The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

AP giddy from Haditha uses the Kill word

The media is starting to feel the giddy affects from the Haditha story. They haven't felt this good since Abu Graibh. So today when AP needs to report on a shooting in Iraq due to a car not stopping at a clearly marked prohibited area near an observation post, they could not resist adding the word "Kill" to the title of the story. The unfortunate incident is shown to be without malice in one paragraph of the story:
The U.S. military said coalition troops fired at a car after it entered a clearly marked prohibited area near an observation post but failed to stop despite repeated visual and auditory warnings.
Of course this paragraph is couched in the wording that "The U.S. military said". So what else is in the story to show their overindulgence of "Haditha wine"? In this unfortunate incident there were two women that died. Yet the title of the story only mentions one of the women. Now why is that? Well, one of the women was pregnant. So in addition to the "kill" word, the title focuses on the pregnant woman to pack the most punch. The title U.S. Troops Kill Pregnant Woman in Iraq not only provides a sucker punch to our armed forces without correct context, it casts aside the other woman that also died like yesterday's laundry.

What else in the story shows the media's inebriation on Haditha? Well, this was a story about two women dying because the car they were in went into a prohibited zone and did not stop when warned. Yet, the bulk of writing in the story is about Haditha. The name Haditha is mentioned 4 times. There are 23 paragraphs in the article yet only 8 are devoted to the title subject, with 15 paragraphs devoted to Haditha. Likewise there are 822 words in the article. Only 273 words are devoted to the title subject and 549 words devoted to Haditha.

I would say more, but the disgusting glee that this media exhibits when it attacks our military speaks for itself.

22 Comments:

  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger THE RIGHT WING AGENDA said…

    Ahhhh Come on!!! The media for the longest time was Kissing Bush's Ace after 911, it was like they were all one big Fox NEws

    Just face it that those of us that took the time to be informed were right ie this war in Iraq is BS and based on lies and that the President is a certified Ass Clown..no cows or brains..just all hat.

    Thanks for another four years!!! Hey those poll numbers are down...looks like it's time for another war. This time ALL Republicans go...sound good???

     
  • At 8:05 PM, Blogger Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5039420.stm

    this just off of the BBC. this just keeps getting worse!!! If this and the Haditha case turn out to be fact our credibility is shot!

     
  • At 8:38 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    joe, I saw that story. At the end of the story it states:

    "The pictures came from a hardline Sunni group opposed to coalition forces."

    They would have to have bullistic evidence matching guns our soldiers used for me to believe it. Just because you have bodies with bullet holes in them does not mean our guys did it. They could come in after the fact and plug the dead bodies full of bullets and then get out their handy digital camaras they just happen to carry around.

     
  • At 9:45 AM, Blogger Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

    Pally, I think we can safely say that Iraq is a lost cause and that Bush and his cabal of Idiots blew it.

     
  • At 10:19 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    joe, I wonder if you actually hope we succeed in Iraq. Or do you rub your hands together each time bad news comes from Iraq. Do you dream of the day that the President (this one or the next) stands up and claims failure in Iraq and brings the troops home.

    Or do you even in the darkest hour hope and pray for success? Does your heart yearn for peace and prosperity developed in a nation using the foundation of freedom?

    Or is it simply "screw 'em"?

     
  • At 5:50 AM, Blogger FKAB said…

    Actually, I think that was a fair comment by Joe.

    It's time you Americans wake up and smell the vomitorium.

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger Malott said…

    It takes a Democrat to relish American defeat. That's why they should never be allowed to lead. We can't trust them with our secrets. We can't trust them with our security. How many young Americans have died due to the encouragement our enemies have enjoyed via the Dems?

    Speaking treason is the new language of the Left...

    Democrats are reticent when it comes to Islamic atrocities, but let an American step out of line... it's the [only] story and they're presumed guilty.

     
  • At 12:33 PM, Blogger Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

    Malott said...
    It takes a Democrat to relish American defeat. That's why they should never be allowed to lead. We can't trust them with our secrets. We can't trust them with our security. How many young Americans have died due to the encouragement our enemies have enjoyed via the Dems?

    Speaking treason is the new language of the Left...

    Democrats are reticent when it comes to Islamic atrocities, but let an American step out of line... it's the [only] story and they're presumed guilty.

    10:21 AM



    Here is what I say: I never supported this war from the get go and knew as Colin Powell did it was a flawed plan devised by a bunch of draft dodgers and career politician all for Big Oil and Israel.

