What happened to the 3/7 Cav at the Battle of Baghdad April 5, 2003?
 

http://www.geocities.com/onlythecaptain/

http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/44358.php

Also Google "Ghost Troop" and "Thunder Run"



Military background

My name is Eric Holmes May, born 1960. From 1977-1980, I served in the U.S. Chemical Corps in the 1st Cavalry Division, holding ranks from private to sergeant. In 1980, I entered the University of Houston Honors College, and while there received my commission as a second lieutenant (December 15, 1983). I completed my degree in Classics (Latin & Greek) in 1985.

After graduation, I attended the Military Intelligence Officers Basic Course at Ft. Huachucha, Arizona, where I remained for a year working on special projects for the Director of Reserve Intelligence. In 1986 I attended the Defense Language Institute (DLI) at the Presidio of Monterey, California, where I completed the Russian basic and intermediate courses. In 1988 I was selected as an inspector/interpreter for the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty team, and afterwards worked on special projects for an intelligence asset in the area of Washington, D.C. Afterwards, I attended the Military Intelligence Officers Advanced Course in Ft. Huachuca, Arizona.

In 1990 I returned to civilian life, teaching languages (Latin, Greek and Russian) for Houston?s Mt. Carmel High School (where I was elected teacher of the year), and serving in the Army Reserves as an expert on Opposing Forces (OPFOR) doctrine and tactics with the 75th Division (Exercise). In 1991, I began to write op-eds for the two Houston daily papers, the Post and the Chronicle. Most of my op-eds were about education and general-interest topics, but twice (after Operation Desert Storm), they were strategic warnings. My first strategic op-ed, ?Success of Desert Storm being judged unfairly? (Houston Chronicle Outlook, August 12, 1992) was based on my insights as a Desert Storm volunteer. In it I stated that, had we invaded Iraq after liberating Kuwait, we would have ended up in a quagmire like Vietnam. My second strategic op-ed, ?Somalia intervention not as simple as it seems? (Houston Chronicle Outlook, December 3, 1992) advised that we were making a big mistake by going into a little-known African country called Somalia ? an opinion borne out by later events.

In 1993, I became the public affairs officer for the 75th Division, and attended the Defense Information School in Ft. Benjamin Harrison, Indiana. In 1995 I began a new civilian career as a freelance executive speech writer for many prominent Houston companies: Texaco, Enron, Compaq, Hill & Knowlton ? you name ?em. At the same time I was the editorial writer for NBC affiliate KPRC-TV. I continue to publish op-eds in the local and national media, mostly for clients, without my own name. I am what is known in the info biz as a ghostwriter.

Early Iraqi Freedom published essays

Before the fall of Saddam Hussein?s statue April 9, 2003, I had published two more strategic warnings, specific to the new Gulf War. The first, ?Don?t laugh at duct tape, it saves lives? (Houston Chronicle Outlook, February 23, 2003) urged greater domestic caution in light of the pending conflict, particularly at Houston?s chemical plants. Government agencies (e.g., EPA) started issuing the same warning late this summer ? half a year after my initial analysis. The second op-ed, ?Visions of Stalingrad: Claim victory in Iraq now? (Houston Chronicle Outlook, April 3, 2003) flatly predicted that the Iraq war would turn into quicksand, and perhaps spin out of control into a world war. Here is the op-ed?s concluding paragraph:

?Military intelligence officers are accustomed to being told that their field is a contradiction in terms, and that they are the bearers of bad news and worst-case scenarios. But it seems to me that fortune is no longer smiling on our heroic liberation of Iraq, and I?m afraid we may learn too late that we have stepped into quicksand.?

Nowadays when I search the Internet, I find the word quicksand frequently used in mainstream media to describe Iraq (around 5,000 times in my search), but I used it first by a month. George W. Bush certainly got us into the Quicksand War, but I sure as hell named it.

As my op-ed suggested, I was plenty skeptical about the American media?s presentation of the war. After all, I had been trained at the Defense Language Institute to evaluate the techniques and tendencies of the Soviet media, which some of my most intelligent Soviet-emigrant instructors assured me had duped them for decades on the realities of the world. I never forgot the important lesson that smart people could be misled by ?the big lie? (as Hitler used to call it) of a false media picture.

My readings of the international press, my own observations and a few choice conversations led me to believe that the American media had self-mobilized to support the war effort, much in the same way it self-mobilized to support the war effort in World War II; it had become something of a national propaganda agency, like the former Soviet TASS, or like Nazi Josef Goebbels? Propaganda Ministry. 911 was waved like a bloody shirt. Whatever did fit the war picture (e.g., patriotism and profiteering) was hyped, while whatever didn?t fit the war picture (e.g., lack of WMD evidence and lack of terrorist connection evidence) was neatly omitted. The propaganda crested as U.S. forces approached the city of Baghdad, which they began to surround for an eventual assault?

Battle of Baghdad

You might now remember that on the night before the Battle of Baghdad began Saddam had promised us an attack? Well, he kept his promise. Friday night at 8:30 p.m. (Central), I was watching CNN showing the predawn of Saturday 5:30 morning half-way around the world in Baghdad?

All at once the skyline of the besieged city erupted with the flash and report of sustained explosions. The CNN people (Aaron Brown and Fredricka Whitfield) reacted with surprise, saying that U.S. public affairs hadn?t alerted them that there would be a major fire mission tonight. I immediately became anxious, knowing it exceedingly unlikely that public affairs hadn?t contacted affected media about a major fire mission in a choreographed war. ?It probably wasn?t us doing the firing,? I thought.

In the next few minutes CNN?s reporter Walter Rodgers, embedded with the 3/7 Cavalry, attempted to make a report from the Baghdad Airport. Rodgers? voice was indistinguishable because of the extreme background noise of artillery impacting around him, automatic small arms fire striking his vehicle and the shouts of the soldiers inside. It was the fog of war, no doubt about it. Aaron Brown offered no explanation of the noise, merely stiffly saying that the network was having technical difficulties.

Thankfully, Walter Rodgers? luck held. A half hour later Fredericka and Aaron were off the clock and Larry King Live carried an interview between Rodgers and Lt. Col. Terry Ferrell ? the commander of the very 3/7 Cavalry under fire at the airport. I had never seen the unit commander in two weeks of the TV war, so his sudden appearance was just more sad corroboration of my theory that we were getting the worst of it in the early Battle of Baghdad. Lt. Col. Ferrell bravely tried to keep a straight face as he told Rodgers that all was well at the airport, but ended up in tears; Rodgers was too choked up to pick up the conversation. The put-up interview was yet more tragic corroboration of my sad analysis, and I began to cry along with Lieut. Col. Ferrell and Rodgers, for the boys of the 3/7 Cavalry, remembering that I had once been a young cavalryman, too.

