Rick Moran thinks that both the right and left are missing the point and asks “Is there a larger truth about the war to be found in the writings of people like Yon, Totten, and even Beauchamp?” - meaning street-level, grunt-level reporting not often …

That is a war crime: desecration of graves under your control. The dead are to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter what sort of person they were while living, they become fully equal upon death. Not doing that is a war crime under the 1899 Hague Convention and has been ever since then. There is a Federal law on the books for that in the Civil Code, and not immediately passing that information on to any military authorities for investigation is a crime. Beauchamp’s writing about it indicates a lack of many things on his part and the publication of it by TNR shows similar lacks on theirs. For Beauchamp it is not keeping up to standards of conduct and understanding that desecration of graves is a war crime. Similarly, for TNR, for not going to the responsible parties that, too, is a war crime. You do not do these things during wartime.

But, perhaps, we will now have *that* shoved aside because respect for the dead is so ‘old fashioned’ and ‘out of synch with the abused soldier’ and ‘the need to publish’ trumps having any accountability in the organs that defend society. For not understanding those things, and that there are limits to what may be done in warfare with such areas, TNR is caught in the bind… if it is a *true* story, backed by evidence, they did not properly report it to allow a full and thorough investigation to take place. And if it isn’t *true*, above and beyond the first, it is sedition. This is *truth* in the old fashioned forensic sense of having an account validated by others and physical evidence. Not the modern version of it being ‘fake but accurate’.

When the leading Democratic candidates take the opportunity to snipe at each other about experience and wisdom versus youth and enthusiasm in the press, Rick Moran sees one of the primary choices facing voters next year. Do we want to……

The Left has little experience having never served and having no knowledge of the military so are we to be surprised they have to engage in pseudo science? Isn’t that the altar they worship at?

As far as the media goes they’re backbone is missing. The reason they will not serve in Iraq is that its too dangerous-ooohhhhhh how sad. But we got evidence of this when the MSM refused to publish the Allah cartoons. Its one thing to attack Christians when you know Christians are a pacific lot and quite another to incur the wraith of a group that does take offense and does something about it. But the MSM speaking truth to power-hah.

What we have seen are carefully stage managed jihaddie planted stories; outright fraud; and a MSM that must employ oddles of newsmen who have never served based on the number acounts I see citing US battleships, elite units such as PR companies, and the same military knowledge found in a crack group of Brownies (not to insult the Brownies who are much brighter than the MSM).

The bottom line is the Left will go to any level to defame and smear the American war effort. The fact that the editors could believe Scott’s muck betrays their prejudices and views.

But who believes the media anyway. They enjoy a level of public esteem lower than lawyers, politicans, judges, and the stuff you step into on hot summer’s day that is smelly and sticky and very unpleasant.

Those who know are the other 30%.

How many stories like this will it take before the fools realize they are being used by tools?

It also fit their overall antiwar, anti-soldiering narrative, so it gets less vetted than something that contradicts the narrative. In this way, it’s of a piece with the Nifong Duke mess and the Dan Rather episode: “fake but accurate”.

FYI, Digby is a “she.” One of the shibboleths of the Lefty blogosphere (Digby & Hilzoy so far), are these anonymous bloggers, who deliberately obscure even their sex, and then freak out when you call them ‘he.’ I fell for it too.

So, when in doubt on these types, say ’she’ and you’ll have a better batting average.

Anyway, I think ’she’ is onto something with her pop psychology. The reality is probably somewhere in-between or a mix of both her views and yours.