The AP article as headlined in the Houston Chronicle:
"Militiamen ambush drives back US patrol in Sadr City"
The story reports:
"The U.S. Military said 28 militamen were killed as the U.S. patrol pulled back."
Not exactly.
Bill Roggio at The Long War Journal gives us the important details. The title of his article?
"US troops kill 28 Mahdi fighters during Sadr City ambush"
His story reports:
...a US soldier was wounded by gunfire and US forces began to evacuate the soldier, Lieutenant Colonel Steven Stover, the chief Public Affairs Officer for Multinational Division Baghdad said. “The fire came from the portion of Sadr City we are not in – the northern neighborhoods – and militants fired at our patrol in the southern neighborhoods,” Stover said in an email to The Long War Journal.
During the evacuation, Mahdi Army fighters triggered three roadside bombs and fired rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns at the US patrol. Five more soldiers were wounded in the attacks and two vehicles were damaged. None of the soldiers' injuries are reported as life-threatening.
In other words the title of the AP piece is completely wrong. The ambush did not "drive back" the US patrol. The ambush occurred while our forces were evacuating a wounded soldier. The US patrol counterattacked and killed 28 of Sadr's militiamen.
I wonder why it is that the AP finds it necessary to title pieces that put our soldier's in the worst possible light?
(H/t Joe Sixpack.)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Not Whole Story
May 5, 2008 - 15:34 ET by the curatorMr. Roggio's account, while accurate, is suspect.
No where in his article does he point out that US Forces were driven back.
Unless you're accusing the AP of outright lying, I'd say that's an important bit of information.
As a contributor to the Weekly Standard, I understand why Mr. Roggio would not want to include that detail.
While both stories are accurate, the AP story is more complete in that regard.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
In my opinion...
May 5, 2008 - 15:41 ET by Spock...everything the news reports is suspect.
Speculation is good
May 5, 2008 - 15:46 ET by the curatorTrue. Unless you're there yourself, you're always relying on someone else's word.
Then it becomes a choice of "who's words do you trust more?"
But, I know where you're coming from.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Lost News: Military deaths actually higher under Pres. Carter!
May 5, 2008 - 15:54 ET by MaximusBraveheartBy MaximusBraveheart | May 5, 2008 - 12:00 ET
I thought this was of interest & I had no clue this could even be true based on all the media hype. Like the game, will the "DEM" appear by the scandal story; will the media report that military deaths now are lower than under the much media loved CARTER?
http://www.ncpa.org/...
U.S. MILITARY DEATHS BELOW 26-YEAR AVERAGE
Despite suffering 4,000 deaths in Iraq, annual U.S. military casualties overall during the first six years of the Bush administration are well below the average for the 26-year period beginning in 1980, according to World Net Daily (WDN).
Even in 2005, the deadliest year of the Iraq campaign, U.S. troop fatalities around the world, including Afghanistan, were lower than the first nine years of the study -- when the Cold War was still raging in a time of relative peace:
In 2005, a total of 1,942 U.S. military personnel were killed in all causes, including accidents, hostile action, homicides, illnesses, suicides, etc.
That compares to 2,392 in 1980, the last year of President Jimmy Carter's administration.
In fact, twice as many U.S. military personnel were killed in accidents in that one year than were killed in hostile actions in any year of the Bush administration.
Despite a major increase in deaths due to hostile actions beginning in 2003 with the advent of the Iraq war, the annual toll on U.S. troops did not skyrocket above peacetime norms, according to the Department of Defense. For instance, in 1993, the first year of the peacetime Clinton administration, 1,293 U.S. servicemen lost their lives -- just 649 fewer than in 2005, the hottest year of the Iraq war.
Source: "U.S. Military Deaths Below 26-Year Average," World Net Daily, April 25, 2008.
For text:
http://worldnetdaily...
For more on National Security:
http://www.ncpa.org/...
The Ass. Press
May 5, 2008 - 16:01 ET by thoridflyYou're a godd_mned idiot ... the whole point of McKinley's article is that the gutless pukes at the Ass. Press heralded the terrorists and misrepresented the actions of our troops.
Liberals maggots like you make my blood boil.
"You can't run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. An army without profanity couldn't fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag." - Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.
