The Confederate Yankee finds yet another lie in the Italian documentary Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, this time finding our intrepid ‘journalists’ doctoring the truth regarding the infamous napalm pictures from Vietnam.
At some point, we are going to have to wonder if anything in the ‘documentary’ is accurate.
Meanwhile, the Instapundit has several other links to this WP nonsense, and ‘Johnnie Oz’ takes another look at the whole story as well.
And if you are wondering why I am still hammering home the truth about these vicious and vile accusations, it is because not only do I find them deeply and personally offensive, but because last night, when I turned on the news, the WP story was, with varying degrees of accuracy, on the NBC, CBS, and ABC news. In other words, because of some of our friends on the left, always credulous and willing to believe the worst about anything said regarding the military and our troops, this is now a ‘story.’
It should have only been a vicious lie that was quickly and ably discounted, but apparently certain people appear to believe they have something to gain politically by making this lie an ‘issue.’
Steve
If it’s so easily rebutted, then just rebut it. That’s what the media is supposed to do. Thing is, when the reaction is 99% “you’re smearing the troops!” and 1% facts, the facts have a hard time getting through. Next time you want to nip a story in the bud, focus on the facts more and rant a little less.
Pb
Heh. And I thought this was going to be a Niger/uranium story.
John Cole
I have. Go read the threads involving the use of WP. I present facts, people continue to twist and redefine and then make new allegations and then, grudgingly, admit I am right.
And then I make another post on the issue, which has been thoroughly rebutted, and someone has the balls to come into the post and state:
I have. Go read the threads involving the use of WP. I present facts, people continue to twist and redefine and hten make new allegations and then, grudgingly, admit I am right.
And then I make another post on the issue, which has been thoroughly rebutted, and someone has the balls to come into the post and state:
I have. Go read the threads involving the use of WP. I present facts, people continue to twist and redefine and then make new allegations and then, grudgingly, admit I am right.
And then I make another post on the issue, which has been thoroughly rebutted, and someone has the balls to come into the post and state:
I have. Go read the threads involving the use of WP. I present facts, people continue to twist and redefine and then make new allegations and then, grudgingly, admit I am right.
And then I make another post on the issue, which has been thoroughly rebutted, and someone has the balls to come into the post and state:
I have. Go read the threads involving the use of WP. I present facts, people continue to twist and redefine and then make new allegations and then, grudgingly, admit I am right.
And then I make another post on the issue, which has been thoroughly rebutted, and someone has the balls to come into the post and state:
I have. Go read the threads involving the use of WP. I present facts, people continue to twist and redefine and then make new allegations and then, grudgingly, admit I am right.
And then I make another post on the issue, which has been thoroughly rebutted, and someone has the balls to come into the post and states:
And round and round we go. Get my point?
Shygetz
But John, you didn’t rebut it in this particular post. And you didn’t address the fact that civillians died from munitions our troops shot. So, either you are saying that our troops deliberately killed civillians, or that they are bad shots. And it was WP, which is both a chemical and a weapon, and therefore must be a chemical weapon. And there were CHILDREN! If there might be children in the area, you can’t fight. And burning someone to death with WP is morally worse than blowing their limbs off using high explosives.
Oh yeah, and Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were the actual forward observers who were directing the artillery fire, so they are to blame, and not the troops. Geez, John, are you so blinded by partisan rage that you can’t see the obvious truth, and instead must resort to facts?
ppGaz
Some truths are bigger than others. You are right, John, about the detailed truths of this story.
But the war, and certain aspects of it, and the way it was brought about, and the way it has been conducted, are bigger truths, and so the fuzzy details around this smaller story are going to be used in the war of words over the larger truth.
Regrettable, but that’s the way it is.
Let me put it to you this way: When you guys who defend this war are sitting around wondering why the cruel world doesn’t give you fairness and truth about it ….THAT’S the reason why a war should be started only on the basis of complete truth and disclosure. THAT’S why war should never be used by the Karl Roves of the world to accomplish their purposes. THAT’S why half-baked — and wrong — intelligence isn’t good enough. THAT’S why an immediate and profound and real threat to the this country is the only totally acceptable basis for going to war.
