Just when one might wonder what new depths the American mainstream media will sink to, in order to make the U.S. military and its leadership look as evil, incompetent and/or malicious as possible, in the context of its efforts to combat jihadist butchers --- and in doing so, enabling, if not justifying the murderous actions of these same enemies --- along comes this morning's (August 19, 2006) Washington Post.
There on the front page, above the fold, in the upper-right corner is the following headline:
"Officer Called Haditha Routine"
Haditha --- one of the most tragic news items to come out of Iraq in some time, in which it is alleged that the U.S. military murdered two dozen unarmed civilians --- has been widely covered, and eight soldiers are now being held at Camp Pendleton on a variety of charges.
First, let's consider the definition of "routine:"
(a) An unvarying or habitual method or procedure; (b) Occurring at fixed times or predictable intervals; "made her routine trip to the store;" (c) A prescribed, detailed course of action to be followed regularly; a standard procedure; (d) A set of customary and often mechanically-performed procedures or activities.But WAIT...
...what's that in the first few paragraphs in this article, by the Post's Thomas Ricks?
"The Marine officer who commanded the battalion involved in the Haditha killings last November did not consider the deaths of 24 Iraqis, many of them women and children, unusual and did not initiate an inquiry, according to a sworn statement he gave to military investigators in March.
"'I thought it was very sad, very unfortunate, but at the time, I did not suspect any wrongdoing from my Marines,' Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, commander of the 3rd Battalion of the 1st Marines, said in the statement.
"'I did not have any reason to believe that this was anything other than combat action,' he added."
I see. So this incredibly inflammatory headline was referring to was... what?
(1) That U.S. Marines "routinely" murder unarmed Iraqi (translation: Muslim) civilians, which is exactly what bin Laden, al Zarquari, al Zawahiri, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, and all the rest of the jihadist butchers claim as justification for attacking America and Americans?Or, was the headline trying to say:
(2) That as is described in the story, to the Marine quoted, these tragic killings appeared to be the tragic result of jihadist butchers hiding among, and firing from behind innocent (Muslim) civilians, and that this is sometimes the result, horrifying as it may be, when these murderous thugs attack U.S. forces? That this is what is tragically "routine," which is why it didn't seem out of the ordinary to him?
No, the headline was clearly designed to convey (1).
Several months ago, the American left got their collective panties in a bunch over the disclosure that the U.S. government was paying for, if not encouraging, more positive (actual) news of its deployment and actions, in the (newly-freed) Iraqi media.
Fact is, the jihadist butchers and their enablers don't even have to pay for this kind of deliberately favorable story spinning, nor for this kind of inflammatory headline.
We are in a media war, as much as a military war against jihadist butchers, and their enablers, appeasers and defenders.
But with editors such as those at the Washington Post who could conceivably allow a jihadist-enabling "headline" such as this to be matched to a story containing this content, is a slap in the face at every man and woman that now wears, or has ever worn, an American military uniform.
© Copyright 2006 by Jon Quixote. All rights reserved. Qualified media representatives interested in publishing this item may contact firstname.lastname@example.org for information.