The Facts in Iraq Are Changing

[irvin88]

The Facts in Iraq Are Changing
A Commentary by Michael Barone
Saturday, June 21, 2008

As we enter the second half of the campaign year, facts are undermining the Democratic narrative that has dominated our politics since about the time Hurricane Katrina rolled into the Gulf coast -- most importantly, the facts about Iraq.

During the Democratic primary season, all the party's candidates veered hardly a jot or tittle from the narrative that helped the Democrats sweep the November 2006 elections. Iraq is spiraling into civil war, we invaded unwisely and have botched things ever since, no good outcome is possible, and it is time to get out of there as fast as we can.

In January 2007, when George W. Bush ordered the surge strategy, which John McCain had advocated since the summer of 2003, Barack Obama informed us that the surge couldn't work. The only thing to do was to get out as soon as possible.

That stance proved to be a good move toward winning the presidential nomination -- but it was poor prophecy. It is beyond doubt now that the surge has been hugely successful, beyond even the hopes of its strongest advocates, like Frederick and Kimberly Kagan. Violence is down enormously, Anbar and Basra and Sadr City have been pacified, Prime Minister Maliki has led successful attempts to pacify Shiites as well as Sunnis, and the Iraqi parliament has passed almost all of the "benchmark" legislation demanded by the Democratic Congress -- all of which Barack Obama seems to have barely noticed or noticed not at all. He has not visited Iraq since January 2006 and did not seek a meeting with Gen. David Petraeus when he was in Washington.

I can remember how opponents of the Vietnam War simply tuned out news of American success when at Richard Nixon's orders Gen. Creighton Abrams pursued a new strategy. Opponents of the Iraq war, including Obama, seem to have been doing the same.

That's not true of all critics of the Bush administration and its military leaders. The editorial writers of The Washington Post have been paying close and careful attention. And even though they may be temperamentally more inclined to favor Obama's candidacy over John McCain's, they have not been unwilling to take Obama to task for his inattention to American success. Obama, the Post noted tartly on June 7, "has become unreasonably wedded to a year-old proposal to rapidly withdraw all U.S. combat forces from the country -- a plan offered when he wrongly believed that the situation would only worsen as long as American troops remained."

On June 18, a Post editorial made the same point again and noted that Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyard Zebari told Obama in a phone conversation that a precipitate withdrawal would embolden al-Qaida and Iran. But Obama told ABC News' Jake Tapper he said no such thing. Perhaps he's still trying to avoid facing facts that undermine his narrative. Which might also explain why he said he was willing to meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions while he has not been able to find time to meet with Petraeus.

Other examples of facts undermining Democratic narratives readily occur. Last week charges were dropped against the seventh of eight Marines accused of atrocities in Haditha. The narrative, peddled by Democratic Congressman (and Marine veteran) John Murtha, of depraved American soldiers massacring innocent Iraqis seems to be falling victim to the facts.

And the fact of $4 gasoline has undermined the narrative that alternative forms of energy can painlessly supply our needs. Public opinion has switched sharply and now favors drilling offshore and, by inference, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Democrats are scrambling to argue that drilling wouldn't make any difference -- and that anyway the oil companies aren't drilling enough on federal land they currently lease.

All of this matters because the rejection of the Republicans in the 2006 elections was a verdict on competence more than ideology. The Republicans seemed incompetent at relieving victims of Katrina, producing success in Iraq and even policing the House page programs. The Democrats could not do worse and might do better. But in the 19 months since November 2006, some important facts have changed.

If George W. Bush was wrong about the surge from summer 2003 to January 2007, Barack Obama has been wrong about it from January 2007 to today. John McCain seems to have been right on it all along. When asked why he changed his position on an issue, John Maynard Keynes said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" What say you, Sen. Obama?

[burmafrd]

I notice with the collapse of the Haditha charges that none of the mainstream media that trumpeted it are mentioning it at all.
And that piece of garbage Murtha has NEVER apologized for that crap.

And for those that say just because Murtha served it means something-
Benedict Arnold was a great Hero at Saratoga and before.
And frankly Murtha is starting to look like another Arnold.

[silverbear]

I can remember how opponents of the Vietnam War simply tuned out news of American success when at Richard Nixon's orders Gen. Creighton Abrams pursued a new strategy. Opponents of the Iraq war, including Obama, seem to have been doing the same.

