Saturday, June 07, 2008

Down the Media Memory Hole: The Mythical “Haditha Massacre”

“Haditha” was, liberals hoped, to the Iraq War what My Lai was to the Vietnam War: an example of the brutality of American soldiers that would help turn public opinion against the war.

But unfortunately for them (but fortunately for the country) that narrative has collapsed. From FrontPage Magazine:
THIS WEEK YET AGAIN PROVED THE PARTY OF DEFEAT’S KING WEARS NO CLOTHES. On Wednesday, a jury found Lieutenant Andrew Grayson “not guilty” of covering up the (un)massacre at Haditha. The 27-year-old had been accused of multiple counts of making false official statements and one count of attempting to deceive by making false statements. A charge of “obstruction of justice” had been thrown out the day before.

More than simply another exoneration of those accused of wrongdoing in Haditha – the sixth of eight accused – this verdict will go a long way to redefining Haditha and refuting those who insist on slurring “baby-killer” Marines and the United States herself.

In the atrocity story churned out by left-wingers and “mainstream media” newscasters (but then, I repeat myself), four U.S. Marines murdered 24 blameless Iraqi civilians on November 19, 2005, as their victims cowered, some “as if in prayer.” The then-ascendant face of American surrender, John Murtha, made this story his own in a dramatic press conference in May 2006, insisting his fellow Marines acted “in cold blood” even as an internal investigation was taking place.

The story at once illumined the Left’s imagination like nothing since Abu Ghraib. More than a massacre, its obsessive observers saw in Haditha a “cover-up,” a conspiracy. The official press release stated these civilians had died during an explosion, rather than by gunfire, yet investigators understand they were killed by ammunition fired at close-range. The narrative became set: the Bush White House ordered American soldiers to slaughter innocent civilians every opportunity they got (My Lai by the dozen); the service covered up the story; and a compliant media hid it all from the American people. The fact that Time magazine broke the story gave them little pause. They became keepers of the dirty secret: America, a genocidal nation since 1492, is at it again.

This is a necessary corollary of the fact that there was no such “massacre.” The defendants – who are, it is too infrequently pointed out, U.S. Marines who pledged to give their lives if necessary to keep America safe from terrorists – have maintained the “insurgents” initiated the firefight; hid among civilians (as terrorists often do); and the Marines heard rifles cocking in the smoke-filled room when they inadvertently killed the Iraqis (whom they also pledged to protect from terrorists at the cost of their lives).

Photographs of the scene revealed the curtains and walls were riddled with bullet holes – indicating a two-way firefight. And these “cold blood”-ed killers have broken down in tears at the remembrance of their actions.
Of course, the mainstream media, which incessently reported on the original charges against the Marines, have had little to say about their vindication.

It doesn’t fit the narrative.

Labels: , , ,

13 Comments:

Blogger Michael J. Mathias said...

I won't hold my breath for your "OJ was innocent" post, John.

10:23 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

I won't hold my breath for your "OJ was innocent" post, John.

But O.J. wasn't innocent.

You really want American Marines to be baby killers, don't you?

10:27 PM  
Blogger Michael J. Mathias said...

No, I don't. Yet, children are dying. As for blame...well, why don't you think of just the right thing to say the parents of this two-year old.
http://punditnation.blogspot.com/2008/05/beyond-pale-dying-iraqi-toddlers-are.html

10:34 PM  
Blogger James Pawlak said...

Terrorists hide in the general population about them, which population can not or, as is more likely in Muslim nations, will not resist that tactic. If such civilians get killed or wounded during military campaigns against terrorists, such "collateral damage" is the price of their unwilling or, as is more likely in such cases, willing cooperation.

3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marines Are BABY KILLERS.
Everyone knows that.
Carol from the West Side

8:41 PM  
Blogger Michael J. Mathias said...

James, this notion of yours that a two-year old deserves to die because he got in the way of a US missile sent to kill someone who doesn't pose a threat to us is, well, grossly immoral.

9:24 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

Michael,

You say you don't want to believe that U.S. Marines are baby killers. But you compare them to O.J., and you get grumpy when they are vindicated.

So what am I to believe about your attitudes?

From your own blog:

More than two dozen people were killed when Shiite militants ambushed a U.S. patrol in Baghdad's embattled Sadr City district, bringing the death toll in area on Tuesday to more than 30

But you have nothing bad to say about the terrorists who ambushed American soldiers.

It's obvious which side you are on.

10:26 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

James, this notion of yours that a two-year old deserves to die because he got in the way of a US missile sent to kill someone who doesn't pose a threat to us is, well, grossly immoral.

Plenty of German two-year olds died during WWII.

My guess is that, had you been alive, you would not have objected to that.

10:28 PM  
Blogger Michael J. Mathias said...

Um, John, I expect better behavior from our "side" than I do from the Shiite militants side. Quite apart from that, it wasn't happening there before the US launched an unnecessary invasion.

6:16 AM  
Blogger krshorewood said...

"Of course, the mainstream media, which incessently reported on the original charges against the Marines, have had little to say about their vindication."

Thank your lucky stars John. People are pissed off enough with Bush's dumassed "mistake". As with the small credibility the public gives the exoneration of police when their "suspects" die in a hail bullets, this would only throw more gas on the fire of disgust over this crime (I mean the occupation).

As for:
"Plenty of German two-year olds died during WWII.

My guess is that, had you been alive, you would not have objected to that."

Liberals would have put this into perspective since that time we were fighting a real enemy.

You, on the other hand, would have joined the rest of the isolationist Republicans.

For someone who relishes the death penalty, why are you easing up on these guys?

7:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

haha! Only 8 posts before a Nazi reference. Bravo.

8:35 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

As with the small credibility the public gives the exoneration of police when their "suspects" die in a hail bullets,

I think you are speaking for your leftie friends, Michael. Most Americans know that suspects can make threatening moves -- even if it turns out they are unarmed.

Um, John, I expect better behavior from our "side" than I do from the Shiite militants side.

Begs the question. Even the best behaved soldiers are going to kill civilians that get into the line of fire.

Quite apart from that, it wasn't happening there before the US launched an unnecessary invasion.

"Unnecessary" is your opinion. And note that you appear to have conceded the issue of Marine wrongdoing.

10:01 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

haha! Only 8 posts before a Nazi reference. Bravo.

Gosh, we would not want to compare terrorists to Nazis.

Liberals know that the "terrorists" are just freedom fighters.

10:03 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home