Ed Schultz just totally whitewashed the wikileaks video. I am so sick of these people

[no limit]

He played a very small part of the video and totally took out the part where they shot up the makeshift ambulance who turned out to be a good samaritan with his two small children in the van. They killed these children's father with absolutely no provocation and severely injured them in the process. In the discussion that followed with an MSNBC general none of these facts were ever mentioned and all they said was this followed the rules of engagement because they believed there was a threat and that they were carrrying weapons. Then they shifted the topic to the pentagon not releasing this sooner. Not a single mention that 2 small children were badly injured, that their father was killed, and that there was absolutely no reason to shoot at that ambulance.

Absolutely disgusting. When even Ed Shultz toes the corporate line I really have this sinking feeling that there is no hope left. I didn't get to watch Kieth and Rachel Maddow last night, did they cover this story honestly?

[laughingliberal]

1. I'm pretty sure they are under pressure from 2 sources

1) Their corporate owners
2) White House. Just as with the * administration, I believe journalists risk losing access if their coverage is too negative.

[no limit]

3. This doesn't even have anything to do with this administartion, it happened in 2007

but so what if it did? It's their damn job to report the news. And if Shultz had any honor in him he wouldn't sell out to those interests.

[dflprincess]

8. Except that this administration prefers to "look forward"

they aren't interested in dealing with any crimes related to Iraq or Afghanistan.

[no limit]

9. I wonder if this administration knew about these videos

I would love to see one of our so called reporters ask that at the next white house press briefing.

[lumpy]

18. BS. What gives you that stupid idea?

x

[dflprincess]

127. Where did I get that stupid idea? From Obama

This has been mentioned in a lot of threads on DU - but here are a few links:

http://www.altweeklies.com/politics/obama_plans_on_letting_bush_administration_war_criminals_off_easy/Story?oid=845383

If you were expecting Barack Obama to deliver justice, forget it. "I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards," Obama said recently. "Look forward" is Beltwayese for "no accountability."

Obama went on to assure the men and women who tortured innocent detainees to death that no one will ever bother them about their war crimes. "And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up."

http://www.truthout.org/cheney-admits-war-crimes-media-yawns-obama-turns-other-cheek56924

Under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the treatment of Mohamed and the clear record that the Bush administration used waterboarding and other brutal techniques to extract information from detainees should have triggered the United States to conduct a full investigation and to prosecute the offenders. In the case of the US's refusal to do so, other nations would be obligated to act under the principle of universality.

However, instead of living up to that treaty commitment, the Obama administration has time and again resisted calls for government investigations and has gone to court to block lawsuits that demand release of torture evidence or seek civil penalties against officials implicated in the torture....

...The Obama administration's decision to ignore the past administration's crimes has alienated civil liberties groups, who he could once count on for support.

Last December, on the day Obama received a Nobel Peace prize, Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, told reporters "on every front, the administration is actively obstructing accountability. This administration is shielding Bush administration officials from civil liability, criminal investigation and even public scrutiny for their role in authorizing torture

http://warcriminalswatch.org/

Obama has insisted on “moving forward” by avoiding the recognition of crimes committed by the government, allowing the worst offenders of the Bush years to avoid prosecution. He has both granted amnesty to the CIA agents involved in torture and offered legal defense if anyone else were to prosecute them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/25/at-best-a-baby-step-towar_n_268739.html

When it comes to the Bush torture regime, President Obama famously wants to look forward, not backward. But if the wrong lessons have been learned, the view ahead is bleak.
Nothing less than our country's moral standing is at stake. More than 50 years after the Nuremberg Trials, are we really prepared to assert as a nation that "just following orders" is an acceptable defense for gross violations of human rights? And what about accountability for the people who issued those terrible orders - and who fabricated their ostensible legal justifications?
Because here's the thing: Should the government's response to the repeated, systemic abuse of detainees after 9/11 end with the excessively circumscribed investigation described by Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday, a terrible precedent will have been set. The message for future federal employees faced with morally suspect orders will be clear: Do what you're told to do, and we'll cover your ass. And the message for future policymakers will be: If you can find someone at the Department of Justice to say it's OK, then anything goes - literally, anything.

This one was a tad optimistic

http://washingtonindependent.com/26162/obama-may-be-required-to-prosecute-bush-officials-for-war-crimes

The consensus seems to be growing that, despite his oft-repeated desire to “look forward rather than backward” when it comes to the Bush administration’s authorization of the use of torture on detainees in American custody, President-elect Barack Obama is going to have to open some sort of official investigation of Bush-era war crimes once he takes office.

That's where I got that "stupid idea" - and the fact that there haven't been any war criminals arrested lately.

[laughingliberal]

15. Lol! I didn't say I agreed with his selling out. I just offered an opinion as to the reason for it.

As for it having nothing to do with the administration, my guess is they'd like to keep this from becoming a big story. Now, I can't be certain but it is my opinion.

[no limit]

22. You are probably right about his administration not wanting this to be a story

which angers me too.

By the way, sorry if my post came off with a rude tone, I'm a bit agitated by all of this right now.

[laughingliberal]

28. No worries. Much to be agitated about in today's world. nt

[AnArmyVeteran]

23. WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORP = JUST A STATUS SYMBOL, A CLUB OF INEPT, INCOMPETENT DOLTS...

You said, "I believe journalists risk losing access if their coverage is too negative". The entire White House press corp let Bush lie to go to war because not one so-called 'journalist' in the WHPC ever asked Bush a tough, real question any REAL journalist would ask. Face it, the White House Press Corp is just an exclusive club and not a fact-gathering organization. They don't give a damn about extracting the truth. They only care about making it as part of the White House Press Corp. It's a status symbol and nothing more. If anyone dared to ask a tough question they would quickly be removed. I remember one real journalist who DID ask Bush a tough question, but he was promptly forced to quit his position on the WHPC by his employer, who was obviously pressured by the oppressive Bush Regime.