Over the weekend I picked up around twenty ?indicators? (to use the intelligence term) of a cover-up of the Battle of Baghdad, which I believe began with the attack against the 3/7 Cavalry. To all but a few people, the CNN surprise about the explosions and the consequent events seemed little more than sloppy journalism, maybe frayed nerves, but I had the military and media background to see through the shadows and into the sun: We had come under attack from Iraqi forces. It wasn?t our explosions that had been blowing them up ? it was the other way around!

Eight hours later, when it was morning back in the United States, most Americans thought nothing if they tuned into the news to find that the president had suddenly decided to go and visit Tony Blair in England; that last night?s build-up to the Battle of Baghdad had been supplanted by the contrived human interest story of Private Jessica; and that the Pentagon had cancelled it?s 1230 (Eastern Time) Saturday briefing, with no reasons given. The tone of CNN, which I continued to watch, was secretive, and at times apologetic. Aaron Brown said that there were things that they couldn?t talk about now that they?d later explain? Reporter Christiane Amanpour chaffed at the conduct of the American misinformation campaign, and came close to condemning it on the air when she said that there were ?substantial contradictions of fact? between allied and independent media accounts of events.

Media duly continued to broadcast Jessica for two days, then bombings meant to get Saddam for a third; they broadcast everything but the Battle of Baghdad. On Wednesday, April 9, public affairs contrived a pulling down of Saddam Hussein?s statue and word generally spread that the battle (never shown before and never acknowledged as begun) was over. Frustrated by the failure of the American media to cover the much-awaited battle, millions of Americans turned to the English-version Al-Jazeera online for their news ? and it promptly crashed (probably interrupted on White House orders).

The public had (and continues to have) no idea that the Iraqis did make their promised counterattack on April 5, at the Baghdad Airport and later across Baghdad, inflicting hundreds of casualties while fighting a rearguard action as they dispersed into the underground. On the basis of twenty years of military service, I infer that the Battle of Baghdad is what was raging every minute the media was airing or printing distraction.

If I?m wrong, why didn?t they report it? Wasn?t Baghdad the climax of the war that they had set us up to watch? Well, they changed the programming because it turned into something worse than an anticlimax ? a military disaster, and just the kind of thing to undercut public support for the war and public confidence in the commander in chief. The media stayed true to the administration plan and false to the American people by covering up the Battle of Baghdad for George W. Bush and the pro-war factions, Republican and Democrat, in control of Congress. It was clear to me from then that we had slipped off our constitutional foundation.

Military honors

At noon, April 8, 2003, I began a solitary protest of the war and collection for the fallen of the 3/7 Cavalry at my alma mater, the University of Houston Honors College. In the next two weeks I sat and took collections from the pampered elite of America for forty full hours. They gave but twenty dollars of emergency relief for their less privileged peers (or their widows), who had tried to go to college the hard way, as I did: after an Army tour. The same craven bunch hoorayed when I told them I believed the Army had assassinated Al Jazeera journalists on orders from the White House. They were generally jingoistic about the war ? as long as it was less fortunate Americans who were fighting it.

The Honors students were of service in one thing, though, despite their inhuman indifference to their brothers (American and Iraqi) suffering in the war. Despairing of their humane assistance, I appealed to their avarice, and with far better results. I posted a bounty offering $100 to any Honors College student who would effectively refute the proposition that there had been a big battle in Baghdad over the prior weekend.

The foreign students, ever more enterprising than the homegrown, made up the first posse for the truth of the Battle of Baghdad, saying that they would discover what had really happened from foreign sources. The next day they came back, jabbering to each other in a bewildering array of Asian languages, then told me with wonder what I already knew: that from Morocco to Malaysia, independent media were reporting that Americans had been fighting and dying in Baghdad all weekend.

My brother Baptists, the Righteous Republican students, promised to claim the prize by researching the liberal American media, joking that such a media as ours would make the worst case it could against the war, because it was pacifistic, leftist and inimical in the ongoing kulturkampf (a word they learned from right-wing megastar Rush Limbaugh ? along with all their ideas). The next day they came back even more confused than the foreigners. They said apologetically that they couldn?t find anything at all about the missing Battle of Baghdad in the liberal American media!

On April 13, I wrote an op-ed ?3/7 Cavalry, tragedy and travesty? for Frank Michel, the associate editor of the Houston Chronicle, who had been a colleague for more than ten years. He sealed it and put it in his desk, with witnesses watching, because he knew that I knew what I was writing about. He told his colleagues that the essay was history.

Scouting to Georgia

CNN?s Aaron Brown had an on-air conversation with Walter Rodgers (evening, April 9), in which Brown cryptically noted that CNN had been with the 3/7 Cavalry at the Baghdad Airport. He then asked a strange question, given the rosy picture the media had painted of the war: ?Do they (the 3/7 Cavalry) feel safe, now?? Rodgers? reply was as grim as Brown?s question. He said that Lt. Col. Ferrell had addressed the assembled squadron that afternoon, and had summed it up for all the command when he said that ?no one will ever feel safe again until they get back home to Ft. Stewart, Georgia.?

April 22, 2003 I began my annual bicycle tour a bit early this year, and took it in the direction of Ft. Stewart, Georgia, some 1,000 miles away from Texas. I wasn?t in a hurry, wanting to take the pulse of our people. Along the way I discussed my observations of April 5-9 with dozens of common people at the diners, hotels, stores and post offices where I stopped to chat. I found that many of them remembered various things about the information picture that didn?t quite fit right, but that none of them could give an explanation for what, if anything, it all meant. Events were fresh on people?s minds, then, and as I explained it all they had an easy time seeing through the deception of the times, but after we parted they left the topic and the talk behind them and returned to their normal lives, content that even if there was a bit of funny business going on in Iraq, everything was still fine in America.

I reached Ft. Stewart May 14 and went to the Marne Chapel, one of the 3rd Infantry Division churches, and there met with a Colonel Dennington, a Special Forces chaplain. He acknowledged the Battle of Baghdad and its dead, telling me that more soldiers than just the 3/7 Cavalry had perished. He urged me to cover it up for the greater good of the war effort, and said a few things that a reasonable person might have thought menacing. I still have Colonel Dennington?s receipt for the paltry donation of the University of Houston Honors College, which I carried to Ft. Stewart first for my fallen comrades, and second as a cover for getting inside their Army post in time of war to find out what the hell was going on!

It?s the first rule of a mission, after all, and every leader should know it: You always scout things out thoroughly before you act. If the president had kept this basic rule in mind, we wouldn?t be at war now.

Infowar ? the last published essay

After returning to Houston (via bus) I kept low for the rest of May and most of June, as the Houston Chronicle waited for the military to let the media tell the story of Baghdad. According to my editorial contacts Frank Michel and David Langworthy, the military had ordered the media to suppress the Battle of Baghdad when it was raging because real-time reports would have compromised operational security of an ongoing operation (a valid concern). Things went crooked, though, when the military ordered the media to continue to suppress the story after operations were concluded. David and Frank agreed that this put the Pentagon and the White House outside the parameters of the Constitution, but they weren?t going to stake their careers on any futile heroics ? the big bosses were telling them what to tell the public, and it wasn?t the truth, but it was a paycheck.

