I wonder if McCain and his venomous sidekick will read this in their paper this morning:
An investigation by the military has concluded that American airstrikes on Aug. 22 in a village in western Afghanistan killed far more civilians than American commanders there have acknowledged, according to two American military officials.
The military investigator’s report found that more than 30 civilians — not 5 to 7 as the military has long insisted — died in the airstrikes against a suspected Taliban compound in Azizabad.
The investigator, Brig. Gen. Michael W. Callan of the Air Force, concluded that many more civilians, including women and children, had been buried in the rubble than the military had asserted, one of the military officials said.
Tell us, Sarah Palin- why does the military hate the military? Should you send some of your ‘moran’ brigade from your rally to the Pentagon to scream “treason?”
*** Update ***
Just go read this at TAC.
dadanarchist
Off topic, John, but I know you collect police misconduct stories:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703245.html?hpid=topnews
dadanarchist
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703245.html?hpid=topnews
Sorry, didn’t do the linky thing right.
Nikki
If she reads the NY Times like she claims, she should be bringing it up in her next rally.
Punchy
how does this not get the original (read: lyimg) general fired/demoted? so there’s no punative action for this guy? so what incentive do they have to EVER tell the truth?
garyb50
as if… It’s pretty clear by now that ‘truth’ to Palin is like just about the worst thing ever.
Comrade javafascist
Even that’s too big a service commitment for the 101st Keyboarders. Couldn’t they just forward an unsubstantiated email to everyone they know instead?
Kamishna ya Watu Xenos
Magical, superstitious thinking is the common thread through Palinite politics, culture, and religion.
Thus, this is all Obama’s fault, because his wanting bad things to happen makes the bad things happen – if he would have faith like a faithful American patriot then those Afghani civilians would not have been killed. So that makes him a murderer as well as a treasonous fink.
The Other Steve
One morning George Bush realized that his pen was missing. Naturally he called Dick Cheney to demand he conduct a search for his pen. A few hours later, George realizing that his pen was in his shirt pocket called off the search. "But, Mr. President", stammered Dick, "I have ordered everyone at Gitmo be tortured to find the truth and we’ve already had five people confess."
Ahh, the great thing about political jokes is they are reusable. :-)
jrg
Am I the only person who got completely irate when Palin yelled at a protester "My son is in Iraq so that you can have your right to protest"?
I thought we went to Iraq for 9/11 and WMDs, and we stayed there for the "Iraqi people". When has anyone ever said that the war was about "free speech"? Did we not have "free speech" in 2002 before we invaded Iraq?
The Republicans have used their perpetual wars to legitimize torture, rendition, censorship, and to undermine our most basic rights, like the ability to face an accuser in court… Now they want to pretend like we OWE them something for creating this mess? Palin tried to remove books from a public library, for God’s sake, now she’s some sort of beacon of liberty?
These people make me sick to my core. I cannot wait to get to the polls.
Ugh
OT but wow.
Colonel Danite
Repubilcans take advantage of simple language and simple ideas. It is much easier to take a snippet of what Obama said and claim that he was disparaging our military. Americans don’t want to believe that our military kills civilians, even accidentally. Americans don’t know that our lack of a significant ground force in Afghanistan means we have to rely on air power that relies on minimal intelligence to identify appropriate targets. Add that to our reliance on shifty allies that might direct American air power against non-military targets who happen to be a traditional tribal enemy and you get the tragedy we saw recently. So, Palin is able to qouote Obama out of context and translate it to say that Obama hates our military. Then the media plays footage of the rally even though they aren’t allowed to ask her questions. Since the public, especially her supporters, are ignorant, they buy into the crap.
To explain Obama’s comment, you need an audience that knows about actual events in Afghanistan and other parts of the world, has an understanding of how are strategy and tactics in Afghanistan are affected by our military presence in Iraq, and that most importantly understands that it is possible for our military to make terrible mistakes that kill innocent civilians. If the media did more than facilitate 10-30 second sound bites from politicians and their lackeys, the populace might be better able to understand that Obama was right and that Palin is full of shit.
bedlam UK
Breaking reports that Sarah Palin in her current rally has referenced the report and offered a clear, and heartfelt apology to Senator Obama for causing him any distress for calling him a liar and a terrorist sympathiser that hates America
were a complete figment of my imagination.
Sorry. Please continue.
libarbarian
Afghanistan means we have to rely on air power that relies on minimal intelligence to identify appropriate targets.