Well, how did the Vietnam war turn out after Abrams introduced that new strategy, Barone??

Answer-- we still lost...

Perhaps you should choose another example...

Here's a sampling of some recent headlines about the Iraq war, over on Yahoo:

Police: Female suicide bomber kills 10 in Iraq

This one happened in the last few hours, and 35 other people were wounded... it happened in Baghdad...

U.S. Blames Shiites for Lethal Blast In Baghdad

This one refers to a truck bombing that killed 65 people on June 18th...

At Least 51 Are Killed in Blast at Baghdad Market

This one happened on the 17th, and also wounded some 75 more people...

So, there's 3 attacks inside Baghdad, in the last 5 days, that have killed 126 people, and wounded at least 110 more...

I wonder if the folks in Baghdad feel like the surge is "working"??

Barone is a right wing shill, always has been... and his thesis here is beyond ludicrous... the surge was supposed to pacify Baghdad, obviously Baghdad is nowhere CLOSE to pacified...

Sorry to introduce facts into the propagandizing...

[silverbear]

I notice with the collapse of the Haditha charges that none of the mainstream media that trumpeted it are mentioning it at all.
And that piece of garbage Murtha has NEVER apologized for that crap.

And for those that say just because Murtha served it means something-
Benedict Arnold was a great Hero at Saratoga and before.
And frankly Murtha is starting to look like another Arnold.

In your world, anybody who isn't kissin' Dubya's butt is a traitor...

[Angus]

In your world, anybody who isn't kissin' Dubya's butt is a traitor...

Now, now! Just because things aren't going your way . . . . .

:)

[Hostile]

What we really need is for Barbara Eden to put her Jeannie costume back on and blink away all dissidents, repercussions, and troubles. After all war is supposed to be rosy and cheerful once the initial fighting is over.

[CowboyFan74]

People blow themselves up all the time over there, tell us something we don't know. As if Our presence over there has made this a new thing:rolleyes:

[ninja]

Well, how did the Vietnam war turn out after Abrams introduced that new strategy, Barone??

Answer-- we still lost...

Perhaps you should choose another example...

Sorry to introduce facts into the propagandizing...

Vietnam was not a defeat for the American military. The American military soundly defeated the North Vietnamese on the battlefield. The Vietnam War was "lost" on the political front here in the US at the hands of the Left-wing media and liberals. The media snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The Left-wing media after WWII in America will stoop to outright lies and accusations to spin defeat for any war the US is involved. The Left wingers (traitors imo) hate the military and hate the Republicans.

[Rowdy]

Vietnam was not a defeat for the American military. The American military soundly defeated the North Vietnamese on the battlefield. The Vietnam War was "lost" on the political front here in the US at the hands of the Left-wing media and liberals. The media snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

:hammer:

[burmafrd]

The Tet offensive was the last desperate gasp by the VC and NV army to try and make the media their allies and it worked. Of course a lot of stupid decisions by the Johnson administration and the Pentagon did not help. Between TET and Khe Sanh, the NVA was incapeable of any real offensive for almost two years and the VC were pretty much gone.

[Doomsday101]

Face it if Americans are not being killed in large numbers or Iraq is not going to hell in a hand basket the democrates and many in the media do not want to talk about it. The only time Iraq is brought back into the lime light is when something bad happens. Is does make one wonder who some people are rooting for?

Even silverbear tries to bring up only the bad and then evokes Vietnam as if Iraq is even similar to what took place in Vietnam

[canters]

Well, how did the Vietnam war turn out after Abrams introduced that new strategy, Barone??

Answer-- we still lost...

Perhaps you should choose another example...

Here's a sampling of some recent headlines about the Iraq war, over on Yahoo:

Police: Female suicide bomber kills 10 in Iraq

This one happened in the last few hours, and 35 other people were wounded... it happened in Baghdad...

U.S. Blames Shiites for Lethal Blast In Baghdad

This one refers to a truck bombing that killed 65 people on June 18th...

At Least 51 Are Killed in Blast at Baghdad Market

This one happened on the 17th, and also wounded some 75 more people...

So, there's 3 attacks inside Baghdad, in the last 5 days, that have killed 126 people, and wounded at least 110 more...

I wonder if the folks in Baghdad feel like the surge is "working"??

Barone is a right wing shill, always has been... and his thesis here is beyond ludicrous... the surge was supposed to pacify Baghdad, obviously Baghdad is nowhere CLOSE to pacified...

Sorry to introduce facts into the propagandizing...

By any objective means of measuring, things are better in terms of US fatailies. Are things perfect? No. Will BO pull us out of Irag if he wins? NO.

[REDVOLUTION]

Vietnam was not a defeat for the American military. The American military soundly defeated the North Vietnamese on the battlefield. The Vietnam War was "lost" on the political front here in the US at the hands of the Left-wing media and liberals. The media snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The Left-wing media after WWII in America will stoop to outright lies and accusations to spin defeat for any war the US is involved. The Left wingers (traitors imo) hate the military and hate the Republicans.


That is very interesting.
Could you elaborate?

Perception is everything <--- and that is wrong.

[ninja]

That is very interesting.
Could you elaborate?

Perception is everything <--- and that is wrong.

What is very interesting? And what would you like me to elaborate on?

Remember that famous picture of the South Vietnamese soldier holding a gun to the head of a NVA prisoner just before he was going to shoot him. I heard there is a story behind that picture that wasn't told at the time. If I remember correctly, that prisoner had just murdered a family member of the guy holding a gun to his head. Funny, after the facts come out the perception changes. Now, who's the bad guy?

How about Peter Arnett and CNN crying over a supposed baby milk factory getting "blowed up?" It wasn't a baby milk factory. CNN ran the story without ever checking the facts.

How about Dan Rather and his manila folder from some unknown guy with dirt on Bush. Lo and behold, the documents were fakes easily verified by the Microsoft font used to type the documents which wasn't available in the 60's.

[Phrozen Phil]

What is very interesting? And what would you like me to elaborate on?

Remember that famous picture of the South Vietnamese soldier holding a gun to the head of a NVA prisoner just before he was going to shoot him. I heard there is a story behind that picture that wasn't told at the time. If I remember correctly, that prisoner had just murdered a family member of the guy holding a gun to his head. Funny, after the facts come out the perception changes. Now, who's the bad guy?

How about Peter Arnett and CNN crying over a supposed baby milk factory getting "blowed up?" It wasn't a baby milk factory. CNN ran the story without ever checking the facts.

How about Dan Rather and his manila folder from some unknown guy with dirt on Bush. Lo and behold, the documents were fakes easily verified by the Microsoft font used to type the documents which wasn't available in the 60's.


There are some problems with your information. The Vietnamese soldier was Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, who was the Republic of Vietnam's Chief of National Police. The individual who was killed was identified initially as an operative of the the North Vietnamese government who was involved in assassinating Police officers. His actual identity has always been in dispute. The execution was supposed to take place indoors, but was moved outside to "allow for better coverage". General Loan emigrated to the U.S. and opened a Pizza restaurant in Virginia. This picture and others like it helped turn public opinion against the war. He was only doing his duty as it was defined at the time, but the act of killing someone in cold blood generally will turn people's stomachs.

As for the baby food factory story, the building in question was targeted as a manufacturing facility for chemical weapons. Peter Arnett was challenged on the story, but steadfastly maintained that he was "standing ankle deep" in baby food. It was never confirmed that any weapons were manufactured there. Arnett maintained his jounalistic integrity throughout the time he was there. The truth can be an elusive commodity in the time of war and we should thnk those who will question the "official line" if it means getting at the truth.

[hank2k]

Vietnam was not a defeat for the American military. The American military soundly defeated the North Vietnamese on the battlefield. The Vietnam War was "lost" on the political front here in the US at the hands of the Left-wing media and liberals. The media snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The Left-wing media after WWII in America will stoop to outright lies and accusations to spin defeat for any war the US is involved. The Left wingers (traitors imo) hate the military and hate the Republicans.


Many of the same guys who are trying to spread this "we lost Vietnam because of the liberal media " fiction are the same guys behind the domino theory.

How did that turn out?

Vietnam was a war we never should have entered,a war started based on LIES, that cost 50,000 american lives and gained us nothing in return.

The same chickenhawks who were too gutless to serve in that war (and Im including Bush in that crew) are now the same guys who lied us into Iraq.

Start the draft tomorrow and see all these pro Iraq war guys heading for the hills.

