Red State Renegade

Iraq Veterans spoke out last month on what they saw and were expected to do in Iraq and Afghanistan, recalling being put into immoral and illegal situations:

Soldiers spoke out at an event sponsored by Vietnam Veterans Against The War:

On the initial invasion:
“There were massive amounts of artillery strikes before we even invaded. We saw the results of that. Streets full of bodies – women and children – body parts, extremely indiscriminate. I’m talking about rolling through villages here, not military encampments.”

“I still believed everything we were force-fed: weapons of mass destruction and possibly even a nuclear weapon. We felt, like, we’re going to go in, overthrow this evil dictator and give these people some peace, finally. We thought we were doing a good thing.”

On home raids:
“Usually it was based on a tip – we’re told someone in the home is an insurgent. We would pick up people who had nothing to do with anything, keep them locked up until they came up with something.”

“We kick down the door and all we find are a few women holding babies and a couple of kids. We were ordered to take the babies away and put sandbags on the women’s heads, tie their hands behind their backs, put them on their knees facing the wall. Here I am zip-tying these women, and my buddy is standing next to me holding these babies asking what do I do with these kids? We stood there, like, oh shit, what do we do? The squad leader came in and shouted, ‘Everybody is bagged and tagged – everybody!’ So we did it.”

On interrogations:
“That’s not something I want on my conscience.”

On the very common ‘Shovel order:’
“Anyone carrying a shovel or any sort of implement that could be used to bury an IED could be considered a target…After dark, you can shoot anyone who is outside. Or anyone who puts anything on the side of the road can be considered a target. You won’t find it in writing, but it’s an order indicated to soldiers.”

On accountability:
“(Our commander) made it clear to us that if an innocent person was shot he would stage a scene to protect us”.

On the Haditha Massacre, when 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians, some women and children were killed by angry U.S. soldiers, after losing their brothers in an IED attack:
“My squad was doing medivacs out of the town. I was not there to witness the shooting, but I know many marines who were.”

“I have a lot of feelings about this incident. A friend of mine from my first two tours was in that squad. He was the guy they gave immunity to to testify against the squad leader.”

“The people on the ground are looking at serious prison time. Like life. The people who were giving orders were only relieved of command. And I don’t think that’s right.”

The Haditha massacre, us ugly as it sounds, was not an isolated incident:
“It’s the one that just happened to be uncovered.”

On the Abu Gharaib abuses (after describing some inhumane hazing incidents routinely performed on fellow soldiers):
“What happened at Abu Ghraib is those orders came from the top. If the policy makers and the commanders can dehumanise their own troops, why wouldn’t they dehumanise the Iraqi people?”

On the mission and the war against terror:
“Everything that we were doing seemed almost designed to create more terrorists. To turn people against America. I couldn’t understand how we were liberating anyone. But I could understand how an Afghan person who was ambivalent about America could easily become an extremist based on their interaction with American soldiers.”

On the chain of command:
“The soldiers and marines are just doing their jobs, doing what they were trained for or what they were told to do when they got over there. Things that seem really horrible just become routine – and they are implicitly or explicitly condoned, or encouraged, by the commanders and the policy-makers.”

In desperation, Hillary takes a lesson from the Giuliani fear mongering playbook:

Last night on the democratic debate on ABC TV, Hillary invoked the worst terror attack on US soil to continue her criticisms of Barack Obama, mentioning 9/11 five times to criticize his association with a member of the group Weather Underground (which bombed government buildings in the 60s), his openness to talking to rogue leaders, and even a question about energy policy.

She continued to keep Rev. Jeremiah Wright (Obama’s former pastor) in the news, reiterating her earlier declarations that she would not have Wright as her pastor. This time she invoked the suffering of the people of New York to justify that view:

“But I have to say that, you know, for Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the attack, which happened in my city of New York, would have been intolerable for me…”

But is it still intolerable if it is honest and true?

Many others have been denounced for suggesting 9/11 was caused by failed U.S. policy. But regardless of your opinion of Pastor Wright, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates seems to be in agreement with the Pastor, in testifying to the house arms services committee on April 10:

“We were attacked from Afghanistan in 2001, and we are at war in Afghanistan today, in no small measure because of mistakes this government made–mistakes I among others made in the end game of the anti-Soviet war there some 20 years ago.”

I hope the 9-11 ploy works as well for Hillary as it did for Rudy.

Speaking of ‘Crazies’ seeking war…(see previous post, below this one)

The above is an actual headline on the ABC news website.

The third paragraph, however, shows (to anyone with at least the mental capacity of Terri Schiavo) the whole premise to be questionable (or, at least nothing new):

“Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stopped short earlier this week of blaming Iran, saying the U.S. did not have evidence ‘of the involvement of the Iranian government in support of the Taliban.’”

