How stupid and credulous can the NYT be? The one Apache shown on Iraqi TV has no apparent battle damage, and looks very much like it made an emergency landing under its own power.
And where is the other "downed" Apache? Why would the Iraqis pass up the other photo op? But the author accepts the Iraqi claim at face value.
And on top of everything, the author implies that the Apaches were simply out sightseeing, and doesn't even speculate what damage they might have done to the RG.
How stupid and credulous can the NYT be? The one Apache shown on Iraqi TV has no apparent battle damage, and looks very much like it made an emergency landing under its own power. And where is the other "downed" Apache? Why would the Iraqis pass up the other photo op? But the author accepts the Iraqi claim at face value.
I agree. I saw this, too. There does not seem to be any damage to the Apache and they are not showing a second one. They just made this same report on MSNBC now, only one Apache down without obvious damage and no sign of the pilots.
I'm hoping it was a malfunction and possibly the pilots landed the Apache and escaped. MSNBC reporter who was on the scene during the attack said it was impressive with how many Apaches came in and fired upon the Iraqis. He described it as some kind of "Apache dance."