Journalism is almost dead. The WHPC is certainly dead and void of any journalists. I believe every White House press conference should be made up of 90% regular citizens asking questions, rather than those boneheaded cowards who are there now. Look at David Gregory. He was on the WHPC and he never asked one competent question during the 8 years of Bush's assault against our country, and now Gregory used his inept 'experience' as a WHPC correspondent to get his new Meet the Press show, which is a complete joke.

If the WHPC had asked any serious questions during the run up to the Iraq War, the war would NOT have been allowed to start. The media (corporations) seemed to WANT the war because WAR is good for business. War sells. Carnage sells. Conflict sells. Perhaps that is why they did nothing to try to stop it. They never once pressured Bush to be honest, and because of their irresponsible, incompetent and perhaps collusionary relationship with the Bush Regime, the WHPC's ineptness led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the deaths of 5,000 American soldiers.

Hell, press conferences with any president should be set up where any citizen can ask a question directly to the president. To Obama's credit, he did what no other president has done, and that was to even answer questions from regular Americans online. The inept, corrupt and evil Bush would never have done that.

The WHPC should be eliminated. The dolts who cover the president don't give a damn about getting to the truth. All they care about is the status symbol of being on the WHPC.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Not Ed Schultz!

:grr:







/s

[NJmaverick]

4. Could be you are wrong, rather than a far fetched theory that the "corporations got to him"

[no limit]

5. Wrong about what? Are you saying I didn't see what I just saw? Or are you calling me a liar?

You really bug the shit out of me sometimes.

They shot up a makeshift ambulance with 2 fucking children in them. Put the pom poms down just this one fucking time.

[The Hope Mobile]

7. [phone] nt

[NJmaverick]

11. They shot up an unidentified van that showed up immediately after the fire fight

At least be accurate in your description. Beyond that this was a combat zone and RPGs and small arms were found at the scene.

[no limit]

14. 2 or 3 minutes after the "firefight". on a public road.

He had no weapons nothing, just helping an injured person on the street.

you make me sick.

[NJmaverick]

36. Again to be accurate he was helping injured insurgents with RPGs

here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8100321

[no limit]

45. No, he was helping an injured journalist he saw while driving down the street

he had no idea they were insurgents (neigher did the US military for that matter, but thats a different thread), this van pulled up many minutes after the last shots were fired. And because he tried to help a wounded man on the side of the street he was killed for it with absolutely no provocation.

There is no way that you don't understand this. But I know what you are doing, you will keep dragging this out until this entire thing gets deleted as a sub-thread.

[arcadian]

136. That is incorrect and completely speculative on your part.

[kath]

151. There were NO frickin' RPGs.. What the dumbasses said they thought was an RPG launcher was a CAMERA.

jeebus. The wounded guy was an UNARMED Reuters photographer (two of them were murdered) -- where the fuck have you been the past couple of days??

[trumad]

20. "Firefight"...

Dude---come on---you're embarrassing yourself.

Firefight implies strongly that the other guys were fighting as well.

That's pretty hard to do when you're fucking DEAD!

[Supersedeas]

146. you see, the collateral damage started the firefight, then an unauthorized ambulance engaged

the collateral damage

[matt819]

24. Apologists, give it a rest

Ok, unidentified van, not an ambulance. But even if you were to accept the apologist view for every other part of this video (I don't, by the way), and even if you accept the possibility that the helicopter didn't identify the occupants as children, you still have to acknowledged that the people from the van posed no threat at that point. They were trying to rescue someone. They didn't have weapons. They weren't firing at anyone.

I don't give a crap that you might have served in the military, that war is hell, etc. And you can argue all you want about "context." But unless we looked a different videos, no one on the ground was firing at anyone. Whatever might have been happening before, or what might have happened after, or what might have been happening on the ground a few blocks away, no one on the ground in this video was firing any weapons. The assertion that RPGs and small arms were found at the scene is irrelevant. They might have been. They might not have been. But no one was using any weapons at the time of this attack. No one's behavior on the ground - in this video - suggested hostile actions. No one was behaving furtively. No one was seeking firing positions. They weren't even looking at or toward the helicopters.

Sure, it's easy to monday morning quarterback. But for crying out loud, listen to those guys in the helicopter. They were begging for permission to shoot. They laughed at the slaughter. They chuckled over one of the bodies being run over by a Bradley.

[Ignis]

26. Not going to happen, but good on you for trying.

:patriot:

[NJmaverick]

39. They were coming to the aid of insurgents

who can clearly be seen with AK47s and RPGs

See for yourself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8100321

[mrs_p]

62. + brazillion

[kath]

152. + a brazillion. (oops - didn't mean to be an echo - posted in anger before I saw Mrs p's post.

[ArcticFox]

34. There was no "fire fight," only a massacre

"Fire fight" wrongly implies there was some opposing force that our "boys" were engaging. There were only civilians showing some reporters around.

I don't know where you heard that RPGs and small arms were found at the scene, but how does that imply that the van's driver knew what was going on? The van showed up some minutes later, and likely did not even witness the cannon fire.

[NJmaverick]

35. You can see the weapons with your own eyes

right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8100321

[no limit]

46. You can see an AK47. Every single person in that country owns an AK47

by calling it a firefight you imply that they fired shots. They didn't fire shit. They were walking down a street taking pictures.

But you are doing what you always do, distracting from the OP. My OP isn't about what happened before they fired the first shots, my OP is about what happened after the good samaritan in the van pulled up to help the wounded. And was killed for it.

