You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
Military Investigating Report of Marine Shooting Wounded "Prisoner"
2004-11-16
This is the most detailed story of this incident I've seen. It's getting major play by the MSM. It's also another reason to be glad we didn't sign on to the World Court nonsense. I'm sure a lot of groups would already be demanding this Marine be charged with war crimes.
The U.S. military is investigating the videotaped fatal shooting of a wounded and apparently unarmed Iraqi prisoner by a U.S. Marine in a mosque in Fallujah, a Marine spokesman said. The dramatic footage was taken Saturday by pool correspondent Kevin Sites of NBC television, who said three other prisoners wounded a day earlier in the mosque had also apparently been shot the next day by the Marines. The incident played out as the Marines 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment, returned to the unidentified Fallujah mosque Saturday. Sites was embedded with the unit. Sites reported that a different Marine unit had come under fire from the mosque on Friday. Those Marines stormed the building, killing 10 men and wounding five, Sites said. The Marines said the fighters in the mosque had been armed with rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47 rifles. The Marines had treated the wounded, he reported, left them behind and continued on Friday with their drive to retake the city from insurgents who have been battling U.S.-led occupation forces in Iraq with increasing ferocity and violence in recent months. The same five men were still in the mosque on Saturday, Sites reported.
Point number one, they had been treated and then left behind with no supervision.
On the video, as the camera moved into the mosque during the Saturday incident, a Marine can be heard shouting obscenities in the background, yelling that one of the men was only pretending to be dead.
Point number two, this is a different group of Marines. They had never seen these terrorists before and didn't know their condition.
"He's (expletive) faking he's dead!"

"Yeah, he's breathing," another Marine is heard saying.

"He's faking he's (expletive) dead!" the first Marine says.
The video then showed a Marine raising his rifle toward a prisoner lying on the floor of the mosque. The video shown by NBC and provided to the network pool was blacked out at that point and did not show the bullet hitting the man. But a rifle shot could be heard. "He's dead now," a Marine is heard saying. The shooting is shown so quickly that it is impossible to tell whether the body was moving before the shot. The only movement which can be seen is the body flinching at the moment the bullet hits. The camera then shows two Americans pointing weapons at another Iraqi lying motionless. But one of the Marines steps back as the man stretches out his hand, motioning that he is alive. The other Marine stands his ground, but neither of them fires.
Point number three, the Marines didn't blindly shoot up everyone, only the individual who they thought posed a threat.
The blacked out portion of the videotape, provided later to Associated Press Television News and other members of the network pool, showed the bullet striking the man in the upper body, possibly the head. His blood splatters on the wall behind him and his body goes limp.
"He's dead, Jim"
Sites reported a Marine in the same unit had been killed just a day earlier when he tended to the booby-trapped dead body of an insurgent.
Point number four, we are dealing with a enemy who are known to wear explosive belts for the express purpose of getting close to their enemy and killing them.
NBC reported that the Marine seen shooting the wounded Iraqi had himself been shot in the face the day before, but quickly returned to duty.
Point five, these Marines have been in close quarters combat for about a week. They are operating at a extreme level of awareness, looking for any movement that could be a threat.
A spokesman at Marine Corps headquarters in the Pentagon, Maj. Doug Powell, said the incident was "being investigated." He had no further details, other than to confirm the incident happened on Saturday and that the Marines involved were part of the 1st Marine Division. On Tuesday, the U.S. military said the 1st Marine Division is investigating an allegation of the unlawful use of force in the death of an enemy combatant in Fallujah during combat operations Saturday. The Marine has been withdrawn from the battlefield pending the results of the investigation, the U.S. military said.
Just great, now every Soldier and Marine is going to be second guessing themselves, wondering if they shoot someone are they going to be brought up on charges. And some will wait too long and die.
"We follow the law of armed conflict and hold ourselves to a high standard of accountability," said Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, commanding general of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. "The facts of this case will be thoroughly pursued to make an informed decision and to protect the rights of all persons involved." The International Committee of the Red Cross, which is mandated to uphold the Geneva Conventions on warfare, had no immediate comment, said spokeswoman Rana Sidani. She said she was trying to contact ICRC representatives in Iraq to find out what they had been able to determine about the case. The Third Geneva Convention, the section of the 1949 treaty that applies to prisoners of war, says "persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat (out of combat) by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely." It adds that "the wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for."
Which section covers wounded and sick who blow themselves up?
The judge advocate general heading the investigation, Lt. Col. Bob Miller, told NBC News that depending on the evidence, it could be reasonable to conclude the Marine was acting in self-defense. "The policy of the rules of engagement authorize the Marines to use force when presented with a hostile act or hostile intent," Miller said. "So they would have to be using force in self-defense, yes. Any wounded - in this case insurgents - who don't pose a threat would not be considered hostile." Charles Heyman, a senior defense analyst with Jane's Consultancy Group in Britain, defended the Marine's actions, saying it was possible the wounded man was concealing a firearm or grenade. "You can hear the tension in those Marines' voices. One is showing, 'He's faking it. He's faking it,'" Heyman said. "In a combat infantry soldier's training, he is always taught that his enemy is at his most dangerous when he is severely wounded." If the injured man makes even the slightest move, "in my estimation they would be justified in shooting him."
I would have shot him then, and I'd do it again tomorrow.
The events on the videotape began as some of the Marines from the unit accompanied by Sites approached the mosque on Saturday, a day after it was stormed by other Marines. Gunfire can be heard from inside the mosque, and at its entrance, Marines who were already in the building emerge. They are asked by an approaching Marine lieutenant if there were insurgents inside and if the Marines had shot any of them. A Marine can be heard responding affirmatively. The lieutenant then asks if they were armed and fellow Marine shrugs.
Point number six, they did not know if the insurgents were armed or not. They were also not told they were alive or dead.
Sites' account said the wounded men, who he said were prisoners and who were hurt in the previous day's attack, had been shot again by the Marines on the Saturday visit. The videotape showed two of the wounded men propped against the wall and Sites said they were bleeding to death. According to his report, a third wounded man appeared already dead, while a fourth was severely wounded but breathing. The fifth was covered by a blanket but did not appear to have been shot again after the Marines returned. It was the fourth man who was shown being shot.

Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera showed the unabridged version of the Fallujah mosque shooting tape, complete with one name visible on a backpack and the faces of the Marines, which were not shown on U.S. networks. There was no immediate comment on the tape from Middle Eastern governments because of a Muslim holiday. The CNN broadcast of the pictures obscured parts of the video that could lead to public identification of the Marines involved. NBC's Robert Padavick told members of the U.S. television pool that the Pentagon had ordered NBC and other pool members to make sure the Marine's identity was hidden because "they (the military authorities) are anticipating a criminal investigation as a result of this incident and do not want to implicate anybody ahead of that." In New York, NBC spokeswoman Allison Gollust said the network did not broadcast the prisoner being shot because of its "graphic nature."
My judgment, fully justified shooting.
Posted by:Steve

#41  Despite your protests, you are a "gotcha reporter"
why don't you go back to Iraq, maybe you'll have your face shot off, and then you can come back and blab about how forgiving you feel. You could have reported your concerns to the Commandant, but you wanted the notoriety, so you and your cretinous network could blab about the incident ad nauseam.

Posted by: Clavinter Angiling2549   2004-11-22 2:20:01 PM  

#40  Tibor, I appreciate your scepticism for my admittedly extreme statement of my opinion, but here's my view in more detail: 1) I have a certain amount of nostalgia for the old ways of reporting. In WWII, and to a lesser extent even in later wars, the press made some attempt to act "responsibly" in terms of what it felt was wise to publicize. Situations which were morally ambiguous, and where displaying them would give only comfort and/or fuel for the enemy, were wisely overlooked. The press makes decisions every day about what information should or should not be reported. They have disavowed that role in war, and I belive that decision is wrong. 2) Sites admits that he had to consciously disregard his impulses to side with his countrymen. Perhaps some might consider this "pure" reporting, but I don't agree. I give Sites enough credit that I think his impulse to side with the American forces was an objective realization that we are fighting for the ultimate good in Iraq. His rejection of these feelings, however, is a surrender to coercion from those who would equate our side with the side of the terrorists. I don't believe in moral equivalency. There is almost always a good side and a bad side, and we are on the side of good in this conflict. If Sites considers himself neutral, then I believe that he has lost his way, at the least, and has obviously done harm to his country. I don't believe that he consciously betrayed his country. He almost certainly believed that he was doing what was right, though, just as traitors usually do (unless they're motivated by money). But he seems to have felt that he was serving a higher interest than loyalty to his country, in a situation that was not so black and white that he had a clear moral imperative. I consider that, if not "treason" in the legal sense, being a traitor to his country just the same.
Posted by: angryinIowa   2004-11-17 12:21:54 AM  

#39  AngryinIowa wrote: "Kevin Sites is a traitor."

Hey, I like hyperbole as much as the next guy. In fact, I like it more than the next 1 billion guys. But for a reporter to show what happened even in a questionable incident like this is a far cry from traitorous. You can question his motives, his politics, etc., but how is this traitorous?

I hate to sound like a shill for Kevin Sites, but I just don't think he's the anti-American character some have made him out to be.
Posted by: Tibor   2004-11-16 11:15:35 PM  

#38  A poster said it all on a LeftBlog, in paraphrase - there will be no more wars around the world if America became the "People's Republic of America".
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2004-11-16 8:18:27 PM  

#37  I would've shot him - once your personal survival intincts kick in, and you realize the enemy will still kill you no matter how reasonable you are, it comes down to your life versus his. Under that kind of pressure/reality no infantry grunt, Army or Marine, is gonna care what some REMF civilian or military bureaucrat, reporter, or politician whose not being shot at has to say about his decision to kill, only his fellow soldiers. The ult job of the infantry is close-in ground combat, to close in and destroy your country's enemy in close quarters violent combat or otherwise immediately and decisively change the enemy's willingness/ability to fight - combatant and noncombatant civilian wounded will generally be cared for only after an area is finally cleared and secured from enemy forces. Depending on the magnitude of the Iraqi's body movement(s) and my split-second comprehension of his intent, I MIGHT consider wounding him in the legs - anything else he's dead meat/worm food. The Marines received fire from this area/position, and have had numerous encounters with booby-trapped bodies and suicide bombers during their combat tenure. Remember also, the US delivered 000's of flyers and other methods warning civilians of pending operations/action - the only reason for women, children, and elderly to be there is because the insurgents intend to use them as PC "human shields", for political/media purposes.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2004-11-16 8:13:32 PM  

#36  Kevin Sites is a traitor. This was not "news" in any sense. It was sensationalism. Why not just imbed reporters from Al-Jazeera? They couldn't be any more anti-American than NBC's coverage. Reporting like this only stirs up Muslim hostility, thereby prolonging the current war of civilizations. The soldier was unquestionably correct in his actions. The insurgents do not follow ANY rules of combat, and have shown repeatedly that they pose a threat at all times. If the insurgent who was shot had lived to detonate a grenade, the deaths of the soldiers in that room would not even be deemed worthy of coverage, because the insurgents use such tactics all the time. Of course, NBC would have given a hero's memorial to Sites, probably even wondering why the soldiers had not done an adequate job of protecting him. The military should not be browbeaten by the media into making this soldier a sacrifice for public relations. Everybody knows he was right, and if he is punished in any way, there should be a tremendous outcry by all Americans.
Posted by: angryinIowa   2004-11-16 7:34:47 PM  

#35  Sites is right to say "I am not one of them." He couldn't measure up to the standards of the Marines. He seems to want to prepare himself for his reentry into the stateside MSM by finding "Ghengis Khan" style atrocities so the MSM can run the old Viet Nam antiwar playbook. If he keeps it up, he may find an RPG up his ass, just like in Viet Nam.
Posted by: RWV   2004-11-16 4:08:32 PM  

#34  God bless this marine.

Posted by: Crusader   2004-11-16 3:55:47 PM  

#33  When the embed program started, who could have predicted the press was on the other side?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-11-16 3:54:55 PM  

#32  JK shot a man in the back who was fleeing.
Posted by: eLarson   2004-11-16 3:36:32 PM  

#31  Didn't Kerry get a Bronze Star for doing the same thing?
Posted by: sam   2004-11-16 3:15:12 PM  

#30  maybe it's time for the soldiers to consider themselves soldiers first. Shoot combatants first, journalists second.
Posted by: pissed   2004-11-16 2:44:46 PM  

#29  Cyber Sarge...Thank God we waited until AFTER the election to go into Fallujah. Otherwise we'd have to listen to Kerry drone on and on about how: "If I had been President, I would have been in direct communication with that Marine, and would have been reminding him that we were trying to fight a more SENSITIVE war!"
Posted by: Justrand   2004-11-16 2:29:42 PM  

#28  Has anyone in the LLL MSM connect this soldier with the Bush Administration? You know it’s only a matter of time when they will claim that Rummy directed that the Marines take no prisoners. If that young man even felt the miniscule amount of danger, he was completely justified in his actions. It’s my understanding that this unit had been ambushed by some Jihadis playing possum or pretending to surrender. If true, what else was the Marine supposed to do, wait until they shoot first or blow them up? This is NOT New York City and if you see a bad guy you have to kill the bad guy. It’s called warfare.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2004-11-16 2:23:52 PM  

#27  Hi, bomb-a-rama:

Given the circumstances that there had been booby-trapped bodies left behind in Fallujah. Plus buildings and Ammo Dumps (Mosques) booby-trapped to kill Marines and GIs.

The saftey of the Marine in question (who had been wounded in a previous battle) and his fellow Marines has precedence over everything else.

I've a feeling there is going to be another Lt. Colonel West "Blog-alanche" of support for this Marine and against the Touchy-Feely Blue State Elitist "Old Media" over this one!

Jack.
Posted by: Jack Deth   2004-11-16 1:08:02 PM  

#26  The only question that matters: were the jihadis taking any prisoners at all?

Tit for tat, baby.
Posted by: mojo   2004-11-16 12:59:05 PM  

#25  Well said 2b in #2. I am sick of the hate-America left. The MSM are unbelievable. But, when a dog urinates on a fire hydrant, he's not committing vandalism, he's just being a dog.
Posted by: SR71   2004-11-16 12:23:22 PM  

#24  My guess is over the next week or two several 'journalists' will complain about clumbsy Marines/soldiers breaking their tapes/storage media. I hope it happens accidentally.
Posted by: badanov   2004-11-16 12:19:15 PM  

#23  Another point...this incident is now being spun as a marine having shot an unarmed prisoner. As stated this was a second group of marines, the Iraqis were NOT prisoners. They were not in custody, but rather were in the process of being taken into custody by the 2nd group - someone correct me if I'm wrong. This whole thing stinks. The soldiers might as well learn it now...that embed is most likely not your friend. Again, most Americans can smell this and it's only gonna end up making the shill networks look worse. Now the UN wants to investigate, but of course noone cares about the butchered woman's body found yesterday....not a friggin' word.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2004-11-16 12:16:48 PM  

#22  There is too little known to judge.

I'll say. But I'll also add this: even attempting to apply non-combatant morality to this Marine's actions would be unfair. He had to make a split-second decision, one that could have meant either life or death for him. The nature of the enemy our soldiers face in Iraq and that enemy's willingness to employ any method available to inflict casualties (including the use of suicide attacks) dictates that no assumptions should ever be made about safety or intentions. The operation in Fallujah is NOT a police action; it's a WAR, and in war, if you don't kill the enemy, he just might kill you. That Marine did what he felt he had to do, and that's good enough for me.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-11-16 12:08:11 PM  

#21  I have no problem with the reporter reporting what he believes to be the truth. I have no problem with that at all.

What I have a problem with is the delight that the MSM is all over this story like a fly on poop. No understanding for the stress of combat, no understanding for the fact that he may have had a suicide belt. No. Just a poor, poor jihadi murdered by a cold blooded soldier.

You know, excuse me for the rhetorical excess, but that soldier put a bullet into two lost causes - a jihadi who'se sense of worthlessness was channeled into murder and a MSM whose hate was exposed in the reporting of this event.

May they both rest in peace.
Posted by: 2b   2004-11-16 11:54:42 AM  

#20  Kill all terrorist, then the reporter. NP
Posted by: sam   2004-11-16 11:53:10 AM  

#19  The only reason everyone is assuming it's a prisoner who was alive then killed is that Sites claims so. I have seen no independent account that leads me to believe his story is correct. In fact, it is highly suspicious.

Why would prisoners be left in a mosque? why would they still be there but mostly shot the next day? and why would the marines not know about them, if they truly are prisoners?

I don't believe the context story, and I applaud the soldier who shot a man who was faking being dead. Prisoners are expected to demonstrate their lack of weapons and willingness to surrender -- else they are NOT prisoners but SIMPLY enemies to be killed.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2004-11-16 11:47:32 AM  

#18  Last night I posted the following comment on RB: "Hey, we should give Kevin Sites a break on this. He seems to have reported what he saw. This guy has balls of brass and is hardly anti-military. In Afghanistan he saved some lives with his quick thinking. The SF guys said so in "The Hunt For Bin Laden." Also, his blog, www.kevinsites.com, is pretty good. I think there are numerous mitigating circumstances, but shouldn't we allow for the possibility that this kid did a bad thing?"

To that A Jackson replied: Somehow, I'm not quite as willing to give him a break when I read stuff like this at Kevin Sites blog:

So in some ways, embedded in this unit, I begin to feel I've betrayed the people that depend on me to be skeptical; to question the dominant powers and institutions of my nation and the actions it undertakes in the name of its citizens. I am not a military or American cheerleader, not a mouthpiece signed on to some institutional agenda whether I believe in it or not. I am here to ask the hard questions of the people who make the hardest decisions; ones that result in people dying or people being killed. I must remember as one journalist advised, "write in your notepad every day 'I am not one of them.'"

I don't have a problem with Sites saying "I am a journalist and not a US soldier." He should be skeptical and objective and fair. That means telling both sides of the story, not reflexively taking the pro-American position (or the anti-American position). If you look at his website (www.kevinsites.net -- I had it as .com last night) I think that you will see that he presents a pretty realistic portrait of life during war time for US soldiers and Marines and for Iraqis and Afghans.

Finally, I note the extreme irony in this nugget from Sites' bio: "Sites now runs his own production company, Shoot First Films, from his home in Pismo Beach, California."
Posted by: Tibor   2004-11-16 11:45:15 AM  

#17  oh gosh.. I really don't wish that. I feel bad I said it. It may be true, but I don't wish that type of ill will on anyone. :-(
Posted by: 2b   2004-11-16 11:26:28 AM  

#16  The MSM needs a real heart to heart talk with the members of the Greatest Generation who did the island hopping campaign against Japan in WWII. I'm sure they'd be shocked, shocked to discover their dads and granddads didn't take too many prisoners regardless of the situation.
Posted by: Don   2004-11-16 11:23:56 AM  

#15  terrorists are nothing but organized serial killers. When oh when will they realize that the best media attention they could ever hope to acquire would be to attack the BBC or NPR or other left wing idiots. The Robert Fisk's of the world would give them ENDLESS play. They would wring their hands, wonder why they hate them and replay it for MONTHS, perhaps even YEARS. If you are going out in a blaze of glory - why not make the big splash?

These jihadi's just want attention and to be noticed in their miserable lives. Do they not see this easy avenue to achieve it?
Posted by: 2b   2004-11-16 11:20:54 AM  

#14  The only way to get this off the front page is to give the MSM something else to chew on. For example, having the Marines build a pyramid of human skulls on whatever's left of the Falluja town square.
Posted by: Matt   2004-11-16 11:08:24 AM  

#13  Just to put this into context...do you remember the following?

Guerrillas Kill Dozens of Unarmed Iraqi Soldiers// (Baghdad)
Originally published Monday, October 25, 2004
Los Angeles Times

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- In the deadliest ambush yet on Iraq's armed forces, guerrillas killed dozens of unarmed Iraqi soldiers, many apparently forced onto their stomachs and shot execution-style along a remote eastern highway near the Iranian border, Iraqi officials said Sunday.

Estimates of the death toll from the Saturday incident ranged from three dozen to 51.

Iraqi officials said gunmen disguised in Iraqi military uniforms stopped the U.S-trained soldiers as they rode home in a convoy of minibuses Saturday evening. The soldiers, who had just completed boot camp in Kirkush and were starting home leave, had rolled up to a phony checkpoint just after nightfall, officials said.

The young recruits were pulled off the buses, forced to lie prone in rows of 12, ordered to place their hands on their heads and methodically executed...
This story got one day of press...then disappeared.
Posted by: RN   2004-11-16 10:50:17 AM  

#12  I'm curious, it would seem to me that if there was The first group of Marines should have dealt with the wounded one way or the other instead of leaving them to bleed out.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2004-11-16 10:48:32 AM  

#11  while the GC may not apply, US military law DOES, and it should, in circumstances like this. There is too little known to judge. Im glad our military is taking the matter seriously and investigating - thats what sets us apart from them.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-11-16 10:47:31 AM  

#10  I posted this on the other thread (bit I still agree with myself :) )

The Marines need to conduct an incredibly swift investigation (1 day), a quick review of findings (1 hour) and LOUD re-instatement of this brave young man (15 minute Press conference). Hell...take an extra 20 minutes and PROMOTE HIM!!
Posted by: Justrand   2004-11-16 10:45:47 AM  

#9  #1 - Kevin Sites better watch himself. No marine will do it for him now.
#2 - This story is taking my dislike of the MSM and turning it into a hardened, bitter, hatred.
#4 - Let the friggin reporter check all the bodies from now on. If one of them is faking and blows his ass away, well, file charges in the monkeyass ICC against the terrorist.
#5 - As for Mr. Sites, I have an assignment for him...let's see....pool reporter at Zaeqawi's next hostage hideaway.
#6 - A reasonable expectation is that the media will beat this to death a la Abu Grabass.
#7 - The only premeditation is the desire to remain alive…

Now that all the good thoughts have been expressed...

I will add my own recap & crude remarks

A) Accused Marine shot previous day...
B) Homicide bomber playing dead killed others within the hour nearby...
C) Marines being shot at from mosque before entry...
D) Embedded reporter bad idea. He should leave. #1 above...
E) MSM making trouble for this guy? Fire Brian Williams before he gets the chair warm. His opening is worthy of AFP/BBC...
F) Boycott all evening MSM broadcasts, since they are agents for a foreign entity...
G) Is the Marine getting any legal help? (which he should never have had to think about.)
H) F the MSM..F the MSM..F the MSM..F the MSM..
Posted by: BigEd   2004-11-16 10:43:34 AM  

#8  I'm waiting for the stories of how the deader ran a farm for orphaned baby ducks...
Posted by: Seafarious   2004-11-16 10:43:33 AM  

#7  Let me know when Zaqawi or OBL sign the Geneva Convention. Until then all this GC talk is academic.
Posted by: Dar   2004-11-16 10:38:01 AM  

#6  Over the past 18 months the training of quasi-military units in the US has included both 'active-shooter' and "threat-identification and reduction" scenarios. It's most difficult to get law enforcement type personnel to put aside years of "halt...police...put your hands up!" training and replace it with a TIR response.

Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain (MOUT). are the most hazardous conducted by our military. A former Commandant of the USMC put it this way.

"In one moment in time, our service members will be feeding and clothing displaced refugees - providing humanitarian assistance. In the next moment, they will be holding two warring tribes apart - conducting peacekeeping operations. Finally, they will be fighting a highly lethal mid-intensity battle. All on the same day, all within three city blocks. It will be what we call the three block war."
- General Charles Krulak, USMC

The insurgents, terrorists, enemy combatants…whatever, are not covered under the Geneva Convention. Sometimes it’s the time and place that dictates the actions of the servicemen. The only premeditation is the desire to remain alive…the strongest drive among humans.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Posted by: RN   2004-11-16 10:25:12 AM  

#5  It's getting major play by the MSM

This is an understatement. One of the local news channels started off their telecast with this particular subject last night. A reasonable expectation is that the media will beat this to death a la Abu Grabass.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-11-16 10:24:35 AM  

#4  I retired 14 years too soon. If I was that Marine's commander, I would pin a medal on him. As for Mr. Sites, I have an assignment for him...let's see....pool reporter at Zaeqawi's next hostage hideaway. He'll lose his head over that scoop. MSM disgust me.
Posted by: TerrorHunter4Evr   2004-11-16 10:21:38 AM  

#3  Let the friggin reporter check all the bodies from now on. If one of them is faking and blows his ass away, well, file charges in the monkeyass ICC against the terrorist. Cuz that will show 'em.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats   2004-11-16 10:16:16 AM  

#2  This story is taking my dislike of the MSM and turning it into a hardened, bitter, hatred.

They have ignored these soldiers and all that they have faced and the heroic acts that they have performed. They have ignored all the good they have done - we never EVER see footage of that. The best we get are stories of wounded soldiers whose stories are truly inspiring. MSM can handle that, because it gets out the point that they were wounded or better yet, killed - which they just seem to delight in.

Now they get this footage and they are all over it 24/7. They are so transparent and so freaking shallow. May they rot in hell.

There was a story on Instapundit today about Tom Brokaw being booed by the Sooners. Apparently it was because of a speech he gave earlier at a commencement. I read the speech transcript on Free Republic - and I failed to see what was so offensive about it. But I think it's just that Tom Brokaw is associated with the MSM and we peasants are beginning to despise them one and all. At least that's how the MSM and "liberal self-annointed elite" see us, as peasants. Aren't they in for a big reality shock?

Posted by: 2b   2004-11-16 10:01:24 AM  

#1  as commented yesterday - Kevin Sites better watch himself. No marine will do it for him now. Fully justified - agreed. MSM better watch their ass on this one - it has a chance to really have a backlash among the public
Posted by: Frank G   2004-11-16 9:37:02 AM  

00:00