Information War: Rueters Photoshoped Golan Heights Image May 15

Don't know how long it will last but Reuters is using a photo-shopped image for it's headline on the Golan Heights protests.  Check here.  The guy is holding up a "key", his upraised arm is obviously photo shopped (see white line along grey shirt) and he is amazingly un-smokey considering the tire burning behind him.

Gotta love when the media buys obvious propaganda as the real thing.  I did read on twitter that tires were being brought up and burning, but thinking now that this is agitprop along with the twitter post.

Summary only...

Iraq: Winning, Disconnecting From the Matrix

Cross Posted At the Castle

What we got here is a failure to communicate. Some men you can't reach, that is they just don't listen when you talk reasonable so you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it, well he gets it, and I don't like it any better than you men. - Cool Hand Luke

History, they say, is written by the victors. Except for modern history, which is written by the media with all the snapshots, sound bites, so called expert analysis, and two minute pundit riffs trying to tell the story before the next commercial break or within the 1.5" x 6" column they were allocated in the news paper.

In this war, history is still being written by the media. They create a narrative that equates to the knowledge of the masses and trickles down to the polls. Yet, somewhere amongst the narrative is the true story of the war, written in "0" and "1" bytes on the world wide web. It was hidden except to the few who knew that the narrative on the air waves did not match the whispers of communications from the front. And we searched for the real story among the bytes, flashing around the world at the speed of light.

It was these flashes among the dark and gloomy midnight of the narrative that has kept us going, insisting that reality, like the interned in the "Matrix", was not reality at all. Becoming unplugged from the legacy media "matrix", we found reality. Still, we shout to people to believe and their eyes are blurry while the media "matrix" tries to shift reality once again, changing the story to meet the reality they can no longer hide.

The "surge" they say is working. A miracle in many quarters while in others it is still rejected. People are waiting and watching for the "next shoe" to drop. Another gigantic frenzy of bloody horror unleashed on unsuspecting people. Yet, if something does come, it will be little and in no comparison to the bloody orgy that the enemy in its death throws perpetrated on the Iraqi people throughout 2005-2006. And, any who will try to claim that it is the "resurgence" of the enemy with a possibility that they will "win" will be dead wrong, just as they have been wrong throughout the war.

Perceiving a victory when it is perceived by all is not the highest excellence-Sun Tzu

In a recently linked piece at Instapundit, Atlas Society noted that the media was "mugged" by bloggers. There is a lot of history that talks about how the media changed. A significant part of this story, broken down to the minimal, is that the conglomeration of corporatist media lost their independence and became subject to a singular editorial process governed, not by reality or the customer base they were serving, but by a hierarchy that that led to only a few at the top deciding what was newsworthy. It was these few that, through their relationship with "global" media and their outright ownership of much of the network and printed media, that controlled the story line, "shaping" American opinion.

Atlas Mugged talks about events such as RatherGate and September 11th, when the popular media servers went down and people were left with either repeating loops on the networks or blogs. It discusses the rise of blogs and the attempts of the mass media to take advantage of the phenomena. But, even Atlas Mugged misses one essential story that the centralized editorial practices of the "mass media" missed: the real story of how we won in Iraq.

Without taking anything away from Gen. Petraeus and those who worked hard in the last nine months to take advantage of the conditions set by all the hard work before and insure victory, victory was assured a long time ago. The truth of it was written in the blogs of military men and women and free lance writers who eschewed the "Matrix" of mass media for true independence.

Most of America is still wondering and looking for the miracle, the mythical moment that it all started going "right" in Iraq. Today's narrative is that the "surge" provided enough security to "finally" convince the Iraqis that it was in their best interests to join against Al Qaida and other extremists. Yet, the hard work that led to the ability of the "surge" to work has been being done over the last three years. The Iraqi rejection of terrorists and extremists of all stripes was written in the blogs.

It was only those of us who disconnected from the "Matrix" of the mass media who knew the reality on the ground did not match the "reality" perpetrated by the media.

We few, we happy few, we band of blogs, having looked beyond the Matrix, discussed strategy and pointed to successes long before the media ever knew who Petraeus was or anything about the new COIN manual that incorporated ideas written by Kilcullen and discussed at length on the blogs.

Victory, they say, has many fathers and defeat is an orphan. Some of us refused to abandon it.

Another truth that was missed until this year, is the horrific actions of the enemy that foretold his own defeat.

No miscalculations mean the victories are certain, achieving victory over those who have already lost - Sun Tzu

In war, there are no such things as "no miscalculations", but there is those who make the least miscalculations. In 2004, Zarqawi wrote how Al Qaida in Iraq would be defeated:

1 - We fight them, and this is difficult because of the gap that will emerge between us and the people of the land. How can we fight their cousins and their sons and under what pretext after the Americans, who hold the reins of power from their rear bases, pull back? The real sons of this land will decide the matter through experience. Democracy is coming, and there will be no excuse thereafter.

2 - We pack our bags and search for another land, as is the sad, recurrent story in the arenas of jihad, because our enemy is growing stronger and his intelligence data are increasing day by day. By the Lord of the Ka`ba, [this] is suffocation and then wearing down the roads. People follow the religion of their kings. Their hearts are with you and their swords are with Bani Umayya (the Umayyads), i.e., with power, victory, and security. God have mercy.

The truth is, their defeat was written by purple dipped fingers, smiling faces, singing and dancing. Their defeat was written when men and women stood on the line and insured that democracy, however ugly and however different than our own, went forward.

Democracy was coming and there were no excuses after that.

As for the bloody orgy of killing that came after, it was not a push for victory, but a desperate rear guard action. Like Hitler so many decades ago who proclaimed the German people unworthy of the Third Reich and thus deserving of total annihilation, Zarqawi and others put in motion what was to become their death throws; the seal upon their defeat written in the blood of young children.

Some may believe that it is too early to say that we have won in Iraq. Others will claim that it is only hindsight that allows anyone to believe that they knew all along we would win. But it wasn't hindsight that had bloggers across the world looking for victory. It was and is a belief that victory should be and could be the only end.

We almost lost the war. Not on the battle field, but right here at home. As General Lynch recently said, the reason people thought it was being lost and now appears to be miraculously won? The media, with its central editorial boards "shaping American opinion" told everyone it was so. And, at least half of the American population was unaware because they had no idea they were being sold a bill of goods. They didn't disconnect from the "Matrix".

Today, Iraq is still a troubled place and the political situation is rough. Yet, we see the light at the end of the tunnel and it is coming fast. How will we know we have finally achieved "victory"? Victory will not be written on a surrender document signed in front of a host of media with glaring lights and cameras blazing. No, victory will be like the silence after a harsh storm, war fading away while we are in our houses or going to work or welcoming home the troops. Most won't even know it happened.

And the only thing the enemy will do is what he said he would do if they lost. So long ago it has faded from some people's memories, lost in the spasms of blood and fire:

We pack our bags and search for another land, as is the sad, recurrent story in the arenas of jihad

Al Qaida in Pakistan has been working to stir trouble in Waziristan. Bin Laden declared war on Musharef and Al Qaida is picking up operations there.

As the war in Iraq fades away from the headlines and even Iraqi politicians are declaring victory, will anyone remember "the war is lost" crowd? Some people still talk like it is 2004 and the Iraq elections never took place, suggesting that Iraq should be partitioned. Sorry, that is a decision that the Iraqis will be making, thanks in no small part to the sacrifice of thousands of young Americans and many thousands more Iraqis who stood in the breaches while we fought a war of words at home.

The media is still trying to shape the narrative, including Hollywood who has never been more disconnected from reality than today. One wonders if either the mass media or Hollywood has discovered that they are irrelevant?

In Iraq, Kurdistan tries to rebuild economy, the Baghdad book market is re-opening, Iraqis are returning to music, and, instead of suicide bombers, it's teenage suicides due to an abrupt change in culture that is worrying the media.

Don't close your eyes, yet. We're still in Afghanistan and Pakistan is heating up while Iran talks like a petulant child demanding their seat at the adult table. Syria, a dedicated member of the axis of evil, still tries to have its say in Lebanese politics.

The battle for Iraq is all but over, but the war against tyranny, oppression, evil and fascist ideology continues.

Who will tell the real story of Iraq?