    Before any of you war loving flag wavers pass judgement on me or anyone else that supports this jackass in the White House and his BS WAR, get your lame Flagwaving Keester and everyone of age in your family to your recruiter and sign up to serve in Bush's Mess. If you fail to do so your nothing but a GUTLESS CUT AND RUN CHICKENHAWK!!!

    Like Bush Said: 'YOUR EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US...so stop wasting your time posting on Blogs,show some intestinal fortitude and demonstrate what a better American/PATRIOT you are than me and SIGN UP AND SERVE NOW!!!!!!Otherwise put a sock in it...CHICKENHAWK!!!

     
  • At 2:47 PM, Anonymous who would jesus kill? said…

    Succeed in Iraq?

    So far no one's been able to tell me what that means or what would indicate that success, neither Bush nor any of the chickenhawk blog legions.

    Does your heart yearn for peace and prosperity developed in a nation using the foundation of freedom?

    Spare us the melodrama and total lack of realism. What is currently happening in Iraq was shoved down their throats. The US had a chance to support a popular uprising against Hussein after the first Gulf War, but Bush Sr took a pass on that. Get this clear: Iraq was invaded by and is now under US military occupation. That is not a foundation of freedom. All indications from the Iraqi voting booths are that fundamentalism will play a big role in whatever emerges.

    Bush and Blair stormed into Iraq without any solid verifiable proof of WMDs and proceeded to break the country into thousands of pieces.

    When the WMD story fell apart, then came the excuses about liberating the Iraqis from the terrible despot Hussein. The BIG problem with that excuse is that Hussein was committing his worst atrocities in the mid and late 1980s, when Reagan and Bush Sr were actively supporting his regime.

    So, we should expect more Hadithas. How should we expect our troops to act when their Commander in Chief and the Pentagon have so thoroughly f*cked things up? Our troops' top leadership is in total disarray and completely divorced from reality. The policy and mission statement were flawed from the very beginning, which means our troops are over there with no clear goal or plan other than to survive. All this for what? Bin Laden allowed to escape, Taliban back on the rise, al-Qaeda has the biggest and best recruitment tool ever in the ongoing occupation of Iraq, 2500 dead American troops, $300 billion wasted, over 100,000 dead Iraqis, Abu Ghraib and Haditha.

    AICS wants to be sure our troops are given the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty. Too bad he didn't feel the same commitment to proof of guilt before cheerleading Bush's invasion a sovereign, non-agressing country.

     
  • At 4:03 PM, Anonymous r2w said…

    AICS,

    I applaud you for your patience in dealing with people like WWJK and Joe Smoe. I assume you realize that there can be no seeing things eye to eye with them. I mean anyone who sincerely believes that you have to force your sons to join an all-volunteer army in order to prove you are not a hypocrite is not going to be turned by your logic. That's like saying I have to become a cop and fight crime in order to urge support for law enforcement and tough penalties for lawbreakers. I guess if you're in a wheelchair and can't fight, and don't have any children to sacrifice, you can't support the war effort. You're also not going to convince anyone who sincerely believes we are conquering invaders and occupiers. They just don't realize that occupiers occupy because they want to steal what the occupied country has (i.e. Germany occupying France during WWII, or Hussein occupying Kuwait for her oil fields. I doubt you'll be able to make these people understand the truth, because they don't want to understand it. They are too blinded by their own political views and their hatred for a person. But keep it up, AICS. You provide entertaining reading, and you just might convince some who aren't so far gone.

     
  • At 4:12 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    AICS wants to be sure our troops are given the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty. Too bad he didn't feel the same commitment to proof of guilt before cheerleading Bush's invasion a sovereign, non-agressing country.

    Still want to hang the Haditha marines without proof, but want to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt.

    You can hardly label Saddam as "non-agressing" without causing peals of laughter in your audience.


    So, we should expect more Hadithas. How should we expect our troops to act when their Commander in Chief and the Pentagon have so thoroughly f*cked things up? Our troops' top leadership is in total disarray and completely divorced from reality. The policy and mission statement were flawed from the very beginning, which means our troops are over there with no clear goal or plan other than to survive.

    Ok, so how would your theory fit if all were in agreement that Iraq was agressive and needed to be invaded. From that standpoint we would still be "occupying" Iraq, just like we occupied Germany after WWII. We would still be facing an insurgency. Our troops would still be under pressure from constant attack by IED's, etc. According to your theory we would still be facing more Haditha's because it supposedly is caused by the constant pressure from the insurgency. We would still have had a handful of renegades that went too far at Abu Graibh. What would be the point of all you are saying?