Please Explain
May 5, 2008 - 16:55 ET by the curatorWith what language did the AP reporter 'herald' the terrorists?
And how did he 'misrepresent' the US soldiers?
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Goldbar, can you read and
May 5, 2008 - 16:43 ET by Dan The Man 2Goldbar, can you read and comprehend anything? "The 28 Mahdi Army fighters were killed during a four-hour battle in southern Sadr City after a US soldier was wounded by gunfire and US forces began to evacuate the soldier, Lieutenant Colonel Steven Stover, the chief Public Affairs Officer for Multinational Division Baghdad said."
An evacuation is an orderly retreat from a position. It is idiots like you taht keep the MSM in business.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Not According to the Col.
May 5, 2008 - 16:59 ET by the curatorThe line you're overlooking is when the pull back acctually occured.
The pull back occured before the soldier was hit. Not after as they were rescuing him.
As the troops pulled back, one vehicle was hit with two roadside bombs, Stover said. - Lt. Col. Stover
Our troops should be lauded at every available opportunity. They're all heroes. But, I don't believe the AP story shamed them in anyway.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
I usually get paid for
May 5, 2008 - 17:24 ET by Dan The Man 2I usually get paid for teaching, but here goes. If you notice in paragraph 2 it says "after a US soldier was wounded by gunfire and US forces began to evacuate the soldier" and in teh ssubsequent paragraph it says "During the evacuation, Mahdi Army fighters triggered three roadside bombs and fired rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns at the US patrol. Five more soldiers were wounded in the attacks and two vehicles were damaged. None of the soldiers' injuries are reported as life-threatening"
Now the first said they evacuated and the second said during, a key word, the evacuation. Now since the continuity of a piece relies on what is stated previous and it reasons that the first paragraph events would proceed the next paragraph events ... and in this case they do.
The man was injured and they evacuated and in the course of that evacuation more fighting ensued. And in fact it was a long battle and this was just a small part of it as inferred by this "The Mahdi Army took heavy casualties during the single engagement." The key phrase being "single engagement" with the inference there were more than this one engagement of the enemy.
The story did not shame the troops but inferred the USA was losing their shirts.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Think about it.
May 5, 2008 - 17:56 ET by BacchusIsn't it spectacular that these troops killed 28 of the enemy while in an obvious - to AP - full retreat, suffering just one injury themselves? Er, make that six wounded, all non-life threatening. That's absolutely freaking amazing. Not bad for so-called high school failures, who can't read and end up in Iraq. (chuckle)
Dan, the actual illiterates here are painfully obvious.
DTM2
May 5, 2008 - 17:52 ET by ThisnThatDon't waste your time on him. He belongs in the corner with the dunce hat on. It's simply not possible for the likes of him to take the advanced classes NB offers. He needs to be directed to the slow-class, babysitting rooms, like MSNBC.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Thank you so very much!!!!
May 5, 2008 - 18:03 ET by Kathleen McKinleyDan,
I have spent much of my day arguing with guys like "the curator" over at my Houston Chronicle blog and I am exhausted from it! Thanks taking care of things over here!
;-)
No Disrespect
May 5, 2008 - 19:13 ET by the curatorHonestly, I don't mean this in a negative way. But, the headline says "Ambush Drives US Forces Back."
They were ambushed. They were driven back.
Thank you, Dan... you clearly pointed out the pull back was to take care of an injured soldier. They deserve utmost applause for their work... especially considering no US fatalities and 28 militia were killed.
But, the headline is correct.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Gawd you're
May 5, 2008 - 19:29 ET by ThisnThatGawd you're dense.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
You're Rude
May 5, 2008 - 19:33 ET by the curatorYou're rude.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Actually, what is reported
May 5, 2008 - 20:02 ET by BDActually, what is reported is that the unit was NOT in that area, but were fired upon from a distance. During which 20+ Enemy combatants were killed with minor US losses.
Seems like a win to me.
Are you insinuating that a
May 5, 2008 - 20:00 ET by BDAre you insinuating that a member of the Weekly standard is less believeable than a member of the MSM?
Not Less Believable
May 5, 2008 - 20:05 ET by the curatorWell, a member of the Weekly Standard has a committed and admitted political ideology. They are conservatives. No problem with that, whatsoever.