A note to the media, particularly the Dan Froomkin variety: you will, of course, ignore this post or the small voice here in the wilderness who is warning you of the future where the mass media begins to divest itself of the "mass" that is sinking it like a giant albatross around their neck and journalists begin to try to figure out where they belong in the brave new world of, once again, truly independent media.

The reason that you are failing, the reason the stock in your companies continues to dwindle, the reason that you missed the true story of Iraq in lieu of "the narrative", the reason that a sitting president invited bloggers to the White House, however limited in its actual journalistic moments that you claim as "real" journalism, is because you and your kind became "the Matrix"; alternate reality created by you and others like you. You are no longer independent. You are no longer individuals seeking "the truth".

You started believing your own press that you were the people that "protected" the people from the power of the government. You were 'objective" you said. You told the "truth" you said. All the while you abdicated your self-appointed responsibilities to foreign unknown, ideologically and ethically challenged stringers rarely ever telling your viewers and readers where it came from. You claim you don't bow down to powers, you bring them down, while all along central editorial boards told you what to write, what was acceptable. They stacked the deck with people like you to "shape the narrative" and "shape public opinion".

You're no longer independent, but a slave to the Matrix. What can you do but complain like petty demagogues who fear their throne has been threatened and belittle others who dare to disconnect from the Matrix?

You're lemmings, speaking with one voice, repeating the same line over and over again as you go down into the dark sea. Yet, you will keep asking yourself why this happened because you will never look past your own nose, self-congratulating prose and incestuous awards for "journalistic integrity".

The owner of this blog thought that maybe you were jealous of their invitation to the White House. I disagree. You are jealous of the one thing that they have that you no longer do:

Independence.

Believe me, if you believe nothing else: your lack of understanding of that word will be the "death" of you.

Summary only...

The Road To Hell: Stupid Nazi Comment Ends in Unemployment

Well, some folks simply haven't learned that equating any Nazi policy as "good" is "bad" no matter how well intentioned.

Those Nazis and their family values

While presenting her book "Das Prinzip Arche Noah - warum wir die Familie retten muessen" (Arche Noah principle - why we must save the family), she said family values that were nurtured in the Nazi era were cast away by the turmoil of the late 1960s.

"It was a horrible time with a manic and dangerous leader who led the Germans into ruin as we all know. But there was at the time also something good, and that is the values, that is the children, that is the families, that is a togetherness -- it was all abolished, there was nothing left," Herman said.

Herman could not immediately be reached for comment.

You think?

I mean, I kind of understand she was talking about the whole "free love", "women's liberation", "let's abort our 'unwanted' children" thing kind of smashed the family and led to a down turn in population replacement. However, did she have to compare it to lebensborn?

Summary only...

Pat Tillman: Death and Conspiracy - Keith Olbermann is an Idiot

And so is John Stoltz from VoteVets. Keith floats the worst conspiracies to date:



Hat Tip: Hot Air and Ace of Spades

Links to original CID report released by the United States Army under the FOIA and a brief outline of the incident can be found here: Pat Tillman: Death and Conspiracy

An in depth review of the trajectory of rounds, location photos and diagrams along with an outline of further interviews can be found here: Pat Tillman: Death and Conspiracy - Trajectory

During the above Olbermann crap shoot, he emphatically states that an M16 made the rounds. This is a total fabrication based on somebody at the APs limited knowledge of military firearms and interviews with the two MEs who performed the autopsy. At no time does anyone state what type of weapon was used. In fact, the MEs go out of their way to explain in the investigation that they can't know that. They can only know that the wounds are consistent with a 5.56mm or 7.62mm round. There are no fragments or complete bullets to perform ballistic tests on since the rounds exited Tillman's head and removed part of his skull in the process.

The Rangers were carrying a multitude of weapons. The base weapon for this Ranger platoon was an M4 firing a 5.56mm round (in fact, during the reading of investigation, I did not see one notation of an M16; unless Olbermann can claim to know that the M4 is a modified version of the M16, made shorter and lighter by stock and barrel configurations; but I doubt that since he called it an M16). The squad leader in the first HMMVW to exit the wadi or canyon said he fired six (6) rounds (two 3 round bursts) definitely striking and killing the AMF (Afghan Military Forces) that was just in front of and to the right of Tillman's position. He knows this because he was looking through his scope when he did it and positively identified the uniform the AMF was wearing when he was killed. (see trajectory)

A gunner on that same HMMVW was firing an M240b (SAW) using a 7.62mm round. He said he oriented off of his squad leader and the muzzle flashes from Tillman's position, thinking it was the enemy, and fired two (2) bursts of ten(10) rounds into that position. A second gunner on that same vehicle was firing a M249 using a 5.56mm round. He said he also oriented to where the others were firing and placed at least three (3) bursts of five (5) rounds into that position. The diagram on "Trajectory" indicates that at least twenty two (22) rounds impacted the rock directly to the right of Tillman; the rock that O'Neal was behind praying (see diagram Trajectory). This rock shows twenty two (22) impact points in extremely close groupings. Up to ten rounds struck Tillman, including three to the forehead, at least one struck a flash bang in a pouch at the front of his vest (causing a fragmentation wound in his right arm), multiple strikes to the magazines he was carrying, his armor plate was "shattered" and one strike to his flashlight.

The problem with the conspiracy of murder based on only three wounds in Tillman's head is that Tillman was shot multiple times, not just three. All of this is available if anyone simply read the reports instead of going off of sensationalist half reporting by the AP.

Olbermann and Stoltz float the idea that it was murder or negligent murder by someone shooting Tillman from 30 feet or less or even an "accidental discharge" at close range (an idea floated by Uncle J at Blackfive and quickly retracted). Both MEs refute the "accidental discharge at close range" through their testimony (see "Trajectory" and original CID investigation page 119):

Q: During the conduct of this investigation, there are some questions as to the distance in which Cpl Tillman was struck. Can you determine the approximate distance the shooter had to be from Cpl Tillman for him to sustain such injuries?
A: No. But it was not within a few feet. It was not a contact wound or associated with close range discharge of a weapon. When I say "close range" I am referring to withing four to five feet.
Q: Based on your observations, can you eliminate the injuries sustained by Cpl Tillman as close range?
A: Yes.
Q: What about an intermediate wound...5 - 10ft?
A: We don't use such terms in this office. If there was stippling or soot, it may have been within 5ft, but I cannot be sure of distance in this case. These are indeterminate distance gun shot wounds, however, they are not close or contact wounds.

Another problem is the assumption that all three rounds struck Tillman at or very near the same time. The ME makes an elementary mistake, in my opinion. He notes that one of the wounds has a contusion around it. He believes this is from Tillman falling and striking his head at the time of death. The other two wounds do not have a hematoma. The hematoma surrounding the first wound may have been from the natural reaction of the body to direct blood to the affected area. This is a medical fact that wounds received prior to or peri-mortem (at the time of death) form such markings. Wounds received after death do not because the brain is no longer functioning to make such a direction. Based on Tillman's position after he was shot, it is possible that he received the other two wounds post mortem. O'Neal, who was with Tillman at the time of the shooting as well as those at the scene directly after, indicate that Tillman's body was originally lying flat on his back on an incline of about 45 degrees based on the diagrams. This would have kept his body in a position to continue receiving rounds.

There are many other issues with this conspiracy theory, particularly any idea that the President or anyone else conspired to kill Tillman for his political beliefs or any other bogus claims. The biggest issue here is that the nineteen remaining men of Tillman's platoon, including Tillman's brother Kevin who was in section 2 in the canyon being attacked by the enemy, would have to consistently lie over three years about the circumstances that led to his death. All while simultaneously admitting to the shooting. It would have been much easier to claim that he was killed by enemy action and left it at that.

Not to mention the twenty men from 3rd Platoon, the twenty men from 1st Platoon, unknown numbers involved in the search, capture and interrogation of captured ambushers from that day, command, numerous people from the Combat Hospital that received Tillman's body and on and on and on. It defies logic.

In short, Keith Olbermann is an Idiot with a capital "I". This is not journalism. This is Tabloid TV. There is definitely no integrity or credibility left at MSNBC after this fiasco. John Stoltz may be a veteran of the Iraq war, but he is no forensic scientist, pathologist or criminologist. I admit, neither am I, but I can at least claim to have read the reports.

Don't look for either of these two to do that. It would mean they would have to confront reality and I simply don't believe that is in the works.


