The disinformation campaign against the Haditha Marines continues despite exonerations and dismissed charges. This was quite evident during Thursday night’s discussion on Hannity and Colmes.  Jason Mattera, the young man who dared confront John Murtha about his claims of “cold blooded murder” was a guest and Jane Fleming Kleeb represented the dissenting viewpoint.

Alan Colmes gave us a hint about the latest tactic to diminish the results of the 2 year Haditha investigation when he questioned the integrity of  General James Mattis.

The Democrats hit General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker with the results of an ABC/BBC poll of Iraqi citizens during the two days of testimony. Barbara Boxer was so immersed in the poll results that she couldn't even muster up a question for General Petraeus. Since the poll results were not released until Monday September 10, 2007, it left little time for an indepth look at the poll, the sampling size, the surveyors and the results from all the questions.

First of all - the sample size. The number of Iraqis questioned for the poll was approximately 2100 people. 2100 people in a country with an estimated population of 27,499,638 according to the CIA Factbook. That means the poll results were from 1/1000 of the population. How can a sample size that small even be considered partially representative of the population?

CNN has an article up about the Sky Eagle drone that flew over Haditha that dreadful day in November 2005.  Attached to the story are actual snips from the drone video. Not content to let the drone video speak for itself, CNN spliced in scenes from the video made famous by TIME's Tim McGirk.

The footage of the bodies wrapped in blankets is labeled "Hammurabi Human Rights Association." There is no such "association" - only two men who have documented ties to terrorist/insurgent activities per Marine Intelligence Reports from the Haditha testimony. CNN failed to note that the bodies were removed from the morgue and the body bags replaced with blankets. The bodies were then put on display in one of the Haditha homes. The scene was a staged production - similar to the lurid photos from Qana II.

There has been a massacre of innocent civilians in Iraq. An entire village of Iraqis were murdered and buried in a mass grave. The dead included women and children. The murderers even slaughtered the animals in the village. From the state of the surroundings it was obvious that this was a deliberate act - maybe brought on by rage of the death of a comrade or just the overwhelming pressure of fighting in a war zone.

Amazingly the media in the US has not picked up on the story. Tim McGirk has not headed to Iraq to do an expose on this latest My Lai incident. Murtha hasn't called a press conference to call out the perpetrators for committing "cold blooded murder". The liberal bloggers have failed to equate the massacre to the "torture" at Abu Ghraib.

The Iraqi government, especially the Prime Minister, has yet to demand an explanation or an investigation. The group, Iraq Veterans Against the War, has not scheduled a street theater like Operation First Casualty to decry the treatment of the civilians. United for Peace and Justice has not published a list of talking points about the incident. CodePink has yet to hold a fundraiser for the side fighting against the murderers.

The media has a new anti-war hero - Adam Kokesh the Iraq war veteran who is facing a June 4th hearing for violations of the UCMJ regarding wearing the uniform while protesting and disrespect to an officer. The headlines scream out for sympathy for Kokesh and outrage for the Marine Corps. "Iraq Vet Faces Penalty for War Protest" was the headline on CBS News online. The Daily Breeze says "Discharged Veteran May be Punished for Protesting". The Socialist Worker calls it "Marines Eating Their Own". All are couching this hearing in terms of free speech and punishing an anti-war vet when it is nothing of the sort.

Every time there is an anti-war rally, march, die-in, puke-in etc. you can find several protesters dressed in official military uniforms. The ones in uniform usually claim to have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. While some are truly vets, others are obvious posers (i.e. Jesse Macbeth). The uniforms are typically defaced with IVAW slogans or logos done in black marker. The tops are unbuttoned to show off the latest protest t-shirt. Medals and ribbons are usually in plentiful supply as a sign of "real service".

Two of the members of IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War), Adam Kokesh and Liam Madden are facing hearings by the Marine Corps for their protest attire. But if you read David Montgomery’s article, Antiwar to the Corps, in the Washington Post, you would think that the Marines were attempting to silence an anti-war voice. Not only did Montgomery miss the entire reason for the hearings, but he overlooked a few facts in his reporting.

