Wednesday, June 15, 2005

UPI: the New Reuters

United Press International dropped a load of dogsh*t on us today, in parts. First this gem:

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

Ah, the thoroughly debunked "Bush did it" conspiracy theory. You had to be a complete moron to buy this nonsense when it originally surfaced, and Popular Mechanics was kind enough to do the heavy lifting on it in March. The problem with conspiracy theorists on this type of thing is that they try to reverse engineer "what must have happened" from a unique event and what they think they know about how the world works. If war proves anything, it's that mass destruction is unpredictable and stranger than fiction. Things that shouldn't happen do and things that should happen don't. Trying to prove a conspiracy by arguing that a building collapse looked like a controlled demolition or that not enough plane debris was found is beyond stupid.

But the UPI isn't done yet:

Two years after President George W. Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" in Iraq, some thoughtful officers are beginning to question who the insurgents actually are. In a recent interview the head of the US 42nd Infantry Division which covers key trouble spots, including Baquba and Samarra Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some ordinary Iraqis would take up arms against U.S. forces because "they're offended by our presence." Taluto added, "If a good, honest person feels having all these Humvees driving on the road, having us moving people out of the way, having us patrol the streets, having car bombs going off, you can understand how they could (want to fight us). There is a sense of a good resistance, or an accepted resistance. They say 'okay, if you shoot a coalition soldier, that's okay, it's not a bad thing but you shouldn't kill other Iraqis.'"

I guess that's why so few Iraqis have been killed by this "resistance." Oh that's right, they've killed far more Iraqis than soldiers, coalition or Iraqi Army. The "insurgents" aren't ordinary Iraqis, as Taluto well knows. I don't doubt that the presence of foreign military units is offensive, but that's a much more complex issue than "America Bad." I wouldn't be surprised if this were taken out of context. I sure hope so.

No comments: