Countdown To Armageddon? (Part 5)

Hey, everybody, remember Seymour Hersh? The so-called "journalist" who seditiously and exaggeratedly hyped "Abu Ghraib" into a household name? Look what he's saying now, doubtless in orgasmic anticipation of what he thinks (with good reason) re-empowered Democrats are going to do to the U.S. armed forces, and the Commander-in-Chief who leads them:

[Hersh] described one video in which American soldiers massacre a group of people playing soccer.

“Three U.S. armed vehicles, eight soldiers in each, are driving through a village, passing candy out to kids,” he began. “Suddenly the first vehicle explodes, and there are soldiers screaming. Sixteen soldiers come out of the other vehicles, and they do what they’re told to do, which is look for running people.”

“Never mind that the bomb was detonated by remote control,” Hersh continued. “[The soldiers] open up fire; [the] cameras show it was a soccer game.”

“About ten minutes later, [the soldiers] begin dragging bodies together, and they drop weapons there. It was reported as twenty or thirty insurgents killed that day,” he said.

If Americans knew the full extent of U.S. criminal conduct, they would receive returning Iraqi veterans as they did Vietnam veterans, Hersh said.

“In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation,” he said. “It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.” [emphases added]

Against Hersh's friends the terrorists, yes. That's in their job description, and Hersh doesn't like that one bit, which is why he makes up this vile, vicious, despicable slander. He's frustrated as hell that he and his ilk haven't been able to successfully "Vietnamize" Iraq, and he's drooling at the prospect of Democrat-chaired congressional hearings that will make the 9/11 commission public circus from two and a half years ago, or even John Kerry's 1971 "anti-war" diatribe, look like a bipartisan lovefest. Defunding Operation Iraqi Freedom and forcing a pell-mell withdrawal would come next. When I refer to the Donks' "It's 1974 all over again" attitude, this is what I mean.

Thing is, Hersh's anti-military libel really isn't all that new, as Double-H's digging revealed last week:

So the suggestion of the story is that 100 rebels or insurgents who normally would be happily going along blowing up American vehicles – the military joke about the Striker. It's called an “I.E.D. magnet” inside, in the military, it's a magnet for these bombs. They instead would choose to stupidly stand up and fight us one for one and die. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't trust the story. I don't trust much that I hear that comes out of Baghdad. I don't trust it at all. Ask me later specifics. I know, since I did Abu Ghraib, lots of emails from lots of kids involved. It's complicated because what happens is we're going along - the way the war is, it's sort of this dreary pattern. We're going along, our troops, and they're going down roads. It's really sort of astonishingly stupid. We patrol, which is stupid to begin with. What good does that do? They go down roads, certain fixed roads, certain times, certain places, usually in groups of three, four, five Humvees, Bradley tanks, Strikers, other heavy vehicles. One gets blown up. The Americans start screaming in pain. The other vehicles stop, run out. The soldiers are jammed into the back. You’ve seen some tapes or TV stuff about how they do it. They come running out and they shoot at anything that runs. And that's the war.

In one case - after I did Abu Ghraib, I got a bunch of digital pictures emailed me, and – was a lot of work on it, and I decided, well, we can talk about it later. You never know why you do things. You have some general rules, but in this case, a bunch of kids were going along in three vehicles. One of them got blown up. The other two units - soldiers ran out, saw some people running, opened up fire. It was a bunch of boys playing soccer. And in the digital videos you see everybody standing around, they pull the bodies together. This is last summer. They pull the bodies together. You see the body parts, the legs and boots of the Americans pulling bodies together. Young kids, I don’t know how old, 13, 15, I guess. And then you see soldiers dropping R.P.G.'s, which are rocket-launched grenades around them. And then they're called in as an insurgent kill. It's a kill of, you know, would-be insurgents or resistance and it goes into the computers, and I'm sure it's briefed. Everybody remembers how My Lai was briefed as a great victory, “128 Vietcong killed.” And so you have that pattern again. You know, ask me why I didn't do this story. Because I didn't think the kids did murder. I think it was another day in the war. And even to write about it in a professional way would name names and all that.

