool The Media

Another:

The Lie Mutually Agreed Upon

Another:

Deception Campaign Crushed

For al Quaeda, Haditha is basically an Information Warfare victory. In that context, when I say Murtha shot off his mouth, I'd also have to say that he should look beyond the target before pulling the trigger.

Yours,
Wince

For al Quaeda, Haditha is basically an Information Warfare victory.

I'd say it's more a black eye for the US if these kinds of events, which are inevitable in a conflict, are swept under the rug. People like Murtha coming forward and acknowledging them is a message that they are not the norm. I prefer that to the Stalinesque denials that this could possibly happen.

I meant italics, but hit bold. Sorry.

Then you would be guilty of hyperbole yourself.

No doubt. It's a constant temptation.

The hysteria and frothing over Beauchamp's relatively mild telling of minor incidents was quite revealing.

Sounds like more hyperbole. Did I, in particular, froth? Wax hysterical?

Yours,
Wince

I don't remember posting about Beauchamp's fables.

Fables? And why would they be fables? Because a US soldier would never stoop so low as to kill a dog with an APC?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I don't remember posting about Beauchamp's fables.

I prefer the word fiction.

Yours,
Wince

Again, what would be the impetus to describe it as fiction?

It wasn't actually true. It was made up. That's sufficient impetus for me to describe the works I find in the fiction section of the library as fiction. Some are even historical fiction, where they take actual history and add fictional characters and dialogue.

What is your impetus to keep questioning the motives of those who like to have their fiction labeled as fiction, and their non-fiction labeled as non-fiction?

Does the name Stephen Glass ring a bell?

Yours,
Wince

Is there something I missed that definitively proves that what this man said about his experiences is a falsehood?

Yes, he said so. Under oath.

Yours,
Wince

Wait a minute, are you referring to the single Weekly Standard claim that he did so?

Shouldn't you wait for corroboration of that before accepting it as a fait accompli? The Army has said that have no information about a sworn statement from Beauchamp recanting his story.

What else do you have?

And there we go. An enormous amount of speculation over an article that details relatively minor incidents that everyone agreed are credible. Just not in this case, for some reason.

As these incidents are far less serious than many others that we know for a fact happened, why all the hubbub, Wince?

Also, believing a Weekly Standard quote based on an anonymous source while rejecting an Army denial of their claim seems a bit bizarre, and smacks of wishful thinking. Again, I have to wonder about the impetus.

Yeah, but he must be mistaken. Beauchamp is apparently a lying anti-military USA-hating fifth columnist, at least from what I gather on the rest of the right-wing bloggosphere.

++ungood,

Back to the meat of the issue. First of all, I want to apologize for inadvertantly sandbagging you, although you have had a warning. When I say that an Army investigation finds no supporting evidence, that should throw up a red flag for you. I knew there were excellent reasons to believe the stories to be fiction, but they did not jump in front of my busy eyes earlier today. Sorry.

Here is a link to an interview of the Major who conducted the Army investigation. Here is a quote:

Cross: In the course of my investigation, I did not interview anyone who corroborated PVT Beauchamp’s claims in “Shock Troops” that a Soldier was observed wearing skull parts recovered from a “Saddam-era dumping ground” on his head, dogs were being deliberately hit by Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and that a disfigured woman was openly mocked by Soldiers in the FOB Falcon dining facility.

No one interviewed corroborated Beauchamp's stories. Beauchamp was interviewed. I can draw a logical inference here. As far as I can tell, Beauchamp did not corroborate his own stories under oath. Hmmm. Here is another quote:

Cross: I can’t speculate about anything involving The New Republic, but I can speak to our procedures. When conducting the investigation, I focused on the information and evidence collected from the Soldiers in PVT Beauchamp’s unit in the form of written and signed affidavits, which did not support the events portrayed in the story. As all of the Soldiers interviewed during the course of the investigation made sworn statements, they understand the consequences of making false official statements.

See, when you present something as true, you need some corroborating evidence. Not none. Plausibility is not a reason to report something as true. It's plausible to report that Hillary Clinton has had an affair. I think she's attractive, don't you? Attractive women often have affairs with younger men, right? But you should have corroborating evidence before reporting it.

Given my memory, I believe I have now presented the strongest evidence I that the Beauchamp stories are fiction. I believe that much of the rest of what Bob Owens has documented is stong, too. If memory has failed, and I bring up stronger evidence later, I hope you will forgive me for inadvertantly sandbagging you again.

Futhermore, while the stories themselves are broadly plausible, so are many urban legends. That's why people believe them. It's the implausible details - exposure of which requires speculation - which indict these stories. Isn't that how CSI works? They speculate about what the evidence means, and whether it supports a given version of events.

I have to ask you what your impetus is in defending stories for which we have appear to have no corroborating evidence.

Maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe TNR has some corroborating evidence. Maybe you can point it out. If so, I wish they had shared it with the Army. But perhaps they were constrained by professional ethics from revealing it. Maybe they had to protect their anonymous sources, for example.

Yours,
Wince

Young men who desecrate bodies, run over dogs, and mock disfigured people might be less than forthcoming about it to the authorities, don't you think?

I thought you didn't like speculation.

Sorry, ++ungood, but the burden of proof is on you.

Beauchamp didn't take the opportunity to corraborate his stories with any evidence.

You want to call something fact with no corroborating evidence. I want to call that fiction. Guess you would run with the story about Hillary.

If that's the strongest evidence you can present, then that's a weak case.

It's not my duty to disprove the story. It's TNR's duty to prove it. I'm afraid it's your position that's faith based and stunningly weak. I'll remember this the next time you make a point. Apparently you believe it's OK to present as fact things for which there is no evidence, as long as that could be true.

Come on, do you really want to defend your position? It looks very bad for you.

Yours,
Wince

Let's say the I accuse you of lying about this, that you don't actually have any good reason to doubt his story, and that you're simply smearing this gentlemen because you don't like what he and his friends did.

Smashingly bad analogy, ++ungood. Really weak. Beauchamp's stories had witnesses and physical existence. There are no witnesses to the contents of my head.

Classic logical fallacy, the argument by weak analogy.

Is the burden of proof on you, or on me?

A question which makes no sense in the context of your truly bad analogy, since there is no possible way for you to prove or disprove the matter.

Actually, I've just lost interest in this discussion. Say what you will about Beauchamp.

I'm not impressed.

Let's say the story was health care.

If I linked to a story in the Weekly Standard about a study which said Canadian health care was inferior to U.S. health care, you would want to examine the study. If a government body investigated, and could not find evidence such a study was ever done, would you call it fiction or fact?

Let's say I linked to a story in which the Weekly Standard found a technician in a Canadian hospital who reported on cavalier but not negligent treatment of patients there, including a story about a greatly disfigured temporary employee whom they mocked. We KNOW that, as good as Canadian health care is, sometimes it's personnel treat patients cavlierly. Let's say some Canadian health care personnel noticed some odd details in the story and started complaining about it. At the same time, the folks at the hospital, embarrassed by the controversy opened an investigation. They found the technician. They found his fellow workers who could corraborate his stories. They took legal depostions. And they couldn't find anyone who would corraborate the stories, nor could they find the greatly disfigured temporary employee. Would you call the stories fiction or fact?

That's how you build a strong analogy.

Yours,
Wince