OMG! THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN JUST SAID OUR BRAVE PILOTS HAD TO RELY ON THEIR "MINIMAL INTELLIGENCE"!
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
If you bomb thirty women and children on purpose it’s terrorism.
If you bomb thirty women and children on accident it’s…what?
Point-of-view is a motherfucker.
gbear
@Ugh:
Crooks and Liars posted that Gibbs/Hannity exchange last night. It’s a good clip but I still can’t make it all the way thru any clip with Hannity, even when the guy he’s arguing with is calmly and factually tearing him to shreds. Hannity’s stupid and crazy is too overwhelming.
TomMil
But Oliver North said that all that happened was some civilians got a hangnail. Oliver North wasn’t lying was he?
Cassidy
There is a difference between an "estimate" and lying. Be advised that an estimate can be derived from something as simple as "60% of the population was at prayer on the other side of town, so only 40% were able to be bombed…", etc., etc., etc. This isn’t so much as lying, just proactive ignorance.
There is a big difference from targeting civilians and targeting enemy forces. It is lazy of you to even try and make the two equal.
bedlam UK
Cassidy,
trouble is, whilst we call their attacks of women and children terrorism and ours ‘accidents’.
They dont.
They call it freedom fighting when they do it, and proof of evil when we do it.
So such accidents are a further catalyst to violence and new recruits for the enemy.
Point of view really is a motherfucker.
It just so happens that we really do it by accident even if they dont believe thats the case.
And it so happens that they purposefully target innocents and call it religion.
libarbarian
If you bomb thirty women and children on purpose it’s terrorism.
If you bomb thirty women and children on accident it’s…what?
Um…It’s an accident.
Intent matters. We all know this and attempts to portray accidental effects and equivalent to intentional effects is usually simple sophistry.
We can blame people who craft policies that make accidents more likely if not practically inevitable, but its just disingenuous to pretend that they are equivalent – morally or practically – to intentional actions.
Cassidy
POV is a crutch. Regardless of what they call it, the targeting of civilian non-combatants, to create terror in the civilian populace, is terrorism. If we did the same thing with our forces, I would call it as such. To be honest, from anecdotal experience, we do practice a subtle terrorism amongst the populations.
This is entirely different from the accidental, and humanly horrid, collateral damage. I agree totally that it is deplorable and sad that we have such a term. Personally, if I never have to go to war again because the world becomes a peaceful place to live, I’ll retire a happy Soldier. But the fact still stands that it was not an intentional targeting. Show me an incident where it was deliberate or caused by ineptitude, I’m all about the criminal charges.
In the end, we can argue semantics all day long. My point is that trying to equate the two is lazy. Personally, I also find it offensive, in the insinuation that "we" would deliberately target a civilian populace with high explosives. While some individuals would, the majority of us just want to do our job and come home with all limbs still attached.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
There is no difference between 30 dead women and children targeted as civilians and 30 dead women and children targeted as enemy forces, how dare you try to differentiate the two.
bedlam UK
True Cassidy.
And as I’ve never had to risk my life out there I’ll also respect your call on it.
I just wish we would see people take responsibility and blame in these situations. In military/finance/politics it seems that the short cut/misinformation etc is constantly chosen as there is never any come back. No professional consequence for the leaders that make decisions that hurt so many others down the line.
Why should they risk themselves to be honest and go the hard ‘right’ way when its easier and richer to lie cheat and steal.
Buggeryness all of it.
Cassidy
And that’s the thing, you don’t always hear about it, but people in the military do. And don’t get me wrong, we have our fair share of cover-ups and inaccurate "estimations" (as explained earlier). Believe me, we got some politically minded assholes. But I also guarantee, that at least 95% of your Soldiers and Service members, officers and enlisted, are good people who want and try to do the right thing 100% of the time. Sometimes we fail. We are as human as the next. But this is what I meant by ineptitude earlier. A tactically right decision that has the wrong result, is not usually a criminal matter. And once again, you show me an instance (not a challenge, as I know they are there) of ineptitude or the deliberate targeting of civilians and I am right there with you.
30 dead people, is 30 dead people. You’re right about that. But you’ve deliberately side-stepped the point. Women and children weren’t targeted as enemy forces.
Because most of us aren’t going to be Generals.
SGEW
End Result: 30 dead women and children. No snark.
However, "collateral damage" is different from "terrorism." One might call it "semantics," but come on . . . words mean things.