[Doomsday101]

Many of the same guys who are trying to spread this "we lost Vietnam because of the liberal media " fiction are the same guys behind the domino theory.

How did that turn out?

Vietnam was a war we never should have entered,a war started based on LIES, that cost 50,000 american lives and gained us nothing in return.

The same chickenhawks who were too gutless to serve in that war (and Im including Bush in that crew) are now the same guys who lied us into Iraq.

Start the draft tomorrow and see all these pro Iraq war guys heading for the hills.

Except it was JFK and Johnson who got us stuck in Vietnam but many praise them today.

[zrinkill]

Start the draft tomorrow and see all these pro Iraq war guys heading for the hills.

Some of us did not need a draft as an excuse to serve our Country.

[iceberg]

In your world, anybody who isn't kissin' Dubya's butt is a traitor...

kinda like anyone who's not slamming bush must be kissing his butt?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I notice with the collapse of the Haditha charges that none of the mainstream media that trumpeted it are mentioning it at all.
And that piece of garbage Murtha has NEVER apologized for that crap.

And for those that say just because Murtha served it means something-
Benedict Arnold was a great Hero at Saratoga and before.
And frankly Murtha is starting to look like another Arnold.

funny to the British, Benedict Arnold was a true a loyalist who saw the light after his time with the rebellion :cool:

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Vietnam was not a defeat for the American military. The American military soundly defeated the North Vietnamese on the battlefield. The Vietnam War was "lost" on the political front here in the US at the hands of the Left-wing media and liberals. The media snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The Left-wing media after WWII in America will stoop to outright lies and accusations to spin defeat for any war the US is involved. The Left wingers (traitors imo) hate the military and hate the Republicans.

why are you a traitor because you disagree with a war and speak out against it?

are people who lied to get support for a war not traitors as well?

[hank2k]

Except it was JFK and Johnson who got us stuck in Vietnam but many praise them today.

I dont disagree that (especially Johnson) democratic presidents lied about Vietnam (so did Nixon, btw) but that doesnt make it right.

And it still isnt right regardless of who does it.

[Doomsday101]

I dont disagree that (especially Johnson) democratic presidents lied about Vietnam (so did Nixon, btw) but that doesnt make it right.

And it still isnt right regardless of who does it.

I think the difference was the intelligence that Bush was getting was pretty much the same intelligence that Clinton was getting and even Clinton initially agreed with Bush before he later would disagree over the reason. Faulty intelligence and lying is a bit different. What 9/11 did was put the US in a position of not taking any chances when dealing with Saddam.

[BrAinPaiNt]

why are you a traitor because you disagree with a war and speak out against it?

are people who lied to get support for a war not traitors as well?

Because some stances, like the one he had about traitors, are idiotic and the work of fear mongers.

This quote pretty much sums it up...

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Hermann Goering

[hank2k]

I think the difference was the intelligence that Bush was getting was pretty much the same intelligence that Clinton was getting and even Clinton initially agreed with Bush before he later would disagree over the reason. Faulty intelligence and lying is a bit different. What 9/11 did was put the US in a position of not taking any chances when dealing with Saddam.


This has been debated countless times in here and I dont want to rehash it but the "Bush wasnt a liar --just stupid argument doesnt fly."

There is just too much evidence that prewar intelligence was manipulated, fabricated, and distorted to make Hussein appear to be an imminent threat when Bush had hard evidence that in fact he was not.

I am not going to debate this point because it has been discussed so much that if you dont believe it by now...frankly you have the blinders on when it comes to the issue.

There is also piles of evidence that the Iraq war distracted us and continues to distract us from finding the real guys behind 9-11, and that Bush failed to act on solid substantial evidence that could have prevented 9-11. (Not talking the 9-11 was a hoax conspiracy stuff, more the Richard Clarke stuff.

So feel free to have the last word on this issue , but the fantasy that Bush was just a victim of bad info doesnt coincide with the facts.

[Doomsday101]

This has been debated countless times in here and I dont want to rehash it but the "Bush wasnt a liar --just stupid argument doesnt fly."

There is just too much evidence that prewar intelligence was manipulated, fabricated, and distorted to make Hussein appear to be an imminent threat when Bush had hard evidence that in fact he was not.

