50 Comments

1. thedaddy:

“…American troops who arrived in Dachau were so disgusted by what they saw they executed hundreds of SS guards on the spot.”

YES!

Marine for Silver Star.

Nov 21, 2004 - 7:45 am 2. Darleen:

I recall shortly after GW announced the end to major military operations and when the terrorists started their hit-n-run attacks that many on the left were jumping up and down and pointing their fingers saying “See? See? Quagmire!” in a historical vacuum as if Germany and Japan at surrender had immediately transformed into perfect replicas of democratic civility. Even the NYTimes had run articles declaring the occupation of Germany a “disaster.”

A rather startling piece of footage from the time ran on the History channel which actually discussed the German “insurgency” — the werewolves. I watched as a squad of American soldiers marched with this young (17 y/o) prisoner, tied him to a pole, then executed him by firing squad.

The mind boogles at how the so-called MSM would cover such a contemporary event in Iraq.

Nov 21, 2004 - 8:12 am 3. Wallace:

RE: Kevin Sites.

I believe you’re blaming the messenger. Having read Kevin’s Blog and, in fact, corresponded with him, I have found him to be supportive on a personal level of the soldiers and marines in Iraq. To his credit he is not the typical reporter who files his reports from the Baghdad Hilton, but has been on the ground on many major combat operations….voluntarily.

A combat journalist’s job is to file the stories that appear before him, both good and bad. The trouble lies with the media owners who receive the news feeds and then have a choice of which stories to make “major news”. A good example from history is the photo of the execution of a Viet Cong guerrilla taken by Eddie Adams in 1968. It helped turn the tide of the war on the homefront. Eddie, who died several months ago, was no anti-war dove and he said he wished he had never taken the image……but it appeared before him. It was the major media who chose to turn it into propoganda.

Review Kevin’s Blog for yourself and then pass judgement. Kevin Sites.Net

From an Airborne/Ranger in Vietnam…….

Nov 21, 2004 - 8:44 am 4. Jamie Irons:

Roger

Thank you for this reference to the New York Times; these days I will only read their technology section unless guided to something very good, like this article, by someone I trust, like yourself.

I have come to despise that paper.

I have been sending all the money I can to charities that support the Marines. I want to do more.

Jamie Irons

Nov 21, 2004 - 8:53 am 5. Howard:

One of my great uncles was Airborne in WWII and he was among the first to enter one of the concentration camps. He vomited and almost fainted. He said it took him and all his buds at least five minutes to come to their senses and call for help. He also mentioned very quietly that “We took care of those Nazi fucks.” But I would add something very interesting, a lot of WWII vets thought that the concentration camps were more propaganda put out by the army. They had never believed the stories in the Stars and Stripes because when their own combats were reported, the stories were lies. Sound familiar?

Nov 21, 2004 - 9:18 am 6. Richard Nieporent:

Wallace,

I can state what is wrong with Kevin Sites in two words:

Pulitzer Prize.

His desire to win one made him emulate Eddie Adams. A two-minute video without any context can just as easily unintentionally misrepresent reality as a two hour Michael Moore film does intentionally.

Nov 21, 2004 - 9:27 am 7. PeterUK:

Kevin Site is not a neutral conduit for imformation,he must have known the footage was dynamite.He is also in the truest sense a mercenary,paid to gather images for his employers.He must also have known what use those employers would have put the images to.

It is amazing how quickly it got into the Arab media and was taken up by all the usual suspects.

The young Marine in question has been subjected to trial by media,the successful subjugation of Fallujah negated in the eyes of the world,an equivalence drawn between the psychopathic head hackers and lives put at risk,some Marine will hesitate and lose his life because of this.

The time for postmortems is after the event,if every military action is scrutinised and second guessed by the MSM the WoT will be lost.

Nov 21, 2004 - 9:41 am 8. Rick Ballard:

One might think that the NYT possessed enough ink for an intro paragragh establishing the parameters of the mission and its necessity. This is a caricature of home town coverage of fallen marines whose sole intent is to generate a list of the dead long enough to create a bit of a stir. The selected coda “We ain’t done with this war yet.”, presented to close a piece that never defined the mission and never mentioned that the mission was accomplished in less time and with fewer casualties than anticipated is the second tip.

We are obviously in a quagmire without end in which brave 19-20 year olds are becoming ever more proficient killers. That’s the puerile message of this clod of a propagandist.

The piece is pure crap and it takes a relatively uncritical eye to discern it.

The men who died achieving the completion of their mission deserve much better and the NYT is not now and probably cannot be, under current ownership, the vehicle for providing an honest account of the achievements of men of whom this reporter is unfit company. He’s no better than Sikes except for being a bit more clever in presenting the house propaganda.

Nov 21, 2004 - 10:15 am 9. charlotte:

Kevin Site is not a neutral conduit for information

Exactly, PeterUK. What film footage one takes and then forwards on to a rapacious media is very much an editorial decision and nothing less. Snippets of film are all too powerful in today’s media market and politicized news, and he bloody well knows it.

Kevin Sites cannot have it both ways, in presenting himself as a Marine sympathist AND photojournalist who believes the camera is neutral and tells no lies. Wielding one and offering insufficient context and balance does not make for truthful reporting. He cannot be so imbecilic as to believe he did not damn this young man and hurt the US cause, which in turn hurts the Iraqis only wanting peace, stability and civil liberties. Sites gave the enemies of peace and fair governance a propaganda coup.

Of course, how is he much different from 90% of the pampered, western elite main media these days? Roger and Rick Ballard are right about the defeatist NYT et al. Is it time to suit up the Washington Times staff and have them charge Times Square to save our democracy from the malevolent and tyrannical press?? I envision dueling Palm Pilots and laptops instead of by point of sword-

Nov 21, 2004 - 10:26 am 10. PeterUK:

Charlotte,

What grieves me is that in all probability Site owes the young Marine his life,from the letter above,

“The enemy is willing to die and is literally waiting until they see the whites of the eyes of the Marines before they open up. Just two days ago, as a firefight raged in close quarters, one of the interpreters yelled for the enemy in the house to surrender. The enemy yelled back that it was better to die and go to heaven than to surrender to infidels.”

It would appear that there is a dichotomy between Site’s verbal support and his actions.

I hope he is happy with his thirty pieces of silver.

Nov 21, 2004 - 10:47 am 11. idi_amin:

im not sure we should be jumping all over Kevin Sites for this. He has clearly stated that the Marines were being attacked from inside the mosque. He has also released a statement saying “I have witnessed the Marines behaving as a disciplined and professional force throughout this offensive. In this particular case, it certainly was a confusing situation to say the least.”

Nov 21, 2004 - 10:47 am 12. chuck:

More on this from countercolumn. Scroll on down, there are several entries.

Nov 21, 2004 - 11:13 am 13. ricpic:

It is demoralizing that the great bulk of our media report any American victory sullenly, while simultaneously breathlessly jumping on any opportunity that arises to give the enemy aid and comfort, and of course paint America in a bad light.

And we know this will happen, in advance.

Like dragging a chain around, in battle.

How to break the chain?

Beats me.

Nov 21, 2004 - 11:15 am 14. charlotte:

idi-amin,

A statement released in conjunction with powerful film footage does not vitiate the harm done by images which show no context. In the contest of explanatory text versus pictures, a photojournalist knows his camera wins out every time.

What if one were to capture someone on film beating a dog and send it to the news, even if an explanation afterwards was provided that the dog had just severely attacked a young child? Most viewers will never hear about the mitigating circumstances if the world were PETA biased. For the few who do, opinion might be spun to blame the man for not better training the dog or for allowing children around the vicious dog. How many will learn from the news that the dog didn’t belong to the man and he just happened to have saved the child’s life?

We live in an anti-American climate and “explanations” to damning film are lost, not only in the Euro Press or al-Jazeera, but even in much of our own.

PeterUK, How ironic the infidel Sites was saved so that his protector might be lost by Sites’ own doing.

Nov 21, 2004 - 11:25 am 15. PeterUK:

The defence of Sites seems to ignore the fact that he does this for MONEY,not the truth,not objectivity,not as a public service or out of the kindness of his heart, but for money!

