Category: Media

  • MSNBC: Boston bombers weren’t jihadists

    I don’t know if anyone besides right wing bloggers are watching MSNBC anymore, but this might be one of the reasons why; MSNBC news reader tells us that the Boston bombers weren’t jihadists at all, they were right wingers who were fans of professional conspiracy crank Alex Jones;

    I guess it makes MSNBC feel better about their shrinking constituency to label the rest of us crackpots. Certainly, it makes us safer for them to point out the squirrels and shinies while we’re trying to ferret out the jihadists among us.

  • Mike Warren; the phony POW, phony vet; aided in deception by the media

    Mike Warren

    I get so tired of this shit sometimes. This is the tale of Mike Warren written by Jaine Treadwell of the Troy, Alabama Messenger. And quite tale it is. Mike Warren claims that he was a Vietnam veteran and a POW. When Jaine was told by Captain John “Mike” McGrath, a real and fairly famous Vietnam POW that Warren wasn’t a POW, she mumbled something about the fact that she had known him for years. Not well enough, apparently. This is what she wrote about her friend;

    Mike Warren knows that, had it not been for a skinny, redheaded boy from Tulsa, Okla., no American soldiers would have left that valley in Vietnam alive.

    “Two of us made it out alive. I owe my life to Capt. Terry Gardner, no doubt about it,” Warren said. “If he had not disobeyed orders and come back for us, we would have been dead.”

    Warren was a member of the U.S. Army’s 101st Cavalry Division during the Vietnam “war.” His squad was boxed in a valley in a hot landing zone.

    “The helicopters had come in and gotten some of our squad out,” Warren said. “Many had been killed, but me and another soldier were still alive. The choppers had been ordered to stand down. There were just too many North Vietnamese. We didn’t stand a chance.”

    Warren said Capt. Terry Gardner heard the radio communication to “stand down” but he disobeyed the direct order and came in.

    “He got us out – saved our lives – and we didn’t know until later that he got hit twice coming in for us, once in the left side and again in the leg.”

    Y’all remember the 101st Calvalry Division, doncha? No, me neither. In another article written by his minion Treadwell, he tells the same story and says that it happened in 1963;

    Warren, a member of the Army’s 101st Cavalry, had his kneecap blown off in the fierce fighting in the Central Highlands of Vietnam in 1963. He lay on the battlefield gripped with pain and knowing that he would not be going home.

    Aside from the fact that there is no 101st Cavalry Division, the 101st AIRBORNE Division didn’t arrive in Vietnam until 1965, when it was still Airborne. It didn’t become an air assault division until 1968. The 1st Cavalry Division arrived in Vietnam in 1965, too, in case Warren forgot the name of the division he was stationed with over there, you know, like we all forget our unit designations. In fact, all maneuver elements weren’t committed to Vietnam until 1965 you know, after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in August, 1964.

    Thirteen members of Warren’s squad were captured by the North Vietnamese and placed in bamboo cages at the river’s edge.

    “The river water was not cold but it got cold,” he said. “The water was constantly moving and the longer you stayed in there, the colder it got. You couldn’t sit down in the cages. You had to stand there with the water rushing over you with just your head above the water. And there was almost no way that you sleep. Sometimes, we would try to reach across the cages and hold each other up so we could get a little sleep and sometimes just to keep a man’s head out of the water so he wouldn’t drown.”

    When a soldier was taken from his cage, it was to be interrogated and tortured.

    One torture technique was taken from the Russians. It was called “stooling.”

    “The enemy would put you on a three-legged stool and tie your arms behind your back braced with a bamboo stick and your legs tied together, too,” Warren said. “Three North Vietnamese would question you and, no matter what your answer was, one of them would kick the stool out from under you and you would hit the floor on your shoulder or your face or your back. They would pick you up, ask you another question and kick the stool out from under you. They would do that over and over until you gave them what they thought they wanted or until you passed out.”

    Warren said, from time to time, one of the soldiers would be taken from the cages to be killed.

