There's a lot of political buzz about General Sanchez' speech, but luckily, thanks to the internet, Powerline actually has a link to the speech HERE.

Alas, most of the speech is not being reported, and even good news papers, like the WAPO report of the speech, play down a lot of the speech, and add their own commentary (read criticism) of the General to their article, so that the impression one has is that the General only criticized Bush.

So what does the speech actually say? I'll number the paragraphs and summarize them.

One: That the press and military need to respect each other in a time of war.

Two: Despite some good reporters, much of the press prefers to write according to their own preconceived ideas. By preferring sensationalism, you miss the real story.

Three: You've called me names in the past.

Four: You destroy reputations of dedicated professionals just to generate headlines, but you yourself  never are made to take responsibility when your stories are wrong.

Five:  You allow people with agendas to exaggerate things, you report sensational stories that later turn out to be untrue, and you allow "deadline pressure" to let unchecked stories run. All of this has damaged America's reputation and the war effort.

Six: "According to the code of ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists:

THE BASIC ETHICS OF A JOURNALIST...CALLS FOR:

1. SEEKING TRUTH,

2. PROVIDING FAIR AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNT OF EVENTS AND ISSUES

3. THOROUGHNESS AND HONESTY"

Seven: Economic competition to get headlines and political agendas have led to journalists ignoring these basic ethical laws.

Eight:

"For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconceived notions, biases and agendas. "

Nine: The enemy has many propaganda outlets, but you dismiss official Military reports to correct this disinformation. Instead, too many reporters are engaged in political propaganda. A free press is necessary to democracy, but that press must be ethical.

Ten: 

 Who is responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of the profession in order that our democracy does not continue to be threatened by this dangerous shift away from your sacred duty of public enlightenment?

Eleven:  We are in a generational struggle against extremism.

Twelve: The administration has underestimated the problems of the war, and has failed to educate the public on those problems.

Thirteen: The military cannot win a war. But the failures in the war can be placed at the feet of the Administration, the Congress, and Federal agencies. The Department of State is especially at fault.

Fourteen: There are a lot of incompetent people in these agencies.

Fifteen: The Democratic leaders prefer to play politics to gain power, even if it means that soldiers are endangered. The search for political power is more important to them than national security.

Sixteen: We need a national strategy that is bipartisan. Congress should start by kicking posteriors of the incompetents in the various National Agencies who screwed up (sorry, my words) and then get some competents to get things working.

Seventeen: Oversight of these National Agencies is one of the duties of Congress, but it wasn't done.

Eighteen: The surge will give us time to get our act together.

Nineteen: We told everyone we couldn't win the war alone, it would take civilians.

Twenty: The National Security Councils ignored the military and followed their own plans. The plans didn't work, so the military are screwed.(again my words).

Twentyone: You overused the military, and now the military will take ten years to recover.

Twentytwo: We'll fight, but damn it, you need to equip us better. (again, my words).

Twenty three: If we pull out of Iraq now, the Middle East will descend into chaos.

Twenty four: The extremism that America is facing is real and very very dangerous. Stop playing politics and get your act together.

Twenty five: Get your act together (he gives details).

Twenty six: Something has to be done about interagency squabbling. First, get rid of the incompetents, then get these agencies working together instead of fighting each other.

Twentyseven: I could think of a lot of political leaders who I would like to courtmarshall for being incompetent.

Twenty Eight: Support the troops. Stop fighting over little things like politics are realize the fight is real, and your squabbling is hurting us.

Twenty Nine. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but if you press guys were doing your job instead of supporting agendas, you could pressure the nincompoops into getting their act together. (my words).

Thirty: Thank you and God Bless America.

--------------------------

cross posted to BNN

It was touted as a major massacre, where innocent civilians were killed in cold blood by trigger happy soldiers.

The “massacre” was widely publicized for political reasons, with news reports and pictures inflaming the public to reject the regime that the soldiers were representing. But when the case came to trial, the “evidence” fell apart, and most of the soldiers were acquitted, and only two given a minor punishment for lesser charges for their part in the killings.

Haditha? No, the Boston Massacre.

The one who represented the accused soldiers was no other than founding father John Adams.

Adams told the jury: “Soldiers quartered in a populous town will always occasion two mobs where they prevent one.” He argued that the soldier who fired first acted only as one might expect anyone to act in such confused and potentially life-threatening conditions. “Do you expect that he should act like a stoic philosopher, lost in apathy?”, Adams asked the jury. “Facts are stubborn things,” he concluded, “and whatever may be our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.“

So history repeates itself as today’s New York Times admitted:

“When you have an investigating officer like Ware, who says ‘don’t go there if you can’t prove,’” your case, Mr. Solis said, “we’re left with what appear to be very reduced charges.” He added: “He’s aggressive, and he seems to make his judgments without regard for anything but the law. 

Ironic that the tone of the article seems to mourn that trials should be based not on news reports that inflamed public opinion against the Iraq war, but on little things like the facts and the law.

Yet were reports of the massacre, like the propaganda pamphlets against the British soldiers in the so called “Boston massacre”, actually false, the facts being manipulated as anti American propaganda in a way reminiscent to the al-Dura case was manipulated to incite anti Israeli hatred?

But in the Haditha case, the anti American propaganda war was made worse by a political hack, Congressman John Murtha, who went on numerous news shows declaring the incident was a deliberate massacre, knowing that those involved in the case could not defend themselves.
Murtha’s motives are unknown, but as one that used to live in his district, I am aware that he didn’t need the publicity to be reelected. I therefore suspect his motives were to  further his bid to become Congressional Majority leader, hoping that the publicity as an anti war ex Marine  to offset his negative factors, including his involvement in the Abscam scandal..

The irony is that, like the British soldiers defended by John Adams, the Marines will end up with minimum or no convictions, because they acted as soldiers are trained to act.
The bad news is that propaganda deluge has already done much harm to tarnish the reputation of good men, by a MSM who are looking to chronicle “important news”, (i.e. if it bleeds, it leads) not relate the dull facts.

Yet those of us with an internet connection  who followed the trial at the North Country Times website were already aware of inconsitancies concerning  the case. Yes, the details were boring, but the details were available, as were bloggers with expertise in explaining the rules of engagement when weapon bearing enemies taking refuge behind human shields, and blogs that note that the story was brought to the attention of the media by an aging “budding journalism student“.

Despite the raging chorus of the MSM and the blogosphere, the dictum of our passions cannot alter the state of facts and evidence, and legally the military refuses to prosecute a case where the evidence does not prove a crime has been committed.

As Blackfive wryly notes:

It is plenty fair to look at the difficulties faced in gathering evidence to try and prosecute these men. It is low and shameful to fail to note that all charges were dropped against 5 of the 6 and maybe, just maybe that was because they were innocent.