IVAW takes the Road Show to Congress

| May 15, 2008

Well, your intrepid blogger immersed myself once again in the IVAW backwash. Thus Spake Ortner live blogged the hearing off the radio from the comfort of his Playboy Manor so you can probably read a more coherent version there. I’ve cracked open a Saranac Traditional Lager and I’m uploading pictures and suds while I type this.

When I arrived – at exactly 7:30 – there was no one else there so I plugged in and started filming just in time to catch Geoff Millard doing what he does best – testing all of the microphones like a good little general’s gopher;

But they asked me to leave and wait in the hall. The VVAW already had a guy at the table to the enterance. You remember VVAW – the guys that are babysitting IVAW to give them some leverage and the benefit of IVAW’s vast experience at being blowhards. Soon after I arrived, I was overjoyed to see Coby show up – Coby is a member of the Free Republic, the Veterans for Freedom and the Gathering of Eagles and I’ve seen him at nearly every event I’ve attended this year. He’s also upwards of 6 feet tall and a very imposing figure. He set out to deliver the opposing view of the GOE to various Congressional offices on the floor. While we were talking, Army Sergeant showed up and we took a picture to prove that no matter how much we disagree, we’re still buds;

Notice the VVAW guy horning in on our picture with the VVAW shirt – I’m sure Raoul knows who he is. He tried to talk to me once because we’re both wearing CIBs, but I know I earned mine, so I didn’t have much to say to him.

Code Pinks drone hags showed up, but I wasn’t in the mood to photo them after spending Sunday at their clown picnic. Finally it was time to let us in the hearing room. Five old hippie chicks got ahead of me because they’d explained to the IVAW chic that they’d come a long way to be there. I’d come a long way, too. Glenmont’s at the end of the Red Line. Luckily, the Code Pink hags got there late and there was no room for them. For some reason they told Coby and I to sit next to each other. Whatever.

There was no internet access, so I just typed out notes in Notepad. As I said, if you can’t get what’s going on, go to The Sniper.

Woolsey opened the hearing. I got the impression she was talking to kindergartners and treating them with kid gloves – but that’s just me. I thought there would at least be an appearance of objectivity, but Woolsey blew that away in the first minute when she said that General Petraeus was telling Congress things that just “not so”. I’m pretty sure that Congress is supposed to rely on the testimony of people on the scene and not make judgements that are contrary to that unless they have evidence of some sort.

The Barbara Lee got cranked up – I just videoed her because Woolsey had me a little sick;

Lee went on to say that Congress wanted to be at the Winter Soldier hearing in Silver Spring, but they were battling the Bush Administration at the time. Kucinich was there briefly, so actually, Lee was just trying to make excuses for not driving in crosstown traffic at rush hour. If they’d held Winter Soldier in Vegas or Jamaica, I’ll bet they’d have made it. It was on a weekend, there were no battles on weekends.

Lee also said that she expected the testimony to be damaging to the Bush Administration – so much for the whole impartial scrutiny of all of the facts. Why were the IVAW even testifying to Congress if the outcome was already clear before the IVAW said a word? She went on to talk about the “cheerleading” and “false bravado” of the Right. So basically she was admitting that the only reason these folks were testifying to Congress was for the media’s sake, not the People of the United States.

At no time were there more than four Congresswomen in the room – when Jackson-Lee left, she was replaced by Kaptur so despite the list of 73 names on the committee, only five bothered to listen – or at least to be there.

First up was Kelly Doughtery in her fishnet stockings. At least she spared us the ridiculous storyof the KBR security folks shooting bean bags at Iraqi looter. By avoiding that story, she probably helped me stay in the hearings a little longer. But, just like my discussion with John Grant last week, she hasn’t been in Iraq since 2004 – none of the folks who testified had – what could she possibly say that would disparage General Petraeus’ testimony last month? Well, she didn’t. She explained that IVAW had already vetted all of the testimony, so there was no need for Congress to put the witnesses under oath.

