Fox News ABHORRED MoveOn.Org for implying that General Petreaus' integrity might be suspect.

But now, that tempest over, they have their own agenda to follow and Glenn Greenwald pointed it out:

Bill O'Reilly's favorite Military Towel Boy, Colonel David Hunt got to do a "Ready, Aim -- About Face -- FIRE" hit job on the Geneva Convention with this piece:

"Top Military Officials are a Disgrace to Those They Lead"

Greenwald's relevant comments interspersed:

Our generals are betraying our soldiers . . . again.
(Greenwald's introductory comment: To accuse a general of "betrayal" is, in military parlance, the equivalent of accusing him of treason to his country. Yet that is what this Fox News article does in the very first paragraph with regard to many of our brave Generals risking their lives for our country in a Time of War -- and it not only accuses Our Military Commanders of "betrayal," but betrayal of their own troops. It continues in this same Despicable vein:)

Col. Hunt's Text:
Our generals in both the Army and Marine Corps have cared more about their precious careers and reputations than their soldiers and Marines under them. The Marines have actually prosecuted a Marine for shooting a terrorist too many times . . . .

In Iraq, the story is the same. The Army rediscovered a trick we used in 'Nam' called "baiting," where you leave ammunition and pieces of explosive devices out and shoot whoever takes them. We used to leave exploding ammo to put in your AK -- when you try to fire it, the gun blows up. It worked then and it works now . . . but guess what the Army is now putting on trial: Ranger Snipers for doing their jobs. The rules of engagement were once again being followed and once again our generals put their careers over their men's lives. The chilling effect that these actions have over our soldiers is dramatic; this distrust weakens the very foundations of our military. It causes soldiers to second-guess themselves and their chain of command. We cannot fight like this and hope to win.

We should be putting these generals on trial, first for going along with Rummy and just as important for not trusting their soldiers. . . .

These poor excuse for officers do not deserve the soldiers they dare claim they lead.


And my comment, as posted to the Greenwald blog --

What's the difference between this and the Petraeus ad?

The difference?

The Petreaus ad ASKED A QUESTION -- DID (or WILL) the general betray us?

FOX news doesn't ask, it throws down in no uncertain terms (the way a bunch of neocon tough talking heads who somehow never managed to serve in the military can) that THOSE GENERALS WHO WOULD INTERFERE WITH OUR LINE SOLDIERS' RIGHT TO COMMIT WAR CRIMES are TRAITORS.

This is a more or less traditional kind of military crime.

In post-truce Korea, it was a way to break the monotony of guard duty -- Marines in the towers on the DMZ would wave cartons of cigarettes to N. Koreans on the other side, wave to them cheerily, in a friendly fashion to cross the Deadline, as if to say "Come on -- we know you're not a spy or a soldier, just some poor farmer."

And -- according to my fencing partner in college, the ex-Marine who told me about what he and the other guards used to do to relieve the boredom, would, of course, blow the peasant away as soon as he took one step into the free-fire zone of the DMZ. (I didn't go into combat when my turn came around, although we DID shoot across the estuary at the sailors when doing guard duty at MCRD San Diego. But they were armed and did the same to us. But that was for fun, just fooling around with live ammo.)

It was criminal behavior then and it's criminal behavior now. But in the age of cell-phones and other video cameras, we're seeing an evolutionary imperative in war crimes -- ONLY the more intelligent thoughtful criminal will be able to get away with it. (Hey, Nixon was a smart guy, but he didn't understand how tape recorders and Xerox machines changed the crook's universe.)

Fox news' problem?

They don't go HIGH ENOUGH UP THE CHAIN OF COMMAND to point the finger and call it treason -- like all the way to the Commander-in-Chief. But then, the current C-in-C is such a passive asshole ("Oh dear, what can I do about it? Congress should do something.") the only thing he can do is dressup and prance around shouting tough-sounding slogans.

Here's a tough-test question that may or may not be irrelevant -- how long do you think Bush (or any of Fox News' tough guys) would last as a gang-leader in any major American city?

Or more precisely (having grown up in Philly during the 50's)

"How many minutes do you think any of them would have lasted THEN, let alone NOW?"

You may be right even though I'm guessing that your estimate might be generous.


eXTReMe Tracker