But, you have to believe that things will be colored to portray the conservative thought in a better light than with straigh forward journalism.
A reporters job is to simply tell the facts without prejudice. Different from someone of the Standard whose job is to advance an agenda.
I know the retort here is that general media has the same agenda the other way. I just don't believe it. That's something on which most everyone here will disagree with me, I know.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
How does one tell the
May 5, 2008 - 20:32 ET by contraryHow does one tell the political ideology of a news organization if they have not admitted to one? I ask that because you say...
"A reporters job is to simply tell the facts without prejudice. Different from someone of the Standard whose job is to advance an agenda."
Let's assume it is true that the Standard's mission statement is to advance the conservative agenda. If I go read a Reuters article, how do I know it is free from ideology and presents just the facts using straight forward journalism? Is there some litmus test?
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavywe
Legit Question
May 5, 2008 - 21:36 ET by the curatorIf I go read a Reuters article, how do I know it is free from ideology and presents just the facts using straight forward journalism? Is there some litmus test?
Excellent question. And I know this is very much the basis for this website.
Like anyone else, its individual perception. With Reuters, its obviously an international news organization from whom I've been reading news for years.
So, we read/listen/watch stories. We decide for ourselves whether or not we think there's a bias.
This is something people don't talk about much, though:
Many on the right and left accuse all kinds of news outlets of bias. We say 'they don't check their personal agendas at the door.'
But, how often to we check our own agendas at the door as a consumer of that news? Don't we, as news watchers/readers/listensers have an obligation to pur our own political philosiphies aside as well? Personally, I believe the answer is yes.
To answer your question - personal opinion based on track record of the agency putting out the story.
I'll never begrudge someone thinking any news agency is shady. I just look for legitimate examples.
Those examples, however, I feel are too few to constitute a bias.
Again, all is my opinion.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
A reporters job is to
May 6, 2008 - 00:02 ET by BDA reporters job is to simply tell the facts without prejudice.
Funny story. When I was in my Freshman year of Journalism in Journ 101 (Intro to Journalism) the Dean of the J-school asked the 250 students present "How many of you are going to be journalists to make the world a better place."
Of the 250 students present, about half of them raised their hands. I recall, that it was all of the truly "Committed Types", not the jocks or others who were just taking the easy grade who raised their hands.
THe dean then informed them that that was NOT the purpose of a journalist, but that a journalist is supposed to "tell the facts without in an objective matter, let the chips fall were they may" so to say.
I have often refelcted on that and come to the conclusion that while my dean was right, journalists LONG ago gave up the dispassionate role of objective journalism.
Name any member of CNN and in short order you can list what causes they have flocked to. (Christine Amanpour in Bosnia comes to mind.)
I would say the Weekly Standard is better than most news sources, at least they are honest about it.
Murdering Cowards ...
May 5, 2008 - 16:16 ET by thoridfly... Ambush Men Trying to Rescue Downed Serviceman
THAT is how the Ass. Press article SHOULD read.
Do U.S. troops hide behind buildings waiting to murder Sadr Shiite medical convoys? Do they make roadside bombs in order to murder Sadr Shiite teenagers? Do they strap themselves with bombs and murder hundreds of innocent men, women, and chidren?
Do you see the diametric character contrast between Muslim terrorists and our troops? Anyone who would favor them over us is absolute pond scum.
"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard." - Edmund Burke
"I wonder why it is that
May 5, 2008 - 17:12 ET by mattm"I wonder why it is that the AP finds it necessary to title pieces that put our soldier's in the worst possible light?"
Because they're the enemy, too.
a typical ambush
May 5, 2008 - 20:43 ET by wizardjrThey did this in many wars, and do it today. You wound one or two guys and then wait for the rescue troops to show up. Then you pour on the attack.
Our guys are wiser to these things now and chopped up these clowns as they did the wise thing - retreat to a strong point in an orderly fashion.
I sure hope they keep 'driving the troops out' in this fashion - six wounded against 28 dead. Works for me.
I saw this on NBC tonight
May 5, 2008 - 20:59 ET by CobraManI saw this on NBC News tonight, complete with “live“ video coverage. The troops who were building that wall came under fire during an assault but they did NOT pull back, they stayed and fought and stopped the assault and they even continued building the barrier while under fire.