I am not going to debate this point because it has been discussed so much that if you dont believe it by now...frankly you have the blinders on when it comes to the issue.

There is also piles of evidence that the Iraq war distracted us and continues to distract us from finding the real guys behind 9-11, and that Bush failed to act on solid substantial evidence that could have prevented 9-11. (Not talking the 9-11 was a hoax conspiracy stuff, more the Richard Clarke stuff.

So feel free to have the last word on this issue , but the fantasy that Bush was just a victim of bad info doesnt coincide with the facts.

Then don't rehash it but the fact is the intelligence was the same things that the Clinton admin was getting and we had UN inspectors who were not given unfettered access as demanded by the US and UN inspectors who said that all WMD were not accounted for. You may not like it but that is the fact, that is not spin or 2nd guessing Saddam was warned and choose to continue the game. If you want to call that lying then be my guest. Sorry I don't have blinders on I felt the US was very slow in dealing with Saddam to begin with 13 years of sactions and oil for food programs that were nothing but a joke.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Then don't rehash it but the fact is the intelligence was the same things that the Clinton admin was getting and we had UN inspectors who were not given unfettered access as demanded by the US and UN inspectors who said that all WMD were not accounted for. You may not like it but that is the fact, that is not spin or 2nd guessing Saddam was warned and choose to continue the game. If you want to call that lying then be my guest. Sorry I don't have blinders on I felt the US was very slow in dealing with Saddam to begin with 13 years of sactions and oil for food programs that were nothing but a joke.

Actually the 13 years was not a joke because it worked...he did not reconstitute his WMDs nor get nuclear weapons. The only WMDs were the ones he originally had and by that time they were no longer WMDs because they had deteriorated due to age.

So basically it worked. He just did not want to give access because he had Iran breathing down is neck.

And to top it all off...I am now reading/hearing that W is starting to ramp up attention back into Afghan to get OBL so it helps his legacy in hopes it turns it around. I mean less than one year after 9/11 and he was quoted as saying he is not worried and does not care much about OBL and we move most of the troops to Iraq...now...NOW he has decided we need to ramp it up more in Afghan.

Geez this guy needs slapped.

[Jordan55]

Iraqis' drubbing of U.S. troops shows who rules the soccer field

Mike Tharp / MCT

An American soldier wears the team's T-shirt to its "fallen heroes" during a soccer match in Iraq. | View larger image
By Mike Tharp | McClatchy Newspapers

MULTAKA, Iraq — A soccer game on a dirt field between two amateur teams_ one U.S. Army soldiers, one local Iraqis — may not seem like a big deal in the scope of the wider war.

Especially when it's a blow-out by the Iraqis; when both teams are playing in running shoes, not cleats; when the nets are thin blue mesh; and when only a couple hundred fans brave the 108-degree temperature in this town due west of Kirkuk.

But the recent match between members of the 87th Infantry's 1st battalion and several young men from the Sons of Iraq meant much more than the 9-0 score.

For one thing, it was the third time in recent days when American soldiers donned shorts and "Salute to Our Fallen Heroes" T-shirts to go head-to-head and foot-to-foot with teams of opponents who, only months ago, may have been trying to kill them.

For another, the soldiers were playing without body armor — a sign of improved security in the sandy Hawijah District patrolled by units of the 10th Mountain Division from Fort Drum, N.Y.

The soccer-playing Sons of Iraq here and in two neighboring towns, many of them former Iraqi militiamen, helped make it possible. They're paid to watch their own neighborhoods for "special groups," the umbrella term now used by coalition forces to describe Iranian-backed cells and other foes. The Sons, previously called Awakening Councils, also offer tips on strangers in the area, where to find weapons caches, where a fresh homemade bomb has been planted.

"Having them as part of the equation has been really helpful," said Maj. Sean Wilson at the 10th Mountain Division's headquarters at Forward Operating Base Warrior on Kirkuk Regional Airbase.

Tips on weapons caches and other militarily useful information are up 50 percent since late last year and violence is down 90 percent, the Garden Grove, Calif., native said.

The soccer game and its two predecessors (also won by the Iraqis) were meant to be confidence-builders in the expanded American effort to win — if not hearts and minds of their former adversaries — at least a growing sense of solidarity.