    It all boils down to whether we should have invaded Iraq or not. The rest would be exactly the same whether that answer is yes or no.

     
  • At 4:19 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    If this and the Haditha case turn out to be fact our credibility is shot!

    This "our credibility will be shot" is bogus. As Gen. Peter Pace points out 99.9% of our marines are serving in Iraq in an honorable way. Only in a climate of political hatred can those be willing to assault the credibility of the whole on the actions of 0.1%.

    Incidences like Abu Graibh and Haditha (if true) would be the actions of the 0.1% and are condemned by all. Since these actions are taken by the few and are condemned and punished, this is not a hit on credibility.

    An analogy is the Post Office did not take a credibility hit when a few of their employees "went postal" and slaughtered a bunch of fellow employees. The only ones that took a credibility hit were the offenders.

     
  • At 12:34 PM, Blogger Joe Smoe: American Citizen said…

    r2w said...
    AICS,

    I applaud you for your patience in dealing with people like WWJK and Joe Smoe.

    I invite anyone with any view to come by my blog and make any statements that you want and the posts will stand without deletion!!!!

    AICS has the only right leaning/ pro Bush blog that does the same...and I salute him for it. He is unlike the vast majority of Bush supporting Blogs that will delete any posts that disagree with their beliefs or the FOX NEWS PARTYLINE.

    Once again feel free to come on by,but you better have some REAL FACTS to back up your assertions and not some feel Good Smoke and mirrors crap...kinda like Bush feeds the public at large.You will find free speech at it's best... you know the kind of right were in Iraq to uphold...oh sorry that was last weeks excuse.Come by and do battle since you can't find the intestical fortitude to do it in IRAQ.

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    joe, thanks for your comments on my blog. I have not seen much of this deleting of comments on either side but shame on whoever does it. I do not believe in censorship. I only delete the spam here. If somebody really got out of hand with bad language or pornographic connotations I would remove it. Ideloogical disagreement is what my blog is about, so I love comments from all stripes.

    I really love it when I get multiple comments from the same person regardless of agreement. What a boring world this would be if we all agreed.

    So Joe, Housewife, Merete, Paw, Right Wing Agenda, Anonymous (1-?),WWJK and even Blasphemer and any others who disagree with me are always welcome.

    Of course those who agree with me sometimes to almost all the time are welcome too. You know who you are so I won't embarrass you :)

     
  • At 11:38 AM, Anonymous r2w said…

    I hope no one thought I was suggesting deletion of comments made by those who disagree. I wouldn't want that at all. In fact, the more disagreement that takes place, the more interesting this blog gets. No, I was merely observing the seemingly futile nature in AICS's responses to those who hold such a different world view that they are never going to be convinced.

     
  • At 4:14 PM, Anonymous who would jesus kill? said…

    From r2w: I was merely observing the seemingly futile nature in AICS's responses to those who hold such a different world view that they are never going to be convinced.

    Believe me, I feel exactly the same about you and AICS. I keep thinking a glimmer of truth and reality and honesty might make it through, but it mostly seems like a futile effort.

    A case in point from AICS:

    You can hardly label Saddam as "non-agressing" without causing peals of laughter in your audience.

    Bush and Blair invaded Iraq not because Saddam had attacked anyone in 2003. The last time Hussein made an aggressive move was 1990. He got slapped down and held down by no-fly zones over half his country and ongoing weapons inspections. Then came the invasion in March 2003. AICS knows I was referring to the invasion of a country that had not attacked another, but AICS chose to be patently dishonest and change the subject to try to score a cheap point. I called out the apparent hypocricy of not allowing a thorough IAEA/UNSCOM investigation to continue in a rush to judgment (war) versus the demand now that we all sit tight for the very final last word of the investigation to be concluded of Haditha, despite numerous pieces of information coming out about it.

    Mind you, this is also an internal investigation, an organization investigating itself to see if it screwed up. Remember that the original story coming from the Marines was that all these people were killed by an IED, so they are also investigating themselves to see if they covered anything up. We'll see what they find.

    Futile is a tame word for this, but we soldier on.

    It all boils down to whether we should have invaded Iraq or not. The rest would be exactly the same whether that answer is yes or no.

    I agree that is the big question. Should we have invaded Iraq? Was the mess in Iraq worth losing Bin Laden? Definitely not, and there's plenty other points beyond that. I still have yet to see anyone tell me now why we should have invaded Iraq instead of stepping up inspections, satellite and intelligence operations and seeing it through to the end. We wouldn't have the $300B/2500 dead troop elephant in the living room if we had done that.

    But I cannot agree that the rest would be exactly the same whether we should have or shouldn't have gone in. We can't know how things would be different if we had morality and a just cause on our side, but I'm willing to bet things would be very different. We can look at the first Gulf War, which was fought with worldwide support and a broad coalition of major countries in direct response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It was quick and widely supported. We can compare that to the 2003 invasion of a country that merely under suspicion of doing something, the piddling handful of tiny former Soviet states and Mauritania sending 30 troops to help out and how it has dragged on for 3 years now, with no end in sight, and now with US military atrocities mounting.

     
  • At 5:17 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    wwjk, your answers make no sense. First your uses of the words truth, reality and honesty to attempt to label me as untruthful, unrealistic and dishonest are merely that: words. Simply saying something does not make it so. I could throw such words in my responses like glitter and hope they stick. Perhaps I do sometimes to make myself feel better, but I realize they are no substitute for a logical point.

    Bush and Blair invaded Iraq not because Saddam had attacked anyone in 2003. The last time Hussein made an aggressive move was 1990.

    So there is a statute of limitations on aggression? Sorry, we were in a state of cease-fire and sanctions which meant the events of 1990 and their aftermath were on hold. I do not recall anyone giving Saddam a clean slate from being an aggressor. Call my valid point a cheap political point if you wish, but Saddam is not innocent and to release him from any probability of his being a future aggressor especially toward the US is foolish at best.

    Mind you, this is also an internal investigation, an organization investigating itself to see if it screwed up. Remember that the original story coming from the Marines was that all these people were killed by an IED, so they are also investigating themselves to see if they covered anything up. We'll see what they find.

    Beyond belief. What is your point? That since they will be investigating their own actions it is proof of their guilt? Who would you trust to do an unbiased investigation? There are not many I would trust. Surely not the UN or any part of that US-hating corrupt joke of an establishment.

    Was the mess in Iraq worth losing Bin Laden?

    Liberals continue to babble on that Iraq and Bin Laden's escape are related. That point has not been proven, yet it is rattled off as fact.

    We can't know how things would be different if we had morality and a just cause on our side, but I'm willing to bet things would be very different.

    ok, overlooking the obvious that we disagree on that point, assuming that the cause was not just; this does not result in a conclusion that our troops are unjust. If liberals are going to claim that, then they can drop the facade of their "we support the troops but don't support the war". They can just come out and say how they really feel - they don't support the troops.

    We can look at the first Gulf War, which was fought with worldwide support and a broad coalition of major countries in direct response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It was quick and widely supported.

    Two points here: Of course the obvious that Gulf War I was mostly an air war with a little bit of ground action that mostly resulted in surrender until the cease fire agreement was signed. This war was much more involved and it is obvious it would and should take longer to execute.

    The second point is that the world community should have been supportive of the invasion. If they had been supportive instead of signaling to Saddam that they were going to resist no matter what, then the invasion may never have taken place. It is foolish to think that whatever the majority thinks is automatically right.

     
  • At 6:37 PM, Anonymous who would jesus kill? said…

    It is foolish to think that whatever the minority thinks is automatically right.

    You can only wish that I didn't make sense.

    By your twisted logic, today we should feel free to invade Germany, Japan, the UK, Rome and on and on simply because at one point they attacked another country at some point in history. I swear, the warped mind of Bush apologists is awe inspiring.

    Iraq stood accused of posessing WMDs. Back then you had no interest in making sure that was proven true before signing off on an invasion. You had no interest in completing the investigation then. You cheerleaded your AWOL Commander and Chump into going to kick some brown Iraqi ass, inspectors and the world be damned. But now that some of our boys got caught shooting kids in the back of the head and lying about it, you want to be sure every t is crossed and i is dotted. That's fine. I just wish that you and your ilk had demanded the same thoroughness when the IAEA and UNSCOM were conducting their investigations. If you had, we wouldn't have 2500 dead Americans, staggering war debt and things like Haditha to argue about.

    ok, overlooking the obvious that we disagree on that point, assuming that the cause was not just; this does not result in a conclusion that our troops are unjust.

    My point (that you obviously missed by a mile) is that having a morally justifiable mission as we had in the first Gulf War is one that is openly and substantively supported by the world and inspires honor in the mission. Discovering that the WMD excuse was a sham does not inspire honor in the mission. It shows that your leadership had it all wrong, and as every "stay the course" day goes on, it shows that your leadership has no interest in making any corrections to their mistake. It doesn't make the troops unjust but it doesn't give them any worthwhile role or behavior model.

