more on the whose point of view really matters spin since the
wikileaks. imho the pt of view that mattered in the end were the
kids caught in the shitstorm.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-ir…
some quotes:
“McCord, who served seven years in the military before leaving
in the summer of 2009 due to injuries, recently posted an
apologetic letter online with fellow soldier Josh Steiber
supporting the release of the video and asking the family’s
forgiveness. McCord is the father of three children.”
“So, the first thing I did was grab the girl. I grabbed the
medic and we went into the back. There’s houses behind where the
van was. We took her in there and we’re checking to see if there
were any other wounds. You can hear the medic saying on the video,
“There’s nothing I can do here, she needs to be evac’d.” He runs
the girl to the Bradley. I went back outside to the van, and that’s
when the boy took, like, a labored, breath. That’s when I started
screaming, “The boy’s alive! The boy’s alive!” And I picked him up
and started running with him over to the Bradley. He opened his
eyes when I was carrying him. I just kept telling him, “Don’t die;
don’t die.” He looked at me, then his eyes rolled back into this
head.”
“I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when
I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG
as well as AK-47s there…. You just don’t walk around with an
RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away
from a firefight…. Personally, I believe the first attack on the
group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the
rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don’t
feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary.
Now, as far as rules of engagement, [Iraqis] are not supposed to
pick up the wounded. But they could have been easily deterred from
doing what they were doing by just firing simply a few warning
shots in the direction…. Instead, the Apaches decided to completely
obliterate everybody in the van. That’s the hard part to
swallow.”