Hey, good enough for me. Can you imagine a defense attorney telling a judge that he’d already verified a defendant’s story so there’s no need to put his client under oath? Drivel.

Jason Lemieux followed Kelly. He was discharged in 2006 – before General Petraeus took command. He began with the standard illegal war blather and testified to the destruction of property. His Rules of Engagement (ROE) were that he should shoot Iraqis that made him uncomfortable and he claimed that excessive force was routine.

Lemieux recounted one incident, and began the story with the standard “I don’t remember the date”. His unit returned fire with thousands of rounds and Lemieux called it indiscriminate (even though he was in the headquarters and only heard the rounds being fired and didn’t witness the actual fire fight). IVAW seems to be fixated on destroyed buildings. Probably because most were so far from the action, all they got to see was destroyed buildings. He went on to say that troops aren’t fighting for democracy, or the flag, or the country…just for their own safety and that somehow makes them dangerous to Iraqis. We can only hope the Iraqis realize that.

He was followed by Scott Ewing who mumbled so badly that I couldn’t hear him, but he did show us pictures of a messy house – I can only assume that the house was made messy by evil US forces searching an Iraqi home. Nothing was destroyed, just strewn about – like those houses the police enter on “Cops” and find the criminal hiding in the closet. Then he showed a Iraqi guy with his face shot off – Coby tells me that Waters and Woolsey both cried, I didn’t see that. But there was no back story to the photo – he didn’t say the guy was tortured or innocent or anything. The picture was for pure shock value. Waters and Woolsey bit.

Then came Geoff Millard who trotted out his “troops are racists” line. I’m not going through it, his story hasn’t deviated from the version that Denis Keohane detailed at Obiter Dictum.

Kristopher Goldsmith told the committee that he’d only joined the Army because he wanted to kill, that his longing for killing went back to his youth – but we shouldn’t be afraid of him because he’s not a killer or a racist anymore. Whew. He followed with pictures of backed up toilets and sewer systems. The horrors, the horrors. Goldsmith claimed he was discharged without benefits because he tried to commit suicide. I find it hard to believe, I mean really hard to believe. If he was discharged without VA benefits it was for something other than trying to commit suicide.

You’ll be happy to know that Maxine Waters, communist POS that she is, told the witnesses that they are braver than than the folks who do their job day-after-day without seeing the atrocities of backed up toilets and she told Goldsmith, based purely on his testimony, that she’d get him his benefits and get him into college. Does that piss off anyone who did their time and did what they’d agreed to do to EARN their benefits? Apparently, if you want to get free benefits, just act up, get discharged and then go tell Maxine Waters.

They all claim that IVAW saved them from a life of drugs, alcohol and despondency – good for them.

Sheila Jackson-Lee told them that if they bring a hundred thousand protesting troops to Washington to march “we’ll be your soldiers”. Well, how about being the soldiers for the folks that are still over there? How about you stop playing keep away with their funding by tacking it to social spending. Be a real soldier instead of just mouthing the words to assuage your own guilt.

I sat through Emanuele’s and Gilligan’s testimony which was word-for-word what they’d said in Silver Spring. Kokesh began and it was just like the tape I still have on YouTube. He was scheduled to talk about war trophies, but I was pretty sure that he wasn’t going to mention that he’d been busted from the rank of sergeant for smuggling his own war trophy back – an Iraqi pistol.

I knew I had to get out of there before Montalvan started spraying the room with sleeping gas, so Coby and I split.

I should mention that Coby stood by the door for the whole hearing and passed out GOE talking points to everyone who came in the room. I saw Millard sent one of his pudgy minions over to question him about it.

Heading up the street, we found rongkirby, frequent commenter here and FReeper extraordinaire manning his corner outside the Rayburn Building. We seem to run into each other everywhere these days.

If the media found anything to sink their teeth into, I certainly didn’t hear it. As I said in my AAR of the first Silver Spring testimony, in order to consider anything these folks said to be atrocities, you have to accept that the war in Iraq is illegal – and no one can prove to me that it is.

