SwiftVets.com

[fortdixlover]

The latest from the Washington Post:

It might have been entitled "U.S. Soldiers Beat Their Wives."

It starts from the assumption that U.S. soldiers are little Genghis Khans, but due to Bushitler, they're getting away with atrocities (because John Kerry is otherwise occupied, of course). Then, it invents "experts", "military analysts", and "majors speaking anonymously." Ring any bells?

WaPo wrote:

Few U.S troops charged see prison A report finds that those accused of civilian deaths in Iraq often avoid trial or are guilty of lesser charges. By Josh White, Charles Lane and Julie Tate Washington Post WASHINGTON - The majority of U.S. service members charged in the unlawful deaths of Iraqi civilians have been acquitted, found guilty of relatively minor offenses or given administrative punishments without trials, according to a Washington Post review of concluded military cases. Charges against some of the troops were dropped completely.

Gee - perhaps that's because they didn't do anything? Only in the leftist media is a U.S. soldier guilty before being found innocent (as opposed to terrorists, who are innocent until proven guilty).

This "news report" continues:

WaPo wrote:

Though experts estimate thousands of Iraqi civilians have died at the hands of U.S. forces, only 39 service members were formally accused in connection with the deaths of 20 Iraqis from 2003 to early this year.

Note how there is no identification of "experts." Hell, John Kerry and John Murtha and Nguyen Giap are "experts." How do we know these charges did not come from them? What kind of "journalism" is this, anyway? B.S. is what it is--who are the "experts"?

WaPo wrote:

... Some military officials and analysts say the small numbers reflect the caution and professionalism exercised by U.S. forces on an urban battlefield where it is often difficult to distinguish combatants from civilians. Others say the statistics illustrate commanders' reluctance to investigate and hold troops accountable when they take the lives of innocents.

What "military officials and analysts?" Who are they? How many are there? Who are the "others"? What country are they from? Note how the article doesn't tell.

WaPo wrote:

..."I think there were many other engagements that should have been investigated, definitely," said an Army major who served in Iraq in 2004, speaking anonymously because he fears retribution. "But no one wanted to look at them or report them higher... . It was just the way things worked."

OK, it's time for a statement of the obvious here. It isn't just fauxtography the Commerical Media commits. It is also falsification of the facts. There is no "Army major" speaking anonymously. That's bul* shi*. I challenge the Washington Post to identify these "experts", "analysts", "military officials" and "anonymous majors."

The Washington Post simply made it all up.

Swiftvets and, in fact, all veterans: the Mainstream Media (MSM) is your enemy. This type of article makes that crystal clear.

-- FDL
_________________
"Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute" - Thomas Jefferson on paying ransom to Muslim corsairs (pirates).

[Anker-Klanker]

FDL, I think you hit the nail squarely on the head down near the end of your remarks when you mentioned the recently revealed rash of "fauxtography" in MSM. Just for curiosity, I Googled the three authors to see what else they had written:

Julie Tate is something of an unknown; this is the first article attributed to her in the WaPo. The sentiment and interest of the two others are very clear, hower.

For Josh White:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/josh+white/

The listing of articles for him make it pretty clear where he's coming from, and his political agenda.

Similarly for Charles Lane:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/charles+lane/

A Charles Lane (same one?) seems to have history of being involved in fabricating stores:

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2003/5/qa-beckerman.asp