On June 25 General Clark came out against the Bush war on CNN Crossfire, and on June 27 I sent the Houston Chronicle?s opinion page editor, David Langworthy, my ?Worried about the quicksand of war in Iraq? denouncing the Bush war plan and attacking the integrity of the commander-in-chief. Encouraged by the New York Times publication of Ambassador Joe Wilson?s op-ed against hyped WMD claims July 6, the Chronicle finally published my op-ed July 8.

Afterwards, I believed that I had caused a fair amount of anger in the White House with my words and deeds, because my editors carried no letters to the editor in response to someone who had called George W. Bush a liar, avoided my calls, and stopped publishing my op-eds ? even going so far as to take sudden vacations to be away when my essays arrived for editing. On the advice of friends and family I ducked out of circulation for a while. Between July 17 and September 21, I stayed inside my home. The timing of my move underground was fortunate, perhaps, because other critics of the war (e.g., David Kelly of England and Ambassador Joe Wilson of the U.S.) became targets for retaliation by leaders of their respective countries during July. As a matter of fact, Kelly?s strange death came the evening of the day when I went into hiding.

I began to call this state of affairs, in which speaking the simple truth becomes dangerous, infowar, and it?s being waged against the American People. My media contacts (among them Thom Shanker of the New York Times, Barbara Phillips of the Wall Street Journal and Frank Michel of the Chronicle) have confirmed my pessimistic analysis: the infowar is real, reporters are frightened of the Bush people, and no one is talking or writing about (or allowing anyone else to talk or write about) the Battle of Baghdad ? until public outcry makes some explanation unavoidable.

In other words, the media are afraid to tell us what a few of us have known from the start until we find out for ourselves ? they?re not doing their jobs. In the meanwhile those who favor continued military action are smiling with the knowledge that every passing month of public ignorance about the human cost of the war pulls America deeper and deeper into the Arabian quicksand. Ever loyal (to the war), the American media is now beginning to discuss the need for a draft. I?ve got a feeling that the brats of the Honors College of the University of Houston are about to find out a new word, conscription, and their interest in it will be far greater than merely academic.

Ghost Troop, 3/7 Cavalry

So now we come to it?

Ghost Troop, 3/7 Cavalry is the unit comprised of all the unacknowledged dead soldiers from the Battle of Baghdad, who are receiving no just reckoning or recognition because the media lied ? and continue to lie ? about the Battle of Baghdad. We have a Watergate cover up on our hands; worse, we have a war. I have assumed command of Ghost Troop and, according to the oath I swore when I accepted commission as an Army officer, I have self-mobilized (under my former rank of captain) to oppose the Bush cover up of the unpleasant realities of Iraq ? especially of Ghost Troop, 3/7 Cavalry. I consider myself to be in a state of revolution against an unconstitutional, unconscionable abuse of the public?s right to know ? the first freedom guaranteed to Americans. So long as there is no talk of what actually happened in Baghdad that weekend in April, there is no freedom of the American press. The fix is in, my friend, and America?s in a fix.

The $100 offer to find out the truth about the lost weekend in Baghdad still stands. In fact, given the depth of the denial, I?ve increased it to $1000 for the reporter who breaks the story of the Battle of Baghdad ? and thirty pieces of silver for his or her megamedia parent.

Captain Eric Holmes May, MI, USA




There is more to this story and I believe if you consider yourself a Patriot you will find it and speak out about it until it roars the truth to all and sends the Dictatorial Evil Political Cabal and the Media puppets it controls to the very depths of HELL!

Doc Urb

When I first read this something didn't ring true, so I took yor advice Doc and did more research. About 20 hours of research, as a matter of fact.

In the first place, a CPT is usually not invited to attend the MI Officers Advanced course, usually only field grade and above. He was in the reserves, not Regular so the course he took could very well have been the correspondence course. His military assignments did not suggest anything nearly as grandiose as he was trying to make out, however, his claim to being the Teacher of the Year (Catholic schools in the Houston area) is without a doubt, genuine - or at least not worth disputing as being germaine to this discussion.

As I read through his account and how he was registering "indicators" I became really curious. Indicators are merely a hint that need developing. At the time I read them I still believed him to be a competent MI guy so I really was interested in how he developed his indicators.

I tapped over 6,000 sites and the consistency was superb. In every case his story was repeated exactly as it was presented here, a very curious situation. There was no indication he tried to develop the indicators other then to E-mail some of those he thought were "indicating" something. He never published an E-mail he received, nor did any of his "indicatees" substantiate his story in any way.

I did finally stumble on one news organization that was using him as a primary source for its stories - al Jazeera.

I thought I hit paydirt when I came across one of his posts that said he had the "bloody knife" as he called it, that proved the enormous casualties were a fact. I was disapointed when he never produced a "bloody knife," although he kept mentioning it. The closest he came was to produce a memo under the FOI about an Air Force editor choosing not to run a story for political reasons, something done everyday in every newspaper in the world. He did suggest two sources that might shed light on the casualty numbers being in dispute, one was al-Jazeera, the other Strategy.com, a very reputable site. If nothing else, Strategy.com actually damaged his argument by pointing out that the biggest discrepency they noted was 36 men, the difference being when they were reported by the military and when the names were released to the media after notification of NOK.

The story became entertaining when he mentioned Baghdad Bob as one of his indicators and Saddam as another. History has recorded how reliable their military analysis was.

Not satisfied with much that I was finding, I decided to go to the horses mouth (cav unit, right) and see if I could find some of the EM from the 3/7. Why EM you ask? because typically Em do not have security clearances and if an individual does not have a security clearance he is under no obligation to keep secrets. In fact, if an Em is in possession of a military secret without the proper clearance, and divulges it, it is not his fault, it is the fault of the person with the clearance that placed the secret in said individuals hands. Besides, if this aleged battle actually took place some 2 and a half years ago, some one is itching to tell the story. I found troopers from A and C troops who were still in the unit and troopers who had gotten out. They all were adament that 3/7 took no KIA's during that entire tour. However, 3ID did.

I really got excited when I discovered that CPT May claimed to have saved Houston from a nuclear attack using numerology. Now that is something to brag about, ranks right up there with being TOY (Catholic schools) of Houston.

I also found it interesting that when confronted with facts that disagreed with is own conclusions (that he now has a vested interest in maintaining so he doesn't look like more of an idiot then he already is) he claimed that his critics were "lying for military disinformation operations."

If this is not disgusting enough, I will let you read what others said. The only problem I have now is what to do with the 19 pages of crap I have stunk up my computer with.

1. Jim Krasovich Says:
July 13th, 2005 at 23:11:51
I have a son in the 3-7 Cav C troop, a co-worker had a son in A troop 3-7 Cav during the initial invasion.
I was also in contact with the commanders of both troops during that time frame.
I spoke with both when they returned (my son is back there again) and they both told the same story, as well as the commanders. The 3-7 Cav did not have a KIA during the entire 9 months they were in Iraq.
I tend to believe my son, and he was in a position to know.
Keep the tin hat, but get it tuned?
The 3-7 has been back in Iraq since Jan 05, and three have been wounded bad enough to be sent back to the states, but they still have not had a KIA.
2. Susan Absolom Says:
August 24th, 2005 at 21:43:34
My son was also in Iraq during the ?Battle of Baghdad? and is there again now. He is in personnel and so when he says there were no KIA in the first tour and have not been any so far on this second, I believe him. You only diminish the credibility of those who legitimately protest the war with facts?
1. Captain May Says:
September 8th, 2005 at 21:25:44
I believe both gentlemen who have left ?my son was there? stories are either lying dileberately for military disinformation operations or are simply deluded by bad information. I?m more inclined to believe the former than the latter.
I was in Crawford, Texas while Cindy Sheehan was there, and I met young soldiers who were with the 3rd ID, supporting Arty, the Marines AND the Iraqi forces. They all agreed that there was fierce fighting, and after an hour of confabulating we put together a good picture of the Battle of Baghdad Airport ? though I?m still fuzzy on the Battle of Baghdad itself, which cost more lives than the airport.
There was a six-hour, intense firefight at the airport between the 3/7 and four or five Iraqi Republican Guards regiments on early morning of April 5, 2003. The book ?Thunder Run? by David Zucchino is currently available (and can be Googled immediately). It is about the armored strike into the heart of Baghdad, beginning on the morning of April 5, 2003. The book describes a three-day, fierce battle, and makes it clear that the Iraqis weren?t doing all the dying by a long shot.
These two ?fathers? need to get real about history, and quit spouting the same tired crap about how anyone who doesn?t have his head up Bush?s butt isn?t a good soldier or good American. If you?ll pull up a Google search of ?Captain May Published Essays? you?ll find five pre-war military essays I wrote for the Houston Chronicle. Three of the five advise that going into Iraq will be the worst move on the geopolitical chessboard. I wrote that first one year after Desert Storm (for which I volunteered) in 1992, and I wrote it again (twice) as we slid into the Quicksand War in spring/summer 2003. Who is the good officer who knows what?s up?, and who is a disinfo agent?
Best regards,
Captain Eric H. May, MI, USA
CO, Ghost Troop, 3/7 Cybercav+
Mission of Conscience / Patriots in Action
Full Ghost Troop report on media/military cover-up of the Battle of Baghdad: www.ghosttroop.net
1.

Jim Krasovich Says:
October 11th, 2005 at 22:13:03
cap may states: ?I was in Crawford, Texas while Cindy Sheehan was there, and I met young soldiers who were with the 3rd ID,?
I sir am no liar, nor am I mis-informed. No one is saying the fighting was not rough. You claim to know what went on with the 3-7 Cav, then turn around and talk about the 3rdID. Get your story straight before you call people liars or mis-informed. You are delibertly trying to mislead others. The 3-7 did not have any KIA in the first tour. The first KIA casualties the unit had happened in Sept 2005.
There were casualties in the fight for the airport, but not from the 3-7 Cav, but the 2nd Bde, 3ID.
I could care less what you care to believe, but when you try to mislead others you show yourself for what you are. I did two tours in Nam 68-70 and you would not make it as S-2? I think you are lying about your background sir?.
You are like most loony liberal idiots and can not admit being wrong when confronted with the truth.
The first KIA in the 3-7 Cav came in Sept of this yr.
Use your MI contacts and find out who was point for the initial invasion and led the way for the battle. I mean the names of the scouts.
The 3-7 Cav held the bridge while the airport battle went on?. Your facts don?t add up any way shape or form.
1.

Jim Krasovich Says:
October 11th, 2005 at 22:57:57
The press is only going to give you the stories they want to provide or the stories they were fed to give out. The boots on the ground will be honest with you. The 7th Cav has a good web site. You can also follow up with a Canadian reporter named Rita Leistner. She became imbeded with C troop after Baghdad, but should be able to provide some information. C troop was the lead element of the 3-7 Cav. I will leave it to you to find out who the point was for C troop.
You don?t need to worry about spending your $1000.00 as the 3-7 Cav did not have any KIA in the first tour. I can not speak with any assurance about other units of the 3rd ID. The story you want has been on TV a couple of times already. Both the history channel and the military channel had stories about the battle, don?t recall any mention of the 3-7 Cav. (bridge?).
?I?m more inclined to believe the former than the latter.??. Real easy to attack some one on the net. I may be a 100% disabled vet, but I would bet you your 1000.00 that you don?t have the guts to or the integrity to make such a statement face to face. Check with the ROTC commander at Colorado State University, he commanded C troop during that time frame, maybe he wants to be called a liar as well.
1.

Jim Krasovich Says:
October 12th, 2005 at 20:04:07
With all due respect to cap may? I think that he ?may? have the 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, 3ID confused with the 3-7 Cav 3ID.
The Cav unit was the lead element during the initial invasion, and was the point unit for most of the invasion. During the airport battle it was the 7th Infantry Regiment that was attacked and not the Cav.
The Cav had secured bridges leading to the airport. At least that is my understanding of what went down.
I have asked my son and others in the 3-7 Cav to get in contact with mr. may in the hopes that the truth may be learned by all.
1.

CrazyTroop 3rd Platoon Leader "Blue 1" Says:
November 2nd, 2005 at 00:28:22
Cpt May,
With all respect, you?re an idiot. I saw your website a year or two ago, when you first wrote about all the 3-7 Cav KIA?s. We?ll, I responded to you then to clear the matter, and you never wrote me back. I was a Scout Platoon leader with Crazy Troop, 3-7 Cav, and I?m proud to say, we NEVER LOST A SINGLE SOLDIER across the entire Squadron. That IS the bottom line. No exceptions. This unit is serving proudly again overseas now, and unfortunately we were not able to be as fortunate as brave young men are being lost. I strongly urge you to clear your head and get your facts straight. Try spending energy on support, rather than wasting effort on raising frustrations. I wish I was serving again right beside those men, but unfortunately, I don?t have that opportunity.
Crazy Blue 1, Crazy Horse Troop, 3ID Rock of the Marne

posted by Kate-A | 10/31/2005 12:03:00 AM PermaLink | 2 comments
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2005
Eric May, Ghost Troop
I came across the name above when reading an article on Progressive Independent, a good site if you enjoy news and discussion. Mr. May's name was mentioned in an article titled Soldiers Join Sheehan in Protesting the War on Iraq.

The article states : "Eric May, ?Captain May,?a Houstonian who might be compared with Che Guevara in a cowboy hat, was on the scene to support Cindy and protect the protestors. A former military intelligence officer, May has for the past couple of years headed an Internet activist group called ?Ghost Troop,? whose mission is fighting propaganda and misinformation issued by the Bush Administration and propagated by the corporate media. Prior experience as a high school teacher of classic languages along with his insider?s military experience make May an engaging speaker. He mesmerized listeners with his account of the April 2003 Battle of Baghdad and its cover-up, while the engineered ?rescue? of Pvt. Jessica Lynch was played out on television."