Woolsey said that the 1971 Winter Soldier brought the Vietnam War to a close – but that’s faulty recollection. Combat trrops were already being withdrawn by 1971. The last draft was in 1972…Winter Soldier in 1971 was an asterisk, a footnote. The only people who think it brought the war an end are fooling themselves. this one will have the same pathetic effect. Waters claimed that the media isn’t giving IVAW a fair shake and getting the news out – it’s because it’s a “dog bites man” story. Buildings get blown up in war, soldiers fire lots of real bullets in war. Where’s the news?

Every major news outlet was in Silver Spring and they all arrived at the same conclusion. Why would they bother to go to the expense of putting all of those crews on the scene if they hadn’t planned on using it in the first place? One of my commenters said it best, that Winter Soldier was a wet firecracker and I’ll add that no amount of hot air from Maxine Waters or Lynne Woolsey can dry it out.

Category: Antiwar crowd, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Phony soldiers, Politics, Saranac Beer, Winter Soldier II Live blogging

Comments (46)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Liberty Peak Lodge | May 16, 2008
  2. Yankeemom | May 17, 2008
  3. Rosemary's Thoughts | May 18, 2008
  4. This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » Doctor Raoul passes | April 1, 2013
  1. Kelly I don’t think was in Iraq in 1984, she would have been like 5.

    However, shame on you to mention her stockings and not have pictures. She is a rather comely lass and quite nice if I may praise her a bit.

  2. 509th Bob says:

    On one hand, I thank you for attending.

    On the other hand, HOW can STAND to be the same room with those people?

    So, once again, it was a “somebody told me” parade, eh? Not a “I was there, I saw it happen” “witness.”

  3. Jonn, could you put a figure on attendance?

    Also- There was a commotion at the end of the hearing, and the radio station ran away from it. Do you suspect someone on our side making a commotion or do you think it was Code Pink doing something silly again?

    Jonn wrote: I dunno. Coby and I left during Kokesh’s testimony. There were no Code Pink in the area when we left and if there was someone else there from our side, I didn’t see them. (shrug).

  4. ponsdorf says:

    Nice picture of AS. Perhaps the only IVAW member I’d like to shake hands with…

  5. Raoul Deming says:

    That’s Bill “bugout” perry.

    Here’s Bugout’s own Winter Soldier “testimony” from Winter Soldier. It starts out:

    PERRY. I served in Vietnam from ’67 to ’68. I wouldn’t like to go too far into the horror stories you’ve been hearing about the last few days, but I would like to relate a few incidents. On March 5, 1968, in the province of Phuc Long, village of Song Be, a platoon of us, twenty-nine of us, were on a search and destroy mission. A few of us, who were considered expendable, were told to walk point.

    As we came up out of a bamboo thicket into a clearing, a woman with whom I and one of the other two people had previously had what you might call business transactions with concerning marijuana, informed us of an imminent ambush on the part of the local forces. Myself and two others ran into her home with her. We weren’t sure whether she was _____ us or what, but we were scared so we ran into her home. The rest of the platoon came up out of the valley into the clearing and was ambushed.

    Jonn wrote: I knew you’d know who he is.

  6. She really is a sweetheart. Unless you piss her off, which thankfully I did not do. Except via email, and even on email she packs quite the punch.

  7. Raoul Deming says:

    Perry’s a nutcase.

    Good thing you didn’t tell him to get a haircut so as to try and “honkify” him


  8. ponsdorf says:

    “She really is a sweetheart. Unless you piss her off, which thankfully I did not do. Except via email, and even on email she packs quite the punch.”

    Hmmm, I had tentative plans to meet her at WR and then go for beer during WSII. Maybe it’s a good thing I had to cancel after all. OTOH I still owe her a beer.

  9. Man if you had seen her chewing the ass of the VFP guy. I am total non-conflict guy, and watching her was mastery of verbal altercations at their finest. Puppies, rainbows and unicorns until you piss her off.

