Everyone has heard of the "killings at Haditha," even though the military investigation of what happened there is still underway. Has anyone heard of the "killings at St. Lo" in July, 1944? A comparison of the New York Times coverage of those two events is instructive.
A Google News search of Haditha + killings + New York Times yields 891 hits as of Sunday noon. The articles on this subject in the Times are driving the national and international news in all media on this subject. The Times and its reporters are cited in most of these articles.
But what did the Times run about the killings at St. Lo in July, 1944?
It ran no stories, front page or otherwise, on St. Lo when it occurred. (Operation Cobra was intensive bombing by the US Air Force, in support of the effort to break out of St. Lo, and move against the Germans across France.)
The COBRA strikes killed slightly over 100 GIs and wounded about 500. Without a doubt, the strikes were badly executed, and serious command errors were made..... Finally, a formation of five medium bombers from the Ninth Air Force dropped seven miles north of the target, amid the 30th Infantry Division. This latter strike inflicted the heaviest casualties--25 killed and 131 wounded--on the first day that COBRA was attempted.
Lt. Gen. Leslie J. McNair, former Commander of Army Ground Forces and currently the "commander" of the fictional "1st Army Group," was killed in his foxhole by a direct bomb hit as he waited to observe the follow-up ground attack
No mention is made of French civilian casualties is made in this Air Force account of the "friendly fire" bombings around St. Lo, but surely there were many of those, also. Was the New York Times aware of this mass killing of American, British and Canadian troops, and of French civilians, a month after D-Day? How could it not be aware of an incident of this magnitude?
But what did the Times publish during the war about the killings at St. Lo? Nothing.
Why? Most likely because the then Editors of the Times realized that publishing that story then would have harmed the war effort. And defeating the Nazis was more important than revealing, then, the tragic mistakes that led to these killing. (BTW, the Air Force concluded that the off-target bombings were the fault of the weather, and mistakes made by certain pilots and officers in targeting, but no one was convicted in any Court Martial of any offense.)
What conclusion follows from the Times’ relentless coverage of Haditha, where the facts are not yet known, compared to its non-coverage of the huge military and civilian death toll at St. Lo? The logical conclusion is this is not your grandfather’s New York Times. That newspaper today is incapable of holding back a story that will get people killed. It is incapable, even, of holding the story until the facts are known.
The conclusion is that today’s Times is a willing participant in the effort to paint the entire American military as murderers. It should know better. Events like these happen in wartime, and non-combatants are killed, and Americans, along with a number of the enemy. The editorial policies of the Times today will certainly lead to the killing of more Americans. That was not the editorial policy of the Times during WW II.
Source for events at St. Lo: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-H-DDay/
This is an Air Force historian’s account of the use of air power for the D-Day invasion and beyond. The causes of the killings at St. Lo are described on pages 24-25.
Posts
22 comments:
What a load of horse shit. There is nobody in the US media nor in US politics who is participating in an "effort to paint the entire American military as murderers." To claim such is yet another outright, blatant lie.
Game, why do you keep posting such lies here. Is this your way of stirring up traffic?
You and your friends keep forgetting that this incident happened 6 months ago, was investigated by the Marines AND the Army, was leaked by Pentagon sources, was first known by the media in March. The media isn't making shit up. They are reporting what they have been told by military sources.
Hmmm, St. Lo 60 years ago. Great comparison. How did the NY times do in their coverage of Gettysburg? Did it meet your requirements?
The smell of desperation is palpable.
Desperation is a good word, jim. Thankfully, we have forced the military into wider acceptance of responsibility for their actions. Cameras were allowed in to Vietnam because the military thought it would help show the valor and struggle of the American soldier, but they needed help and allowed in the media. With the cat out, they have been retreating ever since. Situations like St Lo, or Haditha have been happening since war has existed. I recommend checking reports of Hammurabi's wars in Iraq for comparison, or Charlemagne's battles across the Rhine. It is a GOOD thing that the military is held accountable for what they do. Even if that accounting is only an investigation.