There was a squad (not a "patrol" as the AP implies) assigned to evacuating a wounded solder and that squad was ambushed (and that ambush failed completely) while in route back to the base, but a medical evacuation is not considered "pulling back" as the main troop formation remains behind, rebuffing the assault and completing their mission. These reporters really need to learn the difference between a "pull back" or "retreat" and a "medical evac."
Interesting
May 5, 2008 - 21:39 ET by the curatorI saw this on NBC News
I thought this website was of the opinion that all things NBC were not to be trusted? Or is that the case only when you want it to be so?
Also, the battle lasted for hours. A few moments of video probably doesn't paint an accurate dipiction of what happened during that entire engagement.
a medical evacuation is not considered "pulling back"
Very interesting point. If this is the case - great mention. I'd take back everything I said about the legitimacy of the AP story if this is true.
Thanks for making the point.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
There ya go, thinking again
May 6, 2008 - 02:13 ET by CobraMan"I thought this website was of the opinion that all things NBC were not
to be trusted? Or is that the case only when you want it to be so?"
Perhaps the visual record is more believable than the written one? Do you "think" that may help me make my determination as to which report is closer to the truth? Also, who said that NBC can never be trusted? It sure wasn’t me, and I doubt that few people here would make that claim as well.
This site isn't about portraying all the networks as habitually deceptive and that we shouldn’t trust anything they report. This site is dedicated to exposing those reports that include a liberal bias or are obviously incorrect. Your attempt to shed doubt on my conclusion through some false obscuration of this site and it’s goals is as biased as some of the MSM reports, and just as transparent.
"Also, the battle lasted for hours."
Really, who knew? The AP made it sound like the battle was short and only involved the squad that was evacuating the wounded. But now you admit that it lasted for hours? Well, that would make the AP wrong in it's portrait of an ambush that happened during a "pull out" now, wouldn't it?
Actually, I believe that
May 6, 2008 - 00:29 ET by jdhawkActually, I believe that elements of the 4th Infantry (IVY) Division should be given even more credit than reporter Roggio gave them.
The creed of our service members is to never leave a soldier on the field of battle. The enemy knows this well. It is my guess that the enemy attempted to kill, but wounded the soldier to lure a larger force into a trap. The trap being the detonation of IEDs that were mentioned in the article.
The fact that the unit not only evacuated their wounded in an orderly manner, but counter attacked besting the enemy is a tribute to there being seasoned hard nosed killers. Our service members recongnized that their creed could be played and yet, they had a plan for just such a possibility. The comander and his unit ought to be commended for a job well done! HOOYA!
We can't send that pig faced Sadr to meet Allah too soon! Break out more "virgins" Muhammed!
Battle-hardened!
May 6, 2008 - 03:03 ET by AgentAmericanOne thing you can say about our great Soldiers and Marines in the Cauldron of Iraq that you couldn't say years ago-they are definitely battle hardened. Veterans that are tough and confident, able to tackle any challenge...but not without some sacrifice.
The wretched leftist journalist, the hippie professor, and the liberal politicians are as evil as the Islamob*stards we are fighting today.
Thanks for a great blog, Kathleen. We need more lovely conseratives like you to grace this site!
...Drill ANWAR
Medals
May 6, 2008 - 07:32 ET by ThisnThatThese soldiers will be given medals for their actions. Combat action ribbons; purple hearts; commendations; bronze, maybe silver stars for heroism and bravery. And they will wear them, IAW military regulations -- and with pride.
And then some time in the future, some A$$ from the LATimes will question them, like that little jerk did with Patreaus, and wonder why they need to wear their medals. And the same little jerk will do his best to ignore the heroics and bravery of our soldiers in these types of battles. The little jerk will drink his Perrier, gather with the Code pinkos, and complain with the moveon crowd about how evil our military is, and how "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and all that other crap that spews continously from this nation's set of loud-mouth cowards.
None of these cowards will be able to say "I dragged a wounded comrade to safety while under enemy fire", or "I led the counterattack against the enemy". Nor will they understand the courage necessary to do this. Instead, they will hide behind their protected first ammendment and slam our soldiers every chance they get so that they can be praised by the leftists within this country.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber