Glenn Reynolds has an informative compendium of links on the situation with former hostage Giuliana Sgrena. Sgrena, a Communist journalist, argues that the US tried to assassinate her when her car sped through a checkpoint near the Baghdad airport.
This whole incident reflects more on Sgrena’s mendacity and the incompetence of the Italian government than anything else. First of all, the Italians paid several million dollars for Sgrena’s release — money which will be used to fund the terrorism that is killing thousands of Iraqis and will make Italian citizens even more tempting targets. Secondly, the Italians never notified US troops about Sgrena’s release meaning that the troops on that road had no idea who was coming. Finally, by Sgrena’s own admission, the car was travelling at a high rate of speed as they approached the checkpoint.
If you’re a soldier and you see a car approaching quickly, ignoring orders to stop, and you’re on the most dangerous road in Iraq, you’re going to open fire. Blogger Andrew Olmstead actually trained troops in Iraq and illustrates why the soldiers were doing their duty when they fired on the car. Any vehicle that tries to blow by a checkpoint could very well be packed with explosives, which is why the soldiers make it quite clear that vehicles must slow down and prepare for inspections. The Italians systematically ignored these warnings.
Sgrena’s increasingly fanciful tale that her car was hit by tank rounds or 300-400 rounds of regular ammunition is pure BS. Had that occurred, Sgrena wouldn’t be talking, she’s be dead. The soldiers did what they had to do in order to stop what appeared to be a threat to their lives.
Sgrena is deliberately lying about her experience, American soldiers are being deliberately smeared, the Italian government has given the terrorists every incentive to grab every Italian citizen they can, and had the Italians simply let the US know that Sgrena would be coming and had Sgrena’s driver not ignored the roadblock, none of this would have happened.
UPDATE: The Corriere Della Sera, Italy’s largest newspaper asks the right questions about all of this – if the US really wanted Sgrena dead (and why would they?), she’d be dead. Sgrena’s story is a self-aggrandizing lie, and should be treated as such.
First of all, the Italians paid several million dollars for Sgrena’s release — money which will be used to fund the terrorism that is killing thousands of Iraqis and will make Italian citizens even more tempting targets.
I’m sorry, but if we weren’t responsible for failing to secure the hundreds of tons of high explosive that went on to be used in hundreds of roadside IED’s and the deaths that resulted, then the Italians aren’t responsible for the consequences of that money.
The only people that are responsible are the terrorists who are killing people. The enemy isn’t our partners in the Coalition; it’s the terrorists. It’s surprising that you would forget that after repeating it so often during the campaign.
Out of curiosity, which checkpoint did this happen at? Does anyone know?
Jay,
This is not the first time Giuliana Sgrena has made over-the-top accusations against American forces. You can read a selection of her work at http://www.ilmanifesto.it, the Communist paper for which she writes. Select the “english” option for a translated sample of her articles.
In a series of reports describing the U.S. offensive against Falluja in the fall of 2004, Sgrena accuses American forces of war crimes and massacres. In one particularly revealing November 23 article, she claims U.S forces conducted napalm attacks on Falluja (military readers: do we even use napalm any more?), and includes a passage in which Sgrena seems to suggest even worse attrocities by those nasty Americans. Here she is in her own words:
“…other bodies found last year after the fierce battle at Baghdad airport were also completely charred and some thought of nuclear bombs.â€
“Nuclear bombs”? Was Sgrena implying that U.S. forces nuked Baghdad? (Maybe the guys who dropped a nuke in Baghdad without anyone except Sgrena noticing were the same guys who fired 400 rounds into her car without breaking the windshield. Dang, we’re good). Or is this just another example of vicious and incredibly sloppy anti-American journalism?
At the very least, she seems somewhat lacking in credibility.
Keep up the great work, Jay.
if the US really wanted Sgrena dead (and why would they?), she’d be dead.
How does that make any sense? We wanted Osama Bin Laden dead; a old cripple on kidney dialysis. Somehow he’s alive and well, tugging his artifical kidney all around the mountainside. How many times did we try to assassinate Castro? He’s outlived most of the American presidents that opposed his rule.
Why is the idea that America would fail at a targeted assassination suddeny unthinkable? We suck at assassinations.And it’s quite irresponsible for you to come down on one side or the other before literally any facts whatsoever are known. We don’t actually know this happened at a checkpoint. We have no idea what speed they were driving at, or what signals were sent. But because it serves your regressive purpose, you’re on the side of the soldiers you won’t hesitate to hang out to dry later if it turns out their account is wrong.
Interesting.
I’m sorry, but if we weren’t responsible for failing to secure the hundreds of tons of high explosive that went on to be used in hundreds of roadside IED’s and the deaths that resulted, then the Italians aren’t responsible for the consequences of that money.
So, failing to successfully find and neutralize every possible weapons cache the terrorists could use is on the same moral plane as supplying those terrorists millions of dollars.
I guess we “regressives” just aren’t capable of the level of nuance required to see that the difference between fighting and funding terrorists is merely semantic.
Yes, and now we have the insinuation that US troops couldn’t assassinate someone who was right in front of them – you really have to work hard to achieve that level of illogical idiocy…
So, failing to successfully find and neutralize every possible weapons cache the terrorists could use is on the same moral plane as supplying those terrorists millions of dollars.
We did find it. Two separate units camped at that weapons depot, the largest in Iraq, and because they had orders to secure other, higher priorities (all of them oilfields), hundreds of tons of high explosives fell into enemy hands.
So, yes. That’s as willful a gift to the insurgency as any of the Italian millions. Are you telling me that there was no way to predict that insurgents might want hundreds of tons of unguarded high explosives?
Are the Italians our allies, or not? You’d never know around here, considering how quick Jay’s ready to stab our buddies in the back.
Yes, and now we have the insinuation that US troops couldn’t assassinate someone who was right in front of them
Imagine this scenario: a unit of Marines recieves orders to eliminate an approaching car full of terrorists. When the vehicle comes into sight they open fire. The occupants successfully signal that they’re Italians. The attack is aborted but not before some of them are dead or injured.
In other words, the assassination could have been ordered without the units involved knowing they were assassinating anyone, and being good people, they ceased fire when they realized something was amiss. Now, obviously, higher-ups are covering everybody’s asses.
It’s not unreasonable. Again, we suck at assassinations, and your average American soldier is a good person and not the kind of guy that knowingly machineguns innocent people to death. You’re just simply refusing to consider any scenario that doesn’t leave the US blameless.
Two separate units camped at that weapons depot, the largest in Iraq, and because they had orders to secure other, higher priorities (all of them oilfields), hundreds of tons of high explosives fell into enemy hands.
I’m afraid I’m not sure what you are talking about. I hope it’s not the tired and debunked Alqaqa October surprise.
So, yes. That’s as willful a gift to the insurgency as any of the Italian millions.
Wow. No, I’m just not following. Assuming it happened as you insinuate (links?), how you equate the prioritization of protecting against a massive environmental disaster to a puposeful arming of terrorists is frankly beyond my comprehension.
I hope it’s not the tired and debunked Alqaqa October surprise.
In other words “Fox News told me I didn’t have to care about this, so you must be wrong.” Brilliant rebuttal.
Assuming it happened as you insinuate (links?), how you equate the prioritization of protecting against a massive environmental disaster to a puposeful arming of terrorists is frankly beyond my comprehension.
What evidence do you have that Iraqis would have environmentally devastated their own homeland? Or that they would have harmed their largest natural resource in any way? They weren’t leaving town, you know, or retreating as they did in Kuwait. They were setting up an insurgency. Why would they have torched their own oilfields and homes?
The claim that the oilfields were in imminent danger is pretty weak.
In other words “Fox News told me I didn’t have to care about this, so you must be wrong.†Brilliant rebuttal.
I stand in awe of the superior progressive intellect. Your minimalist rhetorical style is a model of both Deanian insight and the sublime appreciation for navel lint.
Your minimalist rhetorical style is a model of both Deanian insight and the sublime appreciation for navel lint.
What else was I supposed to say? You certainly don’t have any evidence for your assertion.
Exactly what was it I asserted? I think I was asking you for details regarding your assertion that we essentially gave the terrorists arms. I had no idea what you were referring to, and gave an outside guess that it was Alqaqa, which was so far as I am aware of (no, not Fox news, CNN) debunked. If you have other sources, please share.
Regarding the environmental danger, what evidence would convince you? Set the goalposts for me and I’ll see if I can kick it through.
I had no idea what you were referring to, and gave an outside guess that it was Alqaqa, which was so far as I am aware of (no, not Fox news, CNN) debunked.
Debunked how? Al Qa Qaa didn’t exist? We were never there? The explosives were never there? The explosives are still there under IAEA seal and armed guard?
What exactly are you asserting has been debunked? The non-disputed facts are that this was an enormous weapons depot with hundreds of tons of high explosive that disappeared between April 18, where they appear on videotape and were verified by chemical analysis, and October, when they were discovered missing.
Regarding the environmental danger, what evidence would convince you? Set the goalposts for me and I’ll see if I can kick it through.
Say, a record of standing Republican Guard orders to torch oilfields as they retreated?
The non-disputed facts…
I’m sorry. Links?
When I search I find many stories like this that clearly dispute the timing you state.
Seems to me that there is very much in dispute here.
Say, a record of standing Republican Guard orders to torch oilfields as they retreated?
So the facts that Saddam torched the fields in Kuwait, and that his adherents continue targetting Iraqi oil facilities in spite of a clear Iraqi majority deploring the tactic doesn’t count eh?
Well looks like I will be unable to convince you then. I’m not privy to Republican Guard orders.
I’m reasonably sure that if our troops had been able to lock down every arms cache, but the oil fields were torched, you would still disapprove.
This little exercise does little to address my contention that looted munitions during the execution of battleplans is far from the same moral plane as giving money to terrorists.
I’m sorry. Links?
Just wikipedia it. I’m not here to do your homework.
So the facts that Saddam torched the fields in Kuwait, and that his adherents continue targetting Iraqi oil facilities in spite of a clear Iraqi majority deploring the tactic doesn’t count eh?
No, they don’t, for reasons that I already addressed. The Republican Guard was retreating out of Kuwait. They weren’t about to retreat out of Iraq, so why torch oilfields? Why would they shit where they eat?
I’m reasonably sure that if our troops had been able to lock down every arms cache, but the oil fields were torched, you would still disapprove.
Oh, so you can see the future now? As it turns out, we dealt with the Kuwait oilfires quickly and effeciently. It’s one of the greatest victories in military firefighting. Of course, we’re “recovering” the explosives, as well – the insurgents are returning them to us, one IED at a time.
LOL
Wikipedia is the source for all your info then?
Do my homework for me?
I apologize profusely. I didn’t realize that I would be required to provide proof of your point of view as well. I thought we were going to debate. You seem more inclined to insult.
Whatever, my lesson is learned. If you ever feel like actually discussing anything rationally and politely, do look me up.
I go back to my first ever response to you. Why do you even bother reading and commenting here? Honestly, do you hope to somehow convince Jay of your point of view?
I’m seriously curious.
I didn’t realize that I would be required to provide proof of your point of view as well. I thought we were going to debate.
I’ve found no indication that the facts that I’ve presented are in dispute. Your article did not dispute any of those facts. I’ve presented evidence that could be verified in like 10 minutes, if you really cared to bother. Apparently you don’t. As a rule I try to avoid posts with a lot of presented evidence because, for some reason, Jay deletes those posts. It’s a rather unfair restriction that I seem to be alone in having to operate under, so perhaps you can understand the bind I’m in.
What’s interesting now is that the Italian government is denying that they ever paid any ransom.