  10. D. says:

    Not more than 100 in attendance; probably around 50-60, if that. They only had 28 seats left for “the public” after IVAW took up theirs.

  11. Yeah, they said on the radio that there were like 80 seats, wondered how many of “us” there were.

  12. Raoul Deming says:

    Why is Woolsey singing “I’m a little tea pot”?

    Jonn wrote: I think she’s saying “It used to be this big, but now you can drive a cement mixer through it”.

  13. Raoul Deming says:

    [Man if you had seen her chewing the ass of the VFP guy.]

    Perry? He’s VVAW per the shirt. Lost out in a VFP power struggle not long ago I’ve been told.

    Perry and the local VFP Chapter Chairman, John Grant, don’t have a “Peace Agreement”….

    In fact, John Grant can be seen on YouTube saying, “F–K Bill Perry”. Just ask Skye for the link.

  14. D. says:

    Me and Jonn, to the best of my knowledge…..

  15. No, this was at WSI when the guy told me to “Get the F off my property.” AS came in and went all berserker.

  16. Raoul Deming says:

    Where’s Desmond Mullens, IVAW member and special assistant to Barak Milhous Obama?


    Just put the next line into google and enjoy. Bet those YouTubes are interesting…

    +”desmond mullens” +IVAW

    Jonn wrote: Nope I didn’t see this guy there.

    Demond Mullens

  17. rongkirby says:

    Coby and I held the corner until about 1 PM then I moved over to the corner across from the Cannon Bldg where many of the Congressmen walk to the House to vote. Soon Dan a Junior HS student joined. Dan is a tremendous young man that has mutured far beyond his age. He has been at the Recuriters HQ and at many WR fridays. We had a lot of Police from across the country attending the Peace Officers’ Memorial Day. The Police men and women were about as supportive of our message (Complete the Mission)as you can be. Many vistors stopped including a delegation from Turkey. They told me the US and Turkey are now closely working together such as trading intelligence, that problems at the beginning of the war are forgotten. (Mr Evinch, Assembly of Turkish American Associations). Later AS from IVAW and a no. of their associates approached us and wanted to have a discussion and we did. Later Kokesh came by to talk. Dan wore a USMC shirt. I just stepped back and Dan handled him very well. Many Congressman said thanks for being out there. Great to see you again Jonn. You are everywhere and we appreciate it.

  18. YatYas says:

    Thanks for keeping the rest of us informed on what IVAW and Code Pink are up to. I saw them in person for the first time last year at the VFF event in DC. It sounds like there are some future “John Kerry’s” in IVAW. RAH!

  19. Skye says:

    When can one start proceedings to have these ‘comments’ struck from the congressional record?

  20. Lynn Woolsey is the biggest partisan hack and lamest excuse for a Congressperson who ever existed, though she has some competition (like Jim Moron of Northern VA). She supported Clinton’s bombing of Iraq as well as the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 but now undermines the war under Bush. Other notables in her Hall of Shame include giving a pass to Cindy Sheehan to attend the SOTU address a couple of years ago for which Sheehan was arrested for attempting to show off a shirt with a message against the war. Woolsey also wrote a letter of reference to a Marin County Judge for the rapist of a 17 year old Terra Linda girl, because his mother had worked for her. Is it any wonder she represents the same area where John Walker Lindh grew up?

  21. 1stCavRVN11B says:

    Thanks for the reports. Don’t think I could stomach the BS for too long either. What a bunch of worthless trash these so called veterans are.

  22. Harry Riley says:

    I fail to grasp all the fascination some seem to have over AS…if this person is who she and IVAW WSII program claims she is, an active duty NCO in the US Army, a member of a military intelligence organization, and she pals around with the likes of IVAW members, is an organizer, supports IVAW surrender position, is implicated in the distortions, fabrications designed to undermine our troops, it reflects another example of a leaderless military willing to turn their heads rather than hold AS accountable. It’s repulsive, a stab in the back of our warriors in harms way, an affront to military families, clearly has morale implications, and in my opinion, is seditious behavior.

