White house goes after Fox News

[erooMynohtnA]

Its a disgusting story. And "testament to our military" is patronizing. You conveniently ignored the entire point of the story.

Obama's been in office almost a year and the ROE have not changed, so dont try and deflect this back on the last administration like you always do. ROEs are the way they are to protect soldiers from prosecution back home from liberals more than anything else. That's disgusting.

The point of the story may have been many things. It appears this time to be that liberals want US soldiers to die. The content of the story is of moral courage. And shame on the author for marginalizing it.

Once the three Afghanis were dead, there would be no witnesses to the deaths. Don't tell me that SEALs aren't smart enough to figure that out. It was clearly not a political or legal decision. It was a moral choice.

1. Obama continues to vote "present" while more troops are killed and morale dives even lower.
2. Public opinion starts to lean towards pulling out due to increased media coverage of soldiers dying and extremely low morale
3. Obama decides that its finally safe for him politically to pull out, so he does
4. Blames the aftermath in that area on the last adminstration
5. We end up going back to save Pakistan from being over run by the taliban who will have become energized and stronger.

Mark my words, there will be no significant boost in forces sufficient enough to stabilize things. Any increase will be a token one to buy himself time before making the decision to get out.

I always thought that Obama's stance on getting out of Iraq yet staying in Afghanistan was a bit schizophrenic and basically choosing the smaller, less unpopular conflict to try to court the center by appearing more hawkish while still appearing anti-war. I find your scenario pretty close to my own expectations.

[Hauptman]

The point of the story may have been many things. It appears this time to be that liberals want US soldiers to die.

That is the most disgusting thing I have heard in quite awhile. Liberals DO NOT want U.S. soldiers to die, under any circumstances, and you should be ashamed of yourself for such insane and biased rhetoric.

Statements like that contribute nothing to the conversation, and completely undercut any other points you might want to make.

[keith]

That is the most disgusting thing I have heard in quite awhile. Liberals DO NOT want U.S. soldiers to die, under any circumstances, and you should be ashamed of yourself for such insane and biased rhetoric.

Statements like that contribute nothing to the conversation, and completely undercut any other points you might want to make.

I think erooMynohtnA was making a comment on the rhetorical use the story was put to not the actual desires of liberals.

[Slim]

The point of the story may have been many things. It appears this time to be that liberals want US soldiers to die. The content of the story is of moral courage. And shame on the author for marginalizing it.

Once the three Afghanis were dead, there would be no witnesses to the deaths. Don't tell me that SEALs aren't smart enough to figure that out. It was clearly not a political or legal decision. It was a moral choice.


I always thought that Obama's stance on getting out of Iraq yet staying in Afghanistan was a bit schizophrenic and basically choosing the smaller, less unpopular conflict to try to court the center by appearing more hawkish while still appearing anti-war. I find your scenario pretty close to my own expectations.

The details are in the book and you can find interviews with Marcus Luttrell all over YouTube. Those are his words. You can agree or disagree, but neither of us was there.

The the issue and key point is that liberals are more interested and concerned in the death of innocents than our soldiers, and will put the soldiers lives behind innocents. Not that they want soldiers to die. And I agree with the author on this.

I dont agree with you that the SEALs didnt execute them because they could not bring themselves to do it. And I certainly think that this will be the last time a team make this choice.

If you have not read the book, I strongly suggest it. I also suggest you take a look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irC4K7Q4JCo

Lauer makes it pretty clear what the consequences would have been.

[Slim]

That is the most disgusting thing I have heard in quite awhile. Liberals DO NOT want U.S. soldiers to die, under any circumstances, and you should be ashamed of yourself for such insane and biased rhetoric.

Statements like that contribute nothing to the conversation, and completely undercut any other points you might want to make.

Your liberal self-defense and justification system had a false alarm. Stand down.

[keith]

The the issue and key point is that liberals are more interested and concerned in the death of innocents than our soldiers, and will put the soldiers live behind innocents. Not that they want soldiers to die. And I agree with the author on this.

The claim that liberals are happy to see soldiers die is at the heart of many of your statements. Although I'm surprised you have suddenly decided to add a semantic fig leaf.

While your posts on this do not surprise me in the least, several others have.

[Slim]

The claim that liberals are happy to see soldiers die is at the heart of many of your statements. Although I'm surprised you have suddenly decided to add a semantic fig leaf.

While your posts on this do not surprise me in the least, several others have.

Happy to see soldiers die? Some liberals, perhaps the MoveOn.org types...since it's has been used to manipulate the media and public opinion like in Vietnam and towards the end of Bush's last term. It helps supports their political agenda. For instance, what happened to all the body counts and nightly "dead soldier of the day" that CNN and MSNBC used to run up to the elections? Dont see those anymore do you? Nope. Obama won. Mission accomplished. Please show Cindy Sheehan the door and let's focus on passing Obama care.

But I dont believe that's the majority. I do believe that the majority of liberals are fine with trading soldiers lives for those of civilians. Which is a huge reason why the ROEs are so restrictive and place our guys at risk more than they should.

[Philistine]

{snip}
The the issue and key point is that liberals are more interested and concerned in the death of innocents than our soldiers, and will put the soldiers lives behind innocents. Not that they want soldiers to die. And I agree with the author on this.
{snip}

It's an interesting point--though it's not really an ROE issue--it's a law of war issue. Pretty clear that you can't grab a civilian, interrogate him, then execute him because you fear he may betray your presence if you let him go and you cannot effectively detain him. No president is going to change the ROE's to change that.

ISTR reading about this type of situation before (I think it was in the context of a unit behind enemy lines taking military prisoners that it was unable to detain and still conduct its mission). It's certainly very forseeable in this type of small unit action.

I dont agree with you that the SEALs didnt execute them because they could not bring themselves to do it. And I certainly think that this will be the last time a team make this choice.

In this interview, shortly after the book came out in 2007, he says:

He writes that when the unit commander polled his men on what to do, Luttrell chose to spare the Afghans, despite the security risk.
Luttrell knew in his soul that he should kill them. But, he adds, "I have another soul, my Christian soul."

Interestingly, also in that interview, he talks about after how he was injured, he was saved by Afghani villagers who he also decided not to kill.

Luttrell says he then encountered some villagers, and was unsure if they were friend or foe.
"I was apprehensive from the beginning. I almost killed three of them, but ... I just didn't pull the trigger. I don't know why."
Those people ultimately saved his life, protecting him from the Taliban who had surrounded their village.

--Philistine

[Purple Fencer]

I dont agree with you that the SEALs didnt execute them because they could not bring themselves to do it. And I certainly think that this will be the last time a team make this choice.

It's happened before, tho. In the first Gulf War a similar sitch with some other special forces. Infiltrating behind the lines...got spotted by a kid...had the option of shooting him....chose not to do so...kid rant to get an adult, who blew their cover.

They STILL chose not to shoot everyone, choosing to evade. The difference in the end here being that they were able to hold off the incoming forces between themselves and some Air Force support until they could be extracted.

But unless YOU are a SEAL, you are not qualified to say another SEAL team wouldn't make the same choice to spare a child.

[Hauptman]

Your liberal self-defense and justification system had a false alarm. Stand down.

You're right, I misread the posting. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Your constant liberal attack mode is more the point. There is little liberal whining here; mostly your whining about liberals.

I commend the soldier's moral choice because without our moral foundation our society means little. Those who will set aside morality for expedience may gain in the short run but lose in the long term.

This speaks to those who would use torture, and when Chase recently defended our use of the likes of the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden against the Soviet Union. A deal with the devil will have to be paid eventually.

Certainly innocent people are accidentally killed in military action, but if you are willing to intentionally kill a civillian, up close and in cold blood, then you are no better than the terrorists that you are hunting.

If a soldier has to sacrifice his life for the life of a civilian that is the price of being a soldier; that is inherent in the job. Soldiers are there fighting, in part, to save civilians. It is an incredibly difficult job on so many levels, but a soldier should not give up his morality to accomplish his job.

[Slim]

If a soldier has to sacrifice his life for the life of a civilian that is the price of being a soldier; that is inherent in the job. Soldiers are there fighting, in part, to save civilians. It is an incredibly difficult job on so many levels, but a soldier should not give up his morality to accomplish his job.

And that's the difference between a liberal and everyone else. And why our rules of engagement are so FU'd.