The blurb above had my attention as two of my sons are MI, and one was actually there during the "Battle of Baghdad" in 2003. Initially I thought Captain May had served/fought in the April 2003 Battle of Baghdad but further reading showed that not to be the case. So I googled for more information on the Captain, not having seen anything previously from him on the internet and having spent a great deal of time surfing and reading, especially the past five years.

Using "ghost troop" as search, the first google link is May's website, with his Tae Kwon Do photo, military background, and "published essays" although it seems the publishing of Battle for Baghdad by the Houston Chronicle, was in the Outlook section, a readers opinion page. Online Chronicle does not archive Outlook so I found nothing there. Another link showed what appeared to be a May 2005 posting of snips from May's essay and responses. One gentleman disputing May's information sounded very credible.

So I googled "ghost troop of Baghdad" and the first link was from National Vanguard, the white supremist group. At the bottom of the Vanguard page was Source: Adelaide Institute. Well, that might explain why I haven't surfed across Cap'n May before as both Vanguard and Adelaide are too white for me.

So I googled "adelaide institute eric may" and the first link was a reprint of e-mail from Eric May explaining his position on the Zionist control of the media.

The second paragraph of May's e-mail :
"I re-include the press release we of Ghost Troop have issued, giving confirmed "news" that the Zionist-controlled US Media has repressed for 30 months, in complete disregard of the tenets of the Constitution and the ethics of journalism: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=6479."

There's that National Vanguard again. At this point I suspect one of two possibilities: Captain May is still MI and infiltrating the peace movement, or ? and more likely, he's as full of shit as a Thanksgiving turkey.
posted by Kate-A | 10/30/2005 08:30:00 PM PermaLink | 2 comments


By the way, so far there are only two parallels between the Iraq war and Viet Nam. The first is the slanted media reporting and the second is the lack of political will in Congress. Oh yeh, there is a third - the troops are doing everything that is being asked of them.

This is supposed to be a site dedicated to the preservation of military history. Eric May and his ilk don't even rate a footnote in a supermarket rag.

Rotorwash

Rotorwash,

Excellent work, my apologies to those that I have offended. This is exactly what I am talking about and have talked about, if you have other sources, etc put them on the table so we can see what's rreal and what isn't. I post and in posting am asking for others more skilled and knowledgeable to come to the front and help explain what is being reported. Did you find any info about the televised indicators re:CNN reporting and interviews of the commanding officer? Numerology is a tie in because of reported occult activities of people involved in the current military industrial/political group, i.e Bohemian Grove the worshipping of Molech (ancient deity of child sacrifice). One would have to look at the odds of chance occurrances of the numbers and dates used for incidents occurring in the order they do as claimed by May and others. Also Zionism is definitely not Judaism and as far as I can discern is in no way reflective of the Jewish people and there beliefs. Why was the Jessica Lynch falsehood being promoted during the Battle of Baghdad instead of reporting on the intense battle for and around Baghdad and the airport? (Thunder Run) What about the "While causalty figures have been suppressed by the media (along with the existence of the Battle of Baghdad!), international military estimates are that hundreds died. Summer/fall reports from Ft. Stewart, Georgia, about the overflow of 3rd Infanty Division wounded soldiers sleeping in tent cities when they needed medical treatment were never explained, either: There were too many wounded GIs from the Battle of Baghdad to fit in the Ft. Stewart Hospital" http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/44358.php I ask these not as indictments of your very well researched post, just a few more questions that may or may not be more disinformation. The disinformation game is a serious problem and hampers anyones search for the real info of what is happening. As always the "ground pounders" will have the birds eye view. Once again thank you for your clarification and good hunting!

Doc Urb

Some more Clarification?
 

Article and links at:

http://www.rense.com/general57/ababat2.htm


Doc Urb


Battle Of Baghdad,
April 5-7, 2003 - Part II
By Eric May
http://geocities.com/onlythecaptain/
Al-Jazeerah
9-9-4

Dear Operation Truth:

My compliments to you for the fine work I've just seen at your website, which was referred to me by one of my Ghost Troops. Ghost Troop is the cyberunit, comprised of former military professionals and interested patriots, dedicated to the same mission you are: We dig into the real information concerning the war and publish the truth, as well as we are able to construct it.

Our initial area of interest was the cover-up of the Battle of Baghdad, which I was able to pick up on the basis of my experience as a Soviet-media expert (US Army, Military Intelligence, DLI-trained, Russian-fluent) and my background as a Public Affairs Officer (75th Reserve Division General Staff). The story, as you know, has been suppressed by the US media and CentCom Public Affairs, but was finally admitted (although without acknowledgement of casualties) June 29, 2004 -- fifteen months after the battle!

Below I will give the MSNBC acknowledgement and hyperlink; below that I will give my essay, published, ironically enough, by Al-Jazeerah.info in May, 2004.

Best regards, and all wishes for your continued success,


First item: the Battle of Baghdad admitted on NBC, with an analysis by pro-Ghost Troop journalist Amy Rice.


Battle of Baghdad, April 5-7, 2003


Most of us haven't don't even know that there was a Battle of Baghdad in the first month of the Iraq war, when we reached Saddam's capital. Since this is the biggest of the media's Iraq War lies for Bush, it's time to learn about it.

Think back now the "crazy" claim by the Iraqi Information Minister, whom our media labeled a ridiculous "Baghdad Bob." On April 5, 2003, he made the claim from Baghdad that there was a fierce fight going on between US and Iraqi forces at the Baghdad International Airport and that the Iraqis were inflicting heavy casualties on our soldiers and Marines. That's about the last thing you will remember about the battle, because that's when Bush told the media to pull the plug on the truth and start lying. Within hours the media began to feed us a story about! Private Jessica Lynch as a distraction, and stopped reporting the US attempt to take Baghdad, clearly the biggest story of the war. They didn't return the cameras to Baghdad until April 9, after the fighting was over, when they broadcast the US Army pulling down the statue of Saddam Hussein.

The biggest story of the war became a non-event when the truth of the matter is that it was simply too bloody an event to report. If we had known that things were getting tough, we might have had second thoughts - and the Bush media is not going to let us think for ourselves. They haven't cared about the Constitution or journalistic ethics from the beginning; what they have cared about is boosting the war for their big bosses and Bush, public be damned!

The truth has finally sneaked into an obscure part of the media: In the summer of 2004, Defense Paul Wolfowitz teased the media for being too frightened of the mess Iraq has become to leave their bunkers and go out and get more bogus stories about what a success Iraq is! That was the last straw, and the media (for once) showed some spunk. On June 29, 2004, on the MSNBC Chris Mathews Show, Hardball, (Andrea Mitchell substitute host), the media finally admitted that there had been a Battle of Baghdad.