    Having spent over 8 years as an NCO, I resent, with prejudice, any active duty military member associating with individuals or organizations that demonstrate motives to undermine our military and nation.

    Jonn wrote: If you really want an answer to that question, Harry, email me and I’ll explain it to you.

  23. Thanks for the great report and the pictures! It had to be tough sitting through that.

  24. Raoul says:

    Lynn Woolsey is on the Board of Progressive Democrats of America with Medea Benjamin and Cindy Sheehan.

    Medea Benjamin snet $665,000 to the enemy during the battle for Fallujah and now that Niniveh is the al-Qaeda holdout, they’re sending money there.

    They’ll claim it’s “humanitarian aaid” but past history during the 80’s their record is clear, they were supporting the enemy.

    Read J Micheal Waller’s “Third Current of Revolution”. MeMeMe Benjamin and he associates in different groups pumped more bucks into Central America’s wars than Ronald Reagan and Ollie North.

    The “anti-war” side likes to show the film “Meeting Resistance” and in that movie the “anti-war” filmakers show the families helping the jihadis.

  25. Raoul Says:

    Medea Benjamin snet $665,000 to the enemy during the battle for Fallujah and now that Niniveh is the al-Qaeda holdout, they’re sending money there.

    They’ll claim it’s “humanitarian aaid” but past history during the 80’s their record is clear, they were supporting the enemy.

    Why is Suzi still walking the streets? She is a part of the insurgency within our own country!

    Maybe some charges will be leveled with MAF’s Sedition Report, that if military recruiting centers being attacked nationwide and now being investigated by the FBI.

    To me, it’s a slam dunk. Suzi and Code Pink are aiding and abetting the enemy. Prosecute it!

  26. Raoul Deming says:

    Checkout the comments on this article http://comments.breitbart.com/0805161447570ds7otes/

    For an article on the Agence France Press website, Mr Deserter isn’t feeling the love…

  27. David M says:

    The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 05/16/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

  28. BrassT says:

    Doesn’t the ex-Marine Jack Murtha belong in here somewhere? I understand the bad Army chow . . . MRE’s suck! Bring back the C-rats!

  29. JWF says:

    Jonn, check out some of the details about the latest IVAW member who’s refusing his callup.

    Have you linked there.


    Jonn wrote: I just fished this out of my spam filter. Thanks for the heads-up and the link, JWF.

  30. Rosemary says:

    Great post, Jonn. Thank you for sitting through it so that we didn’t have to. I’m not sure I would be able to keep my mouth shut. Ya know what I mean? Yeah, you know. 😉

  31. Jon de Wald says:

    Hi Jonn,

    Hope I’m welcome here now, after we had a conciliatory and pleasant email exchange.

    I wanted to make a remark regarding Kris Goldsmith. I can understand how skeptical a person might be after hearing that a soldier who attempted to kill himself would be cashiered from the military without any benefits, but it does happen. When GEN Shinseki (a Clinton-era appointee; this tragedy is a budgetary concern without any real party affiliation) was CoS, he had a memo up all over Walter Reed with a statement, among others, to the effect of “be certain your diagnoses of mental illness are correct as it is more expensive to retire a PTSD victim than a soldier with a personality disorder”; sound advice, to be sure, but I felt it was meant to pressure psychiatrists to consider fiscal issues before public health ones.

    They try that garbage with a lot of us. We get to WRAMC, they start chapter proceedings for a “pre-existing personality disorder”, and then when we rip up a bar, or throw someone out of a second-story window, or eat a 9mm, then the diagnosis gets bumped up to PTSD or Major Depressive Disorder. I could buy the personality disorder thing if it had been detected in boot camp rather than after eight or twelve years of service. Personality disorders are difficult to conceal and impossible to suppress for many years in a military environment.