Well… would that not put the “red-handed” claim to bed for the moment?

Apparently not. The article goes on to make a number of dubious statements, almost all attributed to “a senior coalition official” (not named, of course):

“Clear evidence of Iran’s involvement…”

“Part of a considered policy…”

“Clear indications that [munitions recovered in two Iranian convoys] originated in Iran…”

“Iran has provided (lethal EFPs, or explosive formed projectiles, the roadside bombs) to Iraqi insurgents with deadly results…”

“These clearly have the hallmarks of the Iranian Revolution Guards”

The only other comments are from some closet neo-con wingnut at the Rand Institute who seems to make a living writing about the projection of American power abroad.

Wow. after all the flak about Iraq I would expect the lapdogs to be a little subtler this time around.

But the ‘hopeful’ part is in the comments ABC received. Maybe the party’s over for this kind of reporting?

Almost all the comments I read attacked the sensational headline and lack of real sources:

“Please don’t become part of the new neo con push for a new war in Iran. Check and double check your sources. We had far too much of the media serving as the mouthpiece for this administration leading up to the Iraq war. We don’t need another media encouraged disaster.”

“As soon as I see this reported by a reputable source that is not a member of the United States corporate media, I’ll start believing it. ABC News, like the rest of the American media, helped the Bush Administration lie us into the quagmire in Iraq. The RAND Corporation, who they quote so freely, is run by people who stand to make BILLIONS off of the next war that we are lied into. Let me hear this from someone who doesn’t stand to make a profit off of the next military misadventure.”

“If the report has evidence that the Iranian government is behind it, then, sure, make that headline, but hiding behind “Report says” and analysis of unnamed official without evidence should no longer be acceptable reporting in this country…Not after similar reporting contributed to the war in Iraq.”

“Read the article three or four times. You will see that both sources are SPECULATING that the Iranian government is inolved. COMPLETELY SPECULATING. So why does ABCNEWS say Iran was caught ‘red handed’? Why is this disinformation being used on the American public? For what purpose are we being lied to? Why are the powers that be trying so hard to get another diastrous war started?”

Write to ABC news. Let ‘em know how shameless they are, or go to the article above and post a comment (It takes 5 seconds).

UPDATE (6/7/07) - NATO Force General debunks claims:

Another news article out today centers on a direct rebuttal from U.S. Army General Dan McNeill, commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force. Interesting, as the ABC news site specifically attributed the ‘red-handed’ discovery to NATO:

Although he confirmed that NATO did intercept two convoys of weapons, he said there is no clear evidence that Iran is supplying the Taliban with weapons, and that it is common in Afghanistan to encounter weapons that originate in other countries.

General McNeill mentions the finding of mortar rounds of Iranian origin in one convoy, as well as explosives similar to the U.S.-made C-4 in the other.

“Beyond that, there’s not much significant to report on these two convoys,” he said.

Thanks to my friend Joe T for alerting me to this one:

Joe asks if when the GOP says they are ‘Strong on Terror,’ do they mean:

“creating it, financing it, stirring it up, planting the seeds for it, ‘bringing it on’ to places it never was, using it to create fear and drum up support, or what?”

I couldn’t have said that better myself…

This week a New York man was indicted on multiple charges including terrorism financing, material support of terrorism, and money laundering. Interestingly, Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari (also known as Michael Mixon) was raising money for the Republican party as well as for terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Alishtari had donated about $15,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) before 2004, and, according to a resume listed under his name (on a company website), was named a National Republican Senatorial Committee “Inner Circle Member for Life,” was appointed to the NRCC’s “White House Business Advisory Council,” and was named the NRCC’s New York state businessman of the year in 2002 and 2003. He also claimed signed photos from President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush thanking him for supporting the party.

Ironically, the press release announcing his appointment to the NRCC Business Advisory Council states that Alishari “has long supported Republican Ideals.”.

But Alishari is not the first from this Council to be indicted for terrorist activities. Yasith Chhun, indicted in May 2005, was also, according to the LA Times, a sitting member of the NRSS Business Advisory Council. As head of an organization listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization (the Cambodian Freedom Fighters), he raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for terrorist activities in Cambodia, while also raising tens of thousands of dollars for the NRCC. He was indicted for:

“…attempting to kill the prime minister, attack government buildings and launch small-scale attacks on karaoke bars and fuel depots in an effort to galvanize opposition to the Phnom Penh government.”

In both cases the NRCC has stated that it will not rush to judgement in returning the tainted funds, but will return the funds to charity in the event of a conviction.

Stay tuned: The trial of Yasith Chhun begins next month…