Pat Tillman: Death and Conspiracy Part III - Cycle of Disinformation

Summary only...

Pat Tillman: Death and Conspiracy - The Press At It's Best

Reviewing the PDF file of the CID investigation March 2006, I came across a statement that I am sure no one in the media is going to tell people regarding how they operate. Page 424:

About 1330, 24, May 2006, SA [redacted] interviewed [redacted] HQ 2/75th Ranger Regiment, Ft Lewis, WA 98433, [redacted] indicated he would not provide another statement, as he had already provided a total of four, to include two sworn statements detailing his knowledge of the events that lead to the death of Cpl Tillman and conduct of his initial 15-6 investigation pertaining to the matter. [Redacted] further stated that he and his wife are constantly being harassed by reporters affiliated with the San Francisco Chronicle, the Washington Post and ESPN media agencies. [Redacted] related that he and his wife have been threatened by the aforementioned agencies, in which they stated that they would print his name and attempt to tie him to some type of DOD cover up as it pertains to this investigation.

This is the part where the media begins to interfere with an investigation. By threatening those involved in the case, they effectively ended any cooperation of this individual. Further, they were manufacturing parties to a conspiracy that may or may not have existed.

I haven't googled yet to see if they did as they threatened. Of course, had they done so, it would have been libel. Obviously, somebody has some idea of the exact limits though they obviously don't mind threatening people with exposure to get their story.

Imagine if a government agency or police had made such a threat. The media would be grilling them over some hot coals.


Pat Tillman: Death and Conspiracy Part I - How it Begins

Part II: Conspiracy and Death-Trajectory [Update on this post: additional information on position of O'Neal and Tillman; better explanation of trajectory and wounds]

Summary only...

Pat Tillman: Death and Conspiracy

Welcome Protein Wisdom and Blackfive visitors

A commenter at Blackfive left a link to the last investigation into Pat Tillman's death by the United States Army. Once can only speculate as to why the media has yet to read this entire document and put a more definitive story out, at least regarding the testimony, instead of dropping little pieces of the interviews and investigation like stinking cow patties in the barnyard. Apparently, no one can be bothered to read the entire investigation documents and watch the videos which can be found here: US Army Criminal Investigation Command Report of Investigation Regarding
Cpl Patrick Tillman huge PDF File, 2nd huge PDF File and Video. All names are redacted, though some of the information is probably available by simple googling.

You will not learn the shooters name. The video is not explosive. It is simply long views of the same location from different directions with similar lighting as experienced on the evening of April 22, 2004 when Cpl Pat Tillman was killed in a friendly fire accident. I say that very confidently even though I have only read approximately 100 pages (six interviews of those involved in the shooting, various maps and diagrams). The reader, of course, should always be willing to draw their own conclusions. So far, the complete story appears like this:

On the morning of April 22, 2004 2/75th Ranger (2nd Platoon of the 75th Rangers) was tasked to go to Tit[update: not Manah; manah is where they stop for the broken GMV], Afghanistan near the Pakistan Border to clear the village. So far in the interviews, including an officer at the TOC (Tactical Command), no one knows exactly what they were looking for at the village besides clearing it. No one knows of any specific intelligence that indicates a High Value Target or targets. It may have, in fact, been a simple clearing mission [update: intelligence indicated possible 100 fighters crossing the Pakistan border to attack BCPs - border crossing points- manned by AMF; the town of Tit, AF either had a leader, coordinating persons or possible rest stop for fighters].

The platoon was being led by a ranger who had been previously deployed in Iraq for the invasion. He believes that he was well trained, but admits that his actual combat experience was limited. He says that it amounts to having a few rounds fired in his direction and a grenade land nearby.

On or about 10 AM, one of the HMMVWW broke down. The PLT (Platoon) proceeded together for a few more hours towing the broken vehicle. However, the vehicle was in such bad shape that the steering mechanism no longer worked. Unable to steer the very heavy vehicle made the vehicle towing it dangerous to maneuver as well. The Platoon stopped in another village and called the TOC advising them that they could not continue towing the vehicle. The PLT leader asks to have a "sling load" (helicopter with a lifting device) or tow truck come in to remove the vehicle. TOC informs him that it would take 2 days to get the sling load up to them and that a tow vehicle could not leave the "flat top" (nearby hardened road) to retrieve the vehicle. TOC tells the PLT leader that he will have to bring the vehicle to the flat top and the tow will take it from there.

The PLT leader gives the TOC three options on how he can accomplish that mission:

1) He can split the platoon in two, sending half with the vehicle and half to the objective
2) The entire platoon can accompany the vehicle to the flat top and then continue to the objective
3) The entire platoon and towed vehicle will continue to the objective.

At sometime during this discussion, a local Afghan man approaches and says that he has a "jingha" truck (highly decorated cargo Afghan cargo trucks) that he will use to tow the vehicle for a price. [if any of this is starting to sound like a bad movie, you aren't alone; Custer comes to mind sans overwhelming force of Indians] It is unclear why the PLT leader suggests option one since he and many in his platoon indicate that option 1, splitting the platoon, is a rare action. Yet, the officer from the TOC reminds everyone that much smaller elements, down to squad size, have performed many missions. The officer at the TOC confers with the Bn Cdr (Battalion Commander) who gives the go ahead to split the platoon with half of the platoon accompanying the broken down vehicle (from here forward refered to as "serial 2"). The PLT leader verifies twice this is the action that they are to take both verbally and electronic mail.

Multiple failures as well as simple bad luck begins to effect the platoon as soon as this decision is made. No one checks the "comms" or communications. Serial 1 (the section that Cpl Pat Tillman is with), the half of the PLT that is moving to the objective, has the PLT Leader and a Sattelite Radio. Serial 2, accompanying the towed vehicle, may or may not have such a radio. Upon discussion with the TOC regarding this condition, the TOC tells the PLT leader that, yes, in fact, Serial 2 does have such a radio because they have the commander's HMMVW. Based on the interviews, no one actually checked to see if that was so and if the radios communicated. In other words, no "comm check" before the elements split up.

The leaders of the two groups confer over a map discussing the route to the "hard top" where they will meet with the unit that will tow the broken vehicle back to base. The decide what route that serial 1 will take to the objective. The discuss what route the serial 2 will use to join up with the serial 1 after dropping the vehicle. They depart with the jingha truck driver towing the vehicle.

During this adventure, both serial 1 and serial 2 change routes in progress. The jingha truck driver tells the leader of serial 2 that the path they chose was too steep and his truck would not be able to make it towing the HMMVW. Serial 2 contacts the TOC and tells them they are changing route. No one contacts Serial 1. During the movement to the objective, the PLT leader with serial 1 makes a navigational mistake and turns his group heading back towards the route that Serial 2 is now on.

Serial 2's route has set them up for a classic ambush. The wadi or canyon is approximately 10 meters or 30 feet wide (approximately the width of the average ranch style family home). The walls are steep and the direction of the setting sun prevents easy identification of enemy positions above them on the ridgeline. Several RPGs [update: further review indicates mortars] are fired at their position. None make contact with the vehicles in the convoy. Men tumble out of the vehicles and seek cover, looking for the enemy, but the steep walls and lighting prevent positive identification.

IN the meantime, the element Pat Tillman was with, serial 1, hears the explosions from the RPGs and turns to find out what is happening. They dismount and move to positions. The PLT leader can hear serial 2 but can't communicate. The communications he does hear are confusing. He directs his section towards the estimated position of Serial 2.

Leader of Serial 2 realizes they are in a bad position and orders his men to "drive out" of the ambush. This includes some men driving vehicles and others dismounted going through the canyon. No one in Serial 2 can see the ambushers. They only see the explosions and hear the gun fire.


[This graphic has been updated to show the correct orientation of the death scene with serial 2 traveling east and Tillman's position to the north pg 1210]

Serial 1 sees enemy forces silhouettes up on the ridge line above the wadi and sets up firing positions along a second escarpment opposite of the wadi and near the mouth where the road serial 2 is on turns in front of serial 1's position. Three members of Serial 1 take positions part way up the hill behind a berm. Pat Tillman, O'neal and an Afghani military force (AMF) take a position on a small spur on the rise behind some large rocks. The PLT leader and another unnamed member take position at the corner of a house on the rise. Other members are equally spread out. They begin firing at the enemy on the ridge.