The fact should also be noted that the footage would have still been what it is several months down the road,but its potency and pecunary value would have been less…and yes photographers do edit,all the time,they edit by choosing what to film,the angle,distance,composition,lighting and focus they use.

The idea that all footage is sent to the distributor without the cameraman weeding out the dross is ludicrous in the extreme,everybody with a digital camera knows the score.

Nov 21, 2004 - 11:51 am 16. Kevin P:

Wallace:

Mr. Sites, more then most people, knew what the response from the worlds media to his footage. If he was concerned that the Marines were not following the proper rules of conduct he copuld have handed over a copy of the tape to the proper authoritoies and asked that it be investigated.He could have held his fire.Yes, it would have cost him money and fame. But it is phoney for him to say that he had no choice in the matter. The sympathetic posts on his website will not do a thing to tamp down the negative reaction to his tape. He knew they would be taken out of context. He knew that this marine who was protecting him and all of us and who had taken a bullet in the face the day before would be branded a war criminal throughout the world. Despite his protests he did have a choice.Erase the tape or hold the tape.Make a copy and give it to the Marines so they could investigate in a neutral matter and not under the firestorm that might make them hang this Marine out to dry to quell the international fervor. His actions might lead to more American deaths. He can’t say with a straight face that he did not know what the reaction would be and that his tape would be viewed throught the world without proper context and that it would hand the Islamo fascists a propaganda coup. He also witnessed the barbaric nature of the enemy we are facing. He chose “journalistic neutrality” which,IMHO, is a gutless as Swedens neutrality in WWII. If he had witnessed a murder for kicks or sadism he should have broadcast the tape. But even he knows this was a difficult split second decision in a hot war zone and that this wasn’t some sick cowboy shooting for fun. He knew what would happen to this Marine and he knew he would become an instant celebrity. I think we know what he chose and why.

Nov 21, 2004 - 11:52 am 17. holdfast:

Sorry, I don’t have a link, but there was a story on TV last night about Iraqi terrorists-scumbags attacking US forces from behind a white flag of surrender – essentially luring them in and then opening fire. I don’t know if this story has been confirmed, but if it is true then under the CUSTOMARY laws of war, US should be permitted to invoke both “No Mercy” and “No Quarter”, though a prisoner, once taken, would still have to be protected. I don’t doubt that the media, the UN, the international community and the Democrats wouldn’t see it that way, but, really, who cares any more? They will simply invent attrocities if they have to – hell, they’ll use Russian internet porn if necessary.

Seriously thuogh, if these losers really are abusing the white flag, then US forces owe it to themselves and to their loved ones waiting at home to give no quarter. In WW I all the combatants understood that one simply could not surrender as the enemy stormed one’s trench – there was simply no way that those keyed-up soldiers, having run across several hundred meters of no-man’s land, suffering 50+% casulties along the way was going to take a prisoner at that moment.

Nov 21, 2004 - 11:59 am 18. mwalls:

I have a proposal, that we make the reporters check the wounded jihadis. Darwin will take care of the rest.

Nov 21, 2004 - 12:11 pm 19. PeterUK:

mwalls,

What an appealling idea,first through the minefields as well?

What disgusts me is that in WWII pacifists would not fight but they would tend the wounded,unlike the cringing crew that we have today,tut tutting over cocktails and canapes,while some young teenage soldier bleeds in the dirt and the dust.

Nov 21, 2004 - 12:27 pm 20. Terrye:

Somebody has been reading my mind.

The other day I posted on LGF about Dachau and the hundreds of Germans who were shot, the press did not make a huge issue of it although there was an investigation. The soldiers just lost it, the scene was so horrible. There is a picture of an officer standing in front of a gunner with his hand up, ordering them to stop firing.

As for Sites he should have known AlJazeera would be on this like a vulture on road kill. It is the kind of thing they live for. He was thinking fame and fortune and not duty. And yes I do mean duty, both to the young men who are taking responsibility for his sorry ass and for the country he supposed to be reporting to and for. Maybe he would disagree but I don’t think any young man should have to come in a box just so Kevin Sites can get his 15 minutes. Exactly what good did that picture do?