I just bet Hersh got digital pictures mailed to him. Photoshop is a common softwar application, after all. Interesting to note that somehow these pics "evolved" into video footage (that nobody has yet seen - hard to believe that the Enemy Media wouldn't go gangbusters with something that allegedly "explosive").

This bilge is nothing but the full gamut of left-wing anti-military prejudices bundled together in frantic search of an evidentiary hook. (1) GI's are stupid neanderthals who don't know the first thing about fighting an "insurgency" (but Generalissimo Hersh does, of course); (2) when the smart, courageous, "freedom fighter" enemy effortless ambushes our hapless brutes, they get their asses kicked; (3) not wanting to get embarrassed, they go run down some innocent teenagers, slaughter them, throw the corpses in a pile along with some discarded weapons, and call it a "victory"; (4) Oh, by the way, it's just like what happened all the time in Vietnam - where John Kerry served.

And Hersh hasn't written about this because he wanted to do the grunts a favor? Oh, wait, let me guess, this is how he "supports the troops"! At least until the eve of an election in which his quisling party has a chance to get Congress back, and then THEY can "name names and all that", and that's just for starters.

Rush Limbaugh long ago said that the difference between Dems out of power and Dems in power is that in the former they're perpetual comic relief, while in the latter they're utterly terrifying. I don't think it requires much additional explanation to see how that principle applies here.

Don't take my word for it - listen to the terrorists themselves:

Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed. [emphases added]

Islamists lie when their strategy calls for it, but they are remarkably open about their ultimate objectives, and evidently sufficiently confident of their attainment (and contemptuous of us) that deception is something they bother with less and less. As they see it - doubtless from their consumption of American newsmedia propaganda - we're losing heart, losing our stomach for the fight, getting "tired," and just plain "losing," just like Osama bin Laden said of us over a decade ago. The "pitiful, helpless infidel giant" was aroused for a while, but now he's dozing off once more, and they can move in to hit him again, harder, perchance to put him to sleep for good.

C'mon, if you were they, isn't that what you would conclude? And is that not perhaps what a great many Americans are also concluding, which would explain the GOP surge in these closing days of the midterm campaign?

Mario Loyola summed it up best in the Corner the other day:

The really important thing about this entire ["stuck in Iraq"] gaffe is that Kerry drew attention to a structural flaw in the DNC's communications strategy (which Kerry does all the time, which is why he is such a liability to them) namely that the Democrats do not support what our troops are fighting for and are embarrassed by the troops' dedication and sacrifice and hence they do not support the troops. And I am of the opinion that we should clobber them with that ruthlessly until the day of the election — just like we did in '04 —because it is the most basic reason they deserve to lose.

Well, there is a reason even more basic than that, and it goes something like this:

1) If the Democrats get back into power, they will cripple the military and destroy the war effort by forcing a retreat from Iraq and ultimately the whole Middle East;

2) That will guarantee a Middle East war with Israel heavily outnumbered and the use of weapons of mass destruction - one into which the only thing worse than being drawn into it ourselves would be to foolishly try to stay out of it;

3) It will also guarantee a renewed terrorist assault here at home (with the termination of the Patriot Act, NSA terrorist surveillance program, SWIFT anti-terrorist financing program, etc.) that will also almost certainly include the use of weapons of mass destruction;

4) All of this is worth it to the Dems as long as they get back into power.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Democrats will wade through American blood if that's what it takes to get back control. They'll take a poisoned, shattered realm, as long as they get to rule it.

There's only one way for Republicans - for Americans - to prevent the dhimmist fate that awaits - get out and vote GOP tomorrow. The ballot you cast tomorrow could save you a bullet in the head - or worse - later.