Ms. Mitchell interviewed David Zucchino, the Los Angeles Times reporter who was present at the battle with the 3rd Infantry Division about his book "Thunder Run," which gives a watered-down version of the three-day battle.

ANDREA MITCHELL: "You write very dramatically in this terrific book, 'Thunder Run," David, about the assault on Baghdad. It's not as we saw it in real time on television, is it? There was a much grittier story on the ground."

DAVID ZUCCHINO: "No, not at all. I think the impression that came from those three days of combat was that the Iraqis rolled over, that there wasn't much of a fight and the American forces just rolled into the city. And it was anything but that. There was just some fierce, savage fighting. There were thousands of, you know, Iraqis and Jordanians and Syrians who stood and fought from a series of bunkers and ditches. They inflicted casualties. They caused a lot of problems for the armored columns. And this w! as never reported but it really was not an easy victory at all." [Full transcript at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5343985]

Everything the media told you from April 5, 2003 to June 29, 2004 was just a Bush media lie. The media has become Benedict Arnold, serving King George.

Estimating the true number of US dead:

Now that we've established that there was a Battle of Baghdad, described by someone who was there as "three days of combat," marked by "fierce, savage fighting," what was the death toll among US Forces? Just how many US soldiers and Marines do you think had to die to take a city the size of Los Angeles from "thousands of Iraqis and Jordanians and Syrians who stood and fought from a series of bunkers and ditches

Before you take a guess, bear in mind that in any military operation, the defender has a considerable advantage - and that advantage is greatest when he is defending a city. OK, now factor in the average deaths per day in the three days before the Battle of Baghdad, when the Bush media reported thirty-one dead GI's (or ten per day).

How much higher was the number from the Battle of Baghdad?

Before you guess, here's a professional analysis. A week before the battle began, by the way, US retired general Barry McCaffrey estimated that an assault on Baghdad would cost around 3,000 US casualties:

"We ought to be able to do it (take Baghdad)," he told the Newsnight Program on Britain's BBC Television late on Monday. "In the process if they (the Iraqis) actually fight, and that's one of the assumptions, clearly it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties," said McCaffrey who became one of the most senior ranking members of the U.S. military following the 1991 war. Article from March 24, 2003, http://www.eces.org/articles/000060.php).

Now go ahead and check the official numbers for the three-day battle [http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/uscasualties2.html].

The Bush media admits a total of thirteen deaths for in the period of April 5-7, 2003, when the young American soldiers and Marines fought and died in the Battle of Baghdad. Welcome to the brave new world of Bush and his media, liars extraordinaire, and traitors to the American People.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/8%20o/Bat...hdad,%20April%
205-7,%202003,%20Part%20II%20An%20Update%20By%20Eric%
20H.%20May.htm


Second item: An essay published in US-based Al-Jazeerah.info explaining how I detected the cover-up and wrote it up the same week it happened:

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%2...hat%20Happened
%20to%20Some%20US%20Soldiers%20Who%20Died%20in%20B aghdad%20at%20the%20
Weekend%20of%20April%205-8,%202003%20By%20Eric%20May.htm

You may want to refer to our Ghost Troop website at www.geocities.com/onlythecaptain/, dedicated to the young men and women of the 3/7 Cavalry (attacked at Baghdad Airport), and the 3rd ID and Marines who fought the Battle of Baghdad.


Eric H. May
CPT, MI, USA
CO, Ghost Troop, 3/7 Cybercav+
(Mission of Conscience)

Doc, I figured the best way to discuss this with you was to copy your post and ?parse? it, inserting discussion relevant to your points. Hope this works.

RW


Excellent work, my apologies to those that I have offended. This is exactly what I am talking about and have talked about, if you have other sources, etc put them on the table so we can see what's rreal and what isn't. I post and in posting am asking for others more skilled and knowledgeable to come to the front and help explain what is being reported. Did you find any info about the televised indicators re:CNN reporting and interviews of the commanding officer?

Indicator #1 in May's own words: ?All at once the skyline of the besieged city erupted with the flash and report of sustained explosions. The CNN people (Aaron Brown and Fredricka Whitfield) reacted with surprise, saying that U.S. public affairs hadn?t alerted them that there would be a major fire mission tonight. I immediately became anxious, knowing it exceedingly unlikely that public affairs hadn?t contacted affected media about a major fire mission in a choreographed war. ?It probably wasn?t us doing the firing,? I thought.? My response is this: the fires were still burning the next morning and were obvious on CBS. Still photos of the smoke rising Sat. AM are on the net. The location of the explosions was in downtown Baghdad, not the areas where 3/7 and 3ID were fighting. He calls them ?sustained,? which is debatable. Were they caused by artillery? I would make a judgment call and say the explosions were two or more large explosions, more like bombs exploding then artillery rounds landing. Since when is the military obligated to inform the media that a fire mission is impending? What determines whether media is ?affected? or not? What information does May have that it is a ?choreographed? war? He makes a judgment call ?it probably wasn?t us doing the firing? that he doesn?t have adequate info to make.

Indicator #2 ?Report from imbed. Shouts, explosions and automatic fire hitting the vehicle.? My response: reports from the same imbed (Rogers with 3/7 Cav) and interviews he conducted in later days talk about running a gauntlet of AW and RPG fire with no casualties. This is an interesting piece of info but points absolutely nowhere. As an indicator this is useless.

Indicator #3, ?CNN military experts, including General Clark, in studio become pessimistic in their analysis.? My response: this is a judgment call on May?s part and without some kind of corroboration is worthless.

Indicator #4, ?Larry King shouts, ?Oh, my God!? in studio, as images come in. (He apparently forgot that his mike was on.)? My response: This last comment is a judgment call on May?s part. Not only is he unqualified to make it, but it is worthless. Unless some concrete significance can be attached to Larry King?s comment, it is not a valid indicator of anything. When an event like this is observed and you think it points toward something, the first question that must be asked is, could it possibly have another meaning or is my conclusion the only obvious one? In this case, without knowing what King saw in the images, it is impossible for us to establish meaning. May made an assumption as to what King was watching and then made a further assumption as to its significance.

Indicator #5, ?LTC Ferrell, the 3/7 Cav Commander, begins to cry in an interview with CNN reporter Walter Rodgers. Rodgers apparently had intended to create the impression that all was going well at the airport and asked how were the troops? c.2230. (Rogers is close to tears, too.)? My response: the word ?apparently? is what destroys May?s argument, it represents a judgment call on his part and throws the rest of the statement in doubt. The 3/7 was not at the airport. Why was the LTC crying? I have no idea, but this is the first real indicator in this whole story. A real intel analyst that felt he was on to something would follow this up.

I think you are seeing where I am going, I won?t go through the other 15 unless you want me to.