On a final note, I am going to pull the military card, once more. You always have this tendency, along with your Con brethren, of hoisting anyone in the military onto a pedestal. Having served, I can tell you that is a bunch of bullshit. Especially in the Army or Navy, many of these people would be in jail or unemplyable if it werent for the military. While that is a good thing, its bad for the military at times like these.
Jim, rhyno--
I agree with Game that the media in an earlier age wouldn't do things like report that Roosevelt was a cripple, even though it was the truth and they knew it. They had a greater sense of national purpose than the current crop of aging hippies in the media.
That being said, given the omnipresence of media devices and the global integration of communication, it is somewhat naive to believe we can keep information that damages the war effort quiet until victory. I'm not going to celebrate this like you two, however. It hurts the war effort, but the left doesn't care because they're openly trying to undermine it, seeing Bush as a big stupid bully. Nevertheless, that's the way it is.
The MSM and the left care more about hanging this Haditha incident, if there is one to be had, on Bush than the daily atrocities committed by terror thugs trying foment a civil war because they're losing. That's right - they ARE losing. But the left keeps supplying terrorists with talking points and recruitment tools by hyping phony scandals.
Day after day the piling on President Bush and his administration by the left is despicable, even treasonous. I don't see you all piling on the terrorists and speaking out against them daily. Why? Because your sniveling cowards without the dimmest clue on to battle these monsters. Got an idea? Let's hear it, jackasses... c'mon, just one little idea - no? I thought not. Your grand idea is to cut and run with Kennedy, Murtha, and Kerry leading the way.
Did it ever occur to you selfish, liberal bastards that you owe your very freedoms and you big mouths to these brave men and women who serve the country? You treasonous creeps don't support the troops. Never did, never will. The troops deserve our respect, a presumption of innocence and due process. Just like the terror creeps at Gitmo and Saddam have. And you know what? If it turns out that a handful soldiers did commit murder, it doesn't change a damn thing. Painting all soldiers with the same "psycho" brush the way the left did during Vietnam isn't going to wash this time around. Not under our watch. You should be ashamed of the legacy of your party and what you all did to good men who served back then.
And Jim, you ought to spend more time on trying to drive a little traffic to your lame site. It's getting really dusty there. Gyno's too liberal and lazy to run one.
Go get 'em, Game. Wipe the floor with their smug, punk faces.
Gyno giving battle tips is a laugh riot. But he's right about holding those accountable for their actions.
NOW do it with the terrorists, you liberal twit.
EH, your lack of manhood is exceeded only by your lack of intelligence. I was in the military and seem to have a much greater idea of what goes on there. Do you have any clue how much higher the crime rate(felony for civilians) is in the military, or how low the IQ and psych scores are? I didnt think so. Thanks for showing how blindly the Right puts soldiers on a pedestal without having a clue about what the person is really like. There isnt a single military individual in all the forces who I couldnt do as good a job as. I dont owe them crap except the timing to have been there before me.
Oh, and jason, this doesnt hurt the war effort, unless having the public know about the actions of the military, ex post facto, somehow undermines it.
Finally, I havent pulled this one out before, but I know game. Ask him if he thinks I am a coward, or afraid of a single fucking thing. You stupid asses scream for personal responsibility all the time and then whine like the pathetic hypocrites you are when it is pointed at the military or Queen Bush. The day its treasonous to criticize anyone, is the day we dont live in America.
Jason, again with the big lie. No body here or anywhere else is "celebrating this." That's just an outright, outragious lie.
You people purpetrate this lie because you refuse to actually listen to the point of the discussion. These Marines and Soldiers are under enormous stress. Many are on their third tour in a dangerous place where for the most part they are not wanted. Furthermore, since the problems in Iraq are political and these men and women are soldiers, not politicians, they are frustrated because they know they can't solve the problem.
What is the mission of the US fighting person in Iraq today?