The media outlet, known for faux photography, crossed the line again this week with false and biased reporting of the testimony in the Article 32 Hearing for one of the Marines charged in the Haditha incident. Marty Graham is covering Capt Randy Stone's hearing for Reuters. Graham filed two separate stories with Reuters with patently false claims about the testimony of Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz.

In both articles, Graham claimed Sgt. Dela Cruz testified that the 5 Iraqi men, who jumped out of a white car immediately after the IED explosion, were standing with their hands tied behind their backs when they were shot by Sgt. Wuterich. Here's Graham's exact words...

Dela Cruz also said he watched squad leader Sgt. Frank Wuterich shoot five men whose hands were tied up near a car.

The first Article 32 Hearing for the Marines charged in the Haditha incident started this week.  Capt. Randy Stone, who was the legal advisor for Kilo Co., is charged with violating an order and two counts of dereliction of duty in connection with the killings.  Even though this Article 32 hearing is not related to alleged murder of civilians, testimony related to the events of that November 2005 day has dominated the hearing.

Yesterday Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz testified to the events on the ground in Haditha. Sgt. Dela Cruz testified about the deaths of 5 Iraqi men that drove up to the scene of the IED explosion immediately after the blast. Despite the testimony coming from only one witness, one news source reported the facts from the testimony differently from two others.

On his show tonight, Bill O’Reilly asked Al Sharpton if he was going to go after the rap music “stars” who consistently denigrate women and glamorize violence. The Rev told Bill that after “getting rid of Mr. Imus”, his National Action Network will “start looking” at some of the corporations that backed Imus. Sharpton claimed that some of those corporations also own some of the record companies. Sharpton told O’Reilly that this was “just the beginning of a long war” to deal with this type of language and behavior.

But in March 2005 Sharpton defended the content of rap music while condemning the violence surrounding the industry. He made it quite clear that it was “not about the lyrics” but the violence committed by the rap artists. Sharpton even went so far as to invoke the rap artists’ First Amendment rights to rap and sing about violent acts. Here is what Sharpton had to say in his March 9, 2005 interview on CNN...

CBS and 60 Minutes just can't help themselves. They keep letting their anti-military bias show. Case in point, Lara Logan (not exactly a fan of the military) is doing a piece on 60 Minutes this Sunday about Appeals for Redress. You remember Appeals for Redress? I did a post on them back in October 2006.

They present themselves as a "grassroots" organization when in fact they are another concoction of Fenton Communications. Jonathan Hutto, one of the main spokesmen, was a photographer for the Navy while in Iraq. He was an activist before he was an media darling, working with the ACLU and Amnesty International. In an interview with Revolution, the media outlet for the Revolutionary Communist Party, Hutto had this to say about his fellow soldiers...

Tonight's Hannity and Colmes featured an interview with Col. Oliver North about the media coverage of Iraq and the William Arkin slam against our soldiers.  During the course of the interview, Alan Colmes claimed that Rep. John Murtha was right when Murtha accused our Marines of killing innocent civilians in Haditha in cold blood. Col. North immediately reminded Colmes that the Marines had yet to face a trial therefore they were innocent until proven guilty. Colmes replied "there were confessions". 

Here's my personal transcript of that portion of the interview...

Colmes: Murtha turned out to have correct information. Dick Durbin was talking about treatment gitmo specifically.

Col North: Alan, let's deal with these one at a time.

Last night I predicted that CAIR would be demanding an apology from FOX for the depiction of Muslims in "24" within 24 hours. Well it's not CAIR but ABC has started the ball rolling...

Sut Jhally, co-producer and co-director of the film "Hijacking Catastrophe," says the dramatic action in the show creates a dangerous climate in which the public loses some of its perspective on what's real and what's not. Of course that may be a minority opinion given the show's enormous popularity.
Television shows like '24' also reinforce stereotypes about Arabs, he said, and in this episode connections are drawn between terrorism, Arabs and nuclear war. With the U.S. wrestling with Iran over its nuclear capabilities, these associations are dangerous, he said.
"This television show is very political, and it's no accident that it's on Fox," said Jhally, who directs the Media and Education Foundation and is professor of communications at University of Massachusetts. "Given their propaganda system, it doesn't surprise me."