[leftstreet]

16. +1

:applause:

[lumpy]

21. Hear hear

x

[paulsby]

29. "makeshift ambulance"

there are reasons we have rules of war, which these insurgents don't follow btw.

that's why we have the RED CROSS symbol, etc. ever watch MASH? the ambulances have... wait for it... RED CROSSES on them to distinguish them

you can call it a makeshift ambulance all you want, but that doesn't mean it appeared so, or is so under the rules of war, in this instance.

also, recall, that red cross workers had to pull OUT of iraq back in the day because, amazingly enough (not) ... they got shot at by iraqis (not following the rules of war)

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/03/2008525184420807678.html

way too much spinnage from you

[no limit]

33. I saw makeshift ambulance because that's exactly what it was

they were using the van to get their wounded to a hospital. They didn't have time to put a red cross on it. The bottom line is there was absolutely no reason to fire at it. NONE!

[NJmaverick]

40. I appreciate someone else that wants to deal in facts

[paulsby]

43. that's how i roll nt

[no limit]

49. Do you have a dictionary infront of you? Look up ambulance. Then google what makeshift means

http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en%7Cen&hl=en&q=ambulance

These people were trying to take the injured to a hosptial in that van. By definition it is an ambulance.

[happyslug]

66. Check your Source, it does NOT say who shot at them

The paragraph that mention being shot at follows:

The major difficulties... were .. that hospitals had been hit directly, also the fact that the Palestine hotel was hit and journalists were hit, it was absolutely beyond the wildest imagination they would have shot at the hotel.

Who shot at the Palestine Hotel? Even the US Military admits it was the US Military.

[TorchTheWitch]

128. they violated the rules of engagement

in both the initial shooting incident and even more so in the incident with the van.

Rules of engagement require that minimal force be used with the goal being to capture for the purpose of interrogation. They used maximum force for no reason in the first shooting incident and disregarded the goal to capture the "enemy" when they were in no immediate danger, were in communication with a large ground force nearby and had plenty of time to objectively assess the situation and come up with a plan that DID follow the rules of engagement.

They further violated the rules of engagement in the second shooting incident with the van as you are not allowed to shoot someone who is sick or injured and out of action which the wounded man clearly was and the people attempting to assist them, and worse, they KNEW it. This is why they LIED when requesting permission to shoot by claiming the individuals from the van who stopped to help Saeed (the wounded man) by claiming they were picking up weapons they very clearly did not and when no weapons were even visible anywhere around them or the van. It's immaterial whether or not the van was civilian, had a red cross on it, or was even present at all. To make matters worse, before requesting permission to shoot these people the person who lied when making that request by claiming they were picking up weapons already verbally confirmed Saeed was UNARMED so there is no falling back on him being confused and believing that he was - he confirmed himself that he already knew Saeed was unarmed and saw for himself the people trying to help Saeed were also unarmed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8094593&mesg_id=8094638
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer on MSNBC Today on Rules Of Engagement:

RATIGAN: "Let me make it really clear, though. From your perspective, were the rules of engagement followed from what you see in this piece of videotape?"

SHAFFER: "Let me be clear... based on what I've seen only, and I'm making it on what I've seen: No, they were not. First rule is 'You may engage persons who commit hostile acts or show hostile intent by minimum force necessary.' Minimum force is the key here. If you see eight armed men, the first thing I would think as an intelligence officer: 'How can we take these guys and capture them?' We don't want to kill people arbitrarily. We want the intell take.

Now, most importantly, when you see that van show up to take away the wounded: 'Do not target or strike anyone who has surrendered or is out of combat due to sickness or wounds.' So the wound part of that, I find a bit disturbing by the fact that you have people down, clearly down; you have people on the way here..."


Incidentally, just because the "enemy" isn't following OUR rules of engagement is no excuse for us to do the same as you certainly seem to be claiming by complaining the "insurgents" in Iraq aren't. That's like saying "so what if we torture prisoners, they do it!" The reason we HAVE rules of engagement is because we're supposed to be civilized enough not to behave in the way we claim the people we fight against do - and we even condemn them as savages for not doing so. And it's ridiculous in the first place to complain the "insurgents" in Iraq aren't following rules of engagement because they DON'T HAVE TO. They're CIVILIANS acting outside any official military with rules of engagement - they're more properly resistance fighters who shouldn't be expected to HAVE any rules of engagement much less follow any, and they most certainly shouldn't be expected to follow OUR rules of engagement.

This attitude from you is so disturbing especially considering that you're a police officer. Do you believe that police officers should be able to ignore their rules of engagement concerning suspected criminals just because actual criminals don't follow them??? That is a REALLY frightening attitude and one that any police officer anywhere that believes it has no damn business being a police officer anywhere.

And furthermore, why are these "insurgents" considered the enemy when we have no damn business even BEING in their country to begin with??? You complain about how they conduct themselves on their own streets and in their own neighborhoods within their own country when WE were the ones to invade them for no fucking reason and have been blasting away at them for years on their own streets and in their own neighborhoods, and even right in their own homes in their own country!

Maybe you should take a closer look at not only this incident in the context of rules of engagement (as WE as an invading and occupying military force are required to do while the civilian resistance fighters are NOT either required nor should be expected to be) but also in the wider context that we have NO FUCKING BUSINESS BEING THERE TO SHOOT AT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!

[golddigger]

131. + 1000000000000000000000

:spray:

[Judi Lynn]

6. This is truly goddawful. Ed Schultz was doing so well during the Health Care discussions.

Hope he can be led to look at the whole video and will amend his remarks.

Really sad to hear this. Thanks for the post.

[tridim]

10. Another casualty of Shuster's "suspension"

MSNBC has been destroyed in two freaking days.

I hope this effect doesn't affect KO and Rachel, but I fear it will.

[Uzybone]

12. Oh so now you realize that MSNBC is corporate news too?

[no limit]

13. I knew this for a long time. But I expected people like Shultz to have some integrity

now I see that was naive of me.