Serial 2 begins driving out of the wadi. The first HMMVW sees what they believe is enemy forces now on the other side of them and begin firing into those positions. The PLT leader and the man with him take fire and attempt to move to the other side of the house. The second man has a radio and is trying to contact TOC to alert them to their position. The PLT leader is hit in the face by a piece of shrapnel from a round that strikes the house and the radio man is also struck. Neither of them can see what is happening after that.

The M240B (which fires a 5.52 round; important fact to the investigation [uptade: per Capt. JM Heinrichs, the M240B fires 7.62mm round. The ME reports either 5.52mm or 7.62 at high velocity made the wounds]) operator on the back of the first HMMVW in serial 2 exiting the wadi sees an Afghan man with an AK-47, camouflage pants, a purple jacket and a beard on the opposite rise and begins firing. This is the AMF that is in Pat Tillman's position. The AMF is firing into enemy positions on the opposite ridge above serial 2's exit. The M240B gunner affirms later that he is the one that fired at the AMF [update: squad leader in GMV says he uses optics and fires at least six shots at the same man]. O'neal, who was with Tillman, states that they were receiving fire from serial 2. At the same time, the men behind the berm and down from Tillman's position are receiving "walking" fire and one of them gets out a pen gun flare to signal serial 2 that they are "friendlies". Tillman and O'neal have a brief discussion which may or may not have included profanities. Tillman decides to puff smoke to alert serial 2 that they are friendlies.

[This section updated with O'neal's testimony from Page 428] Tillman rises out of his position to throw the smoke grenade, firing pauses for a moment (this is because GMV1 has reoriented fire on the house). Tillman and O'Neal stand up and exchange a few words thinking the danger has passed. They begin receiving fire again. The AMF is killed. O'Neal drops prone on the ground after receiving ricochet fragments and rounds into his RBA (Ranger Body Armor) and striking a magazine on his vest. Tillman also drops to the ground in a prone position on his back. (O'Neal says he believes Tillman was wounded at this time; Tillman had a wound in his left forearm; fragments retrieved were later found consistent with a damaged flashbang in his vest). Tillman is laying on an incline of approximately 45 degrees (see Trajectory). Tillman raises his http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.bold.gif
insert bold tagsTorso from the ground and yells, "What are you shooting at?! I'm Pat F***ing Tillman. Several rounds strike the rock to his front right sending pieces of rock into his clothes, face and arms. One round pierces his flashlight on his M4 exiting and smashing the top, right corner of his SAPI. Three rounds penetrate his head in a close grouping. O'Neal thought he heard running water and asked Tillman if he had "p*****d" himself. He received no response. The firing had ceased. He looked over and saw blood running from under Tillman's head. He grabbed Tillman by his armor and pulled him up (probably why the sergeant found him in a half sitting position with his head slumped over).

A member of serial 2 states that he saw the smoke and believed that one of his unit was trying to lay down cover for maneuvering so he also threw smoke. At that time, someone from serial 1 (Tillman's section) was yelling, "Cease fire!" The squad leader from serial 2 also began to yell, "Cease fire!"

All fire ceases. The entire fire fight has lasted less than 5 minutes [update: this is an estimation based on the details. no one offers up a time line yet]. A member of serial 2 begins checking the situation. He hears someone yelling that they have casualties. When he reaches Tillman's position, he finds the AMF laying with his head pointed down hill. Tillman is in a sitting position with his legs in front of him. He is slumped forward with his torso leaning against a rock that was partially to the rear and left of his position. According to this member statements, he found O'neal holding on to Tillman's arm and possibly trying to talk to him. He states he could see that Tillman's "head was missing". [based on later statements and the ME report, a large portion of the back of Tillman's skull was missing when his body arrived at Dover]. He states that O'neal said, "Your guys shot him. One of your guys shot him!" He told O'neal to get his weapon and secure the position.

A member of serial 2 arrived on the scene, discovering that Tillman was dead and conferred with the remaining member of Serial 1, both indicating that they felt this was probably fratricide.

PLT leader with Serial 1 retrieved the radio and called in the situation to TOC. He called in a nine line requesting medevac for himself and his radio man. He was told that there were two friendlies KIA by the squad leader. He called back to TOC and requested a second medevac for the KIA.

TOC informs 1st Platoon and 3rd Platoon of the situation and they move out to make contact with 2nd Platoon.

Two body bags were brought up and Tillman and the AMF were placed inside along with whatever gear and personal effects could be found in the immediate vicinity. The wounded and the KIA were medevac'd separately to the FOB.

3rd Platoon arrived and took control of the security. Several members of 2PLT indicate they believe this was a friendly fire incident. Because it is dark, 3PLT leader decides to secure the area and wait for morning. Everyone beds down for the night. The next morning, 3PLT leader called together the remaining members of 2 PLT to discuss what had happened. They concurred that it was a friendly fire incident. 3PLT leader walked to the different locations indicated by 2PLT and took pictures of the area and looking out towards the positions involved. He sends a squad to the ridge line above the wadi where Serial 2 believes they were being fired on from the enemy and where serial 1 says they saw silhouettes and muzzle flashes. No one can find any trace of the enemy.

After arriving at Tillman's position and taking pictures, he finds part of Tillman's missing skull and places it in an Ammo can to be sent back to the FOB and eventually catch up with Tillman's remains. [this is not just a gruesome detail; but central to the investigation and concerns of conspiracy to cover up]. 3PLT leader calls TOC and notifies them that he believes this was a case of fratricide and requests an investigation be opened.

It is the morning of April 23, 2004.

Part II: Is there a conspiracy?

There are several problems that arise during the fire fight and after that seem contradictory or abnormal. Most of which have explanations that simply do not fit expectations of a criminal investigation, though, that alone does not implicate them in a conspiracy.

The story of Pat Tillman's death resulting from enemy fire was not due to an original conspiracy to cover it up, but appears to be the result of time, space and communications. As far as the TOC knew the night of April 22, 2004, 2nd Platoon had come into contact with the enemy and it had resulted in two wounded and two KIA. 2PLT leader was injured and medevaced but had no idea that his platoon members or 3PLT believed that there was fratricide.

It was this first report that began to filter up and out. It's continuation for several days appears to be simply the result of time and distance.

In the next piece, I'll discuss the other issues that have been contrived into a conspiracy to cover up Pat Tillman's cause of death. It should be remembered, as we go forward, that Tillman's family was told by his best friend that Tillman was killed in a friendly fire incident while the command indicated that they were still investigating the incident.

However, based on the first part of the investigation and subsequent testimony regarding that evening, it seems safe to declare that there was no known conspiracy to kill Cpl Pat Tillman. His death was a matter of existential circumstances and possible inexperienced leaders and members of his platoon.

One thing is certain, the media and many others could have taken a little time to read the investigation and providing better information than throwing out pieces and statements to sensationalize what is already a fairly sensational story.

Stay tuned for the rest of the story...

Part II: Conspiracy and Death-Trajectory

Pat Tillman: Death and Conspiracy - The Press at it's Best


Pat Tillman: Death and Conspiracy Part III - Cycle of Disinformation

Pat Tillman: Death and Conspiracy Part IV - Withholding Information

Cross posted at the Castle

Summary only...

Going Off the Reservation: Beauchamp and Tillman

One thing that I've learned about blogging, even in a community of like minded bloggers, you are likely to find something that you disagree about. Sometimes rather vehemently.

Recently, both the Mudville Gazette and Blackfive indicated that they were backing off the Beauchamp story, virtually suggesting that their readers do so as well. Though, the end of Blackfive indicated that the TNR part of this story might still be of interest. While I understand their concerns, I disagree that it should just disappear. Not because we need to investigate and find out every truth or fiction involved in his stories, but because The New Republic represents what is wrong with the media today. Not simply the question of ideology or political narrative guiding editorial decisions, but the extremely poor editorial decisions that are leading to the loss of readers and revenue. In short: the media in decline.

Where I really leave the reservation is Blackfive's Uncle Jimbo and Kev speculating about how and who possibly killed Pat Tillman. I think that this was completely wrong and really below the caliber of Blackfive's milblog.

When you understand the hierarchy of blogging you understand the true damage that can result from such speculations. Particularly based on the very limited information available. Blackfive is one of the top Milblogs because it has a past reputation of being straight forward, providing definitive information on things military and continually bringing the story that is the US military at war to the public. They get linked by hundreds, if not thousands of blogs, including other high traffic sites like Instapundit and Michelle Malkin, amongst others.

It is by this linkage, by word of mouth or, more likely, email, that Blackfive's authority and legitimacy is established. Thus, when Blackfive speaks about things military, people listen. And that is why this unfortunate attempt to discover who the shooter was in this tragic event is a terrible mistake by Uncle Jimbo and for Blackfive. When he indicates that he believes he knows who the shooter is and why, people are bound to believe him and spread this information to others. Worse than the speculation is naming the alleged person. Even if this is retracted, the damage is already done. It may put undue attention on this man who was part of the tragedy, but may actually have no culpability beyond being there. It may influence ideas, the investigation and even worse add to the conspiracy that is already attached to this terrible event.

Finally, Uncle Jimbo and Blackfive have just done what they routinely accuse the media of: printing speculation as fact. Even if they retract it, it is already too late. The damage has already been done.

I think that is a lesson they've forgotten.

PS...I took down my piece on Beauchamp and the Blaze of Glory speculation. I have decided that I should live by what I preach. That piece was pure speculation. I did leave up the discussion regarding TNR and how they determined to use his writing. That part of the story is not over yet.

Summary only...

Mythology, Ideology and the TNR Debacle

Ace reports that Foer has allegedly confirmed there was "a woman". There are questions about this confirmation and whether it is still true.

Actually, I do think that it is telling that Foer said he confirmed the woman. While many see this as Beauchamp's worst show of depravity in some people's eyes (dogs rating lower and who cares about mass graves we know exist or that some Iraqi's private property was intentionally damaged), the potentially punishable offenses, like desecrating bodies, recklessly driving government equipment and purposefully destroying private property (that the military then has to pay for via civilian claims), are not going to have people running to the fore to verify since it would mean they either participated, were complicit or conspired to cover it up.

That would require some false or incomplete reports by squad or platoon leaders as well. That would mean many people's careers are damaged or over

Foer could grant them "anonymity", but that would hardly matter since that would mean it was someone in their unit and the boot would simply come down on them.

Mocking a burned woman? Cruel and possibly punishable under some part of the UCMJ, but a good defense attorney would get that thrown out or knocked down to nothing and, as noted, it mostly implicates Beauchamp and the rest of his friends would get little more than a lecture on behavior, particularly if they were otherwise "good soldiers".

I'll be surprised if the others incidents are corroborated outside of the military's investigation.

I will bet that this is not playing out at FOB Falcon exactly as some would believe. There is probably animosity towards Beauchamp. But, there is probably a lot of wondering about how this became such a big deal, why they are being hammered and finally, confirming their opinion that people back home just don't understand anything about being a soldier in a war zone. In other words, I doubt we're being applauded for our efforts by those we believe we may be defending.

On the other hand, the question of why someone would put this incredibly bad writer on their payroll and print his "musings" is still an important question. There are literally thousands of "diarists" in the war zone who, arguably, write better than this fellow. Not all of their stuff is exciting. Most of it is in true diarist form: the mundane broken by the occasional excitement. Which also defines life in a war zone. Why was Beauchamp's contrived writing chosen?

Did it fit some pre-conceived ideological or political narrative? Or, was it simply that it was "edgy" and TNR's revenue was so bad they needed SOMETHING to get them readership (thus, revenue). Edgy=subscriptions=revenue. That it fit some narrative about what people think being a soldier and living in a war zone is like? Simply a plus towards readership.

At the end of the day, TNR is a business. While we are looking for some political or philosophical ideology that decided the choice, it may be the simplest motive was the money and Beauchamp's "musings" were the new content they thought would bring it in. Add to that he was "easy" to find since he was married to a staffer and you have most of the story already. The final issue, that they are ideologically compatible may, by Occam's Razor, simply be that they are married because they ran in the same circles and held the same ideals. The same reason Reeves was chosen for her job at TNR. Again, it may simply be about association rather than trying consciously or even subconsciously forward an agenda. People of the same ideology do tend to associate more than with those that don't.

That it re-enforces the mythological history of the military since Vietnam? Very few will even notice it because that is the accepted wisdom, even among those who may today believe that our Viet Nam vets were maligned or treated badly. They experienced John Kerry and Lt. Calley after all, not to mention the Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of the young Vietnamese girl, badly burned, running down the road. They have seen "Platoon", "Full Metal Jacket" and "Rambo". While many understand that these are fictional pieces, they can't help but believe that there is at least a "kernel of truth" in these tellings. Worse, when there are very few movies or books that actually contradict those images, or, at least, very few that are popular or well known, the mythology, not the facts, becomes the story.

Beauchamp's current writings begin that accepted story. The dehumanized man who will one day come back changed, always ready to question his own actions and those around him having experienced the worst that man has to offer. As noted, not only is his writing contrived, but he rushed, what may be, the only narrative anyone was trying to consciously adhere to. He'd barely seen any action, if any at all. He was a nobody and his experiences hardly seemed to fit the accepted wisdom that war changes people. He had not really experienced war. He simply seemed to show socio-pathic tendencies and painted those around him as such.

That is not a good story, nor the accepted narrative in the general populace. That contrivance may be why many jumped on Beauchamp's story beyond any questionable or possibly implausible scenarios that some would like "fact checked". The story that The New Republic was trying to sell, the story that they believed best matched their subscribers' pre-conceived notions of man and war. They couldn't even get that right. That may be the most damning aspect of this entire fiasco. This single event explains why the New Republic is still lingering at the bottom of the ranks of its peers.

It is the failure of The New Republic to effectively utilize the new media of citizen journalist coupled with the inability to properly identify the accepted wisdom or myth that defines modern man's beliefs on war.

Modern man no longer sees "glorious war", but that "war is hell". Man no longer survives horrifying events to emerge triumphant. Instead, he constantly questions his reasoning, his character and his actions, trying to make the best of the worst while maintaining his own personal integrity (something Beauchamp's stories were decidedly lacking), to emerge alive, but deeply scarred. He no longer experiences greatness through adversity, but remains a damaged mediocrity. That is the accepted wisdom. That is what people want to read, see and believe.

While that may match the common man's experience, it has destroyed the concept that man can rise above himself and the events around him to greatness. It has destroyed hope.

In the end, that may be what we're fighting for.

Summary only...

Allowing Terrorist Propaganda in the Media

There are many who have questioned the media, its veracity, its ideological leanings and, in its continuing attempts to be "objective", actually being subjective. In this piece, the Counter Terrorism blog explores the access to media (and thus, the American public) given to designated terrorist organizations and their leaders:

U.S. News Media and Terror Group Figure Editorials

n the battle against global Jihadist organizations, the challenge of how to effectively deal with Jihadist terror group propaganda remains a national issue that needs to be addressed.

Individuals who are either members of or supporters of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) (as designated by the U.S. State Department), are increasingly being represented in the U.S. news media's editorials, op-ed pieces, and other columns. FTO's Hizbullah and Hamas terrorist group figures are gaining unfettered access as columnists in major American newspapers, such as the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Hizbullah "Supporter" Column in Washington Post
The Washington Post and Newsweek today has provided an online column for Hizbullah terrorist group supporter and religious leader Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah to discuss the nature of Jihad as a "defensive" struggle. The Washington Post column clearly describes Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah as a Hezbollah "supporter", stating that he is "a controversial figure known primarily for his support of the armed Shi’ite resistance movement, Hezbollah".

Hizbullah is a Foreign Terrorist Organization, and "Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah" is on the US Department of Treasury's Specially Designated Nationals List (SDN). As reported by Newsweek itself, "In 1983, U.S. officials accused him of issuing a religious edict, or fatwa, that condoned the devastating truck bombing of the Marine headquarters in Beirut ."

Imagine in 1943, during the height of World War II, having suffered set backs and high casualties, on the verge of turning the war, the US Media had given editorial access, full page ads or radio interviews for Hitler, Goebbels, Tojo or any other known, declared and sworn enemies of the United States? Allowing them to talk about their grievances against the US and other European nations and presenting themselves as some sort of moderate martyred victims of European and US aggression?

The world may have changed. The media may be global in its reach and feel it needs to cater to a wider audience, but there is something extraordinarily, stealthily malignant in allowing people who have sworn to kill you to propagandize your own population.

Courtesy of the "old" media.

Maybe this is the Democrats' idea of the "fairness doctrine"?

Summary only...

Reporter Confused About Why A Known Terrorist Was Released from Guantanamo

I read this: Pakistani militant leader is killed

My first thought was, "Great, another terrorist dead." Then I read this little paragraph:

Mehsud was incarcerated in the jail for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after he was captured by U.S.-allied Afghan forces in northern Afghanistan in December 2001. It remains unclear why he was released from Guantanamo in March 2004.

And my next thought was, "You gotta be freaking kidding me!"

Not that he was released, but that there is some confusion about why this guy was released. I mean, we are talking about the news organization, journalists and fellow travelers who did piece after piece about the terrible conditions of Guantanamo (all BS), the Quran abuse (all BS), the lack of rights and "due process" in military tribunals, etc, etc, etc We're talking about journalists who think that every battle field detainee should be treated like a suspect from CSI; complete with DNA, fingerprints, blood splatters, smoking gun and a written confession to their various crimes and actions against civilians and coalition forces. Let's not forget to wonder why these fellows were not given their Miranda Rights and advised of the fifth Amendment.

And, geeess, we can't keep these guys in jail forever without a trial. What about habeas corpus? Are we saying that only applies to American Citizens and not every Mohammed, Ahmed or Omar that swears to kill Americans wherever they can find them? Surely our forefathers could not have meant to exclude such fine, upstanding enemies from the rights and freedoms we enjoy here? I mean, are we liberators bringing the rule of law and justice or are we oppressors?

Okay. Enough of that. You get what I'm saying. They campaigned to have these people treated like criminals with rights and access to the law and now they wonder how one could be "freed" from Guantanamo, go back to kill Coalition forces and Afghan civilians, only to be tracked down and killed in Pakistan.

Geesh, ya think?

Summary only...

No Bias? What's This Title Mean: High court signals rightward tilt

So the Supreme Court comes down on the side of free speech for citizens in campaigns and the AP calls it "rightward tilt".

Pardon me? Just because it was in regards to a Right To Life group who had their free speech trampled on, it is now "rightward tilt"?

Not biased my a$$.

If the title changes, I did save the original screen shot but can't figure out how to put it on here.

If you can't see it after this, you heard it here first.

Summary only...

Colby Buzzel Wins Prize

LONDON - A former U.S. machine gunner's irreverent memoir about his year fighting in
Iraq has won the second annual prize for the best book based on a blog.

"My War: Killing Time in Iraq," by Colby Buzzell was to receive the $10,000 Blooker prize on Monday, beating out 110 entries from 15 countries.

U.S. blogging queen Arianna Huffington, a Blooker judge, called Buzzell's book "an unfiltered, often ferocious expression of his boots-on-the-ground view of the Iraq war."

Buzzell, 31, said he would have never written the book had it not been for the encouragement from readers of the anonymous online journal he started in his free time in a war zone.

Read the rest.

I read Buzzell's blog when it was still active. It was some of the most breath taking writing I had read in a long time. Not because it had poetic prose and unbelievably advanced vocabulary, but because it was direct, strident and, despite spelling and grammatical errors, the kind of writing every person wishes they could do: put the reader right there.

Kudos to Buzzell. He was the first victim of stringent blogging OPSEC that I knew of, probably not the last.

Summary only...

Information War: The Media as a Weapon

Michelle Malkin points to an article about the media in assymetrical warfare.

While the war between Israel and Hezbollah raged in Lebanon and Israel last summer, it became clear that media coverage had itself started to play an important role in determining the ultimate outcome of that war. It seemed clear that news coverage would affect the course of the conflict. And it quickly transpired that Hezbollah would become the beneficiary of the media's manipulation.

A close examination of the media's role during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon comes now from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, in an analysis of the war published in a paper whose subtitle should give pause to journalists covering international conflict: "The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict." Marvin Kalb, of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, methodically traces the transformation of the media "from objective observer to fiery advocate." Kalb painstakingly details how Hezbollah exercised absolute control over how journalists portrayed its side of the conflict, while Israel became "victimized by its own openness."

There were a number of very significant points in this paper that did not lambast the media so much as chide it for pretending that it is objective and does not take part in the war. In many respects, it points out that the very nature of competitive media forces it to abandon it's journalistic integrity for sensationalism. It did abandon these ethics and routinely published historonic stories and faked images as a true representation of the war. And, once the images and stories were out, repairing the damage was practically impossible. Images might be replaced or withdrawn from the internet with a few words indicating the problem, but it was not publicized as a hoax to the extent that, had the Israelis perpetrated such a hoax, it would have been front page news for days.

Inexplicably, or not, Hezbollah is given a pass. Whether it is because it is considered the "underdog" and given huge allowances, because the press sympathizes with their cause, the press cycle moves so fast that the story is lost, the press is hesitant to advertise it's own mistakes since it would harm their image as "objective" purveyors of the "unvarnished truth" to the public (and, thus, damage their pocket books and careers) or, as this paper alleges, sensationalism sales, the press has contributed to their own weaponization.

However, the paper also points out that part of the issue is the difference between closed and open societies as well as their ability to control message[pg 6]:

If we are to collect lessons from this war, one of them would have to be that a closed society can control the image and the message that it wishes to convey to the rest of the world far more effectively than can an open society, especially one engaged in an existential struggle for survival. An open society becomes the victim of its own openness. During the war, no Hezbollah secrets were disclosed, but in Israel secrets were leaked, rumors spread like wildfire, leaders felt obliged to issue hortatory appeals often based on incomplete knowledge, and journalists were driven by the fire of competition to publish and broadcast unsubstantiated information. A closed society conveys the impression of order and discipline; an open society, buffeted by the crosswinds of reality and rumor, criticism and revelation, conveys the impression of disorder, chaos and uncertainty, but this impression can be misleading.

It was hardly an accident that Hezbollah, in this circumstance, projected a very special narrative for the world beyond its ken—a narrative that depicted a selfless movement touched by God and blessed by a religious fervor and determination to resist the enemy, the infidel, and ultimately achieve a “divine victory,” no matter the cost in life and treasure. The narrative contained no mention of Hezbollah’s dependence upon Iran and Syria for a steady flow of arms and financial resources.

Another point that the paper makes is our (and essentially the media) refusal to accept that this is a propaganda war and that we need to fight it. We insist that an open society is inherently stronger than a closed society, can survive better and, ultimately, win the day with this "honesty". In some ways, this concept is correct. Yet, our refusal to embrace the media and all forms of information communication fully, leaves us doing a poor job, some where between concealing and releasing information. Many have advocated that the military and the government move faster on releasing information instead of slowing down or trying to enforce some aspect of information control.

Like Hamas and al-Qaeda, it appreciated the central importance of the communications revolution sweeping through the region. These three radical groups believe, according to Steve Fondacaro, an American military expert, that it is on the “information battlefield” that the historic struggle between Western modernity and Islamic fundamentalism will ultimately be resolved. “The new element of power that has emerged in the last thirty to forty years and has subsumed the rest is information,” he said. “A revolution happened without us knowing or paying attention. Perception truly now is reality, and our enemies know it.”3

The paper points out that the unbridled flow of information and rumor gives the appearance of chaos while the controlled information flow gives the appearance of control. This free flow of information has overtaken a key military strategy of secrecy and obsfucation. Yet, if information flow was so quick, the media might be unable to form a good picture and the enemy equally confused as to what is reality or on what to form an opinion. Or, in essence, the more information that is put out, the more likely we could control the message.

The paper, however, focuses on the media's changing role.

A key consequence of this new warfare is that the role of the journalist in many parts of the world has been dramatically transformed—from a quest for objectivity and fairness to an acceptance of advocacy as a tool of the craft.

It is not actually a new concept, it is just more prevalent and obvious. Journalists used their podium to push for civil rights, for women's rights and any number of other concepts deemed important. Still, many considered themselves "fair" and objective. Today, the populations of the world, including many Americans, consider journalists and many media outlets to be just what this paper alleges, advocates for one side or the other. The people recognizing or labeling journalists before journalists have recognized it or accepted it themselves.

It may still be that the media does this subconciously or that, in fighting this idea, they may yet recover. They will have to become even more vigilant and responsible for the information they release. Possibly, in future wars, they may actually have to decide whether they support a cause or not and act on that, open and obvious to all. Or, they may yet have to become even more "self-editing".

Read more about the media as a weapon.

Summary only...

Information War: Mass Murder and the Media

An interesting thing happened on Monday, April 16, Iraq, Afghanistan, suicide bombings and terrorists disappeared from the headlines for two days in the wake of a national tragedy. On Friday, April 12, Islamic terrorists managed to set off a small suicide bomb inside the parliament killing eight people and wounding many others. In the scheme of death and destruction usually perpetrated in Iraq by the terrorists, it was only remarkable due to the location.

The weekend news cycle played this event over and over. Friday "announcements" have two purposes in politics.

1) To make the "statement" irrefutable for two days while all principal opposing actors would be going home or doing something else for the weekend.
2) Make the story THE story for the weekend as weekend news is notorious for doing "soft pieces" and simply repeating a summary of the weekly news for consumption, thus insuring continuous play that would also be the opening statement for the next week.

To put out a message at the end of the week when many are heading home, such as politicians and Pentagon spokesmen who might answer back forefully and continuously any impression of such an "announcement" by the terrorists. If it was at the beginning of the week, many interviews could be given throughout the week refuting any claims of a larger meaning to the attacks. It would also have seen the Iraqi Parliament back in session at full force for several days before the week was out, further weakening the impression that the bombing interrupted any significant activities of the Iraq government. By making the bombing on Friday, it would be understood that this story would be replayed through the weekend as the last image of the war.

Yet, weekend news consumption is notoriously low among most of the target audience, thus, important messages are often lost in the weekend frenzy.

On Monday, April 16, the incident, al Qaeda and Iraq were pushed completely off the front page by a mass murder at Virginia Tech. For two days, the internal tragedy took precedence.

In a war where one of the principle players states, "half the battle is in the media", that lack of coverage had to be a minor shock. They could easily be replaced by a lone gunman in Virginia.

Yet, Al Qaeda in Iraq (the Islamic State of Iraq) understands its target implicity. In order to insure coverage would win back the battle space from the tragedy, the terrorists would have to plan and come back with a much larger attack and body account. After what must have been several days of planning, the deaths of 200 innocent people again swept Iraq and Al Qaeda to the headlines.

Greyhawk notes that it was also timed with the return of Congress from their spring break.

It may be that the bombings and damage were simply coincidental or it could be that the time between the previous attack on Parliament and this latest massacre was used to plan and execute the attacks. However, it is not unusual for al Qaeda operatives to plan events or "announcements around important dates or events.

Whatever the facts, it did result in pushing the VT tragedy from the front page of the news cycle.

This is how Al Qaeda fights its wars.

On cue, Reid pronounces the war is lost.

In a further attempt to maximize its media exposure and attempt to paint the insurgency as "legitimate", the Islamic State of Iraq appoints "ministers" for everything from "war" to "agriculture and health". The entire purpose is to indicate that, far from a weak and hidden group of skulkers and criminals in limited areas, they actually have control of an area and are able to govern it, complete with concern for the people and the area's economics.

Unfortunately for the Islamic State of Iraq, it's borders are unknown, its ministers wear masks and will not be giving an interview on CNN or even al Jazeera anytime soon.

MSNBC provides an excellent analysis of ISI's hopes from the announcement:

The announcement unveiling an “Islamic Cabinet” for Iraq appeared to have multiple aims. One was to present the Islamic State of Iraq coalition as a “legitimate” alternative to the U.S.-backed, Shiite-led administration of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — and to demonstrate that it was growing in power despite the U.S. military push against insurgents.

It also likely sought to establish the coalition’s dominance among insurgents after an embarrassing public dispute with other Iraqi Sunni militants. [snip]

The video came on the heels of a rare public dispute between the coalition and other insurgent groups.

In past week, another Sunni insurgent group, the Islamic Army in Iraq, has issued statements accusing al-Qaida of killing its members and trying to force others to join its ranks. Al-Baghdadi tried to patch up the dispute by issuing a Web audiotape this week calling for unity and promising to punish any of his group’s members who kill other insurgents.

Al Qaeda aims and lands another dead on target.

Summary only...

Who Do You Trust? Military or the Media or Neither?

Few Americans Believe Media or Military on the State of Iraq

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Most Americans have little or no confidence in the information they receive from the military or the media about the situation in Iraq, according to a poll released Thursday.

The survey by the Washington-based Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 52 percent have little or no faith in the military's portrayal of the four-year war, compared with 60 percent who feel the same way about the press reports of the conflict.

The figures are a far cry from the overwhelming confidence Americans had in the military and the media at the outset of the war in March 2003.

At the time, fully 85 percent said they had at least a fair amount of confidence in military information and 81 percent were confident the press was giving an accurate picture of the war.

Why has that changed? Well, at the beginning of the war, the difference between what the media was showing and the military was saying was about nil. Plus, you had "Baghdad Bob" juxtaposed against the reality of cameras right in downtown Baghdad obviously showing that Americans were not held up at Saddam International Airport, but were in fact in downtown Baghdad.

We were WINNING and it was OBVIOUS that we were winning. When you are in a fight against established army with recognizable uniforms, large pieces of equipment destroyed and verifiable dead laying on the ground for quick "glimpses" by the media before the film was cut to "protect" civilians from the ugliness of war, you can tell that you are winning.

The media was RIGHT THERE with the soldiers as they rolled along. And then, there is that whole "surrender" thing, when the opposing army just goes away and stops shooting while jubilent Iraqis danced in the street and beat Saddam's statue with their shoes.

You saw all that on your TV, in pictures, in print.

Now we are in guerilla warfare. By it's nature, it is in the shadows. It is hit and run. Guerilla's use the media to its advantage, staging giant public spectacles in places that will get the biggest bang for their buck (excuse the pun) and limit their own casualties. Those they do suffer are either "martyrs" who purposefully chose to die (according to guerilla media) or are carried off along with any sign of their presence because they know that any sign of death or weakness is their own death knell. They know that they must be able to inflate their numbers and abilities to 100 times it's reality in order to gain the desired effect. No guerilla left behind, because, if their bodies are left behind, if the wounded are left behind, they can be exploited for information. They will damage the appearance of invincibility. They will damage their "mystique" of being everywhere, but nowhere.

And the media plays to that and echoes that simply by not BEING THERE. Because their reports are usually pictures of blown up vehicles and wailing, bloody people taken by stringers whose only acceptable reports are from the scene of the crime, along with clipped out phrases from Military dispatches regarding number of dead and wounded, the media echoes the insurgents.

Yet, I believe that the American populace is not completely stupid. We have learned lessons from Vietnam and from the modern media age about how the media can be manipulated. We are cognizant of guerilla warfare. Experts have explained it to us. We are savy in many ways. So, we know that the media "edits" and "selects" stories to make them more "compelling", yet "compelling" is not necessarily the whole truth.

We know that the guerillas have their own agenda and write stories to reflect that, largely playing off the Media's inability or lack of desire to BE THERE. We know that the media has been duped many times when it chooses not to follow its own best practices of verifying the story and the sources.

We know that our own military has an agenda, necessary as we see it, to get out positive stories to deflect the negative and to impact the guerillas. We are not stupid. We know by the number of bombs and dead it is not perfect. Yet, the info war must go on because defeating guerillas, and their agenda, is about keeping the people on the side of the "good" and the way to defeat the enemy "mystique" is to make them less and less and less capable, particularly in the fantastical press, which is how the guerillas are able to perpetuate this mythical, mystical "presence" and "capability".

So, by nature we do not trust any of them to give us the full picture. We feel compelled to try to "see through the smoke and mirrors", but very few are interested in helping us for various reasons. The press wants money, the guerillas want your soul and the Military wants to win.

But, the major factor here is without a doubt that the media is NOT THERE. We know they are NOT THERE. Thus, we feel compelled to believe that they are simply mouthpieces for both sides of the conflict, simultaneously, because they are no longer independent reporters, but cut and paste artists.

So, what are we left with? We are left with throwing all of these ingredients in a bowl, stirring it up and trying to "divine" the right information like fortune tellers at the fair. Like these fortune tellers, we are swayed by all things around us. That is why almost 50% can believe that Iraq and Afghanistan are about to be defeats and the other 50% believe that we are on a slow road to progress, or, at least, should keep going.

And, form all of the things I've read and heard from people regarding this matter, I don't believe I would trust even myself to truly comprehend the status.

Where does that leave us? Still trying to read tea leaves since the papers and videos have left us blind.