We already know that two of the Reuters' reporters covering Haditha were once imprisoned by Coalition forces for their terrorist ties. Now we hear that Reuters is communicating with Mullah Omar (or one of his reps) via email...

"PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) - Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar has added to the mystery over Osama bin Laden, saying he hasn't seen his ally and fellow fugitive since U.S.-backed forces ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan in late 2001.
"No, I have neither seen him, nor have I made any effort to do so, but I pray for his health and safety," Omar said in an e-mailed response to questions sent by Reuters.
The questions were relayed to Omar through his spokesman Mohammad Hanif, and a reply was received late on Wednesday."

Okay - Reuters has email contact with Mullah Omar, Taliban chief, fugitive, terrorist, etc. and reports it as if it is no big deal. What the heck is wrong with this picture? Where did Reuters get the email address from - Omar's MySpace page? Has Reuters shared this email address with the authorities - i.e. the military hunting for terrorists? Or is the email addy for personal communication only. Which Reuters' employee was involved with the email communication?

Why do we continue to tolerate this blatant terrorist enabling so-called media organization? These journalists are responsible for "telling us the story" from the front of the war on terror. I just didn't realize it was only the terrorists' story they were interested in promoting.

When does a protest that includes a total of approximately 45 people spread over 3 US cities merit national media coverage?  When the protest is anti-American and pro-terrorist.  That was the case of the “emergency” protests sponsored by Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center decrying the execution of Saddam Hussein. According to the AP, the protests were “small rallies” with “a few dozen activists” in Times Square, 15 “anti-war demonstrators” in Detroit and “five protesters” in Boston. Given the media’s penchant for inflating the attendance at any anti-American event, the number 45 is probably too generous.

This is truly amazing - a major media organization with direct ties to major players in an incident in which 8 American soldiers are charged with murder and/or coverup. Yesterday I exposed the background of Majid Hameed, a Reuters reporter who had been incarcerated in Iraq due to questionable terrorist ties. Hameed wrote the Iraqis demanding justice story for Reuters on Friday 12/22.

Today while reviewing the excellent recap of Haditha reporting over at Euphoric Reality, I stumbled across a blurb about another Reuters reporter that was taken into custody along with Majid Hameed. This other Reuters employee's name is Ali Omar Abrahem al-Mashhadani.

As I reported this weekend, Qais al-Bashir from the AP actually identified a source in one of his articles as "not an authorized source". While it was a small step, at least it was a step in the right direction. It did not take long for the AP to revert back to its old tricks of using unauthorized sources for news out of Iraq.

Today's story out of Iraq by Thomas Wagner and Qais al-Bashir features some familiar names...

"The coordinated attack in Tayaran Square involved a suicide attacker who drove up to the day laborers pretending to want to hire them, then set off his explosives as they got into his minibus, Lt. Bilal Ali said. At virtually the same time — 7 a.m. — a bomb exploded in a car parked some 30 yards away."

Despite all the claims of standing by their stories, the AP now admits to the use of unauthorized sources.  The infamous Qais al-Bashir posted another sectarian violence story via AP this morning. Al-Bashir offered up the typical Sunni-Shiite blood-letting but this time he was honest about his sources:

On Sunday morning, clashes erupted between Sunni and Shiite militants in Baghdad's mixed western Amil district, a policeman said. One Shiite militiaman was killed and six people — five Sunnis and one Shiite — were wounded, the officer said on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to talk to the media.

Qais al-Bashir, the AP reporter responsible for the burning Sunnis story, is up to the same old tricks. His article did not make it to the American media but was published in The Guardian. Guess the AP forgot about the Internet.