"This is the sort of thing you see as a turning point," said an enthusiastic Maj. Gen. Mark Hertling, commander of the 1st Armored Division and Multi-National Division North based in Mosul. "For the mayor and chief of police (of Multaka) to take the risk to be here — this is history being made."

Khalid, 14, dressed in a plaid shirt, sweat pants and rubber sandals, would agree. "Ee-rock 5, Ameriki zay-ro," he delighted in telling an American after Sufian Ali, 20, headed in one of his four goals. Added Abu Seif, mayor of the town of 8,500: "In the beginning we were dealing with terrorists. Now we see Americans and Iraqis play a soccer match-and that's a historic event."

Even as the two silver trophies waited to be awarded — the winners' was slightly larger — U.S. soldiers with M-16s and Iraqi security and police forces with AK-47s and pistols patrolled the sidelines, just in case.

Before the soccer game, both the American and Iraqi national anthems were played. At halftime, Hertling stood with the mayor and handed out soccer jerseys, pants and sweats to dozens of Iraqi boys. ("Girls no play soccer," Khalid, an aspiring center midfielder, explained as he clutched a new pair of sweat pants.) And after the 60-minute rout, members of both teams filed by to shake hands and exchange high-fives.

Leading scorer Ali, who one day hopes to play for Iraq's national team — now desperately trying to advance in World Cup qualifying games — was diplomatic about his team's easy win.

"We are a younger team," he said through an interpreter. "The Americans are a bit older. They play with a lot of enthusiasm-but they don't control the ball very well."

Said Hertling: "You lose a game, but you win a lot of friends."

"Next time," added Maj. Wilson, "dodge ball."

Tharp reports for the Merced (Calif.) Sun-Star.

[burmafrd]

The person who was executed by the SV police chief was identified as a North Vietnamese OFFICER in civilian clothes in a battle zone. IAW with the Geneva Convention, anyone found like that is subject to summary execution- which means killing him on spot. WHich was done.

[ninja]

There are some problems with your information. The Vietnamese soldier was Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, who was the Republic of Vietnam's Chief of National Police. The individual who was killed was identified initially as an operative of the the North Vietnamese government who was involved in assassinating Police officers. His actual identity has always been in dispute. The execution was supposed to take place indoors, but was moved outside to "allow for better coverage". General Loan emigrated to the U.S. and opened a Pizza restaurant in Virginia. This picture and others like it helped turn public opinion against the war. He was only doing his duty as it was defined at the time, but the act of killing someone in cold blood generally will turn people's stomachs.


Some info I found on the internet:
"And what about Lt. Colonel Nguyen Ngoc Loan and his "martyr" victim?

Lem{the "martyr victim"} commanded a Viet Cong assassination and revenge platoon, which on that day had targeted South Vietnamese National Police officers, or in their stead, the police officers' families; Lem was captured near the site of a ditch holding as many as thirty-four bound and shot bodies of police and their relatives, some of whom were the families of General Loan's deputy and close friend.


He had been killing police officers and slashing the throats of their wives and children.

Nobody took pictures of them. Nobody won a Pulitzer for the image of their bodies sprawled in the bloody, dirty street. But people remembered Loan. Including his nominal allies in the West.



When General Loan was severely wounded while charging a Viet Cong hideout three months later and taken to Australia for treatment, there was such an outcry there against him that he was moved to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, where he was repeatedly denounced in Congress.

... At the fall of Saigon his pleas for American help in fleeing were ignored. But he and his family escaped in a South Vietnamese plane.

After his presence in the United States became known there was a move to deport him as a war criminal. But the efforts fizzled, and Mr. Loan, whose right leg had been amputated, settled in northern Virginia, where he eventually opened his pizzeria, which he operated until 1991 when publicity about his past led to a sharp decline in business. As a message scrawled on a restroom wall put it, "We know who you are."


Eddie Adams came to realize who was the martyr in this story. It wasn't the "insurgent" who had been out killing cops' children. Adams wrote:



The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation.

When the general died in obscurity and exile, Adams praised him as a "hero."

America should be crying. I just hate to see him go this way, without people knowing anything about him.

But by that time, no one was listening to the photographer, either."

Who's the bad guy now? The media who made a martyr out of a scumbag child and women killer.

[burmafrd]

Yeah but the libs never will apologize or admit they make a mistake.
Remember George Clooney said the libs have never been wrong.