Scoop Link: On The Shooting Of Women And Children
"Why Are They Shooting Our Women And Children?"
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
"Why are they shooting our women and children?" asked Abdul Kaliq, a 25-year-old farmer from Kakarak, in Afghanistan.
"The Americans should make peace in Afghanistan and rebuild Afghanistan," he said, wincing as he moved in the hospital bed. Shrapnel lacerated his back and both arms during the raid. (see LA Times)
Abdul Kaliq was one of more than 120 survivors as U.S. planes mistakenly attacked an Afghan wedding party on July 1st. More than 40 civilians were killed. Most of them were women and children.
BuzzFlash may have the answer to Abdul Kaliq's question, "Why are they shooting our women and children?"
Here is an interview with an Ithaca, New York, U.S. Army soldier that we linked to in May that may explain it all:
"In an April interview with The Ithaca Journal at his family's Cayuga Heights home, Guckenheimer, 22, shared his experiences during Operation Anaconda. He was sent on March 6 in a company of more than 100 soldiers to participate in the largest U.S.-led ground engagement in Eastern Afghanistan.
"We were told there were no friendly forces," said Guckenheimer, an assistant gunner with the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum. "If there was anybody there, they were the enemy. We were told specifically that if there were women and children to kill them."
Of course, it is hard to believe that the Bush administration is intentionally bombing women and children, but it's not hard to believe that they don't care a whole lot if women and children get bombed as part of the process of "mopping up the Taliban."
If that sounds lake a radical charge, that American forces are instructed not to worry about women and children being killed, just ask Army Private Guckenheimer. Those were the orders he received.
In response to this BuzzFlash Editorial, were they to read it, the Bush Administration would send Dick Cheney or John Ashcroft out with fulminating indignation to charge BuzzFlash with treasonous talk that endangers our armed forces.
Let's be perfectly and unimpeachably clear: BuzzFlash is 100% in favor of protecting the lives of our armed forces. So is every decent American. The Bush administration, however, has successfully intimidated the Democrats into silence by bullying them with the notion that any questioning of the Bush administration's "war on terrorism" strategy is akin to putting America in harm's way.
Of course, that begs the question of what to do when the Bush administration strategy is inept and largely politically motivated.
BuzzFlash, for one, is against terrorism. We are against murder, rape and domestic violence, too. Does that mean we should live in the White House and run America like a feudal kingdom? Of course not.
But this administration has somehow made it seem like being against terrorism is what qualifies them to be in the White House. In that case, all but about 256 deranged right wing Timothy-McVeigh-type militia men who think black helicopters are circling over their heads qualify to be in the White House.
Bush's stance is akin to declaring, "I am against murder, but if you question how I utilize the police department or make budget allocations, you are aiding murderers. If you question why I need to give the Carlyle Group billions of dollars to build tanks to combat car thieves, you are treasonous."
Sorry, Mr. Bush, what we expect are actions and overall policies that are effective and reflect well upon the values of this nation.
For The Full Buzzflash Editorial see…