Sorry pal, I'm not willing to sacrifice our guys for their civilians. No way, no how.

[Slim]

Slim, thank you for your typically reasoned and cogent response.

When confronted by actual discussion points, you always ignore them. Nice going.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/28764

[jeff]

And that's the difference between a liberal and everyone else. And why our rules of engagement are so FU'd.

Sorry pal, I'm not willing to sacrifice our guys for their civilians. No way, no how.

A lesson in self-contradiction

1. Smears liberals as never putting their lives on the line, in a smarmy attempt to wrap his side in exclusive ownership of those who do

and then

2. Rejects the reason behind that particular sacrifice. Conservatives would never sacrifice themselves for the reasons these soldiers did - oh, but wait, you just said only conservatives make life and death sacrifices.

If you don't understand this, I'll type it slower next time.

BTW Remind me again who was president then, and which party controlled the Senate and House?

[jeff]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/28764

Being incapable to make an argument on his own... the above link. And he thinks it's a devastating show stopper. How funny you are Slim

So, Obama stops in New Orleans on the way to a fundraiser. So what? Should he have gone to the Crawford ranch and chopped underbrush for a few days?

He doesn't speak to the Dalai Lama. Well, if he pissed off the Chinese who own all our bonds, you'd be the first one to call him naive and foolish to harm our economy for a symbolic gesture. Besides, it compares well with George Bush #1 who objected strenuously to sanctions the Congress passed on China after the Tiananmen massacre. And that was a substantive thing, not a photo op that wouldn't change anything. Ah, the good old days when we could put sanctions on China!

Freezing out a news network? It happened all the time in prior administrations - including with GWB. NYT was attacked for example. Did Fox get indignant then? Hell no.

The linked article says "Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?" Well, he did, and much more, and Fox and Friends were co-conspirators. The article above says Bush got criticized when he spent all that time on the ranch, and sucked up to Big Oil --- but they weren't criticized by Fox!

What Slim continues to not understand is that papers like the NYT, and TV outlets like CNN have criticized Obama (go look, Slim. Face reality). Imagine that: when Obama does something they dislike, they say so. What a concept.

In comparison: Fox is steadfast in its only policy ("smear Democrats, pander to Republicans"): because when GWB did those things and worse (like, invade the country that hadn't attacked us in 9/11, and then declare "Mission Accomplished" all those years ago, and screwing up handing Katrina, and .... ) they went with the program like the little Roves they are.

[Slim]

Being incapable to make an argument on his own... the above link. And he thinks it's a devastating show stopper. How funny you are Slim

So, Obama stops in New Orleans on the way to a fundraiser. So what? Should he have gone to the Crawford ranch and chopped underbrush for a few days?

He doesn't speak to the Dalai Lama. Well, if he pissed off the Chinese who own all our bonds, you'd be the first one to call him naive and foolish to harm our economy for a symbolic gesture. Besides, it compares well with George Bush #1 who objected strenuously to sanctions the Congress passed on China after the Tiananmen massacre. And that was a substantive thing, not a photo op that wouldn't change anything. Ah, the good old days when we could put sanctions on China!

Freezing out a news network? It happened all the time in prior administrations - including with GWB. NYT was attacked for example. Did Fox get indignant then? Hell no.

The linked article says "Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?" Well, he did, and much more, and Fox and Friends were co-conspirators. The article above says Bush got criticized when he spent all that time on the ranch, and sucked up to Big Oil --- but they weren't criticized by Fox!

What Slim continues to not understand is that papers like the NYT, and TV outlets like CNN have criticized Obama (go look, Slim. Face reality). Imagine that: when Obama does something they dislike, they say so. What a concept.

In comparison: Fox is steadfast in its only policy ("smear Democrats, pander to Republicans"): because when GWB did those things and worse (like, invade the country that hadn't attacked us in 9/11, and then declare "Mission Accomplished" all those years ago, and screwing up handing Katrina, and .... ) they went with the program like the little Roves they are.

Excellent! I think you hit all the liberal talking points in this one post! Let's review:

1. Crawford Ranch cutting underbrush
2. Fox and Friends co-conspirators (remember, its a BIG conspiracy!)
3. Big Oil
4. "Little Roves"
5. Katrina
6. Mission Accomplished

You missed WMD, but close enough. Give that man a cigar. Chocolate, please. Smoking is bad for the environment.

And Politico.com is part of the VRWC. Hahaha

BTW...you seem to spend an AWFUL lot of time watching Fox. C'mon, you secretly like Glen Beck. Admit it.

[Slim]

A lesson in self-contradiction

1. Smears liberals as never putting their lives on the line, in a smarmy attempt to wrap his side in exclusive ownership of those who do

and then

2. Rejects the reason behind that particular sacrifice. Conservatives would never sacrifice themselves for the reasons these soldiers did - oh, but wait, you just said only conservatives make life and death sacrifices.

If you don't understand this, I'll type it slower next time.

BTW Remind me again who was president then, and which party controlled the Senate and House?

Hehehe...Jeff, your funny. Must have some BLG (big liberal guilt) going on. You and Hauptman suffer from the same affliction.

1. Never mentioned liberals not putting their lives on the line. Sorry, but I never said that. I said they'd put civilian lives over our soldiers lives. Hauptman said it too. Re-read please.

2. Never said conservatives were they only ones making life and death decisions. In fact, I dont think I ever used the word "conservative". Ever. You'd like to think I did, but I didnt. On purpose. I reject the idea that the ROEs were not factored into that team's decision. You can watch the interviews and listen to Mr. Luttrell himself if you'd like.

Twist, spin, and dance. It's fun to watch :-)

[Slim]

It's an interesting point--though it's not really an ROE issue--it's a law of war issue. Pretty clear that you can't grab a civilian, interrogate him, then execute him because you fear he may betray your presence if you let him go and you cannot effectively detain him. No president is going to change the ROE's to change that.

ISTR reading about this type of situation before (I think it was in the context of a unit behind enemy lines taking military prisoners that it was unable to detain and still conduct its mission). It's certainly very forseeable in this type of small unit action.



In this interview, shortly after the book came out in 2007, he says:



Interestingly, also in that interview, he talks about after how he was injured, he was saved by Afghani villagers who he also decided not to kill.



--Philistine

Because he's a good guy. And he's paying for it. If the ROE specified that in the situation they were in, they were ok to eliminate the threat, he would not have had to make the decision and consider the consequences.

[jeff]

Excellent! I think you hit all the liberal talking points in this one post! Let's review:

1. Crawford Ranch cutting underbrush
2. Fox and Friends co-conspirators (remember, its a BIG conspiracy!)
3. Big Oil
4. "Little Roves"
5. Katrina
6. Mission Accomplished

You missed WMD, but close enough. Give that man a cigar. Chocolate, please. Smoking is bad for the environment.

And Politico.com is part of the VRWC. Hahaha

BTW...you seem to spend an AWFUL lot of time watching Fox. C'mon, you secretly like Glen Beck. Admit it.

The only Beck worth listening to is Jeff Beck (whoosh! that will go over all the youngsters' heads).

Once again, Slim can't actually respond to any points. He knows that the criticism of Fox and its ilk is fair, but the thing is, he really likes the slime job they do, so he'll never admit that.

Duck and weave, Slim. Run away little fella.

[Fechter1]

Because he's a good guy. And he's paying for it. If the ROE specified that in the situation they were in, they were ok to eliminate the threat, he would not have had to make the decision and consider the consequences.

Just to clarify:
He (the soldier in question) made the choice to not murder civilians because he's a good guy.

You are advocating the opposite (murder of civilians, defined as a war crime). Does that then make you the bad guy?

[Philistine]

{snip} If the ROE specified that in the situation they were in, they were ok to eliminate the threat, he would not have had to make the decision and consider the consequences.

I just don't see this as a ROE issue. By definition, it's a war crime, regardless of the ROE--you would have to change the LOLW, repeal the War Crimes Act (and presumably withdraw from the Geneva Conventions) among other things to eliminate the risk of prosecution, here. That's just not going to happen.

What is somewhat ironic about this is that it's probably pretty likely that if they succeeded in their mission (presumably calling in an airstrike and/or using a laser or other designator to target a strike) it's pretty likely that more than three civilians would have been killed in the strike.

--Philistine