The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest
 

Vol: 32 Issue: 31 - Monday, May 31, 2004

Not Just Sadists - Now We're Thieves!
by Jack Kinsella

It took even less time that I thought. Only yesterday, I noted a shift in
the Left's focus, turning away from attacking the administration directly
in favor of bringing their pens to bear against our military forces.

Memorial Day is the day we set aside to honor our troops. Reading today's
New York Times invokes many emotions, but pride isn't among them.

The Times has beaten abu Ghraib to death, if you'll pardon the pun, but it
has only begun its assault against the rest of our forces.  I mentioned
yesterday that 'convoys of reporters'  were out combing Iraq and
Afghanistan looking for victims of American abuse.

The New York Times' Eric Schmitt struck paydirt without ever having to
leave his office.  He took the usual tactic of combining facts and
innuendo, supported by sources unfriendly to the administration, like
Amnesty International, the Red Cross, or sources that are named only as
'officials' or 'anonymous sources'.

The 'facts' are already well known, but Schmitt breathes new life into
them, by introducing new allegations to establish that, not only are
American soldiers brutal, sadistic sexual perverts, but they are thieves,
too.

Yup, that's right, folks! Soldiers from the richest nation on the face of
the planet are stealing what little money and valuables that the poor
Iraqis managed to accumulate.  And lots more of our troops are thieves and
sadists than we first thought, too.

And it must be true; it says so, right here in the New York Times!
According to Schmitt, 'senior Defense Department officials' say the Army
is investigating at least two dozen cases in which American soldiers are
accused of assaulting civilian Iraqis or stealing their money, jewelry and
other property during raids, patrols and house-to-house searches.

Schmitt reports that, "in some instances, investigators say, soldiers were
reported to have stolen cash from Iraqis they stopped at roadside
checkpoints, apparently under the pretext of confiscating money from
suspected insurgents or their financial backers."

Those 'investigators', like the Defense officials, are unnamed in
Schmitt's report.

"The Army's Criminal Investigation Command is also examining at least six
cases in which soldiers on missions reportedly kicked, punched or beat
civilian Iraqis, or fired their weapons near the Iraqis to scare or
intimidate them."

And as if that isn't bad enough, Schmitt finds other unnamed officials to
repeat the tactic so successful with the al Ghraib scandal, suggesting
that there are more American sadists (and now thieves) in uniform than
meet the eye.

"While military officials here and in Iraq say the reports of thievery and
lawlessness are isolated cases among more than 135,000 American troops,
other military officials say the official numbers probably underestimate
the actual offenses because most Iraqis are too frightened to file a
formal complaint with the American authorities."

Read Schmitt's indictment again -- make sure you see it in all its facets.

Schmitt's ACTUAL information suggests two dozen ALLEGATIONS out of 135,000
troops.  Remember they are only ACCUSATIONS in an, as yet, unconfirmed
'investigation'. Then calculate what 24 out of 135,000 is,
percentage-wise.  Schmitt evidently didn't.

Or maybe he did, because he  extrapolates that there MUST be many more
American thieves in the ranks that the Iraqis are 'too scared' to report.

(Because American soldiers aren't just thieves, they are also brutal,
sadistic abusers, in case you've been living in a cave and missed the
Times' coverage so far. . . it's enough to make you sick)

Here's another example of using a fact to create a fiction. Schmitt
writes; "The Army has acknowledged it is investigating 37 deaths in Iraq
and Afghanistan involving prisoners in American custody."

That statement IS a 'fact', so to speak.

Now look at the fact unspun. The Army is 'investigating' (that means they
haven't reached a conclusion) cases involving thirty-seven enemy deaths
over the course of two different wars spanning two different countries
over a period of more than three years.

Having placed this 'fact' into evidence, while carefully avoiding putting
it into context, Schmitt switches from citing anonymous sources to
'confidential documents' to launch his next volley;

"Other confidential Army documents have chronicled a widespread pattern of
abuse involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan that
implicates more military units than previously known."

Take a look at THAT one for a minute, in all its splendiferous hyperbole.

If Schmitt has these documents, then, by definition, they aren't
confidential, or he wouldn't have them.  In any case, 'implicating a
'SINGLE trooper from even ONE unit more than 'previously known' (to whom?)
would make that statement 'accurate' without a word of it being true.

And 'implicated' is like 'investigated' or 'accused' -- it doesn't mean
'guilty' -- and the accusations are, for the most part, being made by the
same people who, if given the chance, would cut Schmitt's head off with a
butcher knife without giving it a second thought.

The New York Times piece assigns great credibility to its unnamed sources,
secret documents, and Red Cross reports. But when it quotes officials that
actually HAVE names, like General John Abizaid, well, those people all say
the exact opposite. Schmitt calls THAT a 'dismissive' attitude.

"Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 19, Gen.
John P. Abizaid, the top commander of American forces in the Middle East,
sounded a dismissive note about at least some of the Red Cross findings,
suggesting that the organization had little understanding of the confusing
and deadly circumstances swirling on the battlefield."

'Suggesting' -- I like that choice of words.  In other words, Abizaid
'suggests' the Red Cross isn't made up of battle hardened warriors, but he
is merely being 'dismissive', not necessarily accurate.

"I am aware that the International Red Cross has its view on things,"
General Abizaid said. "A lot of its view is based upon what happens at the
point of detention, where soldiers fighting for their lives detain people,
which is a very brutal and bloody event."

What do generals know about war and warriors, anyway? Let's ask the Red
Cross lady!

Assessment:

I was astonished with the speed with which yesterday's prediction came
true. It came true so fast it never even had time to BE a prediction.

The malice in this piece is so thick you can cut it with a knife. The
object of the malice is the Bush administration.

But the victims are the soldiers now facing enemy forces so that Schmitt
and the New York Times' editors can cut and slash at them from the safety
of their comfortable offices.

We aren't just talking about morale or how the troops feel about
themselves or whether or not it is embarrassing for the administration,
here.

This kind of propaganda will do more than just make it harder for the
troops to accomplish their mission.  It will kill some of them.

The object of wartime propaganda is to demoralize the enemy while
energizing your own forces.  Here is where American political
schizophrenia raises both its ugly heads.

The New York Times objective is to demoralize the enemy (the Bush
administration) while rallying their own forces (Senator Anybody But
Bush).

It shares that objective with most of the liberal mainstream media, who
you can bet will finds lots of inventive ways to repeat the Times'
propaganda smear loudly and often.

So will the Left's political operatives, together with politicians close
to the Kerry campaign.  Because they don't have the same objective that
the OTHER America has, which is to win the war.  If the war goes well, the
Kerry campaign goes south.  So the war has to go south.

Where the schizophrenia comes in is when one considers the New York Times
is in New York, which is presumably in the same America that is currently
at war.

The New York Times has an editorial board that discusses, edits, argues
and ultimately approves each and every news story that graces its pages,
where it will be placed, how many column inches will be devoted to it, and
finally, WHEN it will run.

The editorial board decided that Memorial Day would be a PERFECT day to
run an unsubstantiated, vicious hit piece suggesting our own troops are
little better than marauding Nazis.

Islam declared itself at war with the Jews and 'Christian Crusader
America' simultaneously with secular America's declaration of war against
Christian America, whom the secular left lumps together under the generic
name, 'neoconservative' or 'neocons'.

The Left's hatred for the religious conservative neoconservative worldview
is so all consuming that it would rather feed the enemy anti-American
propaganda machine than to see what they view as  Christian conservatives
recapture the White House.

As we approach the final countdown to the end of this age, several things
jump right off the pages of Scripture.

The Proverbs say, that "He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own
house." (15:27)  They also say that "He that troubleth his own house shall
inherit the wind:" (11:29)

The Apostle Paul warned, "This know also, that in the last days, perilous
times shall come." (2nd Timothy 3:1)

The world is embroiled in a great religious war.  It could be
characterized as a war of the  Christians and the Jews against the forces
of an unlikely, unspoken alliance developing between Islam and secularism.

And, from the perspective of our enemies, it is a war of annihilation.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his
father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law
against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own
household." (Matthew 10:34-36)

Eric Schmitt's NYTimes propaganda piece can be found at this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/31/international/middleeast/31ABUS.html?ex=1086667200&en=4fad64f26eb8af7a&ei=5065