Numerology is a tie in because of reported occult activities of people involved in the current military industrial/political group, i.e Bohemian Grove the worshipping of Molech (ancient deity of child sacrifice). One would have to look at the odds of chance occurrances of the numbers and dates used for incidents occurring in the order they do as claimed by May and others. My response: Have you seen the way May uses numerology? If he can?t get the date he wants by just adding or subtracting, he reverses the order of the numbers, which is legal I guess, BUT if the date still doesn?t jive with anything he wants it to, May provides a simple explanation - the powers that be are lying and have changed the date of an event. But then he says that he has broken the code THEY are using. Why would they want to use a code anyway?

Also Zionism is definitely not Judaism and as far as I can discern is in no way reflective of the Jewish people and there beliefs. My response: Zionism is political and Judaism is religion. Conspiracy theories abut Zionism have been rampant since the 1830?s and have taken some unbelievable twists. Zionism was a reaction to persecution of the Jews that was a fact of European life in the 19th Century. Is there something else that I am missing here?

Why was the Jessica Lynch falsehood being promoted during the Battle of Baghdad instead of reporting on the intense battle for and around Baghdad and the airport? My response: Why do you consider Jessica Lynch a falsehood? I found several reports on the battle around the airport on foreign media. BBC, Reuters, Hindu, AFP, as well as UPI, even an Arabic agency, all reported the fighting at the airport over by the afternoon of the 5th with the result being an unqualified disaster for the Iraqis.

(Thunder Run) My comment: May is seriously disappointed in the book, he says it whitewashes the real situation. In fact, it very accurately reports the events as a 3ID brigade CO reported them within a few days of the battle.

What about the "While causalty figures have been suppressed by the media (along with the existence of the Battle of Baghdad!), international military estimates are that hundreds died. My response: How do you know the media suppressed casualty figures? The only international media I have found that discusses U.S casualties of the magnitude that May requires for his theory to work is al-Jazeera, and the two stories I read were prompted by May.

Summer/fall reports from Ft. Stewart, Georgia, about the overflow of 3rd Infanty Division wounded soldiers sleeping in tent cities when they needed medical treatment were never explained, either: There were too many wounded GIs from the Battle of Baghdad to fit in the Ft. Stewart Hospital" My response: This story was reported by UPI Oct 17, 2003. These people were for the most part reservists, not 3ID, and very few combat wounded, mostly sickness. The statement that they were ?wounded GIs from the Battle of Baghdad? is unsubstantiated.

http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/44358.php My reponse: This is a Ghost Troop press release and says exactly what all the rest of them say. It is not an objective report written by an unbiased reporter.

I ask these not as indictments of your very well researched post, just a few more questions that may or may not be more disinformation. The disinformation game is a serious problem and hampers anyones search for the real info of what is happening. As always the "ground pounders" will have the birds eye view. Once again thank you for your clarification and good hunting!

I agree, Doc, when people like ?CPT? Eric May come along, they must be held accountable for what they say. The first question that must be asked, and the first question a good intel analyst should ask is, ?how do you know that to be true?? When someone creates a story of this magnitude and drives it like he did, the story takes on a life of its own and soon it is driving the author. May now has a vested interest in people believing this story, if they don?t his personal reputation takes a big hit. Time is not on his side. If independent sources fail to corroborate his story quickly, then his chances of success are diminishing as time passes. A strong indicator that he is getting somewhat desperate is his refusal to answer his critics other then to suggest they are lying as part of a government plot.

RW

Jeex Doc, you move a lot faster then I do! I'll just make some quick comments on this one.

Please note first of all that this is not a story written by an unbiased reporter working for al-Jazeerah, it is from Eric May to the newspaper. They may have simply printed t without comment like it was an op-ed.



Doc Urb


Battle Of Baghdad,
April 5-7, 2003 - Part II
By Eric May
http://geocities.com/onlythecaptain/
Al-Jazeerah
9-9-4

Dear Operation Truth:

My compliments to you for the fine work I've just seen at your website, which was referred to me by one of my Ghost Troops. Ghost Troop is the cyberunit, comprised of former military professionals and interested patriots, dedicated to the same mission you are: We dig into the real information concerning the war and publish the truth, as well as we are able to construct it.

Our initial area of interest was the cover-up of the Battle of Baghdad, which I was able to pick up on the basis of my experience as a Soviet-media expert (US Army, Military Intelligence, DLI-trained, Russian-fluent) and my background as a Public Affairs Officer (75th Reserve Division General Staff). The story, as you know, has been suppressed by the US media and CentCom Public Affairs, but was finally admitted (although without acknowledgement of casualties) June 29, 2004 -- fifteen months after the battle!

Below I will give the MSNBC acknowledgement and hyperlink; below that I will give my essay, published, ironically enough, by Al-Jazeerah.info in May, 2004.

Best regards, and all wishes for your continued success,


First item: the Battle of Baghdad admitted on NBC, with an analysis by pro-Ghost Troop journalist Amy Rice.
The word "admitted" here is big. Is it true or not?

Battle of Baghdad, April 5-7, 2003


Most of us haven't don't even know that there was a Battle of Baghdad in the first month of the Iraq war, when we reached Saddam's capital. Since this is the biggest of the media's Iraq War lies for Bush, it's time to learn about it.

Think back now the "crazy" claim by the Iraqi Information Minister, whom our media labeled a ridiculous "Baghdad Bob." On April 5, 2003, he made the claim from Baghdad that there was a fierce fight going on between US and Iraqi forces at the Baghdad International Airport and that the Iraqis were inflicting heavy casualties on our soldiers and Marines. That's about the last thing you will remember about the battle, because that's when Bush told the media to pull the plug on the truth and start lying. Within hours the media began to feed us a story about! Private Jessica Lynch as a distraction, and stopped reporting the US attempt to take Baghdad, clearly the biggest story of the war. They didn't return the cameras to Baghdad until April 9, after the fighting was over, when they broadcast the US Army pulling down the statue of Saddam Hussein. During this period Baghdad Bob made many claims, why did this one suddenly ring true in Eric May's mind?

The biggest story of the war became a non-event when the truth of the matter is that it was simply too bloody an event to report. If we had known that things were getting tough, we might have had second thoughts - and the Bush media is not going to let us think for ourselves. They haven't cared about the Constitution or journalistic ethics from the beginning; what they have cared about is boosting the war for their big bosses and Bush, public be damned!

The truth has finally sneaked into an obscure part of the media: In the summer of 2004, Defense Paul Wolfowitz teased the media for being too frightened of the mess Iraq has become to leave their bunkers and go out and get more bogus stories about what a success Iraq is! That was the last straw, and the media (for once) showed some spunk. On June 29, 2004, on the MSNBC Chris Mathews Show, Hardball, (Andrea Mitchell substitute host), the media finally admitted that there had been a Battle of Baghdad. There was never a question about there being a Battle for Baghdad, the only question is did it occur as May says or as the military says?

Ms. Mitchell interviewed David Zucchino, the Los Angeles Times reporter who was present at the battle with the 3rd Infantry Division about his book "Thunder Run," which gives a watered-down version of the three-day battle. Events recorded in the book are consistent with 3ID bde op reports in almost every detail. The op reports were reported by the media within a few hours of the battle, not nearly enough time to be edited by handlers.