    “Sometimes they would give one soldier a gun and force him to shoot another,” he said. “Death was always five minutes away.”

    Warren and the other members of his squad were “caged” in captivity for about 17 days. One fateful day, the camp was empty except for one guard who fell asleep and Warren and another soldier overpowered him and escaped.

    Two came out.

    Warren returned to his unit and was often the one sent to scout an area and report back what he was seeing. He would be on his own for days. When he could sleep, he often slept in trees.

    “I got to a point where I could go six days and six nights without sleep,” he said. “But on the seventh day, I would begin to hallucinate and see all kinds of boogie men.”

    Warren was on another “map starved” mission when his squad got lost and was captured by the North Vietnamese.

    “There were a half dozen of us and they would have killed us if they’d had time,” he said. “But another unit was also lost and stumbled upon us and overpowered the Vietnamese. Together, we made our way back to our units.”

    Warren remembers vividly when his unit engaged the enemy and one of the American soldiers, who was welding a 50-caliber machine gun, stepped on a “Bouncing Betty.”

    “We were going across a rice paddy and began taking fire from along a tree line and one of our men stepped on a Bouncing Betty, a mine that wouldn’t go off until you took your foot off,” he said. “The soldier was standing there with that big heavy gun and taking fire, knowing if he moved he would be blown to bits.”

    When the firing died down, the American soldiers wedged their bayonets under the soldier’s foot and he was able to “dismount” the mine.

    “When he woke up the next morning, every hair on his body had fallen out,” Warren said. “He was a black man and his skin had turned almost white, all from the tremendous rush of adrenalin. I’d never seen anything like that. None of us had. But that’s what fear can do to a man.”

    Warren returned home from his first tour of duty and was enjoying the comforts of being home until Uncle Sam “invited” him back to Vietnam. He didn’t have to sign up for a second tour of duty in Vietnam but his country needed him and he knew the consequences of not going back.

    Yeah, according to the Department of Defense, the only Warrens who were POWs in Vietnam were Air Force personnel, two were Captains (one classified Remains Returned and the other is presumed dead) and the only E-5 was Remains Returned.

    Yeah, so here’s the kicker, after two attempts to find his records, NPRC still couldn’t find any.

    Mike Warren FOIA

    Maybe that’s what he meant, it wasn’t him that was held in a tiger cage, it was his military records jacket. I’ve sent a link to Jaine Treadwell, but she might need to be motivated given her previous reticence to properly inform her readers and her editor, Robbyn Brooks. You can email Jaime at jaine.treadwell@troymessenger.com and Robbyn at robbyn.brooks@troymessenger.com .

    Thanks to Pat all of his hard work on the background for this story.

  • Obama: The media tells me I’m smart

    This is from The Hill, I’ll write a little more after I stop laughing;

    “It’s interesting, in the run-up to this speech, a lot of reporters say that, well, Mr. President, these are all good ideas, but some of you’ve said before; some of them sound great, but you can’t get those through Congress. Republicans won’t agree with you,” Obama said.

    Obama argued some Republicans privately agree with a lot of his ideas.

    “I know because they’ve said so. But they worry they’ll face swift political retaliation for cooperating with me,” he said.

    Yeah, I wonder if these “reporters” will step up and identify themselves. For one thing, the only time I believe a reporter is when they write what I tell them to write (when they’re quoting me). Second, any “reporter” who would say that to the President obviously wants something. Third, most “reporters” can’t empty water from their shoes if the instructions were written on the sole. So what do they know about economics?

    I wouldn’t put a reporter on my résumé as a reference, I ceertainly wouldn’t use one as an authority for my economic plan. But, I’m not the president.

  • Washington Post’s nation of victims

    The Washington Post‘s editorial board tries to influence the “stand your ground” discussion that’s going on in the country and of course they take the side of the criminals and criminalize the victim;

    Instead of requiring potential victims of crime to retreat if they have a safe escape route, these laws allow people to use deadly force without attempting to avoid a potentially lethal confrontation. They also often contain other generous protections for killers claiming self-defense.

    So the victims become “killers” in the space of two sentences.

    There is a reason that the duty to retreat is a concept respected by centuries of legal application. Setting a laxer standard encourages tragic mistakes, poor judgment and perhaps even vigilantism. A recent study from two Texas A&M University researchers found that “lowering the expected cost of lethal force causes there to be more of it.” Stand-your-ground states saw more homicides than their peers — about 600 more a year over the period they studied. One possible explanation is that stand-your-ground laws encourage people to escalate conflicts rather than withdraw.

    What about the criminals’ “duty to retreat”? I have no way to escape someone who has forcibly gained entrance to my residence because I can barely walk. So if a criminal doesn’t want to be shot, he should depart as soon as the Glock 30 comes off my night table, because it’s his duty to stop in the commission of his crime. I’m not going to shoot someone in the back who is making his escape from the ten rounds of .45 caliber ammunition. So, why is it my duty to retreat, something I’m physically incapable of doing anyway?

    Criminals have a duty to society to not commit their crimes, once they’ve violated their part of the social contract, they should expect whatever they’re dealt. And suppose that while I’m beating a hasty retreat, I get shot in the back? Do you think a criminal will respect my duty to retreat? They already broke into my house, so I’m sure they don’t want to leave witnesses to their crime. Who is going to protect my family when I’m laying bleeding on the floor after I fulfilled my duty to retreat?

    This is why we aren’t able to fight wars anymore, too. We’re supposed to be better than our enemies who kill us anytime, using any means necessary, but we have to play by our arbitrary rules, hoping the enemy will abide by the same rules after we’ve set the example for them. Of course, they never do, and our troops are put at a disadvantage which ends up costing lives and limbs. Remember after the Gulf War we had to stop destroying Iraqi equipment because we were being mean to the Iraqis. As soon as they made good their escape, they turned their weapons on their own unarmed minority groups while we stood and watched them do what we should have done to them.

    Now the left wants to turn us into a nation of victims by making it the law that we abandon our families and homes to the criminals hoping that those criminals will be better people for it. Every day we here at TAH post stories about folks who rescued their families from violent criminals by standing their ground and refusing to be victims.

    Yes, more criminals are killed than victims, why is the Washington post and the Obama Administration so convinced that is a bad thing?

  • On the cover of the Rolling Stone

    Remember when it was a big deal to be on the cover of the Rolling Stone? Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show wrote a song to finally get a spot in that venue;

    Nowadays, apparently, you only have to blow up children in the street;

    jann_wenner_soulless_creep

    I’m still wondering why McCrystal let these souless crap weasels in his headquarters.

    They want to be on the edge of the culture and elevate the discussion of issues that are important to Americans, so why don’t they put a picture of George Zimmerman on the cover and treat him sympathetically?

    Our buddy, Strike FO (you know, the guy who runs The Duffel Blog, so this probably isn’t true at all) says he got an advanced copy of their September 11th Anniversary issue for this year (I swiped it from his Facebook page, because I suck);

    (more…)

  • Half-assed media

    Here at TAH we’ve watched the media get basic facts wrong when it comes to veterans, but this one takes the cake. KTVU in San Francisco reported obviously false names for the pilots of the Asiana Airlines plane that crashed there the other day. Seriously, who among you would have let this air? From the Daily News;

    Anchor Tori Campbell of KTVU said on the air Friday that the Asiana jet crew, flying from Seoul, consisted of “Captain Sum Ting Wong,” “Wi Tu Lo,” “Ho Lee Fuk,” and “Bang Ding Ow.”

    The station claimed that the NTSB verified the names but;

    The NTSB confirmed to the Daily News in a statement issued Friday evening that a summer intern — and not an NTSB official — mistakenly confirmed the names of those on the doomed flight.

    They said the intern “acted outside the scope of his authority when he erroneously confirmed the names of the flight crew on the aircraft.”