    The bottom line is neither the Pentagon nor the VA take as seriously as they should potentially fatal mental health issues, though recent statements made by Secretary Gates lead me to think they’re going to make stronger efforts to treat these casualties. It’s easy and it feels good to blame President Bush or Halliburton or whatever other scapegoat but it isn’t at all true. All those stupid Democrats I voted for in 2006 should be tacking on mental health treatment riders to any and all spending bills with increases in the tens of millions of dollars. And the President should sign them.

    – Jon

  32. jay lemeux says:

    you’ve misrepresented a number of my points and painted a misleading picture of my testimony in general. let’s go through some of this here…

    “Jason Lemieux followed Kelly. He was discharged in 2006 – before General Petraeus took command.”

    -a legitimate point in that the tactical situation in the AOs I served in has changed since I was there.

    “He began with the standard illegal war blather”

    -this one has me bewildered. I never actually used the term “illegal,” for one thing. I said that i was deployed in absence of a Congressional declaration of war. That’s a relevant point because article 1, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress alone the power to make war, and when I enlisted I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    that our withdrawal from iraq will reinforce the success of our enemies and leave Iraq in a power vacuum is a rational argument worth debating. but you can’t read the letter of the Constitution, interpret it in the spirit it was written and tell me that our invasion and/or occupation of Iraq are legal.

    “and testified to the destruction of property.”

    -the destruction of property is just a small part of the overall picture i was testifying to. i clearly stated my thesis at the beginning of my testimony: that a number of predictable factors combined to make ROEs unenforceable during my tenure in Iraq.

    “His Rules of Engagement (ROE) were that he should shoot Iraqis that made him uncomfortable and he claimed that excessive force was routine.”


    “Lemieux recounted one incident, and began the story with the standard “I don’t remember the date”.”

    -i was involved in or witnessed hundreds of incidents over the course of my three tours in Iraq. if you’ve deployed there, you know as well as i do that it’s unreasonable to expect me to remember the exact date of any one of them.

    “His unit returned fire”
    -after receiving four rounds of SAF;

    “with thousands of rounds”
    -and 203 rounds, and whole belts of .50 cal and Mark, and an NE, and a tank main gun round from an Army react force that showed up after the enemy ceased firing (in my testimony, i omitted the fact that the tank showed up after the enemy fire ceased in order to save time),

    “and Lemieux called it indiscriminate”
    – never said the word once in eight minutes of testimony. a youtube check will confirm this.

    i think what you’re referring to is my implication that it was grossly out of proportion to the perceived threat. if you want to present a rational argument that expending all that ammo is proportional or reasonable after receiving four AK rounds, I’ll give it my consideration.

    “(even though he was in the headquarters and only heard the rounds being fired and didn’t witness the actual fire fight).”
    -yes, and in light of the fact that:
    1. i was on my third tour and knew the difference between legitimate conduct and cowboy behavior;
    2. the squad leaders, some of whom were Marines i led on previous tours, all said in separate interviews that they took four rounds and some who showed up mid-show didn’t detect any fire at all;
    3. the platoon in question was well known for shooting civilians (scraping through the corresponding investigations by the skin of their teeth, when investigations couldn’t be avoided) and frequently submitting round expenditure counts in the thousands after incidents in which not one Marine was harmed.
    4. their platoon commander was an incompetent amateur and most of the squad leaders were FAST Marines with no combat experience.

    “IVAW seems to be fixated on destroyed buildings.”
    -i never noticed that pattern, but it’s possible. i think what you’re implying here is that my testimony is irrelevant because i didn’t mention any confirmed civilian deaths. the unit in question sprayed a whole residential block in a city of 450,000, but nobody was willing to leave the safety of the ECP to go check for civilian casualties so i guess we’ll all be left to wonder.

    “Probably because most were so far from the action, all they got to see was destroyed buildings.”
    -where’s your evidence that most of us were far from the action? even if everyone else was, i personally participated in enough firefights to know when Marines are trying to defend themselves and when they’re just shooting at everything they can get away with.