I read a reference to the photo of the man who was shot by the south Viet Namese officer. I can’t think of the photographer’s name but he died recently. Years ago I heard him say he regretted taking that photo because it gave people the man who was shot was the victim, he was not the photographer said, he was a murderer. He said he spent years sorry that picture was used the way it was. But he had an excuse Sites does not, Sites knows how Aljazeera and the media in general operate.

One thing is true however, by making an issue of this it has also made an issue of the tactics used by the enemy. I wonder how many people would have ever heard of the booby trapped bodies, terrorists

dressed in Iraqi uniforms, playing dead, attacking from behind white flags if not for this incident?

I know it has made me more determined to not abandon these young men who risks so much. I just wish that what they sacrificed and accomplished in Fallujah would not be overlooked.

It has also made Kevin Sites one of the most hated men in America.

Congrats Sites, hope it was worth it.

Nov 21, 2004 - 12:27 pm 21. Jamie Irons:

Totally OT to Terrye

Just after the election, I was thanking various contributors to this blog, and somehow, through careless omission, I neglected you.

Let me correct that mistake.

I think you are amazing.

Jamie Irons

Nov 21, 2004 - 1:04 pm 22. Terrye:

Jamie:

Ah yes,

Now he remembers.

Don’t you worry about it.

Nov 21, 2004 - 1:30 pm 23. PeterUK:

Did the death of the soldier occur because the military are being more cautious after the Sites affair,so the jihadis could safely use a flag of truce to launch an attack.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBLR8XDS1E.html

The two may not be linked but it is only a matter of time before someone thinks twice and ends up dead.

Nov 21, 2004 - 1:33 pm 24. klrfz1:

When I first learned recently that John Kerry shot a fleeing Viet Cong in the back (by his own account), I have to admit I felt it was not completely honorable. Upon further investigation I recognized that his action was fully justified. I’m sure that the vast majority of Americans will come to the same conclusion about Sites Pulitzer prize winning video taped shooting. Let the hate America first crowd play it as often as they like. Did the Abu Ghraib photos help them in the elections? No. I hope the marine in the video gets a medal like John Kerry.

Nov 21, 2004 - 1:46 pm 25. Terrye:

Like I said people are paying more attention to tactics now and even the Arab press can not hide the fact that the enemy we are fighting has none of the humanity they are demanding of the USMC.

none.

Nov 21, 2004 - 1:52 pm 26. idi_amin:

Charlotte, to borrow a phrase from Mdmse. Heinz-Kerry, it would be “un-American” to suppress unfavorable images in the way that some people seem to be calling for. I’m 100% for blowing these Islamic fascists into little chunks of flesh, but we should be objective enough to accept that these ugly things occur, even if one takes the most negative interpretation of the events possible (which i understand is the goal of Arab media/propaganda, and which i dont personally believe to be the case… ie. i believe this Marine was probably justified in his action but i really shouldnt second guess anyone in that situation).

My point is that if the American people really are as weak and faint-hearted as the “Arab street” once believed, to the point where they feel a need to hide this sort of thing (by saying that “dont show it, Al-Jazeera will use it”), then maybe Al-Qaeda is right and the US deserves to go into decline as an example of the failure of Western democracy, because of its inherent inability to defend itself.

PS. recently the “Saving Private Ryan” controversy reminded me of the scene early on, right after the Normandy beach landing, where some GI’s intentionally shoot surrendering Germans, then joke about it while looting their bodies. Would anyone claim that Steven Spielberg was making an anti-American statement there and was acting as a traitor (which is basically what some people are calling this photographer)?

Nov 21, 2004 - 2:08 pm 27. charlotte:

Would anyone claim that Steven Spielberg was making an anti-American statement there and was acting as a traitor (which is basically what some people are calling this photographer)?

Yes, Idi Amin, had Spielberg shot and aired any footage of GIs intentionally shooting surrendering Germans DURING WWII and not many decades afterward, I suspect many Americans and other Allied compatriots would see it as a demoralizing detractor from our efforts and helpful to the enemy. Do you actually believe that to “suppress images” in the heat of battle while we are at war is unAmerican?? I think that the Western press’s obsession with doco-damning our side disproportionately is immoral, nevermind unpatriotic.