    Since you're so indignant about suggesting a conflict of interest in the military investigating the military, you must support my call to have only the Dem members of the Congressional Black Caucus as the sole investigators into the William Jefferson case. Glad we got that cleared up now.

    Invading Iraq was a total diversion of resources away from capturing Bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda and the Taliban. Plain and simple.

    The second point is that the world community should have been supportive of the invasion. If they had been supportive instead of signaling to Saddam that they were going to resist no matter what, then the invasion may never have taken place.

    To suggest the invasion may have never taken place with world support is an act of self-delusion. What makes you say that?

     
  • At 12:21 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    wwjk, you sure like to say things and think that makes it so.

    You can only wish that I didn't make sense.

    my wish is granted. you don't. though I am sure you make perfect sense to yourself.

    By your twisted logic, today we should feel free to invade Germany, Japan, the UK, Rome and on and on simply because at one point they attacked another country at some point in history.

    The only thing twisted here is you twisting what I say and looking foolish in the process. When I spoke of no statute of limitations, I specifically zeroed in on Saddamm Hussein. I am talking about the regime. Modern Rome, Japan and Germany is not the same regime it was during their aggression.

    I won't argue the justification paragraph. If you cannot see that it was more than likely Saddam would have posed a serious threat after sanctions were removed then we will never agree on that.

    My point (that you obviously missed by a mile) is that having a morally justifiable mission as we had in the first Gulf War is one that is openly and substantively supported by the world and inspires honor in the mission. Discovering that the WMD excuse was a sham does not inspire honor in the mission. It shows that your leadership had it all wrong, and as every "stay the course" day goes on, it shows that your leadership has no interest in making any corrections to their mistake. It doesn't make the troops unjust but it doesn't give them any worthwhile role or behavior model.

    Now I have heard it all. All of the world's intelligence agencies stated Saddam had WMD. Saddam would not fully cooperate with inspections. Even Hans Blix spoke of his "cat and mouse games". So no WMD were found. Only those wanting to score cheap political points completely ignore the possibility of the WMD going to Syria as testified by a high ranking Iraqi general. So based on the best intelligence we went with the best intentions to keep our country safe and to free the Iraqis from an oppressive regime. And don't give me this bunk about changing the mission. From day one the mission was named "Operation Iraqi Freedom". There is no reason for the troops to feel they were duped or dishonored. Your take is a stretch of the highest order.

    Since you're so indignant about suggesting a conflict of interest in the military investigating the military, you must support my call to have only the Dem members of the Congressional Black Caucus as the sole investigators into the William Jefferson case. Glad we got that cleared up now.

    Cleared what up. Your overconfidence is quite astounding. I think it is a sham to cover how frustrating it is supporting your lame arguments. That is no logical point, just an opinion.

    Your analogy is way off the mark. It is equal to the families of the marines in question doing the investigation. No, the more accurate analogy is for Congress as a whole / or an investigative committee established by congress to investigate William Jefferson. Whether they do or not, it is the job of the justice department to investigate criminal activity. Glad we have now cleared that up.

    Invading Iraq was a total diversion of resources away from capturing Bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda and the Taliban. Plain and simple.

    Again you like to say things and think that makes it so. I guess we could have placed 200,000 troops on the Pakistan border and maybe we would have gotten him. Or he could have still gotten through. Or he could have died in Tora Bora and all the tapes release are fakes. Besides, didn't Tora Bora come before Iraq? Once he was in Pakistan, we would need to invade the country we have named an ally to go after him.

    To suggest the invasion may have never taken place with world support is an act of self-delusion. What makes you say that?

    Ok, let's take this in slooooowwww motion. To believe that the actions of the security council refusing to back up their own resolutions and demand Saddam honor the terms of his cease fire did not embolden him to dig in his feet is the self-delusional thinking.

     
  • At 10:40 AM, Anonymous r2w said…

    I find it interesting that many people claim the current war is unjust because Bush lied about the reasons for going, and it was really all about oil. But the really interesting part is that many of these same people now claim that the first war, which was ENTIRELY about oil, was justified because we had worldwide support. Of course we had worldwide support! The world didn't want Sadaam to have control of Kuwait's oil fields. But when the cause is freedom in the Middle East, and stopping a tyrannical murderer from gaining or using weapons of mass destruction, much of the world isn't so interested anymore.

     
  • At 6:34 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    r2w, great point.

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Nice idea with this site its better than most of the rubbish I come across.
    »

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home