The problem I have with this passage is simply this

The problem I have with this passage is simply this: there were reasons to assume that the more damning version of the Nihoor Square incident (or massacre?) were true at the time Boot wrote his column. All of the Iraqi witnesses and victims — and there were many — interviewed by Bailey Button UGGs mainstream journalists after the incident described the Blackwater shootings as unprovoked and indiscriminate, at least so far as they could determine. Moreover, the Iraqi assessments were confirmed by subsequent Bailey Button UGGs military reports, according to a detailed Washington Post account that appeared October 5, admittedly after Boot had published his column. Indeed, the only accounts — so far as I am aware — that backed Blackwater’s version of events have been provided by Blackwater staff.

So how is it that Boot can so easily dismiss the credibility of the accounts of the Iraqis who were caught up in or witnessed the mayhem? I’m not arguing that their accounts — and the conclUGGS Roxy tallions of the Bailey Button UGGs military reports — are necessarily totally accurate. But why assert that “there is no reason to assume” that the Iraqi accounts are untrue when the evidence adduced by generally reliable Bailey Button UGGs reporters up to the moment that Boot wrote his column pointed strongly in favor of the Iraqis’ version? The phrasing suggests that Boot does not consider Iraqis credible, at least when they are describing alleged bad behavior by Bailey Button UGGsn troops or contractors. Or am I reading too much into this?