This time al-Bashir reported on the Baghdad Market bombing. While we know that the bombing did actually happen, the tall tale weaver ran with an inflated casualty count from one of the unauthorized sources from CentCom's list.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Three parked car bombs exploded in central Baghdad on Saturday near a predominantly Shiite area packed with vendors, killing at least 91 people and wounding dozens, officials said.The bombs were about 100 yards apart in the busy al-Sadriyah shopping district and exploded nearly simultaneously, according to police Lt. Ali Muhsin.

The six Imams removed from the US Airways flight last week after invoking Allah, carrying one way tickets with no baggage and voicing anti-American sentiments held their pray in protest at Reagan Washington National Airport. Reading the reports in the media, you would think that this was a group of clergy members simply expressing their religious freedom.

On Monday, Shahin and a handful of other Muslims bowed down on rugs and prayed in Terminal A near the US Airways ticket counter. Jewish and Christian clergy also said prayers.

Well the media has spoken - Kerry has apologized. Game over.

Amazingly the media refused to give Pope Benedict the same benefit of the doubt back in September. Remember when the Pope used some ancient text regarding Islam during a speech and Muslims went off on another version of the Cartoon Jihad? The Vatican released a statement on behalf of Pope Benedict in response to the Muslim reaction. Here is a snip from the statement...

"The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions."

The media's coverage left no doubt that the Pope's statement was not an apology...

A group of active duty soldiers, called a "grassroots group" by some in the media, is speaking out against the war in Iraq and calling on Congress to bring the troops home. Fine with me - they have every right to speak their mind (I know nothing about the military rules - I'm speaking in the realm of First Amendment rights).  Having the freedom to speak out is one of the great benefits of living in the United States of America.  

BUT it is disconcerting and disingenuous to report this group as a simple grassroots group trying to get their voices heard.  The "Appeal for Redress" group is sponsored by three of the most virulent anti-war groups that use their "desire for peace" as a cover for their blatant anti-Americanism.  You've heard of these groups - Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak Out and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Whenever you see Cindy Sheehan or any of her comrades, you will see members of these organizations.  VFP and IVAW members include several deserters, conscientious objectors and some "soldiers" that turned out to not be what they portrayed.  Some members claim to have witnessed war crimes including the wholesale slaughter of innocent Iraqi women and children.  Some members traveled to Venezuela with CodePink to pay homage to Chavez. Some have testified at "global" forums against America, the terrorist state. 

I don’t even know why I bother but I frequently check out the editorial cartoons on yahoo.com. Sometimes they are funny (yes I do laugh at some of them that reflect poorly on the Republicans because they are usually spot on) but most of the time I feel like I’ve been hit in the gut when I read them. Today was one of those days.

I made the unfortunate choice of clicking on Ted Rall’s editorial cartoon for 9/16/06. It is one thing to ridicule the President politically but another to attack him in a personal manner that hurts his family. The same thing goes for Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Why would anyone think it was appropriate to do an editorial cartoon about the sex life of Madame Secretary? Rall has already depicted Sec Rice in a racist manner so I guess portraying her as a woman of loose morals is no big deal to him.

According to Rall’s little drawing, Rice has slept her way around the world including a one night stand with Chirac. Rall then promotes the sick fantasy that so many Libs are obsessed with by depicting the President of the United States in bed with Madame Secretary. Rall’s caption for that panel is simply nauseating – “Gossips say she is stroking more than George W’s ego during their weekends together at Camp David.”

The opposition to the ABC docu-drama has been using Harvey Keitel’s CNN Interview statements as one of their talking points against "The Path to 911".  But were Keitel’s comments taken out of context and misrepresented? Are certain comments made by Keitel during the interview completely ignored by those vehemently protesting the airing of the movie?

Here is what Bill Clinton’s lawyer wrote in his latest letter to ABC:

"Harvey Keitel, who plays the star role of FBI agent John O'Neill, told reporters yesterday that while the screenplay was presented to him as a fair treatment of historical events, he is upset that several scenes were simply invented for dramatic purposes."