Question of the day: Where did the DNC get its IED footage? Update: The answer, partially; Update: Source video link added
Many veterans and bloggers are e-mailing about the DNC’s latest anti-war ad against McCain, which features a scene with two soldiers standing in the foreground as an IED goes off. The ad implies that they are US soldiers in Iraq. The ad is featured right now on the front page of Democrats.org in a splashy contribution plea.
The question for many outraged readers is: Where did the DNC get the video footage?
Here’s the ad on YouTube:
One writer speculates about possible sources of the video:
The footage appears similar to film taken by jihadists who videotape IED explosions that kill American combat troops. The jihadists place the video on the internet to tout their “kill Americans” campaign success. The Army estimates that more than 6,500 jihadist Web sites promote violence against America and American troops.
Many U.S. media outlets have refused to air excerpts from such videos for several reasons – including out of respect of the servicemen and women depicted in the videos.
The DNC apparently does not agree. Calls to the DNC for comment and for information about the footage went unreturned.
Or maybe the DNC got the vid from CNN.
You may recall that the DNC has blundered before in its exploitation of US troops for political statements. If they can’t tell the difference between American and Canadian soldiers, they’re certainly dumb enough and indifferent enough to our men and women in uniform to incorporate jihadi propaganda into their campaign ads.
Contact info for DNC is here.
Main Phone Number:
Update 11:56am Eastern. We have our answer via LGF. You won’t be surprised: “[T]he IED clip comes from Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. It’s at about 1:35 in…”
Here you go:
Follow-up question: Where did Michael Moore get the footage?
And another: Did the DNC just happen to use the same source or did they ask Moore for permission to use the clip from his movie?
Update 12:12pm Eastern. Reader redlegtruax e-mails:
Saw your post about the DNC ad, am not a registered poster so I can’t comment there. I believe that scene with the two Soldiers is from right after the invasion when the insurgency was becoming more active and roadside bombs were first named Improvised Explosive Devices. A news crew (don’t remember what organization, might have been NBC as I used to watch them back then) was with an American patrol, they spotted an IED. Two Soldiers stood behind a palm tree trying to get a better look at the object in question. The device exploded, the Soldiers were unharmed but ran from that spot immediately (as any of us would). So no one died, but the DNC is trying to make you think they did. Still in bad taste, but not as bad as showing insurgent footage of actual deaths.
Bob Owens: “The soldiers are on screen for just a split-second, just long enough for viewers to see that there was an explosion, but not long enough to know if the soldiers pictured survived uninjured, if they were wounded, or if they were killed. More than 3 full decades after the last U.S. soldier left Saigon, the party of Bill Ayers still revels in the imagery of blowing up U.S. soldiers as part of their political expression.”
blog comments powered by Disqus
In reviewing the ORIGINAL source video, I’m not even sure the soldiers were “attacked” – based on their “post-boom” actions that’s really not clear. Moving to cover with weapons ready would be a more obvious response, but even from the longer clip I’m uncertain. That might be a controlled det – found enemy device intentionally detonated. There’s no arguing that they either didn’t expect the explosion right then or if they did they underestimated the size. Again, these guys don’t appear to be responding to an immediate threat – but I don’t know with complete certainty. The DNC certainly wants the viewer to believe they were attacked – perhaps even killed. So you can definitely credit the DNC with skillfull editing, in addition finally finding US soldiers to use in an ad.
The odds of actually capturing an attack on video are fairly slim. Unless you’re a reporter engaged in an actual combat op you’re just not going to have a camera rolling at the opportune moment. Even Mike Yon doesn’t have many such examples, and he’s spent more time with troops than anyone. (Even with the Farah photo he didn’t get the shot of the attack itself.) Unless you’re embedded with the guys planting explosive devices (or detonating found ones) you’re just not going to get a good video of the explosion.
April 20, 2017 08:22 PM by Doug Powers
Team Clinton’s search for which ex-staffers told journos why Hillary wasn’t 50 points ahead reportedly escalates
April 20, 2017 07:57 AM by Doug Powers
April 18, 2017 01:59 PM by Doug Powers
April 15, 2017 02:17 PM by Doug Powers
April 7, 2017 10:57 PM by Doug Powers