Summary only...

The President's Fading Voice

The president appeared to be pleading, not leading. Where are the convictions of conscience, the soaring rhetoric, the broad vision and the dire warnings of failure? Did these go out the door with the departure of Michael Gerson, his best speechwriter?

The president can be persuasive in the content of his speeches and eloquent in his delivery. We saw a different man after 9/11 than we saw before, or see now. The loss of eloquence has given his political opponents new opportunities, not only to make his life miserable, but also to encourage the enemy in their perception of a divided nation. His weekly radio addresses are lifeless and delivered in a monotonous cadence, as if he wishes he were someplace else.

I imagine that he does. Wish he was some place else. War tends to do that after years and year.

Winston Churchill is dead.

Summary only...

Thomas Sowell Wrote This and I Agree

Random Thoughts

"Women's Liberation" and the "sexual revolution" have not liberated women. They have liberated the sort of man who is a "love and leave 'em" kind of guy, who lets the woman deal with the consequences, including pregnancy.

A man wrote this and I agree. It's why I once wrote about "Feminist Against Abortion", number three on the "hit list" of my stats and #4 on Google. Real "liberation" is not about whether you can suddenly run wild all over the place. It's about having opportunities and reponsibilities that you take as your personal responsibility, not because someone told you, you should or shouldn't, but because you make that personal choice and take responsibility and accountability for all parts, good and bad.

Because we women still haven't figured that out. A t least 30% of the entire adult female population by stats regarding divorces, single parent pregnancies and the outrageous climb of STDs and AIDS among women. If women actually had to see the stats up close and personal, say, on a news station every night for two weeks, my bet would be that many, many men would suddenly be going home from the night club cold and lonely, or long term "boyfriends" that don't commit would suddenly be told to "buy or fly" and divorces would either drop out or fly sky high as women decided it was just too risky to hang out with some guy that they can't trust.

I think, in the long run, divorces would go down because, once the "free love" was cut off, men would still be trying to get it and they would have to start paying the traditional way: a ring, marriage vows and "till death do we part".



- May no soldier go unloved

Summary only...

Stupid Question Deserves A Stupid Answer

People are idiots. How old and stupid can the same question get? Pretty old and stupid if you are an anti-war, gossip mongering, pin-head. It's obvious Kittey Kelley has run out of good scandals about the royals and she couldn't throw the election with her "scoop" about alleged drug use by President Bush in his youth. So, she trots out the old, lefty question:

Why Aren't the Bush Twins in Baghdad?

With Harry of the Royals going off to war, it might seem like a legitimate question. She even brings up some interesting historical points about President Roosevelt's family and Bush I's service in WWII. The problem is, right in the middle of that, she's letting off some ugly screed, intimatine war profiteering and bringing up ye olde "didn't serve" ghost from the long dead grave of the elections. So the question becomes moot as do any "good" points she makes about "examples" to the rest of the populace.

The tone is so ignorant, one must be forgiven if the impression you get is that Ms. Kelley wouldn't mind seeing one of these young ladies on Jihad TV getting blown to bits, raped or having their heads sawed off to chants of "allahu akbar" (of course, the insuing rampage of our military forces going "Nagasaki" on the entire Middle East might be her real intent - maybe she's a warmongerer after all).

In light of her tone, my answer to Ms. Kelley's question is simply this:

As soon as you crawl out of the sewer and stop profiting off the anguish and pain of others.

Summary only...

"300" Review: Jingoistic Goodness

Are you a fan of Japanese or Chinese martial arts films? Watch this movie.

Do you like the slow motion buttkicking in "Matrix"? Watch this movie.

Do you like your heroes to be straightforward and uncomplicated? Watch this movie.

Are you tired of the drugged out, down and out anti-hero who swims through all his own guilt trying to figure out the right thing to do, knowing all his choices are "bad", acting on his best instincts and walking away knowing that he did the "least bad thing" and still feeling like he slaughtered a church full of women and children? Watch this movie.

Do you like your "bad guys" to look like "bad guys", deformed and debouched by all their ugliness, greed and lechery? Watch this movie.

Do you like your issues, simplistic and defined in black and white? Watch this movie.

Are you tired of trying to delve through the morass of mystery on mystery on mystery wrapped up in the duality of man, his pradoxic yearning for peace while struggling with his inner beast? Watch this movie.

It may seem strange to say, but "Sands of Iwo Jima" was less "jingoistic" than this movie. But, for all its jingoism, I liked it. It got past all my "barriers". It was so over the top, straight in your face, "fight and die like men or hide in your hole and become a slave".

Now you know why all the reviewers hated it. It was not complicated. It was not artsy. It didn't make you "think" (or, maybe it did if you aren't used to that "straight in your face" idealism). It did state the position of the Spartans very clearly: we will not surrender; we will not become slaves; we will fight to the last man; you cannot buy me.

The dialogue said all the simplistic right phrases:

Freedom is not free (straight quote)
Come back with your shield or come back on it (Queen to Leonidas)

When the Persian emissary threatened them with arrows that would "blot out the sun", the reply?

Then we will fight in the shade.

But my favorite parts were probably the least mentioned among all the dialogue:

When Xerxes (overly stylized and appearing somewhat like an ancient version of RuPaul) talks to Leonidas about the huge army that he still has set to anhilate the Spartans and tells him that his parents, his wife and his sons will be his slaves, Leonidas laughs at the "best that you've got" as they had just slaughtered a large number of the "immortals" and says - "I might as well have marched our women up here."

Xerxes continues to elaborate on his status as a "god on earth", demanding that Leonidas kneel and have his life spared. Leonidas? "Sorry, I've been killing your men all day and have a severe cramp in my leg that prevents me from kneeling."

While Leonidas and his 300 fight, his queen is back at the "homefront" trying to get support to send more troops and support the fight against the Persians. She is trying to talk to the "senators" and get an audience so her "voice will be heard". She has to make some deals and talk behind closed doors because no one wants to hear. It's too uncomfortable. One senator tells her she must win the support of the senator leading the fight against sending Leonidas support (who actually wants to bring Leonidas down, is in cahoots with the enemy and is hoping to take his place once Xerxes has taken over). When she asks him what he wants, he tells her she "knows". She drops her dress. There is no complicating "almost" love scene. No tenderness of even a "love/hate" relationship. It is straight on rape as she endures in silence and he says, "This will not be over quickly. You will not enjoy this."

Afterwards, he intimates he will support her speaking in front of the council.

Of course, you know what happens. When she comes before the council, having just molested the queen, this cunning fellow (who is made up to look "cunning", no confusion as to his motives) denounces her as an adulteress who attempted to "bribe" him. He waves guards in ostensibly to arrest her for her "crime". She grabs one of the centurians swords, turns towards the traitorous senator and stabs him in the stomach, leaning in close, she whispers in his ear, "This will not be over quickly." Stabbing him again, "You will not enjoy this."

What can I say? I always like to see the bad guy get it in the end, particularly in the way they dished it out.

If you want this movie to represent your point of view on "freedom", "something worth dying for", "backstabbing, raping politicians", the "slackness" of an over-indulged populace and straight out "heroic", "duty", "honor", "integrity" (Leonidas would have made a good marine), you can find it here. Not necessarily because it was the intent of the producers, directors or actors, but because it was so straight forward and simplistic, it just speaks to the basic idealism of many. Those of us who were raised up on John Wayne movies recognize the tenor that had us watching them in the first place.

I could make all sorts of comparisons out of this movie. I'll try to refrain as much as possible. However, I think one of the comparisons that not even the critics who think its all a "bushie" movie in disguise did not hit on was the "media" as the "oracle".

The "oracle" is bought off to say what the cunning, anti-Leonidas senator and his Persian associate want them to say. It is blasphemy to go to war during the sacred festival and those that do will be breaking "Spartan law" since, when the oracle speaks, Spartans are to follow their directives.

The "oracle" is not worried about delivering the Spartans into the hands of the enemy because the oracle is wealthy from all the payments they have received in the past. Plus, the Persians guarantee that they will be richly rewarded for their assistance. They aren't worried because history and culture of Sparta have made them "indispensable", a part of the fabric of Spartan life. They do not imagine a time when Xerxes, god on earth, will not have need of them to keep the "masses" in line.

Oracles = Main Stream Media.


Cross referenced at the Castle

Summary only...