ANDREA MITCHELL: "You write very dramatically in this terrific book, 'Thunder Run," David, about the assault on Baghdad. It's not as we saw it in real time on television, is it? There was a much grittier story on the ground."

DAVID ZUCCHINO: "No, not at all. I think the impression that came from those three days of combat was that the Iraqis rolled over, that there wasn't much of a fight and the American forces just rolled into the city. And it was anything but that. There was just some fierce, savage fighting. There were thousands of, you know, Iraqis and Jordanians and Syrians who stood and fought from a series of bunkers and ditches. They inflicted casualties. They caused a lot of problems for the armored columns. And this w! as never reported but it really was not an easy victory at all." [Full transcript at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5343985] Zucchino is talking about the 3ID attacking objectives Curly, Moe and Larry. Curly was particularly vicious, two fuel tankers and a couple of amunition trucks were blown up. By the way, this wsa the last comment made during the interview.

Everything the media told you from April 5, 2003 to June 29, 2004 was just a Bush media lie. The media has become Benedict Arnold, serving King George.

Estimating the true number of US dead:

Now that we've established that there was a Battle of Baghdad, described by someone who was there as "three days of combat," marked by "fierce, savage fighting," what was the death toll among US Forces? Just how many US soldiers and Marines do you think had to die to take a city the size of Los Angeles from "thousands of Iraqis and Jordanians and Syrians who stood and fought from a series of bunkers and ditches All of these points are not in dispute, the problem arises when we try to arrive at conclusions that aren't legitimately derived from the points made. International media reports these same facts and overwhelmingly reports it as an Iraqi defeat.

Before you take a guess, bear in mind that in any military operation, the defender has a considerable advantage - and that advantage is greatest when he is defending a city. OK, now factor in the average deaths per day in the three days before the Battle of Baghdad, when the Bush media reported thirty-one dead GI's (or ten per day). Only an idiot would argue to the future trying to make a projection like this.

How much higher was the number from the Battle of Baghdad?

Before you guess, here's a professional analysis. A week before the battle began, by the way, US retired general Barry McCaffrey estimated that an assault on Baghdad would cost around 3,000 US casualties: The reality here is the value of talking heads analysis.

"We ought to be able to do it (take Baghdad)," he told the Newsnight Program on Britain's BBC Television late on Monday. "In the process if they (the Iraqis) actually fight, and that's one of the assumptions, clearly it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties," said McCaffrey who became one of the most senior ranking members of the U.S. military following the 1991 war. Article from March 24, 2003, http://www.eces.org/articles/000060.php).

Now go ahead and check the official numbers for the three-day battle [http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/uscasualties2.html]. I cannot believe he uses this website to support his argument. They show dead for the entire month of April at 76, exactly what the government shows as well as other reliable sites.

The Bush media admits a total of thirteen deaths for in the period of April 5-7, 2003, when the young American soldiers and Marines fought and died in the Battle of Baghdad. Welcome to the brave new world of Bush and his media, liars extraordinaire, and traitors to the American People. This is an incredible conclusion. He argues his extrapolated figures from the talking heads and projecting casualty figures from the previous three days against sources that have been established as reliable. Whats the problem, if he's not right, well its obvious everyone else is lying.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/8%20o/Ba...ghdad,%20April%
205-7,%202003,%20Part%20II%20An%20Update%20By%20Eric%
20H.%20May.htm


Second item: An essay published in US-based Al-Jazeerah.info explaining how I detected the cover-up and wrote it up the same week it happened: Once again, he's blowing his own horn and only al-Jazeerah will print it. Wonder if they have an agenda???


Makes tragically fascinating reading. Can't believe the guy is serious.

RW

Thanks for the breakdown of info into something digestible. We disagree about Jessica Lynch as a possible cover for the lack of US media coverage of the battle. To me for as much effort as was put into occupying the attention of the American people for 3 days with a made up diversionary story when the real focus should have been reporting by the embedded media of the Battle. Then again I disagree on one hand with the alarming way we give away our position on the news so that any enemy could/should be able to counter any move we make, yet we as a people do deserve to know what is happening with regard to current news and the limitations that should be imposed by national security concerns.

Doc Urb

What evidence do you have that the Jessica Lynch story was a made up diversionary story? This is the second time you mentioned it but have offered no explanation.

Also, I don't see there was much of a battle to cover, at least as far as 3ID and 3/7 Cav were concerned. Unbiased international media and Zucchino who was imbed with 3ID all pretty much state that the Iraqis were driven off the airport never to return by mid day on the 5th after the battle began on the evening of the 4th. I think I found over a thousand valid hits when I searched Battle of Baghdad. There is no way that many media sources can be corrupted, or even that inept.

RW

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...956255,00.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/goff12132003.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...nt/3028585.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...nt/3028585.stm

Maybe this isn't any indication of media subversion for government propaganda, maybe the story came out coincidentally during a fight for a huge city that only caused 6-7 KIA's for us. Yes I do have an agenda that is not popular on this forum, but when will we ever know the truth about anything until we have explored every pothole, looked under every rock and considered every wacky theory along with those things that most folks consider right and truthful because their government said it's true and the media repeated it? I'm not saying this makes me right it just makes me want to question the truth of all the info we are being fed whether it is from the right, left, middle, or in between any of these degrees of understanding. Is it possible that at any point during this horrible loss of life on both sides (US troops/Iraqi civilians) that we only believe what we're told because we have been conditioned to believe without question. All I'm saying is just because we are Americans it doesn't make our foreign and domestic policies right. Just because the politicians have grandiose ambitions that can be implemented at the expense of the American people doesn't mean we should follow and believe their lead down a path of no return. Your assessment of the Battle of Baghdad is resonable and sincere based on the information you have found. Does that automatically make Captin May or anyone that believes we have been lied to wrong? Just look at how easily the Jessica Lynch story got shaped and molded to play on our Patriotism. Why was so much effort spent on a dramatic non rescue during the battle for the prime city of Iraq? Look how the Pat Tillman story finally came to the surface. Look at all the lies about how safe DUM's are. Look at what foreign news services are saying about the use of "willy pete" in Fallujah. Most of the stuff that is news in the US is pablum for a mislead public I think. Why doesn't the MSM in the US publish the articles that hit the international news wires until damage control or until the smoke blows over or not at all? I think somebody is telling us lies and it's not you or me. If you look at all the emergencies and fear mongering being presented to us in a fashionable way, i.e. terroism (but the borders and ports remain open), Hurricanes and FEMA mismanagement, bird flu (an avian virus that unless it is tampered with in a lab has very little chance of crossing over to the human population but Rumsfield will make big bucks from "Tami Flu"), etc. I think we are being lied to. Plain and simple. Thanks for investigating and may we someday know all the truth.


Doc Urb

Jessica Lynch herself said the Pentagon story was a total fabrication. If you want me to find the evidence, just ask.

Larry