[paulsby]

30. is this how your logic works?

if somebody disagrees with you, they are "corporate"?

could it be that ed schultz offered his analysis and god forbid he doesn't agree with your analysis?

or is it because the CORPORATIONS GOT TO HIM. oh noes!

[Uzybone]

31. You don't even know what I think of Eds' position.

I don't care about his or any other cable "news" blowhards' position on any topic.

I was simply making the case that cable news is corporate through and through. Including MSNBC.

[no limit]

50. So you are saying the story that was on during Ed's show was fair

and a representation of all the facts?

How is that possible when the main aspect of the story wasn't mentioned, that they shot at a van that was trying to help the wounded unprovoked?

[paulsby]

86. no, i'm not saying that

do you need help reading my post?

[no limit]

87. That's exactly what you said. You excused what he did by saying it was his opinion

does that mean when Glenn Beck gives an opinion that Obama is a socialist that's perfectly ok?

If this had anything to do with Shultz opinion then his opinion is wrong. That doens't matter, his job was to report the full story without having his opinion interfere with it. he didn't do that, he ignored the main aspect of the story for whatever reason.

[paulsby]

91. no, it's not what i said

read it again

[Mari333]

17. now that is fucking sad.

knr

[G_j]

122. for me, it is the point at which their integrity meets the litmus test: WAR CRIMES

if you are in that position and you don't report it, you are a tool.
My apologies to people I generally like, such as ED.
If the OP is accurate, then I'm sorry, then Ed is a TOOL.

I hope you read this Ed. A lot of people really like you.
There is no way to sweep this shit under the rug.
It ain't gonna fly.

[disillusioned73]

19. This story was not touched by either..

Rachel or Keith last night - very disappointed in them.

Our "media" is MIA

[NJmaverick]

37. They probably saw this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8100321

[Berry Cool]

53. They don't always cover every story right away.

It doesn't always mean they will never cover it.

They might well be trying to collect more information on this one first.

It never ceases to amaze me when people are disappointed to learn that Keith or Rachel don't always report on a story the second someone here thinks it should be reported upon.

[no limit]

75. You don't think this is an important story?

Again, I didn't watch Keith or Rachel last night. But I would wager a buck they covered Tiger Woods. Amirite?

[disillusioned73]

133. You are correct....

2 days later, and I am still diappointed (disclaimer; I didn't catch ALL of Ratchel) - I guess their still "researching"....

[Better Believe It]

25. "No one has discredited American liberalism more than liberals themselves"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8099964

[dionysus]

137. still peddling hedges latest hysterical horseshit BBI?

:rofl:

[upi402]

27. Schultz was a Republican and is new to the movement.

Even Jon Stewart slammed Grayson and Maddow. Wonder what's up?

[KonaKane]

47. So is Arianna H.

But it doesnt prevent her from blogging up a storm.

[no limit]

52. To be fair Jon Stewert had a point

[Cali_Democrat]

32. Ed Schultz works for General Electric

General Electric is an arms manufacturer. He's protecting the hand that feeds him, suckling on the military industrial complex teet.

[Mari333]

44. you got it.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

dont make waves the bigboys will get you.

corporations need their murderous wars to pay for their yachts homes and bling.

who cares if a couple million babies die in the process...

[dionysus]

138. are KO and maddow corporate GE tools as well?

[KonaKane]

38. Ed Schultz has never impressed me as a real liberal

Maybe Lib lite, like the bluedogs. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

[walldude]

59. He never was.. he was a conservative who couldn't compete with Rushbo

so he switched sides. I know during the primaries he was still using his producer from his wing nut days who is also a wing nut. I heard Ed interview Joe Lieberman during the primary, and it was nothing but Ed kissing Lieberman's ass for half an hour. I stopped listening to him after that. I can't believe he's on TV and Thom Hartmann isn't.

[titoresque]

130. I never could stomach Ed

The first time I heard him on the radio I wondered why he was talking on my liberal channel, it seemed fake. I'm not sure how to pin point it, it was just a few phrases here and there, and the tone in his voice.

[MellowDem]

41. It wasn't an ambulance...

and while they could have added that fact in, it wouldn't really matter with regards to the discussion of the ROE since the pilots had no idea it was a father and small children.

What happened was a tragic accident, perhaps a result of gross negligence and bad decision making, but to try to make it out to be cold blooded murder is just an emotinal kneejerk reaction that ignores reality. I was interested in how the ROE has changed since then, since the general said that that could not happen now with our current ROE. All that was required to open fire in that situation was the guy in the chopper getting permission from some guy who couldn't even see what was going on down there. He's just being told there are insurgents with AK-47s and RPGs up ahead, so of course he will give permission to fire.

Ratigan showed the van and reporters getting shot up, if that's any consolation to you.

[no limit]

48. Yes, this was a makeshift ambulance. Look it up in the dictionary

ambulance /'æmbjʊləns/ - An ambulance is a vehicle for taking people to and from hospital

The van pulled up many minutes after the firing stopped to help a wounded person on the street

it was a public road. These people were never a threat. They just wanted to get the injured out to a hospital. They were killed for it.

[MellowDem]

65. No...

it was just a vehicle. And of course, to the pilots it was a vehicle coming to help suspected insurgents. The fact that it was a public road doesn't mean anything.

Nothing about that vehicle indicated it was for taking people to and from the hospital.

[no limit]

71. ambulance /'æmbjʊləns/ - An ambulance is a vehicle for taking people to and from hospital

dictionary.com. I am not making this up.

What do you mean the fact it was a public road doesn't mean anything? that means everything. Some guy with a van driving with his children ON A PUBLIC ROAD saw an injured person on the ground and got out to help. He got killed for it. What the fuck is wrong with you?

[MellowDem]

82. So if it was on a private road...

how would that be different in this situation? That vehicle was not made for taking people to and from a hospital, unless all vehicles are ambulances, which is the definition you are trying to get at, and which you are bending the Dictionary.com definition to try to fit.