Jim --
The mission as it stands today is to defend a nascent democracy against attacks by totalitarians who wish to topple it.
A big problem with the left is that they don't see connections between anything -- many of them don't even believe in an objective world and see reality constituted by "perspectives." As many communists in Vietnam will testify, at times they felt like giving up, but they only had to look to the protesters in the United States as inspiration to keep up the fight.
General Giap in an interview after the war said that the US anti-war movement gave them hope and they felt that if they could just hold on, delay, and inflict as many US casualties as possible, the US government would lose its resolve and ultimately withdraw from Vietnam. Interesting, that seems to be exactly what happened. Our armies cannot be defeated in battle, but they can be defeated by self-righteous hippies like yourself. Peace through tyranny is no way to live.
Find the Wall Street Journal interview with Bui Tin, who served on the General Staff of the North Vietnam Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. During the interview Mr. Tin was asked if the American antiwar movement was important to Hanoi's victory. Mr. Tin responded "It was essential to our strategy", referring to the war being fought on two fronts, the Vietnam battlefield and back home in America through the antiwar movement on college campuses and in the city streets. He further stated the North Vietnamese leadership listened to the American evening news broadcasts "to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement." Visits to Hanoi made by persons such as Jane Fonda, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses." Mr. Tin surmised, "America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." Mr. Tin further stated that General Vo Nguyen Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnam Army) had advised him the 1968 Tet Offensive had been a defeat.
Stop hating America, and stop siding with the damn terrorists. It is despicable and reprehensible.
Well done jason...
history has shown that the protesting and bad mouth liberals aide and comfort the enemy with all their trash talking...
What is the need to go on CNN and trash the military, even if 1% of them did something wrong...there is an adjenda, period...they are against the war and against the military...if they really supported the troops, they wouldn't constantly scream about the bad behavior of the 1% and talk a little more about the great things the 99% are doing
'tis ok Jim
It's no lie with me. I don't care how the hell he paints it, I don't care about any of it --
The U.S. military is a bunch of murdering pigs who are GWB's puppets -- the military is at the mercy of who the prez is.
This is what I honestly think. I care not what anyone thinks about it, and I think the military is way overly used for idiotic "wars".
I have one question:
We entered the Iraqi conflict illegally. How the hell can we call it a war at all? Don't the illegalities of it negate the fact that it's a war?
If so, then the U.S. honestly is a bunch of murdering pigs. By the hundreds of thousands.
I dont necessarily disagree with you jason, except on one point. That particular 'wait til they cant occupy us anymore' strategy was not anything new from 1951-73(ish) when the Vietnamese used it. It has been a successful method of avoiding a comprehensive defeat for a long, long time. Ask the Sioux in 1880, Russia in 1812, Scotland in 1380, or the Goths in 300-400 if they thought it was a good plan. The fact is that is does work and nothing besides the dedication of the warriors involved in it can make it work. Public opinion in the opposing side may effect the term it takes to complete the fight, but not on whether it does win.
Oh, and before anyone thinks about getting smart, those dates are post-fight. I cant think of exact dates, so they will do. Also, the Sioux lost when that plan was changed to all out war. It was working while it lasted.
God eh you are really full of it. Its hard to find a more ill informed statement of pure hate than you made. You think its bush bashing bush hatred but look at your comments again and tell me who the hater is...how do I count the ways. First of all 99.99 percent(at least) of the people killed in Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. How many times must we say that till you guys get what we are saying. Those people dont have the resources or desire(at least they didnt use to until bush gave them an excuse) to "blow up America" or whatever you think those dead people would have done. Who is it that is winning and just specifically who is it that is losing. Do you really have a clearly defined idea of who is on whos side? Let me suggest you are living in an illusion if you think you do..This is precisely why I feel sorry for our troops and want them to come home..including the ones in Haditha.