Besides, in the Sites’ case, it is not the least bit evident that the Iraqi terrorist-fighter was surrendering when he was shot. The Iraqi with his hands in the air was not killed and was taken prisoner. There is no parallel here. The film footage that Sites shot and sold was ambiguous and not the least bit exculpatory of a Marine’s action that was justified under the circumstances. Sites’ film exclusive condemned this Marine to denouncement and notoriety and maybe some others to injury and death, as well.

Nov 21, 2004 - 2:32 pm 28. tioedong:

Same old same old.

Thirty years ago, the good guys were the Viet Cong, the Kumer Rouge, the African liberation movements, and various Latin American liberation movements…

Now the good guys are Islamofascists.

The victims of these thugs are ignored…

They will ignore Mrs. Hassan’s death –or blame it on the Americans like Mr. Fisk did…

Nov 21, 2004 - 2:33 pm 29. Kevin P:

Idi-amin:

I agree that Americans should not let this bother them but I think you are ignoring the fact that we are not just in a physical battle but a battle of the minds also.If Sites had withheld or postponed his tape what would the negative consequences been? There have been enough photos of the dead and destruction this war has caused.As far as making sure that the soldiers are being held to account Sites could have given the tape to the defense department with the proviso that if they ignored it or didn’t investigate it completely he would release it. This tape was not a turning point in the battle and if it would have been erased no historical loss would have occured.What have the damages been? It has become a recruiting tool for the Islamo fascists and it has put a negative spin on a otherwise positive battle. We cleared out the citzens at the loss of suprise (and an increase in our casulties) just to minimize the number of innocent deaths. We can’t know for sure if but more then likely this was a soldier fighting for an army that does not follow the rules of war and if he would have had a grenade all those Marines would have been dead along with Sites. For Sites to ignore these facts in the cause of journalistic purity is crap.He knew what this film would to do our soldiers and especially to the very man who had his back while he pursued his work. This tape was not crucial to our understanding of the war and it is not crucial to whether or not we will go to war in the future. I don’t expect our media to falsify the facts but I do expect them to consider the results of their actions. His pleas for understanding now is too late and bogus. He knew he had hot pictures and he knew this would make his carreer. He had a choice between fame and fortune or ruining a good marines life, a marine who possibly had saved his life. Once again, if he had buried or delayed this tape the fate of the world would not have been altered. He knew what the fate of this Marine would be and he did it anyway. If this had been a problem that was happening on a regular basis he might have been justified but according to him this was an isolated event. You can’t ruin someones life and then try to save it after you have made him appear to be a war criminal to the bulk of the world. He released the tape with no context and the results are on his back.

Nov 21, 2004 - 2:51 pm 30. charlotte:

Maybe it’s because of Euro, Arabist, fascist, Third World and underdog sympathies. Or, perhaps it comes from reactionary anti-American, anti-Republican and anti-Bush bias. Or, just maybe it’s because of the remarkable but one-sided access to events and living history allowed by a free and tolerant society.

For some reason, most of the world press romanticizes and eulogizes a vicious enemy while vivisecting our responsible leaders, fighters and policies. It’s not a fair fight, between the terrorists and journos, and both contribute to needless death and destruction. It’s as if they both wish for it to continue

Nov 21, 2004 - 2:53 pm 31. PeterUK:

Charlotte,

That is the point isn’t it,why now,when little footage of Iraq let alone Fallujah is getting aired.One negative image of a hugely efficient and successful operation with light casualties on both sides, for a city of 300,000, and that is the one that gets the world headlines.

Idi Amin

Unfortunate connotations that name.No they don’t have to be made public now,the fact that al Jazeera is broadcasting them should tell you that.

The battle for Iraq cannot be lost,the US cannot appear to lose another conflict,if it does the Middle East will run red with blood and the black flag will fly across the planet.

Nov 21, 2004 - 3:09 pm 32. PeterUK:

Sites motive need to be examined he appears to have form.http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41506

Another interesting perspective.

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/2004/11/about_kevin_sit.html

It appears that Sites did edit his material.

CNN have told him to shut down his website,I thought he was an independent.

