Skip to main content

Oh, let's trot out the denials





U.N. denies team investigated Afghan bombing



The United Nations denied Tuesday that it is investigating the July 1 U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan that Afghans say killed more than 50 civilians at a wedding party, claiming it has conducted a humanitarian fact-finding mission.
What's remarkable is the destruction of language. First Kofi Annan says that the UN was "not involved in either an inquiry of an investigation...." A few paragraphs later, he is quoted as saying, "The U.N. team went there to see what had happened...." [Emphasis mine.] That's not an investigation?



Why wasn't it an "investigation"? Well, UN spokesman Fred Eckhard says, "Our people weren't qualified to do an investigation."



Well, the part about qualifications is certainly accurate.



A later story plays even looser with the words:



The United Nations insisted the U.N. group that went to the village shortly after the incident was not an "investigative body"; it refers to it as a fact-finding team.
Now the spokesman is "unclear as to the exact mandate of the mission to the village...."



Last, there's this follow-up that says:



The United Nations handed over a report on the U.S. airstrike that killed a large number of Afghan villagers to Afghanistan and the United States but will not make it public, U.N. officials said Tuesday.



It will be up to U.S. and Afghan authorities, who are conducting a joint investigation of the July 1 attack in Uruzgan province, to release the U.N. report compiled by humanitarian workers who arrived on the scene hours after the airstrike, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said.
[Emphasis mine.]



Oh, puh-leez, since when does the UN wait for permission from anyone to release a nasty report? The implication here is that the "leaked" report was full of it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.