Not because Democrats say so, John. Because that’s what’s right and that’s the way the world is. War is not a toy, and it isn’t a political strategy. But it’s been used this way by idiots who say things like “Saddam tried to kill muh daddy.” Oh yeah, George? Well, fuck you. This is my country, and you can’t have it for that purpose.
If you want a war where WP stories don’t literally burn your butt, then stick to wars that are right, are justified, are brought on honestly and forthrightly and with full disclosure, and without political intent, and without the stifling of dissent.
Otherwise, quite frankly, STFU.
Dave Ruddell
I saw items about this story on both CNN and CBC Newsworld yesterday afternoon (was home sick). Both took approximately the same position as John, for example, noting that the use of WP is not illegal and that WP is not a chemical weapon. Looks like some of the MSM isn’t buying what the Italians are selling.
Shygetz
ppGaz has a point–The reason that stories like this gain so much traction is that people are pissed off about the war in general. If it were a just war, then it would be much easier to get the public and the media to give our troops the benefit of the doubt. However, that doesn’t excuse continuing to slander our troops about using chemical weapons on civillians.
Slartibartfast
In other words, it’s perfectly acceptable to tell lies about our troops because ppGaz didn’t sign up to the idea that we should make war on Iraq. Not sure what sort of logic that is, but I’m glad it’s not catching.
roscoe k
Ha ha ha ha ha! There remains only a puff of smoke where Steve once sat.
Bwaahahahahahahahahahaha!!
Geek, Esq.
I’ll make two points:
1) Yes, anti-war folks get hysterical in their hand-wringing over stuff like this. War kills people in incredibly gruesome ways. William Tecumseh Sherman’s description of war holds truer than ever.
2) Pro-war folks would have more credibility on this kind of issue if, collectively, they had printed one word that indicated it truly mattered to them how many civilians were being killed in Iraq.
I’ve always found it ironic that those who beat on their chest about Iraqi freedom and democracy apparently don’t give a shit about how many Iraqis wind up dying.
Pb
Slartibartfast,
In other words, after you’re caught lying a few times, you end up with no credibility–eventually people just assume you’re lying. See the fable of the “boy who cried [WMD]”. Or, perhaps more topically, the State Department’s recent about-face on WP. But at least they admitted they were wrong after they were caught in a lie, that’s something.
Pb
Geek, Esq.,
That reminds me of an old Onion article–“Dead Iraqi Would Have Loved Freedom”. :(
Steve S
Uhh? Ok, now you’ve clearly lost it.
You’re attacking an Italian documentary which was clearly hyperbolic in nature as being hyperbole?
Now you’re operating off of fear, not reason.
ppGaz
That’s true, of course. However that story has little traction oustide of the blahsphere. The average Joe isn’t getting worked up about it. It just blends into the noise that surrounds the whole war topic. Actually, John is hurting his cause by even talking about it. In the noise game, it’s volume that does the work. Not content.
Steve
Ok, let’s be very clear, because I have read every word you wrote on the topic.
When this first came up, your reaction was utter indignation at this terrible smear on the troops, etc. As comments came in, more indignation, more spluttering, etc.
Some time later, you linked to someone else’s post that offered a good, substantive rebuttal. Meanwhile, the spluttering and indignation continued. People continued to bring up various points, some of which had been addressed in the rebuttal already, but some of which had not. No response to the new points, just a continuing beatdown of the same strawmen already rebutted, more spluttering, more indignation, etc.
Just the other day, in one of the comment threads, I quoted an expert from the international organization which monitors chemical weapons who said that, in fact, WP would be a chemical weapon if it had been used in the manner alleged. Given the chaos of the comment threads, I had to beg several times for a rebuttal. No one at all engaged the quote on the merits – just a tired repetition of the same points that have been made before, no recognition of the fact that this was a new argument.
So no, I completely reject your claim that you have rebutted this issue time and time again. What you have done is link to some arguments that rebut certain claims, and then when new claims and new arguments are made, you totally ignore them and scream about how it’s all been addressed. Simply not the case.
