Tag Archives: Iraq War

national news

Williams story taking on life of its own

A wise person once said that you know you’re toast when the late-night comics start making fun of you.

Welcome to the world of wee-hour funny stuff, Brian Williams.

His story about “misremembering” a shoot-down in Iraq and now his reporting from Hurricane Katrina is taking on a life of its own. It’s turning into a monster that, if it’s left still kicking, is going to knock down the walls of credibility that formerly surrounded the NBC Nightly News anchorman.

http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/11526453-148/nbc-news-anchor-brian-williams

This is not a pretty sight to watch.

It well might be that the Katrina story inflicts an even deeper wound in Williams’s reputation.

He reported during the storm in 2005 about seeing “dead bodies” floating in the French Quarter — despite the reported fact at the time that the Quarter suffered hardly any flooding. He told viewers about ingesting floodwater, causing dysentery. Others on the scene have doubted that as well.

What in the world is happening to this individual’s once-stellar journalism career? He’s always been thought of as one of the more thoughtful, everyman, honest newsmen in the business. Williams has exhibited none of the erratic behavior that Dan Rather did when he took over from Walter Cronkite at CBS. He’s been rock solid, steady — and at times self-effacing, such as when he makes appearances on late-night shows to talk about stories he’s covered and the foibles he’s endured.

The so-called misremembering being shot down in Iraq by itself stretches credulity.

Add to that now the reporting of deep flaws in his Hurricane Katrina coverage and you start drawing the picture of a broadcst journalist who’s found himself in some deep doo-doo.

This is not fun to watch.

national news

NBC anchor getting pulled under

It’s hard to watch this, but I’m getting the feeling — just a few days into a strange saga of “misremembrance” — that a highly visible TV news anchor may be on his way out.

NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams is still facing questions about a story he made up — or “misremembered,” as he described it — about an incident in Iraq in 2003. He had been saying for a dozen years that a helicopter in which he was a passenger had been shot down by rocket fire. It turns out the shoot-down with Williams aboard didn’t happen.

Williams reported the other day about how an Army command sergeant major had helped rescue him and his fellow passengers after their ship was shot down. The report got a lot of play and Williams stood and accepted the cheers at Madison Square Garden alongside retired Sgt. Maj. Tim Terpak, the young man who engineered the rescue. Other veterans, though, spoke up and said the incident Williams described didn’t happen the way he described it; they said Williams wasn’t aboard the stricken Chinook helicopter.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/rieder/2015/02/05/brian-williams-unmitigated-disaster/22915325/

Now comes word that Williams might have fabricated what he saw in New Orleans while covering the Hurricane Katrina disaster in 2005. Williams reported serious flooding in the French Quarter. To borrow a phrase: oops! The French Quarter largely escaped the floodwaters that devastated much of the Big Easy.

NBC News has announced it is launching an internal investigation into what Williams said and did in Iraq and in New Orleans.

Williams has traded on the trust he has built with news watchers over many years in the anchor’s chair.

It’s difficult to imagine how a viewer of the NBC newscast each night can trust Williams now with telling us the truth about what he is reporting from the anchor’s chair.

What’s more, his apology has seemed somewhat muted, as he’s sought to wrap himself in the flag. Consider this from USA Today: “On air Wednesday night, Williams said he had ‘made a mistake in recalling the events of 12 years ago,’ that the whole incident was simply ‘a bungled attempt by me to thank one special veteran and by extension our brave military men and women, veterans everywhere, those who have served everywhere while I did not.'”

From where I am sitting, that looks and sound a bit like spin.

NBC’s main anchorman is facing a steep climb back to respectability.

 

military news, national news

So much for 'trust'

My trick knee is throbbing once again.

This time it’s telling me NBC News anchor Brian Williams has some more explaining to do about a made-up story that got him some seriously happy — and falsely premised — publicity over the weekend.

You see, it turns that Williams erred in recounting a story that he had been aboard a Chinook helicopter that had been hit by enemy rocket fire in Iraq in 2003. He had befriended an Army command sergeant major, Tim Terpak, who — according to Williams — had provided cover for the anchorman and other passengers aboard the downed helicopter.

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/nbc-s-brian-williams-recants-iraq-story-after-soldiers-protest-1.327792

Williams and Terpak went to a New York Rangers hockey game the other evening and both of them stood and accepted the crowd’s applause as the public address announcer revealed the story about Terpak’s heroism in protecting the passengers and crew, which allegedly included Williams.

It now turns out Williams wasn’t there.

This is a serious smirch on Williams’s reputation as a veteran TV journalist who trades on the “trust” he has built with the viewers of his nightly newscast.

Williams has recanted the story, apologized and said he “misremembered” the events of that day. He actually had arrived about 60 minutes after the chopper was shot down.

Misremembered? For a dozen years?

The anchorman came clean only after other soldiers who were there protested, telling others they had no memory of Williams being present when Terpak — who’s since retired from the Army — engineered the getaway of those aboard the Chinook.

“I would not have chosen to make this mistake,” Williams said. “I don’t know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.”

Neither does anyone else.

 

military news, national news

Back to the 'cowards' tweet, please

Michael Moore has been taking grief lately over a tweet he put out in which he called military snipers “cowards.”

I’ve commented on it here. Others have, too. Now, though, the filmmaker is fighting back, accusing his critics of “making sh*** up about me.”

I am beginning to think many on both sides of this argument are seeking to change the subject.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/michael-moore-defends-record-on-vets-telling-fox-news-quit-making-sht-up-about-me/

Moore’s tweet was in response to the film “American Sniper,” in which Bradley Cooper portrays the late Chris Kyle in a gripping story about Kyle’s emotional struggles while serving as a Navy SEAL sharpshooter in Iraq.

The criticism has been ferocious, mainly from conservative media outlets. For the record, I do not consider myself a fan or follower of most of the conservative media talking heads. I tilt the other direction. However, I found Moore’s comments about the so-called cowardice of snipers to be highly offensive.

Moore’s comment on snipers being cowards had nothing to do with the nation’s war policy in Iraq. Moore, though, is seeking to turn that argument back on his critics, some of whom have called him “un-American” for his opinions, I guess, about snipers and about his general world view.

I won’t go there. He’s entitled to express his opinion. My own notion is that he messed when he expressed this particular opinion about this particular man doing with this particular duty.

As is often the case with these controversies, someone in the public eye puts something out there that others find offensive and then tries to cover his tracks by changing the subject, or trying to broaden the argument to include elements that really have no bearing on the misstatement made in the first place.

 

entertainment news, military news

'Sniper' wasn't about reasons for war

Zack Beauchamp has written on Vox.com that the film “American Sniper” whitewashes the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, suggesting that it was in response to the 9/11 attacks.

Well …

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/21/7641189/american-sniper-history

I think I’ll chime in with one more comment about the film. Then I’ll let it rest.

“American Sniper” is the story of one young man, Chris Kyle, and deployment through four tours of duty during the Iraq War. He was a Navy SEAL sniper, and he reportedly set some kind of kill record for U.S. military personnel while doing his duty.

The film tells the most riveting story possible about Kyle’s emotional struggles with being away from his young family, the post-traumatic stress he suffered and the extreme danger to which he was exposed during all those tours of duty.

I sat through the film and never once considered whether it told the complete story of the Iraq War and put the policy decisions under any kind of microscope. I do not believe that was director/producer Clint Eastwood’s intention. I believe Eastwood wanted to tell Chris Kyle’s story as accurately and completely as possible and from what I’ve read from those who knew Kyle the best — including his wife Taya — Eastwood accomplished his goal.

Zack Beauchamp’s assertion about the historical inaccuracy of “American Sniper” misses the essential point of the film.

One young man did his duty, placed himself in harm’s way, came home, and sought to return to a normal life as a husband and father.

Then his life ended in tragedy.

That was the story I saw.

 

entertainment news, military news

'American Sniper' glorifies nothing

What’s with all the chatter about whether a powerful film “glorifies” an American warrior doing his duty in the most hostile environment imaginable?

Critics have contended the film “American Sniper” romanticizes the exploits of the late Chris Kyle, a Navy SEAL sniper whose struggles with post traumatic stress are chronicled in one of the most powerful bits of movie-making in years.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/american-sniper-generates-off-screen-controversy/story?id=28342832

Kyle served four tours of duty in Iraq and recorded more “kills” than any sniper in U.S. military history.

I watched the film over the weekend in a packed Amarillo movie theater. At the end of the film, about the only sound coming from the departing audience were the sniffles of those who were crying.

I do not get the criticism.

“American Sniper” does not glorify what Kyle was ordered to do on the battlefield. As for whether Kyle and his teammates were “heroes,” well, yes they are. War produces heroic acts. From my standpoint, anyone who puts himself in harm’s way, exposing himself to possible death at the hands of an enemy combatant is a hero — and that standing needs zero glorification from a film to make it so.

I didn’t see any glory in what Kyle did. I saw a young man struggling with his emotions; he was torn between his devotion to the men with whom he served and the young family who were at home, waiting for his safe return.

What I saw on that film screen was the story of war in all its brutality.

 

national news

Snipers are not 'cowards'

Michael Moore’s assertion that snipers are cowards comes apparently from his father’s experience during World War II.

Therefore, the filmmaker asserts that snipers are cowardly because they don’t fight “fair.”

http://www.people.com/article/michael-moore-explains-snipers-tweets-american-sniper

His comments came as a critique of “American Sniper,” the film about the late Chris Kyle, whose exploits as a Navy SEAL sniper in Iraq have become the stuff of military legend.

I’ll just add that snipers are as brave as frontline grunts — infantrymen who walk the point and expose themselves to enemy fire. They are heroes because they, too, expose themselves to the enemy the moment the muzzle flashes or the sound of the weapon echoes.

Moore sought to walk some of his comments back by praising the Oscar-nominated performance by Bradley Cooper as Kyle. But then he took off after director/producer Clint Eastwood, who — according to Moore — conflates Iraq with Vietnam. He mentions the use of the word “savages” to describe the Iraqis.

Well, that’s the kind of language warriors use to refer to the enemy, Michael.

I, too, saw the film over the weekend and for the life of me, I do not see any confusion between those two wars. Eastwood told a compelling story in riveting fashion.

As for Michael Moore, I believe I’ve heard enough from him on this topic.

 

International news, military news

Another war is now over … more or less

The Afghan War has come to a close.

The United States has ended its combat role in one of the world’s most distressing places. However, our troop presence — unlike what occurred in Iraq — will remain, although at a much-reduced level.

Is this a good thing? I’m beginning, as of today, to hold my breath.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-ends-its-war-in-afghanistan/ar-BBhiyou

U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan topped out at 100,000 men and women. The United States began bombing Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists less than a month after the 9/11 attacks. We threw out the Taliban in November 2001, but have been fighting them ever since, rooting out terrorist leaders, killing and/or capturing them.

All the while, the aim has been to build an Afghan army worthy and capable of taking the fight to the terrorists. That’s what the 10,800 U.S. troops will continue to assist them in doing after the first of the new year.

It is my sincere hope that this mission will succeed. The Iraq pullout hasn’t gone as planned. We sought to build an Iraqi army capable of defending the country. Islamic State fighters have seized much land from Iraqi forces, but in recent weeks the Iraq army and air force have managed — with U.S. air power assistance — to retake some key cities and regions from ISIL.

Our country is war-weary. It’s time to bring our combat role to an end.

The harder task will be to ensure the Afghans will be able to do what the Iraqis — to date — have been unable to do. That is to defend the hard-won victory over the Taliban.

This strategy has to work.

 

national news

No regrets over Obama votes

The question came to me from a social media acquaintance.

He asked: “… just for the record are you sorry you voted for this incompetent community organizer?”

My answer to him: No.

I now shall elaborate.

The “incompetent community organizer,” of course, is Barack Obama, 44th president of the United States, who’s finding himself engaged in yet another struggle of wills with the folks in Congress who would oppose virtually anything he proposed at any level.

I’ve voted in every presidential election since 1972 and have never regretted a single vote I’ve cast for the candidate of my choice — win or lose.

Why should I regret my votes for Barack Obama in 2008 and again in 2012?

For starters, the 2008 campaign amid the worst economic crisis to hit the United States since the Great Depression. It occurred on George W. Bush’s watch and Sen. Obama pledged to take swift action to stop the free fall in our job rolls, our retirement account, the stock market, the housing market, the banking industry and the automobile industry. I trusted him then to do all of the above.

You know what? He delivered. The economic stimulus package, which the GOP opposed, contributed to improving the economic condition at many levels.

I did not hear Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee, offer a solid solution to what was ailing our economy. And when he stopped campaigning to return to Washington when the stock market all but imploded, well, that told me — and apparently millions of other Americans — that Sen. McCain didn’t have a clue what to do.

Four years later, the economy had improved significantly, but Republicans kept insisting it was in the tank. The numbers told a different story.

Let’s not forget: Millions of Americans now have health insurance who didn’t have it before.

Yes, the country faced foreign policy crises on Obama’s watch. But as the 2012 campaign developed and the GOP nominated Mitt Romney to run against the president, it became clear — at least to me — that the Republicans didn’t have any clear answers on how to deal with those crises short of going back to war.

I had grown tired of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Iraq War is over. The Afghanistan War is about to end. Yes, the Islamic State has risen in Iraq and Syria. However, is it the president’s fault entirely that we’re fighting another bloodthirsty terrorist organization? Hardly. We all knew the “Global War on Terror” well could be a war without end.

So, I voted once again for Barack Obama.

He’s now facing yet another challenge from the “loyal opposition,” which frankly doesn’t appear to be all that loyal.

History is going to judge the community organizer a lot more kindly than his critics are doing so today.

Therefore, I stand by my support of Barack Obama.

 

International news, military news

Iraq has 'Vietnam' feel to it

Iraq is beginning to look a little like Vietnam to me.

Why? It’s the performance of the Iraqi army in the face of a relentless enemy that brings about the comparison.

It’s making me more than a tad uncomfortable.

Iraq’s army, the one trained and equipped by the United States of America under two presidential administrations, isn’t performing worth a damn on the battlefield against the Islamic State. Sound familiar? It should.

Army chief ‘somewhat’ confident Iraq can defend Baghdad

Nearly 40 years ago the United States ended its war in Vietnam, leaving the defense of South Vietnam to the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. ARVN then had to face the invaders from North Vietnam, who in early 1975 launched a massive offensive against the south. By April of that year it all ended when North Vietnamese army troops rolled into Saigon, stormed the presidential palace, hoisted the communist flag and renamed Saigon after the late Uncle Ho, Ho Chi Minh City.

Fast forward to the current day and we’re seeing the Iraqi army performing badly against ISIL.

U.S.-led airstrikes reportedly are slowing ISIL’s advance a bit, but so far it hasn’t stopped taking the fight to the Iraqi forces.

Now we hear from U.S. Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno say he is “somewhat confident” the Iraqi government will beat back ISIL. Somewhat satisfied? How confident can we be in that prediction? Not very.

I’m having a flashback at this moment and it’s making me very uneasy as this desert fight continues to play itself out.