Nov 21, 2004 - 3:31 pm 33. idi_amin:

hi, first off thanks for Roger Simon for this space where rational people can have reasoned discussions about stuff.

let me propose that the airing of this type of propaganda by Islamic media may not have such negative effect as people think. meaning, i doubt that people who already hate the West will hate us any more. however, i think this could have a different effect on people who are “on the fence”, waiting to see which side is likely to win. from my understanding of Iraqi sentiment, most of them really want these insurgents dealt with harshly, and Fallujah in April was taken as a sign of US lack of willpower and seriousness. if one of the goals of the Iraqi war was to demonstrate US resolve, then maybe this type of footage actually helps project that image… “shock and awe” so to speak. ie. dont expect that attacking from a mosque will protect you, we will come in and execute you if you try to play dead. this is a twisted way of thinking but that is a twisted region of the world. Machiavelli, in a typically rational and objective observation, said its better to be hated and feared, than hated and despised as a weakling (which is why we should be relieved that the Kerry/Carter coalition is not taking over). Even some statements by US military/Allawi govt seems to say that the destruction of Fallujah serves as an example.

Nov 21, 2004 - 3:39 pm 34. Terrye:

idi:

Yes they used to say Americans would not fight, now they say we fight too hard.

I myself do not understand how people who can look the other way at the car bombings and kidnappings and beheadings and torture and terror and make an issue of this.

After all the man is in Paradise is he not?

Nov 21, 2004 - 3:56 pm 35. charlotte:

Idi Amin,

Your point is taken that our enemy tends to respect might over mercy. However, in cases such as Sites’ and the hapless Marines’, what the Arab and Euro America haters now see is our side somewhat chagrined and self-flagellating over this shooting; they are hearing endless press and pundit second-guessing and outright condemnation. Does this reaction send a message of ferocity or the hope that our political will can be sapped with the potrayal of our soldiers and Marines as war criminals?

A VietNamization is what the enemy is counting on- certain military defeat transformed into a moral and geo-political victory at the hands of our own press. Propaganda is a force multiplier and divider. That’s War 101 and our enemies have aced that course.

Nov 21, 2004 - 3:58 pm 36. PeterUK:

Terrye,

I think what irks them is that he jumped the queue for the 72 virgins.

Seriously though I think it is the negative reinforcement for the Liberal Left and the Muslim diaspora that is bad about airing these images.It just give aid and comfort to the enemy,the MSM.

Nov 21, 2004 - 4:04 pm 37. lindenen:

“If Sites had withheld or postponed his tape what would the negative consequences been?”

My opinion is that he should have given a copy of the tape to the Pentagon and said that if they don’t investigate this thoroughly and fairly, then he’ll put it on tv. I think that’s the responsible behavior.

Nov 21, 2004 - 4:10 pm 38. charlotte:

lindenen,

Remember how Michael Moor withheld the footage of Abu Ghraib goings-on until the release of his F9/11 mockumentary? If he had been so upset by the abuses, as he later claimed, why didn’t he turn the film over to the military for an immediate investigation?

Guess it was all about box office receipts and gotcha pseudo-journalism, and not about fixing any actual probs. The rest of his work was reduced to fiction for all of its out of context images and distorted narrative, of course. Sites is perilously close to Moor’s standard of selective filming that communicates a misleading impression by failing to show the bigger and truer picture. Hope he is enjoying the thrill and rewards of scooping a big one for a hostile enemy on the ground and in the press.

Nov 21, 2004 - 4:27 pm 39. PeterUK:

The oldest and dirtiest journalistic trick in the world is to gain an interviewees confidence in the hope that they will say something revealing,Sites has dragged this to a new low.

Journalists cannot pretend that they are a different species examining the rest of us like animals in a zoo.They are us and of us they share the same strengths and weaknesses.They cannot forever hide behind the facade of objectivity when they have agendas like everyone else.They cannot keep misusing their monopoly on information,else they are corrupt.They cannot forever stand on the sidelines in a conflict which will last decades,someone might take them for the enemy.

Nov 21, 2004 - 4:35 pm 40. Terrye:

Apparently Sites has written an open letter to the Marines on his site.

self serving bastard says the dead man became his “responsiblity”.