    “He went on to say that troops aren’t fighting for democracy, or the flag, or the country…just for their own safety”
    -i did say this, and it’s generally true.

    “and that somehow makes them dangerous to Iraqis.”
    -never said this. i implied it, though. being willing to protect each other at any expense makes us dangerous to Iraqis because it’s safer to shoot an Iraqi that’s possibly, but probably not, a suicide bomber than to abide by the overwhelming likelihood of his innocence and let him walk freely through his own city. i concede that there are shades of gray and that soldiers and Marines don’t all randomly shoot every Iraqi they see.

    “We can only hope the Iraqis realize that.”
    most believable sources indicate that they do.

    Jonn wrote: So basically, you have a problem with the fact that I wrote “indiscriminately” and you didn’t say the word and you verified that what I wrote is pretty true. I didn’t misrepresent or misconstrue what you said. Since much of it was taken from notes that I typed while you talked, I did a pretty good job. I probably wrote “indiscriminately” because it was easier than typing out whatever words you did use. Pardon me for taking liberties with your language, but at least give me credit for keeping with the spirit of your testimony. The only real problem you have with I wrote was that we disagree on the politics of it. As far as I’m concerned, that won’t change…but I’m fairly sure that you will come around to my way of thinking some day – when you look at Bill Perry and realize he’s your future.

  33. jay lemeux says:

    “Lemieux recounted one incident, and began the story with the standard “I don’t remember the date”. His unit returned fire with thousands of rounds and Lemieux called it indiscriminate (even though he was in the headquarters and only heard the rounds being fired and didn’t witness the actual fire fight).”

    also, you omitted the most important part of this incident: my XO heard the melee also and was concerned enough about the report to ask for a copy before I was even finished writing it. then he accused me of lying about the number of enemy rounds fired. then i said no, i was telling the truth as reported by the squad leaders who had no reason to lie to me, and the platoon involved was well known for similar stunts at the order of their rockstar platoon commander. when he heard that, he then changed the report in front of my face because he knew the platoon was in the wrong and he didn’t want to lose his job and see his Marines go to the brig.

    Jonn wrote:
    Yeah, well I didn’t include that to keep you from looking foolish. It’s hyperbole. No one would have lost their jobs or gone to the brig over massive firepower, unless they were intentionally firing that many rounds directly at unarmed civilians. I also left out the part where you said that no one went to check for casualties…it kind of makes your whole testimony look weak. Firing at buildings isn’t a war crime.

    The only reason you told the story was for the benefit of the aging bobblehead hippies who only need to hear about people using guns in war to be disgusted. Like I said, you only verified the veracity of my recitation of your testimony. It’s like I said in the AAR of Silver Spring, the only way any of the testimony you guys gave can be construed as “war crimes” is if you accept at the outset that the entire war is illegal. No one has been able to make that case…but since you are shooting for your personal gain, right along with the rest of your crowd, you’re willing to accept anything that bolsters your image.

    Please don’t think that you can make me or any of the readers of this blog believe that the war is illegal by cutting a pasting what you believe to be an airtight case. Others have tried and failed at that before you. Please don’t waste our time.

  34. jay lemeux says:

    “when he heard that, he then changed the report in front of my face because he knew the platoon was in the wrong and he didn’t want to lose his job and see his Marines go to the brig.”

    -and, he sent the report to battalion from his own SIPR account instead of having me send it through mine like usual, probably because he knew it was a felony and didn’t want to make me an accomplice, and because he didn’t want me to turn around and correct the numbers before submitting it myself.

  35. jay lemeux says:

    “The only real problem you have with I wrote was that we disagree on the politics of it.”

    That’s not true, Jonn. you’re misrepresenting me again. It’s not just that you disagree on the politics. as i said, I’m willing to have a debate on the politics with those who can actually present a debate and not just hide behind straw men and ad hominem attacks.

    the problem i have with what you wrote about that one specific point (i believe you’re cherry picking my words to counter only those points you feel comfortable arguing) is that you misrepresented the tactical implications of my testimony. their ammo expenditure wasn’t necessary to counter the threat. i don’t have to have been present to understand that; it’s a point that stands alone from whether they were part of an illegal occupation or the most wonderful, benevolent humanitarian action ever conducted.