Just calling the difference "semantics" simplifies a complex issue of ethics, morals, tactics, and strategy.
John Cole
What Cassidy said- and the thing to remember, the real failure is in the civilian control of the military, which keeps putting our guys in these no-win situations.
At the same time, what SGEW said. It really does not matter to the families of the dead if it was accidental or intentional.
bedlam UK
Just to clarify that the middle quote wasn’t mine.
Only the first and third in Cassidys post were.
SGEW
My favorite old joke on this theme (circa 1988 or so, I think):
Four elite intelligence agents get together for an informal get-together; an Israli, an American, a Brit, and a Syrian. They have a few drinks, then decide to play a game: a scavenger hunt in the woods. The goal is to find a rabbit, and bring it back to the house. All four agree to the rules, and enter the forest.
The Israli agent immediately begins to use his tracking skills, determining the most likely area to find a drinking hole. He sets a series of traps, which kill several local badgers, voles, fawns, turtles, and an unfortunate backpacker, but soon enough captures and maims a rabbit.
He returns to the house in triumph, only to find the American and the Brit already there, both with rabbits in posh carrying cases (the Brit’s case is, of course, posher). The American explains that he simply drove to a pet store and bought two rabbits, one of which he sold to the Brit in exchange for information about the Russian guest, who was rogering the maid. The Israli accepts his defeat, and they sit and wait for the Syrian.
After many hours of waiting, the three intelligence agents decide to go into the woods to find the Syrian agent. After a few minutes of tramping through the forest they find the agent, who has a fox tied to a tree and is whipping it with a rubber hose, screaming: "You’re a rabbit! You’re a rabbit!"
. . .
Sure was funny back then. Nowadays, we’re the ones who are holding a fox, and claiming it’s a rabbit.
TenguPhule
They were just reported by unreliable sources as enemy forces and that information was acted on.
And in the end, they’re still dead and America’s military looks like a clumsy chump that lied to the public.
They were denying the reports of civilian casualties to the end, stupid fuckers in charge.
libarbarian
There is no difference between 30 dead women and children targeted as civilians and 30 dead women and children targeted as enemy forces, how dare you try to differentiate the two.
Theres equally no difference between a black man who was killed by racists on account of his race and one who was killed by a robber looking for money, so I guess we can just erase hate-crimes laws from the progressive agenda too.
Or maybe we should treat people who get into honest traffic accidents like murders because the people they kill are just as dead.
Seriously, do you want to ignore intent in all things or just when its opportune to do so? If you’re going to do it then fucking do it, but don’t sing a different tune depending on the circumstances because then we know you’re just using any handy argument to bash a policy you don’t like and don’t really give a fuck about the moral issues at hand.
At the same time, what SGEW said. It really does not matter to the families of the dead if it was accidental or intentional.
I’m not sure John. Ive lost friends and though I was sad I think I’d be a lot more angry and bitter if they had been murdered.
bago
Nah. I’ve had friends murdered and friends commit suicide, as well as friends who have died piloting their airplane.. It sucks any way. Murder just means more victims overall.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
Like I said, point-of-view is a motherfucker. I don’t believe U.S. forces intentionally target innocent Afghanis to bomb at their wedding parties and I don’t believe terrorists, in general, are "freedom fighters."
But that’s my point-of-view. And it’s a motherfucker to the person staring back at me in the opposite direction, wondering why everyone in his family is dead.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
Intent matters. We all know this and attempts to portray accidental effects and equivalent to intentional effects is usually simple sophistry.
Cool. Does that mean I can pour gasoline down an ant farm to kill them off, and then say that I’m not responsible for the houses that burn down as a result?
You went into Afghanistan supposedly to punish one person (and his followers), and now you’re trying to suppress a whole bunch of tribal politics by dropping bombs from the air. Civilians will die.
You went into Iraq for, well, company profits. And you’re attempting to suppress the resulting resistance and multi-sided civil war with your armed forces. Who are very very good at killing people, but not so hot on policing. Civilians will die.
These are direct, foreseeable consequences of your policies. You don’t get a pass because of "oh, we don’t intend for that to happen!". The only possible pass is a combination of right intent, and a greater good. You don’t have the right intent in Iraq, and you seem to have lost any greater good in Afghanistan.
You’re killing civilians. Your country, collectively, is murdering them.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
Don’t put words in my mouth.
I am saying that civilians killed in a war when they were targeted as terrorists is wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.