Quoting Dictionary.com doesn't add anything to your argument, it just shows how much you are trying to bend it to fit an emotional narrative.

It doesn't make it any better or worse that it wasn't an ambulance. A lot of innocent people were killed due to mistaken identity and trigger happy pilots.

[no limit]

83. I said makeshift. My definition is dead on. You are trying to distract from the real issue

the real issue being they fired on unarmed civilians trying to help a wounded man. No provocation, no threat. They simply killed him in cold blood.

[MellowDem]

98. Well, you are the one trying to distract from the facts.

You say that they fired on unarmed civilians and there was no provocation or threat. But you say it like the pilots knew that at the time. It was pretty obvious from watching the entire video that the pilots definitely thought there was a threat and that it was insurgents helping a wounded insurgent. It wasn't like they were knowingly killing unarmed civilians. It was a case of mistaken identity and poor decision making, but it wasn't simply knowingly killing unarmed civilians in cold blood.

[no limit]

101. You are making stuff up. The van posed absolutely no threat, the pilots had no reason to believe

that this van posed a threat. The van arrived many minutes after the fact and the people that got out were unarmed trying to help the wounded. There was no reason at all to kill them. You keep ignoring this and trying to change the topic to something else. We are not talking about the initial sighting, we are talking about what happened after the fact much later with the van.

[MellowDem]

121. You don't get it...

that's all your opinion, seperated from the heat of battle, after watching the video several times, and after knowing all the facts. The pilot's own perspective was very different from yours, so of course they won't see what you did or perceive threats the same way. You have the benefit of hindsight.

[Paladin]

125. Yeah, Right. I Heard the Same Feeble Excuses A Few Decades Ago.

Had to do with an incident at a place called My Lai. Lots of "benefit of hindsight" talk back then.....

[MellowDem]

126. Considering we have video of this...

I have a hard time comparing this to My Lai. One involved ground forces, the other a chopper over half a mile from the target.

At one point the pilots zoom in on a woman walking a child. Why didn't they just say she had a dynamite vest on and blast her away as well? I don't think they were trying to kill civilians for the hell of it.

[EFerrari]

55. "It wasn't an ambulance."

:wtf:

[MellowDem]

68. It was just a random vehicle...

obviously. That's why it had a father and children inside, not paramedics. I don't know what could be more obvious. To decribe it as an ambulance is patently false and implies it was an official vehicle properly marked.

[no limit]

72. dictionary.com - ambulance - An ambulance is a vehicle for taking people to and from hospital

[MellowDem]

77. Well then I'm right...

That vehicle obviously was not for taking people to and from the hospital.

Of course, you could say that every vehicle in the world is an ambulance, which is the definition you want I guess? Either way, you are being deliberately obtuse. Calling it an ambulance is an attempt to convey a more sympathetic message, pure and simple. Why not just stick to the facts?

[no limit]

79. What the hell are you talking about? I said "makeshift" did I not?

[MellowDem]

88. You did one time, and not another...

but regardless it doesn't matter. Nothing about that vehicle conveyed it was specifically to help the injured and was a neutral actor, which is the whole point I'm getting at. That's why vehicles get shot up with innocent people in them, because they aren't identified as anything other than a vehicle.

[no limit]

92. An unarmend vehicle that arrived many minutes later to help the injured

by definition a makeshift ambulance, it does not have to be marked. But that completely distracts from the main point. The main point being tjat there was no threat from this vehicle, they killed the people driving it anyway. No provacation, no evidance of insurgent activity, nothing. They were quick to pull the trigger and laughed as they did it. Those people were there to help the wounded, that is it.

Do not ignore this, you are making excuses for the unexcusable. It makes me sick. So I want you to explain why you are doing so.

[MellowDem]

100. I'm not making excuses...

I'm stating the facts. I do think there is a difference from knowingly killing civilians and from killing civilians that you think are insurgents.

[no limit]

102. What reason do you have to believe the people in that van were insurgents?

[MellowDem]

107. I don't...

but the pilots did. Same with the reporters that originally got shot. There was no real evidence that they were insurgents, but that didn't stop them from opening up. Such is warfare from half a mile away through a camera.

[no limit]

108. And that makes it ok? Killing a person unprovoked because you claim there was a reason

What was the reason?

Bush says there was a reason for invading Iraq. I guess that means you believe Bush, right?

[MellowDem]

111. What's with the accusations?

No, I don't think it makes it "ok". But it is different from killing a person for no reason at all. I think it's important to make the distinction to try and prevent future tragedies from the fog of war, which there always will be of course, but better communication can reduce the number of incidents and requiring more evidence than two self-affirming pilot's own eyes through a camera over half a mile away.

If you are trying to imply that the pilot's both knew that they were shooting at unarmed civilians and were both in on a grand "lie" with each other just to shoot some civilians, I will have to say that I don't believe you.

As for Bush, I personally believe he lied or was too stupid to know he was lying and was simply told lies by the people who actually decided policy decisions in his administration. I do think they overstated the case for invasion and lied about certain evidence, but I also think that they truly beieved there was some sort of WMD in Iraq, even if they had no evidence of it. They convinced themselves of it. I don't think they knew there was no WMD and invaded on that reasoning, because that would be pretty stupid considering that the US would eventually find out there was no WMD and it ended up hurting their administration greatly.

[no limit]

114. So what you are saying is Bush didn't lie, he believed what he said

despite all the fucking evidance to the contrary?

You know what I just did? I watched the part of the video where they shot up the van again. The people making the decisions never even were told that weapons were being picked up, all they heard was that they were picking up the wounded. And they ordered to shoot anyway. So now you have to move the goal posts and make a new excuse. I'm listening.

[MellowDem]

118. No I don't...

you are the one that is trying to make this a personal litmus test. You asked the reasoning of the pilots, not the people making decisions, which in this situation basically meant nothing since they couldn't see anything anyways. It was essentially the pilots making the decisions, which was part of the problem.

As for those giving permission to fire, they're put in a bad situation where they have the choice with no real information besides what the pilots are saying. Do they trust the pilots or endanger their men? It's a false choice and the procedure probably needs to change for urban warfare with civilians around.

I'm not giving excuses, you're accusing the pilots of knowingly shooting up civilians and are trying to make your own excuses to fit your accusation.

[no limit]

119. Why did they say the people in the van were picking up weapons when they had no evidance

They saw the same video you and I did. Never was a weapon picked up, all they did was pick up the wounded. So they lied when they said that, totally made it up.

So they lied about that. Then they beg for permission to make the kill? You don't see anything wrong with that?

[MellowDem]

123. They assumed it....

just like they assumed with the reporters etc. I mean, when you are on the position they are, a lot of your decisions will have to be made on assumptions from that far away. They were able to make those decisions from those assumptions and no real evidence, which is the problem, and I definitely see something wrong with that.

They beg for permission to make the kill because they think these guys are insurgents and if they get away they'll get a chance to kill soldiers in the future. Considering the frusterating nature of fighting insurgents, I'm guessing when you them in the crosshairs you want to take them out before they disappear again. Or they beg to make the kill because they're bloodthirsty lunatics playing a video game in their own twisted minds, as you think. I have no real evidence that you aren't right, but neither do you that I'm wrong.

War does desensitize soldiers to killing and death. I imagine many do what these two did, begging the wounded guy to pick up a weapon, laughing at a body getting run over, as a way to deal with the grim reality that they are killing people and maiming them by talking a big game. And if some soldiers have seen a lot, particulary their own guys getting killed by the other side, they simply dehumanize the enemy.

[KonaKane]

61. It certainly was an ambulance.

An ambulance, by any definition, is a vehicle that transports a wounded or sick person to a medical facility for treatment.

I also notice that the copter visuals were good enough to see the faces of a couple of children in the van, which pretty much knocks down the chance that it was an AlQaedamobile in the midst of a military operation, to zero.

[MellowDem]

74. Really?

I don't think the visuals are good enough to notice the children. The picture I've seen don't look like children or anything, it's just hearsay by the people who decided to put an arrow and mark it "children". Not to mention this was after going over the video who knows how many times and not in the heat of battle paying attention to a lot of other things.

So whether or not it was full of insurgents was up in the air to the trigger happy pilots in the video.

Who knows what the father saw happen, but if he knew that chopper was what shot at those men, it would be patently stupid to drive and start helping a group of men who you don't know why they were shot at with the chopper still hovering overhead and with your children with you. That's why I'm guessing the father had no idea the chopper shot them. In fact, I'm guessing the reporters didn't even know who was shooting at them at first.

[no limit]

78. Making a lot of assumptions you have no evidance for. Why?

The evidance we do have is the video. A van pulled up long after the last shots from the apache to help a wounded man on the ground. The person driving that van got killed and his children were severel injured. Those are the facts, anything else is speculation. Why are you so quick to dismiss these vital facts?

[MellowDem]

94. I didn't dismiss any of those facts in my posts...

Though whether it was "long after the last shots from th apache" is a relative idea. The ground troops had not yet cleared the area when the van got there, and was a lot of the reason for hostility from the pilots. I was just speculating what the father was thinking, considering we won't ever have evidence of that, it's the best I can do.

[no limit]

97. It's the best you can do? You are making stupid excuses

you are making the assumption that the father knew those people got killed by a US gunship. You have absolutely no evidance for this, you are pulling it straight out of your ass in an effort to blame the victim. The idea that the van got there many minutes later is not relative, its relevent. It shows that the driver might have never even seen the shots, all he saw was dead and injured bodies and as a result tried to help.

You also have no explaination as to why they fired on that van. There were no weapons, there was no threat. All there was was a man trying to help the wounded. And he got killed for it. Why do you ignore this?

[MellowDem]

105. I said I was guessing...

he didn't know that they got killed by the chopper, because it would have been pretty dangerous to go try to help a group of people that just got shot from a chopper that is still circling overhead.

There was an explanation from the pilots as to why they fired on the van, and it wasn't because they wanted to kill an innocent civilian and severally wound children. It was in the video and was pretty obvious as to why they fired on the van. I don't agree with it, but the pilots did have their reasons.

[no limit]

106. What was the reason? Enlighten me

and the more important question is do you believe the reason? Bush had many reasons for invading Iraq, I don't believe any of them. I guess that made Bush's actions justified as long as he believed, right?

[MellowDem]

109. Did you watch the video?

They said they were picking up the wounded insurgent and weapons. Of course, picking up the weapons made them a threat in the pilot's minds. And they obviously didn't want the wounded insurgent escaping with his insurgent buddies.

I believe that they believe what they saw at the time. I don't personally think they looked like a threat, dismissing I already know that they weren't. But I get to watch the video from the comfort of home and not in a combat situation.

[no limit]

110. Yes, I watched the video (more than once). And they never picked up any weapons. That was a lie

So the question is did you watch the video? Because no, they never picked up a weapon and that is 100% crystal clear from the video. So you want to revise your opinion now?

[MellowDem]

116. I never said they did...

I didn't see them pick up any weapons and I do think that is very clear to me personally. But it is a matter of perspective. The pilots convinced themselves that the van was a threat, as were the reporters. They may have lied about the weapons, or they may have truly convinced themselves that that was what the van was doing, whether they saw it or not. Such are edgy soldiers in tense situations. The idea that the van was helping an "insurgent" made them assume all those other things.

It's kind of hard to know if they were deliberately lying about the weapons. In stressful situations, people will see what they want, and having two people just made it worst, because then it became self-affirming. There was no clear, detached mind there to make sober decisions.

[no limit]

117. They made it up. That's what it boils down to

You can make all the excuses that you want. But in the end when they said they were picking up weapons they were making it up. They had absolutely no evidance of it. Instead they were begging to get permission to shoot to increase their kill / death ratio as if it was some fucking game.

And that's ok with you?

[MellowDem]

120. I'm not making excuses...

You're making accusations and excuses to fit your own point of view. We don't know if they were intentionally lying or not, but you say you have evidence after watching the video several times from the comfort of your home that they were. My opinion is that they truly believed the van was there to pick up the wounded and weapons, despite no real evidence, because that didn't stop them from believing the RPG was a camera, etc. etc. from before. Your opinion is that they knew the van was no threat and said they were picking up weapons just so they could fire, because they want to increase their kill/death ratio like a video game. There is no evidence for either of our opinion's yet as to what the pilot's were truly thinking.

[no limit]

132. Yes, I have evidance for my assertion. They never picked up any weapons

the person on the video that said they did made it up, he lied. When you are talking about life and death you don't make something like that up.

Everything you are saying is speculation, there is no evidance for it. In fact the evidance contradicts what you are saying. THEY NEVER PICKED UP ANY WEAPONS AND THERE WAS NO EVIDANCE TO MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY DID.

[MellowDem]

139. I agree with you...

except for the fact that you don't know what the pilots were thinking. You say that they made it up, but in the heat of battle they may have really thought that was the case. As it is, whether they were picking up weapons or not may not have mattered according to the very loose ROE they were operating on.

[no limit]

141. No I don't know what the pilots were thinking, that's not a defense

you can say that about any murder case out there. You can use that as a defense of Bush's lies to get us in to Iraq. It is not a valid defense. You can use the scenario you hinted at above, that they could have fired at an unarmed civilian if they claimed she had a suicide vest on even if no evidance existed to make such a claim.

What we do have is the video. And the video showed they lied about what they saw and then proceeded to kill those people unprovoked.

[dionysus]

140. could be they thought they were firing on insurgents, and they were wrong. it's a tragedy

how hard is that to grasp?

it's possible they were just trigger happy, and it's possible they thought they were firing on a threat. there is no way for us to know what they were thinking at the time.

[no limit]

143. We have video of exactly what happened. They had no reason to be threatened

the people that got out of the van had no weapons nor did they ever pick up any weapons. They were just helping the wounded.

"we don't know what they were thinking" is a lame cop out. It could be used to justify just about anything, including the war itself.

[DCBob]

42. yes, probably no hope left..

everyone has been corrupted.. you just now realizing that?? LOL!

[matt819]

51. I have to say

Reading many of the posts here, I'd swear I was at FR.

[Berry Cool]

54. Me too. The conspiracy theories are just as bad.

I have no idea why Ed said what he said, but this lefty meme that no journalist who works for a corporation can be trusted because they are all forced or deliberately decide to "obey their corporate masters" is a heap of bullshit that is dragged out every time someone in the MSM expresses an opinion that doesn't agree with someone here. Yawn.

[trumad]

58. There's only about 3 to 4 that see nothing wrong with the video.

[happy_liberal]

56. Maybe this is far fetched...

but is it possible he has a minder that did not show him the entire video? Are they showing the whole thing on TV?

Ed was the only one leading the effort on Impeachment on air. He has been such a great advocate for real health care. I thought we could trust him...

[chrisa]

57. What's worse is, nobody seems to care that.

Two children will never see their father again, because he's going in the ground now, just because he wanted to help somebody who was helplessly attacked from the air. Everybody in America should view this whole video at least once.

[4lbs]

60. Maybe Ed Schultz was more interested in covering current events happening in this country

instead of something that happened 3 years ago, in another country, under the auspices of another administration.

No, forget it. It's easier to simply think of him as some sort of Corporate sellout and GOP lackey. :crazy:


To me, the death threats and anger towards Democratic congresspeople about the HCR bill, the quakes, and the coal mining accident are more important right now.

[Uzybone]

64. as much as I disdain cable news...you are correct

Its not as if we didn't kill civilians during war in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Because this one is on video and involved media staff it is supposed to be a bigger deal than all the other deaths.

[no limit]

89. Except that he did report on this story. Yet his reporting was dishonest

you can't be that naive. Can you?

[grahamhgreen]

63. "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world is my own govt - I can not be silent" MLK, Jr

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Maybe it's not Ed Shultz toeing the corporate line.

Maybe it's actually what happened - a tragic mistake, all too often in war.

[whatchamacallit]

70. Self Delete

Not worth the effort...

[no limit]

73. Then why not mention the children and the van?

[Bolo Boffin]

76. I don't know. You'll have to ask him.

He has email and a Twitter feed, I do believe.

[no limit]

81. What a cop out.You wanna bet if I posted it on twitter or sent an email I would never get a response

I guess we can't really criticise Bush for anything, we would just have to ask him directly by sending him an email. You can't be serious.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. You don't know that. He might.

Maybe he wouldn't. And of course, you're free to say anything you want within the rules.

But yes, I'm serious. If you want to know the reason why he didn't play that footage and deal with it, write him and ask him. I don't know of any more reliable way to find out.

[no limit]

85. If you want me to waste my time I will, I'll write. But if he doesn't write me back?

Will you stop apologizing for him? I think that's a fair enough deal, no?

[Bolo Boffin]

90. Why should I promise you anything on whether Schulz does anything?

You're the one that wants this information, I thought.

[no limit]

93. I didn't think I was the only one that wanted this information. Seems really important.

You don't care how he responds? Remember, we killed an innocent man trying to help the wounded and Ed didn't feel like that was worth a mention. That doesn't mean anything to you?

[Bolo Boffin]

96. You seem intent on associating me with Ed's lack of response.

I don't know Ed. I can't read his mind. If you want your information, you need to ask Ed. That's your only chance of knowing.

ETA: Changed a word in the title - too strong.

[no limit]

99. Thats a bunch of bullshit. Im not blaming you for ed's lack of repsonse

I'm blaming you for your dumb excuses. Yes, I can waste my time writing an email. But I will never get an honest response, so I don't feel like wasting my time. If you honestly believe that I will get a response I'll write him, but if I don't I want you to make me some gurantees so my time isn't wasted for anything. Those gurantees being that you'll admit Ed isn't credible. Deal?

[Bolo Boffin]

103. I have changed the language. It was too strong.

Regardless, I have no controls over Ed. I can't issue you any guarantees to his response. It frankly boggles my mind that you would even think I could.

You want to know why he did what he did or not. You have one suggested avenue to discover this. You can walk down that road if you want.

This is not a dumb excuse. This is reality. I have no control over Ed.

[no limit]

104. But the fact you believe he will actually respond is insane to me

But I'll play, I'll write the stupid email if you can make me some gurantees. I need to waste my time to do this, the least you could do is tell me if you will continue to trust him if he doesn't respond. Deal?

[Bolo Boffin]

113. I will not make you any promises or guarantees based on his actions.

No, I will not. No. No. No.








































No.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oilwellian]

135. Ah yes, a tragic mistake all too often in war

Our killing women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan is just a "tragic" part of war. We've seen very little real time coverage of the occupations in Iraq & Afghanistan. There have been hints like the Abu Ghraib & Fallujah photos, but for the most part, Americans are completely desensitized and ignorant of the horrors taking place in those countries we occupy. Our media has failed us completely and that includes ALL of those on MSNBC. This video is one of those rare moments caught on tape, where Americans can see how our military operates every day of the week in those lands we occupy. This video is a clue as to why we are becoming more and more hated, not only in the Middle East, but all over the world.

I can't understand why any progressive would excuse the military's behavior toward the civilian populations. Perhaps you can live with the bulls eye this paints on OUR country, but I personally prefer to expose their war crimes and not poo poo them or cover them up. Another story comes to mind, our special forces digging the bullets out of the civilians they massacred in Afghanistan, all to cover up their crime. I suppose that too, is just a "tragic mistake all to often in war." Please. Enough. I've had enough of this "good German" mentality being spewed on DU of all places.

Glenn Greenwald said it best:

The more I think about it, the more astounding I find it that there could even be a debate over the fact that incidents like the one depicted on this video are exceedingly common, and not at all rare (let alone that vile "He-Hates-The-Troops!" smears would be directed at those who point out this basic truth). Aside from the mountains of evidence making it undeniably clear how common such events are -- (a) the enormous number of dead civilians in Iraq; (b) the countless incidents where the U.S. military killed large numbers of civilians, lied about it, and then was forced by investigations to admit the truth; (c) the definitive statements from war correspondents and even our own soldiers about how common such incidents are -- just consider what Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of the war in Afghanistan, said not more than a month ago:

In a stark assessment of shootings of locals by US troops at checkpoints in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal said in little-noticed comments last month that during his time as commander there, "We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force . . . . o my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it."

What rational person can maintain that incidents like the one in the Iraq video are extraordinary and rare when the top General in Afghanistan is stating publicly that -- even in Afghanistan, where avoidance of civilian casualties is a claimed top priority -- we're shooting an "amazing number" of completely innocent people, including "families"? Do you think if we had videos of those checkpoint shootings (or the countless air attacks on civilians) that they would be any less appalling than what we see in the one WikiLeaks released? McChrystal's comments were reported in The New York Times and yet barely caused a ripple. Why? Because this is what war is; it's what we do when we invade and occupy other countries. It's hard to express the blinding jingoistic delusion necessary to insist -- in the face of this mountain of evidence and dead civilians left in the wake of our wars -- that the Apache attack is some sort of rare or exceptional event. That's why the military concluded that what happened in this Apache attack (including the shooting of unarmed rescuers) is consistent with U.S. military policy: because it is.

Glenn Greenwald provides many links

[Greyhound]

69. Hey, Ed's hit the big-time. You don't think they give away TeeVee shows to anybody

that doesn't agree to "play ball" up front, do you? You're living in a pre-9/11 world.

[senseandsensibility]

80. Have Keith or Rachel covered this?

I am disappointed to hear this about Ed, but not totally surprised.

[TexasObserver]

95. MSNBComcast

Comcast is a very right leaning company.

[branders seine]

112. he did an overnight 180 on the medical insurance bailout too.

[The Gunslinger]

124. That's when I stopped listening to him.

[branders seine]

142. he wasn't alone

Maddow and Olbermann also dropped all their criticism of the shortcomings of the bill overnight.

[The Gunslinger]

148. And the Stephanie Miller Show as well

And I'm not happy about it.

[Maat]

144. That's when I stopped listening to him, too.

I cancelled my subscription to the archives.

[branders seine]

145. I tuned out most of the 'mainstream progressive' media then.

It was totally an invasion-of-the-body-snatchers moment. Good people replaced with pod people while we were sleeping.

[Maat]

149. Exactly.

What has the world come to (shaking my head)?

[democrat2thecore]

129. Nobody wants to offend Israel - the country we're REALLY fighting these wars for. nt

[G_j]

134. Att Ed: Murdered Samaritan's 2 Children Speak Out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x452475

[defendandprotect]

147. The other day, Schultz was whitewashing Tiger . . . disgusting . . .

on and on about how he should be forgiven -- how he had taken responsibility!

A ton of bull --

And really disappointing to hear you report this -- didn't hear any of his show today!

Wow!

[Rex]

150. They cannot admit to war crimes, it would shatter so many peoples

false hopes that we don't.