NYT’s Excuses Itself From Haditha

The truest thing that the New York Times has to say in its latest excuse for its and others in the major media’s rush to judgment on the Marines at Haditha is about Investigating Officer Ware at the Article 32 hearings he chaired, in this quote:

“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.”

Indeed, the Article 32 recommendations track closely with the evidence and the law, rather than suppositions or accusations from those with a stake in convictions, including those anti-war in the media, contradictory testimony from those Marines given immunity to testify, and self-serving or duplicitous Iraqis.

The other day I said that I didn’t expect to hear any apologies from the major media for their trial by press error, and the New York Times’ latest excuse for itself, a poor excuse for a self-purported newspaper of record, is decidedly not an apology but a cop-out, which only convicts itself.

Every excuse that the New York Times raises for not obtaining the lynching it desired is directly refuted by facts. I’m so disgusted that I don’t even feel like documenting them all now. For those interested, please visit the extensive writings I’ve posted over the past 1+ years: The real evidence and circumstances are all there: Iraqis who all knew of the planned attack on the Marines; Contradictory stories from Iraqis; Iraq customs do allow autopsies; Multiple contradictions by immune witnesses; Forensics that did not support a massacre; etc.