    Jonn wrote:
    Yeah, I’ve been using “straw men and ad hominem attacks”. I haven’t said a cross word to you. Please don’t use the typical IVAW crybaby preemptive whine.

    I’m not interested in having a political discussion with you because you’re out of your depth here. You won’t accept facts, and I don’t feel like typing endlessly to have you blow it off with two or three word replies.

    Any ammo expenditure is necessary…it’s in the eyes of the beholder. You somehow think it was a crime…your hippie audience thought it was a crime and that’s all that matters. No combat veterans of any war I’ve talked to about it thought it was unnecessary – mainly because we weren’t there and we hadn’t lived through the events leading up to the engagements. Neither were you. But, you’re free to try and convince your hippie friends it was unnecessary, but please don’t waste my bandwidth trying to convince me.

  36. jay lemeux says:

    “Jonn wrote: Yeah, well I didn’t include that to keep you from looking foolish. ”

    -huh? I thought the whole point of your original post was to make the whole lot of us look foolish.

    you’re arguing against the case you want to argue against instead of arguing against what i’m actually saying. i never said anything about war crimes. nothing i’ve ever publicly submitted has been about war crimes. my main concern is the strategic damage the occupation of iraq does to our country. besides, the XO wouldn’t have falsified the report if what happened was acceptable.

    i’m not trying to convince your readers of anything other than the fact that you are willing to lie, omit relevant information and substitute attacks on character for attacks on logic in order to avoid an adult conversation. having succeeded at that, i’ll leave you to continue.

    carry on.

    Jonn wrote: Sorry, but my readers know what they’re reading. I didn’t lie, and you know I didn’t. Besides, they also know that what I missed, TSO caught on his blog. We were both there and we covered each other very well. So if that was your job, like everything else, you failed at it. I’d like to continue but my only son is coming home on leave tonight and I have pick him up at the airport…chickenhawk that I am.

  37. Gramps says:

    “-huh? I thought the whole point of your original post was to make the whole lot of us look foolish.”

    Y’all don’t need any help with that.

  38. Skye says:

    Luv you, Gramps!


  39. The Comish (sic) says:

    Kristofer Goldberg was not discharged for attempting suicide. He was discharged for malingering. In other words, he faked his suicide to get out of duty. He apparently didn’t dispute the charges.


  40. ArmySergeant says:

    Just because he was discharged for malingering doesn’t make it so. You can’t ‘fake’ a suicide attempt-either you try or you don’t. Even when you try as just a try for attention and it’s a “low-lethality” suicide attempt, it’s still a suicide attempt, even if it’s the most ridiculously implausible attempt ever.

  41. UpNorth says:

    AS, as a retired LEO, who was also a paramedic, believe me, suicide attempts are faked a lot!!! Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. As far as suicide goes, you either succeed, or you didn’t really try. Just cuz someone says they tried, doesn’t make it so. The only “attempt” that I ever saw that was genuine was a guy who tried to kill himself by shooting himself in the head and missed all the areas that would have killed him. Apparently, he flinched. Admittedly, this is anecdotal, but they are my experiences.

  42. ArmySergeant says:

    Yeah, I don’t know. I credit a lot of bad suicide attempts, oddly enough, to parental warnings of doom. “Don’t mix vodka and pills, you’ll wind up dead”. Really, not necessarily the case. But people think it’s so, and they don’t want to shoot themself because it’s messy and ugly and painful, so they do it. Much like the slitting wrists thing. People think, oh, slitting wrists is how people kill themself, and it’s peaceful. Really, I’d imagine you’d have to not only practically chop the hands off, but also wait for a really long time. Or people who jump off a bridge, or out a window. People do it in movies all the time…but really, i think it’s harder than it looks.