I dont want to live in your country if you think speaking out about what you want for this country and its people is treasonous. Thats total utter complete BULLSHIT! I aint shutting up so you better come up with some other lame slogan cuz I stopped taking your guilt trip a long time ago.
I am all for getting people that harm our country..that is not what we are doing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We are tied up giving training to terrorists who are moving around the world while we are tied down in Iraq. That sounds like not a good plan to me..sorry.
I have noted in a number of pieces on this blog commenting on this issue and you are making shit up! No liberals are disrespecting the troops.
Maybe people think that if we are to be the greatest country in the world and lead we should set the standard or no one will respect us as a country, as a leader or a friend. That by the way is a part of my strategy to defeat the evil doers. We MUST have most of the rest of the world on our side to win. In that way we are losing. It's the PNAC plan that has caused that. Yes we do have other ideas on ways to do it, it is you that thinks there is only one way..the bush way. Admit it. Call me a coward..cut and run..more slogans, more guilt trip Im not on. Its the people like you that fail to even think another idea could work or that someone might have another Idea that are harming America. I dont see you condemning the terrorists much either..just your own countrymen because they dont happen to share your opinion on how to attack terrorism...lame brain.
Geeeeeeezzzzzzzzz Game Kill the guilt trip will you. Nobodys taking it. It seems to me you hate your fellow countrymen more than the terrorists. You don't even want to talk about an agreement on how we do this...its your way or the hiway. Seems kind of............UNAMERICAN to me.
Jim--
I'm not lying. Look at your comrades on this thread.
You seem more reasonable than the other liberals. Perhaps you should consider changing sides. Just a thought.
Gee I see one person jason and I happen to know she objects to being called a liberal or a conservative. You are wrong.
Extremely wrong.
And sometimes she makes posts such as she did to illustrate a point.
I still have yet to see anyone answer the questions in that post.
Now, if you can't answer them, then shut up -- you're way too stupid to even be debating in this thread.
What's really screwed up, is that no one has even bothered to debate or refute that the U.S. is over there in Iraq bombing the hell out of hundreds of thousands of peoople illegally...
Screwing our national debt royally and illegally...
No one, from either side, has had the balls to try to debate it.
You all suck, with the exception of your last statement, Ron.
Not to mention that what the soldiers did in Hidaltha (and I'm sure it's happened in previous wars also) is wrong, regardless of which party is right, which mindset is right, what you suckos think is right.
It's still wrong.
No one's dared to mention that, either.
You know, Game, this just goes to show how much you lie to keep things stirred up. I've corrected you now how many times, saying that I am neither conservative nor liberal, yet you continue to brand me as liberal just because you don't like what I've said about something, or you want to keep things stirred up, as I said. Make totally unintelligent remarks about liberals, excuse everything, even when you've been outright caught, and are proven wrong on something.
Archie Bunker is who you are in disguise. I think I saw a picture of him at the top of this blog at one time, saying "Blog Owner".
I've even gone so far as to agree with you, and have gone far right on a couple of issues, yet you still brand me as liberal, and for the very last time, I AM NOT A LIBERAL.
This just goes to show how badly you want to just bash liberals for not saying or thinking what you want. Actually, bash isn't the word. More like punish.
This blog isn't even worth the ground god gave its owner to walk on, and you have no one to thank but yourself for it.
You once talked about this blog being a lot of work -- it seems to me you don't do any on it. You just sit there and bash and bash, throw out any old damned thing hoping it will fly or get some kind of entertainment effect without having to back yourself up on anything. The work is in researching and backing up what you say, but you don't think you have to do that, just like GWB (either that, or you don't dig any further down than "surface bullshit" to research). You can just say what you want, and expect it to fly, just like GWB. I don't think I've ever seen anyone put in so little real honest effort into anything as you do here.
I feel so, so sorry for kids in our schools, who have teachers that don't even have the first clue on how to debate, or research. Man, I pity the kids in this generation, because if you are a prime fine example of a teacher, then I'd home-school in a heartbeat.
You truly do suck.
Post a Comment