Steve
And to add, while I don’t deny that you have made plenty of substantive points amidst all the screaming and indignation, the point of my first post on this thread was that a higher ratio of substance to screaming tends to be more effective in crushing an argument. Rest assured that even if you don’t talk about “smearing the troops” in every other sentence, someone else will do it for you. Leave it to them and focus on substance, don’t let the substance be an afterthought.
ppGaz
Snort. It’s YOUR stupid logic, that’s what kind it is.
There are realities in this world, my friend. Ignore them at your own peril.
One of them is that support for this war is not coming back, because the people no longer trust the folks in charge. Whine all you want, that’s the way it is. And it was predictable. And it was preventable.
If you don’t get that, tough shit. The world is moving on.
Slartibartfast
Then it’s perfectly acceptable to toss out one non sequitur after another? Ok, but it doesn’t mean that I have to take you seriously when you do it.
ppGaz
You don’t have to take any of this seriously.
But the reality is, the world is moving on. The period for gaining support for the war is over. The ship has sailed, and it is not coming back.
Believe whatever you want, take seriously whatever you deem serious. It doesn’t matter. The party is over. NOBODY BELIEVES THESE LYING POTATOHEADS any more except the diehard faithful who would say “yes” to any shit that the potatoheads put out there.
They have violated the trust of the people, they have squandered the trust, pissed away the political capital, alienated too many people, made too many mistakes.
Whenever you decide to put down your shovel, we’ll take a look at trying to pull out of your hole.
Pb
Slartibartfast,
I’ll hold myself to the same standard I set–you don’t have to take me seriously after I’m caught lying a few times. Fortunately, I don’t think I have much to fear on that front.
Shygetz
Steve,
That quote was addressed correctly. The BBC quote said:
not, as you claim, that if WP were used as described it would be a chemical weapon. WP was not used as a toxic agent; it was used as an indindiary. It was used to ignite upon exposure to low levels of heat and oxygen to create a burning cloud, not to cause toxic effects through chemical action on organic tissue. As such, it is not a chemical weapon, but an incindiary. True, WP can have acute toxic effects; so can pretty much every chemical used on the modern battlefield. The valid question would be, was WP used to generate a non-incindiary toxic gas? It was not (and it was not), so the BBC quote does not apply. Hey, if you won’t take my word for it, take a look at another quote from the source you cited on the issue:
Here
Kimmitt
Unfortunately, this is what happens when people start winning too many elections by lying. Media outlets are supposed to keep a lid on this by fact-checking what people say, but since they’re just stenographers now, the rules of the game have changed.
Steve
Shygetz, that’s a great response, and it calls to mind my larger point that it would have been far more effective if someone had made that fact-based response when the point was raised, instead of having to wade through 300 rants about smearing the troops and how this has already been addressed before getting there. People in the blogosphere often don’t seem to get that when the facts are on your side, facts are usually far more effective than rants in making your case.
BIRDZILLA
Do you think that DAN RATHER has taken a job at a italian news agentcy?
rkrider
The plot thickens:
Incendiary weapons: The big white lie
US finally admits using white phosphorus in Fallujah – and beyond. Iraqis investigate if civilians were targeted with deadly chemical The move by the Iraqi government and the growing concern at Westminster follows the Pentagon’s confirmation to The Independent earlier this week that WP had been used during the battle of Fallujah last November and the presentation of persuasive evidence that civilians had been among the victims.
A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday he would “not be surprised” if WP had been used by US forces elsewhere in Iraq.
Lt-Col Barry Venable said the incendiary shells were a regular part of the troops’ munitions. “I would not rule out the possibility that it has been used in other locations.” The Pentagon’s admission of WP’s use – it can burn a person down to the bone – has proved to be a huge embarrassment to some elements of the US government.
In a letter to this newspaper, the American ambassador to London, Robert Tuttle, claimed that US forces “do not use napalm or WP as weapons” .
Confronted with the Pentagon’s admission, an embassy spokesperson said Mr Tuttle would not be commenting further and “all questions on WP” should be referred to the Pentagon. The US embassy in Rome had issued a similar denial.