When he gets his pulitzer I hope it crosses his mind to wonder if some 19 year old came home in a box so he could get what he wanted. I hope it crosses his mind over and over again until it drives him crazy.

assuming he knows right from wrong.

Nov 21, 2004 - 5:19 pm 41. PeterArgus:

Rick:

I share your thoughts about the NYT article by Dexter Filkins. I guess on one level it was sympathetic to the soldiers (certainly the dead ones). And the portrayal of the Captain as a leader was certainly moving. But even there it was to point out how near panic his troops were before he took over from the LT.

Idi:

I have to say I come down on your side in ref. to Sites. I read some of Sites blog. I guess one could feel he was feeling ambivalent about the mission in that he sympathesized with some of the Iraqis caught in the middle of our soldiers and the insurgents. But I think he is merely trying to articulate the often gray areas of combat. I don’t think he is trying to make an anti-war statement. I read the MSNBC story interviewing him and he seemed to go out of his way to put the film in perspective. He also did give the film to the military right away. He also gave it to his producers. TV thrives on this type of thing – they really don’t need to have a political motive to run it.

But back to NYT. In their defense, they have been very cautious in reporting the story. NOTHING like the Abu Ghraib torture pictures. A few days ago they ran a rather skeptical story about Mr. Sites’ background. I think in this country at least the media has generally been fair and has attempted not to pass judgement. With the exception of Chris “They [terrorists] are not really bad guys” Matthews of course.

Nov 21, 2004 - 5:28 pm 42. Terrye:

There is a link to a petition for the Marine over at littlegreenfootballs.com.

I can’t seem to link it.

Nov 21, 2004 - 5:50 pm 43. charlotte:

But I think he is merely trying to articulate the often gray areas of combat PeterArgus

Sites’ footage would have been more edifying AFTER the war is over and when Iraq is free and stable. Moral ambiguity is increasingly the Achilles heel of the West, and during a war is a deadly indulgence for one’s side when life, limb and mission are at stake. How moral and responsible could disseminating out of context and damning images be during a war for heads and hearts, when the enemy most assuredly will use them as unambiguous propaganda for its side? Sites could have waited until after the war to communicate the morally “gray areas of combat” and contexturalized his images more completely or in service to his POV, whatever it is. But he can’t possibly respect our armed forces, their lives, and their fight if he traffics in sensational footage of them that is demoralizing and cheapens their experience, efforts and ultimately their sacrifices while they are in the field and bleeding.

Sites made a clear and unambiguous choice to cast doubt where doubt can kill. Nothing gray about that.

Nov 21, 2004 - 7:12 pm 44. richard mcenroe:

If anyone wants to stand up for our Marine in the places where it counts, here are some numbers:

Commandant, USMC:

703-614-8661

Marine PR Dept

703-614-1492

Defense Dept 703-428-0711

Nov 21, 2004 - 8:00 pm 45. Kevin P:

To all:

I think it is unfair for Sites to hide behind the shield of objective journalism in regards to this story. This was not an important story. If this had been a obvious uncallous attempt by this Marine to have some fun and shoot up some innocent Iraqi in some kind of twisted sadistic fashion I would say go with the story. I read his open letter and I feel it was an attempt to take an act of greed and turn it into something noble, to make himself the martyr. He had hot pictures that did not give us any deep understanding of the battle but that he knew would be beamed across the globe over and over again. He had to know the duststorm this would create and he had to know how this would aid the enemy. And if he is so morrally confused to think that these fascist thugs are not evil and do not need his help in making them sympathetic then I feel sorry for him. Whether this Marine followed the protocols of battle perfectly is an open question but this did not need to be broadcast around the world consisdering the nearly impossible task these brave men have in trying to keep his fellow soldiers and the journalists alive. Sites should have shown his gratitude by erasing the tape. This story would eclipse the wonderfull work these marines did and he had to know this, he is not stupid. That letter was written to burnish his image to the general public because he knows that most Marines would use his letter for toilet paper and think of him as an ungratefull backstabber and not a crusading journalist.

Nov 21, 2004 - 8:29 pm 46. Wallace:

I think that the young Marine did what he thought was right. I think that Kevin, as a person with human feelings did what he thought was right. I’m glad we have both in America.