    Regardless, given the names involved, how stupid does someone have to be to broadcast those names as news? Apparently, not too stupid for the San Fran media market. From Politico;

    “First of all, we never read the names out loud, phonetically sounding them out,” anchor Frank Somerville said, adding that the station also didn’t ask the position of the person within the NTSB giving them the ultimately erroneous information.

    Yeah, well I never read them out loud, either, but I noticed the problem right away;

    Ho Lee Fuk indeed.

  • Misleading guns report; One in four injured youth owns a gun

    James sends us a link to a Reuters article entitled “One in four injured youth owns a gun: study” a terrifying tale of a heavily-armed population of young people trolling our cities’ streets each with an “automatic or semi-automatic firearm”.

    Close to one-quarter of teenagers and young adults treated for assault injuries in a Michigan emergency room reported owning or carrying a gun, according to a new study.

    Most of those weapons were obtained illegally, researchers found, and 22 percent of young gun owners said they had an automatic or semi-automatic firearm.

    “I think the surprise, if there is any here, is the numbers really are quite high,” said Dr. Robert Sege of Boston Medical Center, who wrote a commentary published with the new report in the [J]ournal [of] Pediatrics.

    An emergency room in Michigan. You know, rural Michigan with pink-cheeked, pigtailed, innocent children. Well the one emergency room that the good doctor surveyed happened to be in Flint, Michigan. Business Insider named Flint, Michigan the single most dangerous city in the US last month. So, who is surprised that the doctor would find a quarter of the patients in an emergency room in Flint “owned” guns. And, even the “owned” thing can come into question. Dr. Patrick Carter’s (from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor) survey was of ER patients ages 14-24, and as far as I know, it’s illegal for most of the people in that age group to “own” a gun.

    More than 80 percent of gun owners said they obtained their firearm from an illegal source – including family and friends, or through a cash purchase.

    Gun owners were more likely than other members of the study group to use illicit drugs and to agree that “revenge was a good thing,” the researchers found.

    So, the point of the survey?

    But the U.S. Congress remains divided on issues of gun control, with the Senate rejecting a plan to expand background checks for gun buyers in April.

    So how will a strengthened background check regimen stop the proliferation of guns in these cases? Will 14-year-olds voluntarily show up from a NICS check before they get their Glock? Should one of the questions on the application for a gun purchase ask if the buyer thinks that “revenge [is] a good thing”? It already asks about illicit drug use. Of course, the paragraph above is just Reuters interjecting their editorial opinions into the article, since the doctor who did the survey leans more towards getting parents to change their children’s attitudes towards guns.

    “I would say to parents, talk to your kids about firearms and the dangers associated with firearms and try to look at ways to prevent kids from getting involved in both substance use and violence.”

    That, at least, makes more sense than expanded background checks. Of course, the title of the piece extrapolates the number of armed teenagers in Flint to the rest of the country, which is totally irresponsible journalism.

  • Zombie actress indicted for poisoned letter

    Ex-PH2 sends us a link to NBC in regards to the indictment of Shannon Richardson the minor actress who tried to frame her husband for the ricin-laced letters she sent to the President and Nanny Bloomberg. The article quotes the letters that she wrote;

    “What’s in this letter is nothing compared to what I’ve got planned for you,” according to a grand jury indictment filed in the Eastern District Court of Texas on Thursday.

    “You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns” and that anyone who comes to take them from her home will “get shot in the face,” the note also said, according to the indictment.

    But, ya know what, through the whole article, Andrew Rafferty, who wrote the article, didn’t once mention that Richardson was opposed to private gun ownership. If you read the article without that tidbit, you’d get the impression that Richardson was pro-gun and threatening the President and Nanny Bloomberg because they threaten her right to own guns. But as we’ve seen before, quite the opposite is true – gun rights is what destroyed her marriage because she didn’t like that her husband, a veteran, owned guns. She used the pro-gun lunatic language to implicate her husband in the poisoned letters thing.

    So thanks for missing the whole point of the real story, NBC.