Herbert,

The problem with Jenin wasn’t that the press was wrong. The problem with Jenin was that the press acted as if facts don’t matter, just as they are doing now.

We have a presumption of innocence in our society, and the press does not apply this when our military is concerned. Neither does the Left. Thank you for illustrating that, by the way.

As for rushing to judgement, there may very well be some real fire behind the smoke of Haditha. I have the queasy feeling even now that there is. So no rushing to judgement on what the military did. OTOH, the press has been caught fanning the flames and running the smoke machines yet again. So yes, I ‘m rushing to judgement on *them*–with good reason. Even if some of the Marines are guilty, the press is still guilty of another Jenin. They aren’t mutually exclusive, you know.

The people posting here as well as the host of this blog are most certainly NOT witholding judgment. Calling this another Jenin, citing the word of a lawyer for a possible murder suspect as scripture are hardly witholding judgment. Yes, I am willing to withhold judgment before calling anyone a murderer, but let’s face it the facts here aren’t pretty. Several people have been relieved of their duty, the Marines changed their story and even some of the people involved can’t get their stories straight. Even a Repulican, John Kline, thinks that people involved in the killings were covering things up.

PS. The military’s record for truth telling is atrocious.

They are certainly resilient in the face of continued slams. Did Jenin make them hesitate a bit this time? Shine some light on them, and watch them run under the floorboards until tomorrow night.

Herbert: “Maybe the Marine who told this story is lying!”

Sure. We are withholding judgement on the actual events, pending the investigation. OTOH, it’s already apparent that the press is not withholding judgement. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see the problem there–merely someone outside the “reality-based community”.

PS, Marines have a much greater track record for truthfulness than the press, especially in regards to military events. See my answer to John Moore above.

I respectfully offer…..

“Nattering, Nabobs of Negativism”

as a descriptor for these (can’t call them people) worms. ;^)

There is a very precise definition of treason in our constitution, and it requires “adhering to the enemy” among other things.

What we are seeing does not meet that definition, but it is, nonetheless, treason or something damn close to it. The leaders of the MSM have been acting in a treasonous manner for many years, and are just getting worse.

An article in Commentary defined “pragmatic anti-Americanism” and “fundamendalist anti-Americanism.” (It also showed how anti-Americanism has roots very close to anti-Semitism). While the article is mostly defining attitudes of non-Americans, it’s clear that our MSM and others on the left fit the “fundamendalist anti-Americans” category.

They are an enemy among us, even though they don’t often work with our primary enemy (unlike some in the Vietnam War era, including John Kerry who personally collaborated with our enemy). We need to start asking if these people have gone so far beyond the pale and that we should look to terminate their treacherous activities by some means. When do we decide that they have gone past the limits of our civilization and our civil liberties protections, into the realm of active enemy of all America stands for?

But we still need a term. The left now uses “swift-boating” to characterize actions by those they can’t refute (I sent a congratulatory note to John O’Neill).

Murtha is going to find out that the Vietnam Vets who went after John Kerry for his slanders are not going to let the same thing happen to the veterans of the Iraq war – at least not without a fight.

1. They can’t imagine the possibility of defeat. For them, the mental model of defeat in war is – wait for it – Vietnam, where the only real “winner” in American society was the media and the left, and the consequences of the defeat were primarily felt “over there”, by those abandoned to the mercies of leftist heroes like Ho Chi Minh.

2. They are internationalists as mentioned above. They are far more emotionally connected to bien-pensant types in Europe than poor whites or blacks in the US.

3. I’m not so sure they are traitors, but given that they can’t imagine real consequences to themselves for defeat, they do want Bush to lose. They’d rather see the US defeated and Bush’s policy go down in flames than see the US win and Bush hailed in history.

Usually I discount all MSM reports of atrocities since they are so badly sourced. But this one caught my attention because of the people who were talking about it. I won’t give the MSM any credit, but neither will I blame all of the pundits who were and are taking the issue seriously.