In my war, Vietnam, over 300 old men, women and children were marched out of their village of My Lai ordered into a ditch and gunned down by my fellow soldiers. Murdered in civilian terminology. Over a year later journalist Seymour Hersh reported the story. This story did great damage to the war effort I was participating in and to the army I loved. The army tried the case and the media reported the facts, good, bad and ugly to the public and to the world. Our citizens agonized over this and our enemies relished it. But did I, and the American people, have a right to hear the facts and make up our own minds?

I certainly hope so if we call this a free and moral society. And as I recall this is the lesson we are trying to teach the Iraqis.

Nov 21, 2004 - 9:21 pm 47. Kevin P:

Wallace:

My Lai was a war crime. My Lai was the intentional slaughter that was premeditated and brutal. My Lai was not done in a split second decision where waiting could have led to the death of soldiers and media personel. My Lai was a story that needed to be told and exposed whether you supported the war or not.None of the factors that applied to My Lai can be compared to the Sikes story. None of them. I think Sikes had visions of My Lai in his head and he knows how My Lai made Hersh a celebrity and catapolted his carreer.This story could have been handled internally without the negative propaganda effects that have happened. My Lai exposed what was wrong about the Vietnam war and may have saved lives. The Sites story will make our job harder and might cost American lives. This was an isolated incident and was not, even under the worst interpratation of the tape, even close to My Lai and to compare the two is like comparing a highway accident where someone dies to the Charles Manson case.

Nov 21, 2004 - 9:51 pm 48. David Thomson:

ìKevin Sites cannot have it both ways, in presenting himself as a Marine sympathist AND photojournalist who believes the camera is neutral and tells no liesî

The camera often ìlies.î This inanimate object is simply incapable off providing the necessary context of a particular event. A picture of one individual shooting another tells us nothing about the reasoning behind the act of violence. It could either be morally laudable or a evil act. We rarely, if ever, can tell merely by looking at the photo. Kevin Sites and his employers released this photo too prematurely. They did not allow us ample time to figure out what really happened. Only our enemies benefitted from this despicable display of impatience. And yes, it is very fair to treat Mr. Sites with a certain degree of contempt. He richly deserves it.

Nov 21, 2004 - 11:04 pm 49. charlotte:

…Kevin, as a person with human feelings, did what he thought was right.

Most of us feel more compassion for the poor young Marine with his human feelings, Wallace, than for Sites with his urgent need to photo-document a possible war crime committed by our side, which is de facto what he did. For some reason, Sites’ all too human feelings compelled him to sell and immediately share his footage to the world before the military could investigate and determine if any wrongdoing whatsoever had occurred. Do Sites’ “human feelings” include any shame over the fact that, while his protector did his job of protecting our side with a gun, Sites shot him with his cam and took him out, so to speak?

Michael Moore has “human feelings”, too, and could probably do only marginally better in discrediting our side than what Sites managed to accomplish with his dutiful rush to share his damning and misleading scoop. While we’re at it, should we pity the dead insurgent-terrorist fighter who helped lay seige to a city, victimize its citizens, fight to stop democracy from benefitting Iraqis, and kill our soldiers and Marines and Iraqi troops? Let us weep for this man’s human feelings and show the world how he was murdered and martyred at the hand of Satan’s war criminals, so that our forces have more jihadist crazies trying to kill them and innocent Iraqis.

Not all humans wield their human feelings responsibly.

Nov 21, 2004 - 11:58 pm 50. Bunker:

KevinP and lindenen,

I have been conversing with Sites through email for nearly a year. I have watched him on MSNBC. Of all the journalists in country, I have confidence in his lack of agenda. If you read his post and still feel he did this for a Pulitzer, nothing he or I could say will change it.

I have a son in 82nd, and another one who is a Marine. Both have spent time in Afghanistan, and the soldier was also in Baghdad. I am a career military man myself. I am quite sensitive to reporting.

In fact, Sites passed the film on to the chain of command. He also gave it to the press pool. I believe he agonized over that decision. I may be wrong, and he may have been wrong. The Marine wasn’t. And that’s what matters.

Nov 22, 2004 - 3:20 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: