What? Telling the truth? Do you have to “sink” to that??
What part of that quote was the truth?
Heh. “You are beautiful in yore wrath”
What? You don’t think John Wayne makes a convincing Mongol? You would have preferred Troy McClure?
Isn’t Battle Creek in Michigan? 
“Yore hatrid’ll kindle into love!”
Do you think he made it up? That it didn’t happen and he’s lying about it?
To be honest, it’s hard to know what to believe. When was the last time that TV news or newspapers had any sort of coverage about what it’s like in Iraq except when there’s a suicide bombing or reporting on how many insurgents were killed? Are there any embedded reporters covering what the war is like for Iraqi civilians and reporting on it anywhere? I haven’t seen it.
Or perhaps it’s still too early to really know. In talking with Vietnam vets at work, we’re still hearing stories of atrocities in that war that still are not openly discussed, let alone talked about in front of a reporter.
My post had nothing to do with that particular incident, as I don’t think it relavent to the charge being made (ie, the thread title). In that post I was speaking specifically to the parts I quoted. Was that not clear?
No. Very few of them do any actual first-hand reporting.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/09/how_many_embedded_reporters_co.php
http://www.fumento.com/military/brigade.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk01172005.html
What exactly are you saying? Hersh spoke of a specific incident where he says war crimes were committed and then the dead reported as enemy combatants. Obviously if he knows this happened, and it really happened, there is some sort of evidence he has. Do you have this evidence? Does he? Do you have any cite that this incident happened aside from the fact Hersh said it did?
Why is everyone instantly willing to believe an account of an atrocity not from anyone who is a reporter of fact or who has any sort of evidence, but someone who just says it in passing.
Just because Hersh makes a claim that is repeated without substantiation does not mean that is “proof.” Just like any other claim in GD we’re entitled to some sort of cite that Hersh was talking about a specific incident in which credible evidence exists that the atrocities he described actually happen.
Also, your original question is loaded and that’s not good form.
Mr. Hersh has some considerable experience in this sort of thing. And it doesn’t really matter if we reflexively think him a bold crusading journalist or a military hating liberal crybaby. The simple fact that he has some “street cred” impels a full, complete and utterly transparent investigation. Without that last element of transparency, lingering doubts of a coverup will remain. Let justice be done, and be seen to be done.
Difficulty with that is, of course, that a lot of the middle eastern types of very Old Testament ideas about justice…
Hersh says he has a video, so it shouldn’t be hard for him to just show it to people if it actually shows what he says it does.
In any event the assertion is flatly wrong, as the U.S. Army was actively engaged in genocide agains the Plains Indians in the late 19th century. The only way the current version could be more murderous than that is if they were actively trying to exterminate the Iraqi populace.
Estimates of civilian deaths during the U.S.-Philippine war of 1899-1901 range from 250,000 to 1,000,000.
There were reports of atrocities on both sides. “Water boarding” for interrogation (or something very similar) was a known technique used by U.S. forces.
OK, so is the debate here whether or not U.S. forces in Iraq are teh m027 2uxx0r 3v4hhh!, or whether or not Hersh is at least partially correct, that attrocities are being comitted by American troops at a frequency many of us may be unaware of, and perhaps said attrocities are a direct result of common military strategy in Iraq? If it’s the former, I don’t think there’s really any room for real debate beyond a kind of historical dick-measuring exercise. If the latter, it’s a pretty straightforward discussion of factual information, and a substantive debate can be had about what tactics may constitute war crimes. What does the OPer want out of this?
In this particular instance, his evidence appears to be a videotape.
I am stricken by this amazing comment by Hersh:
That is simply a bald-faced lie. American soldiers coming home from Vietnam were, almost without exception, welcomed with open arms and tears of joy, just as soldiers always have been welcomed home. The oft-repeated “Hippie spits on returning soldier” bit is ridiculous nonsense. Hersh knows full well that this is a falsehood.
Oh well. All right, what do we think about the alleged practice of shooting anyone who runs from the vicinity of an IED detonation? Should this be an actual tactic our soldiers have been ordered to employ, would it constitute a war crime?
News flash: That ain’t crazy.