« Home | Why don't they just call him a 'fag' and get it ov... » | This ought to do it » | Dick Radatz » | FUH2 » | Red-faced philistine » | David Neiwert » | Bull » | O'Reilly calls ACLU a terrorist group » | Senator Robert Byrd » | A little on the blog title » 

Wednesday, May 04, 2005 

Their version of 'discrediting'

If this is the level of proof that is required, it's no wonder that Fox News is popular. Outside the Beltway 'attacked' the Delgado story this way:
By his own admission, he didn't fit in well with his unit and it's not inconceivable that his tales are embellished. The fact that the unit in question is the 320th Military Police Company, though, gives credence to his account; they were involved in the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib.
This echoing monkey actually called the above 'analysis' a discrediting of Aidan Delgado's story.

As Malkin points out, a lot of bloggers have already discredited these stories. (See, for example, OTB, Juliette Ochieng and Blackfive.) I can't add to this and I won't go there. ... It's going to take a lot more than Delgado to make me believe that our armed forces are sadistic nutcases.

Here's a little tip: rational people don't believe that the armed forces as a whole are sadistic nutcases. But there is a reality here that must be faced, that being the fact that abuses are inevitable in ALL wars, especially under a leadership that condones it, so we should be reluctant to subject other peoples and ourselves to that reality. And when that leadership lies on top of all of that, well, it's just a no-brainer. I guess they never heard this definition of stupidity: doing the same thing, but expecting different results.