Golodh says:

It may be difficult to grasp for US citizens, but their "right to know" does not extend to details within the combat zone. Not even if it concerns the exact circumstances of death of their relatives that serve. And yes, sometimes the truth will have to take a backseat to the best interests of the Army.

I will tell you as a former US Army NCO that this is not in the best interest of the US Army. It is clear to every soldier in that building what happened. It was also clear to their platoon sergeant, but he started right away getting with the official version, given to him by an officer not on the scene.

The word will get around, and trust along the chain of command will take a hit. And when there is no trust in the chain of command things get really bad. Just ask any Vietnam combat vet. The effect will be far more corrosive than the admission of a friendly fire incident could ever be. Most soldiers can accept the friendly fire. We know that confusion is the rule. But systematic and blatant lying? That won't go down well.

verelse, the value of the video is not that it shows the tank firing, but that it shows without doubt and in real time what the soldiers on the spot believe happened. Several soldiers insist it was the tank, insist they saw the muzzle flash, and reported coax fire. Doesn't sound like a mortar attack to me. Telling us we just can't understand is not a valid argument. The video allows the soldiers on the spot to speak for themselves. They understand what it's like. And tell me, how is telling the truth the "destruction of more soldiers to satisfy the desires of those who neither understand them nor care to"? What evidence have you for the vile accusation that the "destruction of more soldiers" would satisfy anyone? And how is telling the mother the truth--that in the confusion of battle her son died in a regrettable friendly fire incident, that the Army regrets her loss extremely--a gruesome detail that is not required? Sorry, but your argument is incoherent.

annony writes:

I think coaches like icing because it makes them feel like they are doing *something*.

Bingo. Coaches already are too involved in the game. Letting them call time-outs as well leads to idiocy like this. Let the players decide the games as much as possible. You'd think coaches could trust their players to do the right things after weeks of preparation, wouldn't you?

Yea, those privileged poor folks who pay "no income taxes"! Well, if they are so lucky and are in such an enviable position, why don't the WSJ editorial staff join them? It's easy! Those yachts are a financial burden anyway, aren't they? And the hassle of having to choose a good private school for Skip junior. Who needs that? Oh, for the simple life of those privileged Lucky Ducky poor!

The bankrupt conservative movement and their cheerleaders at the WSJ editorial page, Fox, and other places deserve to be crushed this November.

So here we have a law that is supposed to protect this girl being used against her in a clear attempt to harm her. Just who are the shining lights who decided to press charges? These are the people she really needs to be protected against. Laws are not bludgeons. They are tools, and like any tools, require common sense in their application. That the law did not anticipate this application is not necessarily a failure by lawmakers, unless one of their duties is to assume that law enforcement is conducted by idiots.

How can one Senator call another Senator a terrorist (not just in a moment of anger followed by a public apology) and expect to work together for positive change no matter the outcome of the election?

The coward will claim that he himself never called Obama a terrorist, even while he incited his followers to do so and condoned their doing so. This is the action of a contemptible man, a man without any honor, a man that would as a result be unable to lead at all should his vile tactics succeed and take him to the highest office of this land.

I agree with some commenters who see this ending badly. I though the Clinton hate was bad and inexcusable, but this is worse by far. My mother and my aunts and uncles lived through the Spanish Civil War. I can tell anyone willing to listen that you just don't want to go there. Have these people no shame? Have they not a single patriotic bone in their body? Can they not, for once, do something that is right for the Nation, instead of only thinking of themselves?

Thank you Glenn for calling a spade a spade here. Dan Balz "balance" is indeed nothing short of cowardice. I would add dereliction to duty as well.

Nobody in Congress voted for or against funding Cindy McCain's son, or for or against funding "The Troops", for that matter. They voted on supplemental appropriations to fund the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. Disagreements on how this is done are perfectly legitimate and an inevitable part of a democratic government. Further, the DoD has a yearly budget from which to "fund" its troops, which is not in dispute.

I am embarrassed for Cindy McCain for her maudlin display over such a fake issue. A "cold chill"? This is sinking low indeed.

That was a great quip I saw by a commenter over at ThinkProgress.org. And it's true. Let Palin and McCain show their ass to the world. It'll play with the rubes who support them, sure, but you'll never win that crowd over anyway. Everyone else it will appall.

I'm with Glenn: I hope they get crushed, destroyed, obliterated. They deserve no less. How any sentient, rational being could support four more years of this hell is beyond me.