PDA

View Full Version : Senator Murtha: Throwing Marines Under the Bus



BrianW
06-20-2008, 01:18 AM
Haditha Marine prepares to sue Murtha over smear...

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67434




WND Exclusive IN THE MILITARY
Haditha Marine prepares to sue Murtha over smear
Congressman had accused soldiers of killing 'in cold blood'
Posted: June 18, 2008
6:14 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani

With most of the eight Marines charged in the Haditha, Iraq, incident now exonerated, the highest-ranking officer among the accused is considering a lawsuit against Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who fueled the case by declaring the men cold-blooded killers...

...Rooney was asked by Savage why he thought Murtha, a former Marine himself, accused the officers and enlisted men.

"In my opinion, it's clear it was done during the election cycle, it was done to bolster himself in the party," the attorney said. "He was vying for a leadership position, and if he had to throw some Marines under the bus to do so, that was the cost of power for him."

He hopes soon politicians will weigh in on the case in support of Chessani and the others.

Will be fun to keep an eye on this one. Hope the Marine wins.

Osborne Russell
06-20-2008, 11:10 AM
First thing, we need a count of who was exonerated. At least one had the charges dismissed, which is not the same thing.

Second, why and how would politicians "weigh in on the case"?

I suppose they could be witnesses, like, "I heard Murtha say so and so . . . "

Perhaps they can claim Legislative Privilege and refuse to testify.

Tom Montgomery
06-20-2008, 11:31 AM
The Article 32 hearing for SSgt. Frank Wuterich will begin in August. Wuterich is charged with nine counts of manslaughter.

Charges against several of the other marines were dropped in exchange for their cooperation in the investigation.

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-20-2008, 11:41 AM
Murtha was not a draft dodger like the gnomes in the White House. He was a medal winning Marine in the Korean War. Like a lot of ex-Marines he has maintained a lifelong attachment for The Corps. He is definitey unhappy about the bad publicity generated by numerous accusations of criminal actions of Marine units fighting in Iraq.
Even if Murtha has overstepped the boundries of propriety in this case it is fairly evident that a lot of questions have arisen about the ethical use of deadly force by all our ground troops. Putting uniformed troops up against indiginous guerilla fighters puts the uniformed troops in situations where they can cross the line into illegal actions without even realizing it.
If you want to dump on Murtha OK. But you should be equally ready to dump on those who intitated the whole Iraq business. The suspects have been named here many time and there was a previous time when many of you REDs defended them mightily.
Let those of you without sin cast the first stone.

John of Phoenix
06-20-2008, 11:53 AM
Interesting piece on defamation and some anecdotes as well.
Rarely does a good defamation case walk in the door. Here are the criteria. The defamatory statement must be demonstrably false and made with the intent to injure. The defamatory statement must have caused a provable loss of income in addition to claims of injury to reputation. And finally, the defendant must have lots of money to pay a judgment.

The facts provided by the clients who want to sue often meet two of the requirements, but rarely all three. Few potential plaintiffs can prove a loss of income caused by the defamation. The friends of the defamed person do not believe the lies, and his enemies already believe them. A proximate cause issue.

Some defamation cases are brought not because the case is a good one but because something must be done to show indignation. This is especially true when the dispute has political overtones. Politicians commence defamation suits to express outrage, thereby demonstrating their own purity. Just as the alleged libel may be believed by some because it has appeared in print, a denial coupled with a lawsuit may similarly convince some that the libel is untrue. The litigants, once out of the public eye, may give occasional press interviews denouncing the other, but the lawsuit goes on the stet docket, probably never to be tried. Occasionally the plaintiff’s cheerleaders convince the plaintiff to go to trial. The trial can prove a disaster. General Westmoreland’s case against CBS is one example.

One of the big-name plaintiffs in a defamation suit that never went to trial was General Douglas MacArthur’s. In 1943 the general sued the Washington Times-Herald and its columnist Drew Pearson for libel. The paper accused the general of proposing 19-gun salutes for friends and "pulling wires" to further his own ambition. The general wanted $750,000 as fair compensation for injury to his reputation. The case was never tried.

While it was pending, there was a knock on the door of Pearson’s Georgetown residence—fate had sent Pearson a perfect defense, in the form of a beautiful Eurasian woman. She had bolted from the Chastleton Apartments at 16th and R streets NW, where she had been sequestered by the general. She placed in Pearson’s hands a collection of General MacArthur’s love letters to her. Shortly thereafter the general was made aware that Drew Pearson possessed some interesting documents the general might not want to see in print. MacArthur dropped his lawsuit and the letters were never published.

"The defamatory statement must be demonstrably false and made with the intent to injure."
Next case!

ljb5
06-20-2008, 11:53 AM
Brian, I always try to give you the benefit of the doubt, and you always disappoint me.

World Net Daily? Why do you do this to youself?

Isn't your credibility worth anything to you?

Art Read
06-20-2008, 12:03 PM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

LeeG
06-20-2008, 12:19 PM
history of WorldNetDaily is worth looking up.

Regarding the Haditha case there's plenty of material worth looking up than cheerleading pissing matches.

The leadership of the US sent over an adequate force for securing the country, lied about the basis and need to do so, had no consistant counterinsurgency strategy for years leaving soldiers to manage an impossible situation where Iraqis were conflated with "the terrists who brung us 9/11". Stuff happens. Ooops, we meant well winning hearts and minds. Send Karen Hughes to get the message out!

Support the troops, yee ha Dick Cheney, show you're a macho, macho man with pretty guns, grr, grrr, gettin' the terrists, wmd, links to Osama,,grr, grr.

Keith Wilson
06-20-2008, 12:21 PM
It may not be important, Al, but that doesn't make the guy on the internet one bit less wrong.

LeeG
06-20-2008, 12:31 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Net_Daily

WorldNetDaily is a for-profit website that provides primarily evangelical-conservative-oriented news and editorials, publishes letters to the editor, maintains forums and conducts a daily poll. Besides providing articles authored by its own staff, the site links to news from other publications. The website's Commentary page features editorials from the site's founder, Joseph Farah and other social conservative authors such as Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, and Chuck Norris. However, it also features weekly columns by libertarians Walter Williams, Vox Day, and Ilana Mercer as well as liberals like Bill Press and Nat Hentoff.[9] The site also offers products for sale in a fashion similar to its news articles, advertising these products with related news stories. Typically these are products sold by its related book service, Book Service, publishing house, WND Books, or its retail operation, ShopNetDaily. The site also contains advertisements for WND's printed magazine, Whistleblower, and other companies. WND also operates the G2 Bulletin, a subscription-only website described as an "intelligence resource" for "insights into geo-political and geo-strategic developments."

WorldNetDaily says it is the "the largest independent, full-service newssite in the world."[10] WND currently claims eight million visitors a month to its website.[11] As of November 8, 2006, it is listed by Alexa as the most popular website in the "Conservatism > News and Media" category.[12] WorldNetDaily articles are often linked by other websites, including the popular Drudge Report.

From July 2000 to early 2002, WorldNetDaily offered a service called TalkNetDaily, which provided an Internet audio stream of a daily talk show by then-WND columnist Geoff Metcalf.[13]

LeeG
06-20-2008, 12:57 PM
BrianW, there've been a few in depth article about the Haditha incident.

What's your concern in the general topic, is it Murtha, the incident/massacre, the trial?

Bob Smalser
06-20-2008, 01:14 PM
Actually, it's not all that easy to find sources with the level of detail required to answer yesterday's question about command influence. So y'all making such a big deal about World Net would serve us all by posting them.

Otherwise I did find a piece of responsible journalism on this just today that ought to make us ask we take the positions we do without really knowing **** about it:


June 20, 2008
Wait. Whose Side Are We on Again?
By David Harsanyi

Now that foreign terrorist suspects have the right to habeas corpus, maybe U.S. Marines will be extended the courtesy of a trial before being smeared as cold-blooded murders.

A surprising number of Americans are eager to believe the worst about our fighting men and women. In the case of the infamous Haditha "massacre," their motives are transparently political, ugly and deceitful.

The Haditha story -- reminiscent of some twisted Oliver Stone fantasy -- was first reported by Time magazine. According to reports, Marines were allegedly involved in a firefight on Nov. 19, 2005, murdering 24 civilians in retribution for a roadside bombing that killed a fellow Marine.

For power-hungry Pennsylvania congressman John Murtha, the tide of negative public opinion on Iraq made Haditha the perfect self-serving political opportunity. After all, other than being the focus of corruption investigations, Murtha had never been bequeathed such extravagant attention. And when Murtha, a former Marine, spoke about Haditha, he spoke with certitude -- and the national headlines mirrored it.

Seven months before any charges were filed, the by-then ubiquitous congressman claimed that the massacre happened when troops not only "overreacted because of the pressure on them" but also that "they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

In some circles, Murtha's reputation remained unblemished after this unsubstantiated slur. Only a couple of months after his remarks, presidential candidate Barack Obama said of Murtha: "I would never second guess John Murtha . . . I think he's somebody who knows of which he speaks."

"Never"? Really?

This week, U.S. Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, a Colorado native, was the latest Marine to have all charges dismissed against him in relation to Haditha. That means seven of the eight charged for the massacre and "coverup" have been exonerated. (One case is still pending.)

The judge declared that had it not been for the politics involved in the case, Chessani likely would not have faced any charges.

Politicians have every right, even a responsibility, to bring cases of criminality to the attention of authorities. They don't, however, have the right to try the accused.

Brian Rooney, a lawyer with the Thomas More Law Center, a Michigan-based conservative public interest law firm that has been defending the Haditha Marines, told me, "Everyone knows this massacre didn't happen. We know it was a complex attack and terrorists were hiding behind women and children."

You mean to tell me that the folks Michael Moore referred to as "Minutemen" were hiding behind women and children? Hard to believe.

Even harder to believe is how this case is unfolding. Many of the accused Marines were ecstatic to get their day in court. First Lt. Andrew Grayson even refused a plea that would have reduced charges and kept him out of jail. "I was the one that had to look at myself in the mirror," he explained. "To take the easy way out, you are the one that has to live with that."

Chessani, who has an exemplary military record and served three tours of duty in Iraq, didn't take the easy way out, either. And though he has already decided to retire after the trial, his persecutors are holding tough.

Chessani's charges were dropped "without prejudice," meaning they could be filed again later. And the government has decided to appeal. Chessani may be re-tried.

"We would hope that after years of litigation, they would look at their track record -- which is zero for 7 ... for the prosecution on this so-called massacre -- and they would say 'enough is enough,' " Rooney said.

He also has said he is preparing to sue Murtha for libel. So while there may never be closure, there might be a little justice.

Reach columnist David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.

This column first appeared in the Denver Post.

ljb5
06-20-2008, 01:16 PM
Now if you'd like to discuss the merits of the subject, rather than attack the source, maybe someone would give a f*ck about your opinion.

You want to talk about the facts? No problem.

In the article you posted, the charges that were dismissed were related to failure to properly investigate the incident which is not the same as exonerating the people involved in the incident.

24 Iraqi civilians --- including women and children were killed in the incident.

The charges against the marines were filed by the US Marine Corp, not by Congressman Jack Murtha.

Four of the marines were charged with the killings --- one is still on trial and has not been exonerated.

Four others were charged with failure to investigate and/or covering it up. That's a separate issue entirely.

Finally, the Marine Corps will appeal the decision to dimiss the charges. The Marine Corps, not Jack Murtha, is pushing this.

Bob Smalser
06-20-2008, 01:21 PM
Actually, if you read enough sources it appears the Marines didn't file charges until well after the political pressure started. The first US Army investigation of the incident found no fault.

Speaking as someone who has both investigated and tried lesser cases, I don't have enough details to judge the Marines one way or the other. And if I don't, where the hell does that leave you?


The Marines Vs. Haditha Smear Merchants
By Michelle Malkin

Yet another U.S. Marine, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, had charges dropped Tuesday in the so-called Haditha massacre -- bringing the total number of Marines who've been cleared or won case dismissals in the Iraq war incident to seven. "Undue command influence" on the prosecution led to the outcome in Chessani's case. Bottom line: That's zero for seven for military prosecutors, with one trial left to go.

I repeat: Haditha prosecution goes 0-7. But you won't see that headline in the same Armageddon-sized font The New York Times used repeatedly when the story first broke.

The Times, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa, and the rest of the anti-war drum-pounders who fueled the smear campaign against the troops two years ago should hang their hands in shame. They won't, of course. Perpetuating the "cold-blooded Marines" narrative means never having to say you're sorry.

It means never having to look Lt. Col. Chessani (charges dismissed), Lt. Andrew Grayson (acquitted), Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum (charges dismissed), Capt. Lucas McConnell (charges dismissed), Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt (charges dismissed), Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz (charges dismissed), Sgt. Frank Wuterich (awaiting trial) and their families in the eyes and apologize for the preemptive character assassination they all faced at the hands of the hyperventilating, noose-hanging press.

Murtha and company applied Queen of Hearts ("Off with their heads!") treatment to our own men and women in uniform while giving more benefit of the doubt to foreign terror suspects at Gitmo. It is worth recalling, because the press won't do it for you, what they concluded about the now-crumbling Haditha case in the summer of 2006 before a single formal charge had been filed.

-- MSNBC hangman Keith Olbermann, who couldn't wait to define the entire war in Iraq by a single moment about which he knew nothing, inveighed that the incident was "willful targeted brutality." Due process? For convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, of course. For our military? Never mind.

-- Far-left The Nation magazine railed, "Enough details have emerged ... to conclude that ... members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment perpetrated a massacre." The publication also judged the event "a willful, targeted brutality designed to send a message to Iraqis." Not content with hanging the troops, the Nation pinned blame on the president and a so-called "culture of impunity" that supposedly permeates the most accountable military in the world.

-- Singing the same tune as The Nation, The New York Times spilled a flood of front-page ink on the case and took things a step further in a lead editorial blaming not just President Bush, but also top Pentagon brass for the "nightmare" killings in Haditha. Times reporter Paul von Zielbauer filed over 30 stories on the case, which the paper wishfully called the "defining atrocity" of the Iraq war.

-- Hoping to facilitate a self-fulfilling prophecy, media tools around the world likened Haditha to the Vietnam War's most infamous atrocity -- from The Guardian ("My Lai on the Euphrates?") to the Daily Telegraph ("Massacre in Iraq just like My Lai") to the Los Angeles Times ("What happened at the Iraqi My Lai?") to The New York Times' Maureen Dowd ("My Lai acid flashback") and the Associated Press, which reached into its photo archives to run a 1970 file photo of My Lai to illustrate a Haditha article.

-- And, of course, there's the permanent stain left by the slanderous propaganda of Rep. Murtha -- the stab in the Marines' backs heard 'round the world: "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Relatives of the Haditha Marines have called for Congress to censure Murtha, who cuts and runs to the nearest elevator when questioned about the Haditha dismissals. He and the Haditha smear merchants have skated while the men and their families suffered global whippings on the airwaves and eternal demonization in print. Whose "culture of impunity"?

BrianW
06-20-2008, 01:31 PM
Speaking as someone who has both investigated and tried lesser cases, I don't have enough details to judge the Marines one way or the other. And if I don't, where the hell does that leave you?

Exactly, and where the hell does that leave Murtha? He was riding those dead Iraqis and accused Marines all the way to the voting booths for democrats all over the country.

ljb5
06-20-2008, 01:45 PM
Exactly, and where the hell does that leave Murtha? He was riding those dead Iraqis and accused Marines all the way to the voting booths for democrats all over the country.


The charges were brought by the U.S. Marine Corps, not by Rep. Murtha.

You seem to think that his role in this was much larger than it really was.

LeeG
06-20-2008, 01:47 PM
Bob, who are you speaking to and who is "we"?

There are ways headlines get passed around lazily "Murtha throwing marines under bus" is one of them. It's worth looking at the business spreading those headlines. To not do so fools no one.

One could just as well have said "Rumsfeld squanders lives" "Bush incompetance squanders billions"..in this case Murtha isn't throwing anyone under a bus. What happened with the Marines wasn't a good thing, it occured in a larger context, like Abu Ghraib, and it required an investigation.

BrianW
06-20-2008, 01:49 PM
Once again you've picked a fact and now are trying to make others look wrong. Your as predictable as ever.

It's not about who brought charges.

LeeG
06-20-2008, 01:49 PM
BrianW,,you got me confused,,is there something about the Haditha incident that reflects well on the US military, Iraq war and occupation?

LeeG
06-20-2008, 01:50 PM
Once again you've picked a fact and now are trying to make others look wrong. Your as predictable as ever.

It's not about who brought charges.


and that's what I'm trying to find out,,,what's this issue about for you? Is it all about Murtha?

BrianW
06-20-2008, 01:53 PM
BrianW,,you got me confused,,is there something about the Haditha incident that reflects well on the US military, Iraq war and occupation?

I can't for the life of me figure out why you would ask such a question Lee.

BrianW
06-20-2008, 01:54 PM
and that's what I'm trying to find out,,,what's this issue about for you? Is it all about Murtha?

Of course it's about Murtha. His actions, and the Marines actions, are two different things.

ljb5
06-20-2008, 01:57 PM
It's not about who brought charges.

Of course not.

As far as you're concerned, it has nothing to do with anything in reality.

24 civilians were killed and nobody did anything wrong.

An investigation was botched and everybody gets acquitted.

The Marine Corps presses charges against members of their own.

None of that matters. You simply don't care.

The only thing you do care about is some guy in Ohio who wasn't there, didn't kill anyone, wasn't involved in the shootings, the investigation, the cover-up, or the prosecution.

Somehow, some way, it's all about Jack Murtha. :rolleyes:

BrianW
06-20-2008, 02:05 PM
Of course not.

As far as you're concerned, it has nothing to do with anything in reality.

24 civilians were killed and nobody did anything wrong.

An investigation was botched and everybody gets acquitted.

The Marine Corps presses charges against members of their own.

None of that matters. You simply don't care.

The only thing you do care about is some guy in Ohio who wasn't there, didn't kill anyone, wasn't involved in the shootings, the investigation, the cover-up, or the prosecution.

Somehow, some way, it's all about Jack Murtha. :rolleyes:

If you need to resort to 'putting words in my mouth', then you've lost.

Bob Smalser
06-20-2008, 02:13 PM
Oh, there's no doubt Murtha jumped to conclusions. This just appears to be more anti-Bush politics at the expense of a few Marines. Just carefully look at how the NYT framed their words in the runup. And this is old news. No Marine has been convicted to date.

We'll see how it plays out with the squad leader's trial and whether Murtha and the NYT's runs and hides.


Saturday, October 06, 2007
The New York Times Mourns the Loss of Their "Defining Atrocity"

The New York Times can't be satisfied with some insignificant Al-Qaeda atrocity. It must be an atrocity committed by the Americans. And, they lost it this week in Haditha.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/Rwf4Gt9Z9AI/AAAAAAAAIAA/9nURuK-rCn4/s320/haditha.jpg

A military investigation into the deaths of two dozen Iraqis last November is expected to find that a small number of marines in western Iraq carried out extensive, unprovoked killings of civilians, Congressional, military and Pentagon officials said Thursday...

That evidence, described by Congressional, Pentagon and military officials briefed on the inquiry, suggested to one Congressional official that the killings were "methodical in nature."

The New York Times
June 4, 2006:

The apparent cold-blooded killing last November of 24 Iraqi civilians by United States marines at Haditha will be hard to dispose of with another Washington damage control operation. The Iraqi government has made clear that it will not sit still for one, and neither should the American people. This affair cannot simply be dismissed as the spontaneous cruelty of a few bad men.

This is the nightmare that everyone worried about when the Iraq invasion took place. Critics of the war predicted that American troops would become an occupying force, unable to distinguish between innocent civilians and murderous insurgents, propelled down the same path that led the British to disaster in Northern Ireland and American troops to grief in Vietnam.

The New York Times
December 22, 2006

Though this was not the first instance of American forces being charged with killing Iraqi civilians, the charges announced yesterday, including 13 counts of murder against one sergeant alone, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, 26, suggest that military prosecutors view the Haditha killings as being among the most serious breaches of military rules in the nearly four-year war.

The New York Times
October 6, 2007

Last year, when accounts of the killing of 24 Iraqis in Haditha by a group of marines came to light, it seemed that the Iraq war had produced its defining atrocity, just as the conflict in Vietnam had spawned the My Lai massacre a generation ago.

But on Thursday, a senior military investigator recommended dropping murder charges against the ranking enlisted marine accused in the 2005 killings, just as he had done earlier in the cases of two other marines charged in the case. The recommendation may well have ended prosecutors’ chances of winning any murder convictions in the killings of the apparently unarmed men, women and children.

That's The New York Times special way of saying "I'm sorry" for condemning the Haditha Marines to hell for the "apparent" cold-blooded murder of innocents before their trial even started.

And, isn't it interesting how The New York Times is still searching for an atrocity to define the War in Iraq?

An Al-Qaeda atrocity like the Yazidi bombings, the murder of a brave young Sunni Sheik, torture chamber drawings, or dismembering and booby-trapping dead soldier's bodies just won't do.

It must be an American atrocity. Sometimes it's hard to figure out just who they are rooting for.

Democracy Project thinks The New York Times has just excused itself.

ljb5
06-20-2008, 02:20 PM
If you need to resort to 'putting words in my mouth', then you've lost.


Not trying to put any words in your mouth... just trying to figure out what's the thought process producing the words coming out of your mouth.

You keep attacking Jack Murtha as if he were somehow involved in this.

Is Jack Murtha the one pressing charges?

Is he the one who decided there's enough evidence to warrant an investigation?

Is he the one who is appealing the dismissal of charges?

The same goes for the New York Times --- they aren't the ones prosecuting this case. They're reporting on the actions of the Marine Corps prosecutors, but they aren't filing charges.

Bob Smalser
06-20-2008, 02:51 PM
What Happened at Haditha
The massacre that wasn't, and its political exploitation.
Friday, October 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

The incident at Haditha--or the massacre, as it is often called--is due for a wholesale rethinking. The allegations are that in 2005 U.S. Marines went on a killing spree and deliberately executed 24 Iraqi civilians. The casualties have drawn an extraordinary amount of political attention, becoming an emblem for everything critics say is wrong with the Iraq war--in the common telling, another My Lai.

Thus Congressman Jack Murtha, a decorated combat veteran, made accusations of war crimes and said the Marines had killed "in cold blood." These are serious charges; and military justice continues to deal with them seriously, though thankfully at a slower pace than politics. Now the prosecutions have mostly unraveled. It seems Haditha, though tragic, was exploited politically, and the allegations were exaggerated, if not unfounded.

Here is what we know. On November 17, 2005, Kilo Company of the First Marine Regiment's Third Battalion was returning from a routine logistics mission in Haditha, a town 140 miles northwest of Baghdad. Haditha is in Anbar province, a heart of the Sunni insurgency with one of the highest U.S. casualty rates in Iraq. The security situation at the time was treacherous.

Shortly after 7 a.m., an improvised explosive device detonated under the last vehicle in Company K's four-Humvee convoy. It instantly killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas and wounded two others. Windows were shattered for 150 yards, and smoke and debris were everywhere.

An oncoming white sedan had been waved over near the stalled convoy. Five military-age occupants exited and disobeyed orders in Arabic to halt; at least one began to run. Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, the squad commander, and Sergeant Sanick Dela Cruz opened fire, killing all of them. The men were suspected of being spotters for, or remotely detonating, the IED.

As a quick reaction force arrived, headed by First Lieutenant William Kallop, Company K began taking small arms fire from several locations on either side of the convoy. While taking cover, they identified at least one shooter in the vicinity of a nearby "trigger house." Lt. Kallop ordered SSgt. Wuterich and a makeshift team to treat the building as hostile and "clear" it.

They forced entry and shot a man on a flight of stairs, then another when he made a movement toward a closet. The Marines say they heard the sound of an AK-47 being racked, so threw grenades into a nearby room and fired; they killed five occupants, with two others wounded by grenade fragments and bullets.

SSgt. Wuterich and his men pursued a runner into an adjacent house. They led the assault with grenades and gunfire, in the process killing another man. Unknown to the Marines, two women and six children were in a back room. Seven were killed. It was chaotic and fast-moving in the dark, close-range quarters, and accounts diverge on the chronology and offensive actions.

After the firefight ended, around 9:30, the Marines noted men suspected of scouting for another attack "turkey peeking" behind the wall of a third house. A team followed to find women and children inside (who were not harmed). They moved to a fourth house off a courtyard and killed inside two men wielding AK-47s and two others.

In March 2006, Time magazine broke the story, which erupted in the press. The accounts relied on a narrative that the Marines had gone berserk after the killing of Cpl. Terrazas and murdered Iraqis in retaliation. "Eyewitnesses" reported that the riders in the car had been lined up and executed, and that there had been a rampage through the houses targeting women and children. A coverup by the top brass was also asserted.

After the incident became public, the military was unusually aggressive. It launched at least two exhaustive, months-long inquiries. Four of the enlisted men from Company K were charged with unpremeditated murder--essentially, killings without sanction. Four Marine officers who were not on the scene were charged with dereliction of duty for improperly reporting and investigating.

Before courts martial, all charges are referred to Article 32 hearings, the military equivalent of a grand jury. The senior investigating officer for the infantrymen, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Ware, had a chance to look at all the evidence, not just that selectively leaked or filtered. The result is that the charges are being reduced or dismissed altogether.

In separate Article 32 proceedings, two of the officers have been exonerated; one, the highest ranking, has been recommended for a court martial, and the other case remains pending. Of the four infantrymen, two have seen their charges dismissed (one in exchange for testimony); and charges against a third have been recommended to be dismissed. Ten of SSgt. Wuterich's indictments have been recommended for dismissal, and the seven others reduced to negligent homicide, essentially, accidental or negligent killings. Why?

The first imperative is to understand the complex, asymmetrical combat conditions in Iraq. The Marines were (and are) facing a determined enemy who dress as civilians and use homes, schools, hospitals and mosques as their bases of operation. They try to goad killings among the civilian population because it foments domestic opposition against U.S. troops while undermining them with elite international opinion.

In this environment, accusations of U.S. atrocities against civilians occur after almost every military operation. That partly explains why the Marines did not immediately investigate the Haditha killings. They viewed some Iraqi claims as part of insurgent "information operations" and did not suspect any misconduct. That day also saw citywide violence and multiple combat actions, and the killings seemed, regrettably but realistically, routine.

Perhaps, ex post facto, the officers might have erred on the side of scrutiny, though it is more exactly the duty of commanders to report accurately up the chain of command. Aside from some glitches, such as an erroneous public affairs statement that some of the civilians had been killed by the roadside bomb, they seem to have done so. There are also accusations that the delay in the full probe compromised the case. One indication of affairs in Haditha is that the heavily guarded investigators came under a coordinated insurgent attack.

Still, negligence, if proved, does not constitute a cover-up. Even the most fault-finding Haditha inquiry, conducted by Army Major General Eldon Bargewell, rejected the idea of some upper-level conspiracy. As for the infantrymen at Haditha, Lt. Col. Ware's investigation concluded, in a representative statement, that "No trier of fact can conclude SSgt Wuterich formed the criminal intent to kill." The allegations of a deliberate massacre are entirely unfounded. They are contradicted by credible testimony, and remain a "story unsupported by evidence."

If any of the reduced cases do move to courts martial, as some likely will, they will turn on the rules of engagement. Decisions made in the heat of battle are hard to judge from the outside. At the critical moment, hesitation can result in a soldier or his unit getting killed. Thus military justice usually presumes a benefit of the doubt if decisions that were reasonable in the line of fire appear wrong in hindsight. A bad result does not imply a bad decision.

At Haditha, did the Marines act reasonably and appropriately based on their training? They were in a hostile combat situation where deadly force was authorized against suspected triggermen for the IED, and were ordered to assault a suspected insurgent hideout. In retrospect, the men in the car had no weapons or explosives; in retrospect, the people in the house were not insurgents. No one knew at the time.

Innocents were killed at Haditha, as they inevitably are in all wars--though that does not excuse or justify wrongdoing. Yet neither was Haditha the atrocity or "massacre" that many assumed--though errors in judgment may well have been committed. And while some violent crimes have been visited on civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, overall the highly disciplined U.S. military has conducted itself in an exemplary fashion. When there have been aberrations, the services have typically held themselves accountable.

The same cannot be said of the political and media classes. Many, including Members of Congress, were looking for another moral bonfire to discredit the cause in Iraq, and they found a pretext in Haditha. The critics rushed to judgment; facts and evidence were discarded to fit the antiwar template.

Most despicably, they created and stoked a political atmosphere that exposes American soldiers in the line of duty, risking and often losing their lives, to criminal liability for the chaos of war. This is the deepest shame of Haditha, and the one for which apologies ought to be made.

Keith Wilson
06-20-2008, 02:53 PM
Bob, please give a source for your C&Ps, preferably a link.

Tanbark Spanker
06-20-2008, 02:56 PM
Tradition!

Bob Smalser
06-20-2008, 02:56 PM
Bob, please give a source for your C&Ps, preferably a link.

Sorry. Thought you knew how to Google.

http://realclearpolitics.com/search/?query=haditha&x=10&y=9

Been looking for pieces that support Murtha, but can't find them.

Keith Wilson
06-20-2008, 02:58 PM
Sorry. Thought you knew how to Google.I do, but identifying the source is your responsibility when you post a quote. Thanks for the link.

High C
06-20-2008, 03:07 PM
Keith:


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/18/murtha.marines/

Note that the link to a 2006 video of Murtha making his charges has been redirected to an irrelevent video....with today's date.

Hmmm,. no hanky panky at CNN, no siree....

Bob Smalser
06-20-2008, 03:34 PM
One thing's for sure. Any claim that the incident wasn't investigated until far after the fact is completely false. The timelines ring true for how long it takes to go through the investigation process.


Timeline: The Haditha investigation

By The Associated Press | August 2, 2006

A timeline of events surrounding the alleged massacre at Haditha, Iraq, based on a June 1 White House account and other details compiled by The Associated Press:

------

Nov. 19: A roadside bomb goes off at Haditha, killing a U.S. Marine and injuring two other members of his battalion. In the following hours, a number of Iraqis die. Subsequent press reports say the Iraqi death toll was 24. The military sends a team to investigate and document the scene.

Nov. 20: The Marines release a preliminary report saying 15 Iraqis had been killed by an IED, or improvised explosive device.

Feb. 10: Time magazine raises questions with military sources in Baghdad about the circumstances of the Iraqi deaths.

Feb. 14: Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, commander of Multi-National Corps in Iraq, appoints an Army colonel to lead an investigation into the case.

March 3: A preliminary report is completed and recommends further investigation.

March 9: Chiarelli receives the initial findings of the preliminary investigation and directs further review.

March 10: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are notified of the case.

March 11: President Bush is told of the case for the first time by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

March 12: Marine Maj. Gen. Richard C. Zilmer, commanding general of the Multinational Force-West, appoints a Marine colonel to investigate reporting of information at all levels of the chain of command. Zilmer also requests a Naval Criminal Investigative Service inquiry.

March 13: The Naval Criminal Investigative Service team arrives in Haditha.

March 19: Time magazine reports the first public account of the case. Chiarelli appoints Army Major General Eldon A. Bargewell to investigate the training and preparation of Marines before Haditha killings, along with the reporting of information concerning the case at all levels of the chain of command.

May 17: Rep. John Murtha, an Iraq war critic, says the Pentagon probe will show that Marines killed more than a dozen innocent Iraqi civilians "in cold blood" in Haditha.

June 3: Murtha expresses concern that there may have been an attempt by some in the military to hide information about the killings.

June 7: Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, says any Marine found to have violated standards of behavior will be held accountable but that he'll wait until criminal investigations are completed before he removing any commanders from their posts

June 10: Neal A. Puckett, lawyer for a sergeant who led a squad of Marines during the incident, says the unit followed military rules of engagement, did not intentionally target any civilians and did not try to cover up what it had done. Puckett says his client, Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told him several civilians were killed when his squad pursued insurgents firing at them from inside a house after the bombing.

June 16: Bargewell, the Army general investigating a possible cover-up in the deaths, says his report has been completed.

June 21: The Los Angeles Times reports that Bargewell's investigation concludes that senior military personnel in Iraq did not follow up on potential inaccuracies in early accounts of the deaths.

July 7: A U.S. military official says Chiarelli agrees with Bargewell's report that errors were made in the reporting and follow-up of initial allegations after the killings.

Aug. 2: In a federal lawsuit, Wuterich accuses Murtha of defaming him in public comments about the case.

Aug. 2: Pentagon officials say evidence collected in the Haditha probe supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children. Marine and Navy prosecutors will review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/08/02/timeline_the_haditha_investigation/

http://192.156.19.109/lapa/Iraq/Haditha/Haditha-Timeline.htm

ljb5
06-20-2008, 03:37 PM
It seems Haditha, though tragic, was exploited politically.

Exploited politically?


Jack Murtha hates the Marines.

Jack Murtha hates America.

Jack Murtha loves terrorists.

Jack Murtha eats kittens.

Yup, someone is exploiting this politically, that's for sure. (It's you!)

BrianW
06-20-2008, 03:54 PM
Exploited politically?


Jack Murtha hates the Marines.

Jack Murtha hates America.

Jack Murtha loves terrorists.

Jack Murtha eats kittens.

Yup, someone is exploiting this politically, that's for sure. (It's you!)

Nothing in this quote makes any sense. But that don't stop him.

The gymnast is just flinging mud, hoping it sticks somewhere.

BrianW
06-20-2008, 03:58 PM
In fact, first he did it to me, and now he's doing it to Bob. Never a lick of sense, just flinging mud.

Reminds me of someone.... oh yeah, Murtha!

ljb5
06-20-2008, 04:04 PM
Are you really that stupid, Brian?

You know perfectly well that there are some people who don't give a rat's ass about this issue.... except they wanted to attack Jack Murtha.

These attacks are poltically motivated, in case you hadn't figured that out yet.

When this Haditha story broke, there were approximately 100,000,000 people who were outraged and pissed off about it. Many of them said that the Marines had done something wrong.

Why all the focus on Jack Murtha? What did Jack Murtha say that was different than what thousands of other people said?

The only reason he's being attacked is because he's a Democrat.

ljb5
06-20-2008, 04:20 PM
Anyway, as has already been pointed out, this "lawsuit" isn't going to go anywhere.

Jack Murtha might have been wrong, but he's got a right to express his opinion.

If this marine wants to sue Murtha, he might as well sue everyone with an opinion.

The idea of going after Murtha obviously appeals to those who are looking for any excuse to attack him.

If you can't see the political motivation for that, you're truly dumb.

ljb5
06-20-2008, 04:32 PM
Apparently a Republican had this to say:


There is no question that the Marines involved, those doing the shooting, they were busy in lying about it and covering it up — there is no question about it.

Why not sue him?

Bob Smalser
06-20-2008, 04:43 PM
What did Jack Murtha say that was different than what thousands of other people said?

The only reason he's being attacked is because he's a Democrat.

Nonsense. Look at the two timelines I sourced. Murtha was so premature in his comments he reeks of political bias. Let alone contempt for due process.

Murtha began making accusations on May 17, 2006, yet the first official report (Bargewell's) wasn't released until a month later on Jun 16th. That means Murtha based his comments on the March 19th Time Magazine article and whatever incomplete inside dope he could gather.


Although the investigation had hardly begun, opponents of the war pounced. The press, especially Time and the New York Times, presumed the Marines guilty. Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.) piled on, claiming that “there was no firefight, there was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” This incident, said Murtha, “shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they’re out in combat.”

Appearing on This Week on ABC, Murtha also contended that the shootings in Hadithah had been covered up. “Who covered it up, why did they cover it up, why did they wait so long? We don’t know how far it goes. It goes right up the chain of command.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDBkY2YzM2Q4YTBjODdkNzBhYWRhMTgzNjcxYzQ5NmY=

Bob Smalser
06-20-2008, 04:45 PM
Apparently a Republican had this to say:



Source? Perhaps he deserves some hammering, too.

htom
06-20-2008, 05:01 PM
Murtha said that he had proof that the "Marines killed women and children in cold blood." We're waiting; our reputation is on the line, and so is his. Notice how he's not talking about this lately?

LeeG
06-20-2008, 05:11 PM
Murtha was being attacked because he has been a vocal critic of the administrations policy and performance in Iraq and he's chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. He's a political enemy to the cheerleaders for the administrations misuse of military power. If you're not for the misuse of the military by chickenhawks then you must be against the military, God and Country.
It's not that complicated.

Hey BrianW,,what's your take on the Haditha incident? My take on it is that the marines were in survival mode and that counterinsurgency doctrine of winning hearts and minds takes a second place to that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_murtha

LeeG
06-20-2008, 05:14 PM
htom,,,is there a technical definition for cold blood? These marines are professionals, they aren't killing their neighbors back in Kansas in a crazy spree, they're killing the enemy that brung us 9/11, where terrists walk on the streets in civilian clothes but shoot you in the back. When the five young men stopped their car, turned and fled and were cut down,,surely the marines did it effectively and not in anger.

Bob Smalser
06-20-2008, 05:17 PM
Murtha was being attacked because he has been a vocal critic of the administrations policy and performance in Iraq and he's chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. He's a political enemy to the cheerleaders for the administrations misuse of military power. If you're not for the misuse of the military by chickenhawks then you must be against the military, God and Country.

It's not that complicated.


No, it's not complicated at all.

Murtha's being attacked by me and by my friend Mac Owens because he clearly jumped to conclusions, slandering some young marines in the process. And neither of us are chickenhawks.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDBkY2YzM2Q4YTBjODdkNzBhYWRhMTgzNjcxYzQ5NmY=


Justice?
Haditha again.

By Mackubin Thomas Owens

In November 2005, the Marine Corps reported that a number of civilians had been killed in Haditha by an improvised explosive device (IED) that also killed Marine Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas, and that eight insurgents were killed in the ensuing firefight.

But in March of 2006, Time ran a story, “Collateral Damage or Civilian Massacre in Haditha?” which claimed, based on interviews with locals, that the Marines had killed 24 civilians in cold blood in retaliation for Terrazas’s death. In May, the Marine Corps charged a number of Marines from Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, with killing the civilians, and a number of officers for covering up the alleged killings.

Although the investigation had hardly begun, opponents of the war pounced. The press, especially Time and the New York Times, presumed the Marines guilty. Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.) piled on, claiming that “there was no firefight, there was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” This incident, said Murtha, “shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they’re out in combat.”

Appearing on This Week on ABC, Murtha also contended that the shootings in Hadithah had been covered up. “Who covered it up, why did they cover it up, why did they wait so long? We don’t know how far it goes. It goes right up the chain of command.” When Alan Colmes asked Barack Obama about Murtha’s charge in June of 2006, Senator Obama replied, “I would never second-guess John Murtha . . . I think he’s somebody who knows of which he speaks.”

But a strange thing happened on the way to the lynching. The case against the Marines began to fall apart, and a deafening media silence ensued. Eight Marines were originally charged with offenses ranging from murder to dereliction of duty, but charges against six have been dismissed, and one has been acquitted.

The case began to unravel in 2007, when then-Lt. Gen. James Mattis, Commanding General of the First Marine Expeditionary Force (IMEF), accepted the recommendations of the Article 32 investigating officer and dropped charges against two of the Marines charged with murder and an officer charged with dereliction of duty. In the case of Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt, one of four enlisted Marines charged with murder in the Hadithah incident, General Mattis wrote that Sharratt:

has served as a Marine infantryman in Iraq where our nation is fighting a shadowy enemy who hides among the innocent people, does not comply with any aspect of the law of war, and routinely targets and intentionally draws fire toward civilians.

With the dismissal of these charges, LCpl Sharratt may fairly conclude that he did his best to live up to the standards, followed by U.S. fighting men throughout our many wars, in the face of life or death decisions made in a matter of seconds in combat. And as he has always remained cloaked in the presumption of innocence, with this dismissal of charges, he remains in the eyes of the law — and in my eyes — innocent.

The acquittals and dismissals continue. More at the link.....

LeeG
06-20-2008, 05:21 PM
gosh,,I wonder what WorldNetDaily with its 75 employees is working on next.

anywho:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_incident

LeeG
06-20-2008, 05:22 PM
no Bob, you aren't a chickenhawk. Maybe you could be a consultant for WND. Somewhere is an excellent article I read about what happened at Haditha, the environment leading up to it, the conditions out at the dam, the ROE handed down from above. These marines don't seem any different than any others. They're given a very dificult task,,that left 24 unarmed Iraqis dead.

LeeG
06-20-2008, 05:29 PM
I can't for the life of me figure out why you would ask such a question Lee.

Because something bad happened at Haditha and your focus is on an offhand comment by Murtha from years ago. It's kinda out of the blue. Murtha was a critic of the adminstrations performance using the military because he was getting feedback from the military it was stretched and the goals set BY THE PRESIDENT weren't being met by the sacrifice of US soldiers.

htom
06-20-2008, 05:31 PM
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2006/05/iraq-060517-murtha01.htm :

...


So who really wants us in Iraq? The Iraqis do not. It's interesting. In a recent poll the Iraqis termed those who attacked Iraqis as terrorists or criminals. Yet 88 percent describe those who attack coalition forces as freedom fighters or patriots. In other words, (if) they attack us, they're freedom fighters or patriots.

The American public certainly does not support this war.

I'll tell you who wants us in Iraq: Iran, Russia, China and North Korea and Al Qaida. There's only 1,000 Al Qaida, 1,000 Al Qaida. The rest are Iraqis (and) we're caught in between.

And while the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate, this administration says things are going very, very well. They want to sanitize this war and put a positive spin on things. And they ignore the real story.

Secretary Rumsfeld says progress in Iraq is evidenced by how many satellite dishes he sees on a rooftop. Now, what's wrong with that? They only have 2.9 hours of electricity. So if they have satellite dishes, they can't watch them 21 hours a day.

This trivializes the situation that our Marines and many of our soldiers are facing every single day. Every convoy's attacked. Every convoy's attacked. IEDs (are) exploding all around them. (They’re) being shot at every day. (They’re) watching their buddies die. (They’re) unable to trust the Iraqis. They don't know who their friends are and who the enemies are.

They're under constant and severe stress. Karl Rove recently said the public is sour on the war. The use of the word "sour" disgracefully minimizes the public reaction to the way the administration has run the war.

Try disillusioned, betrayed, deeply concerned about the lives of our service members, the future of the military and the future of the country if we continue down this open-ended, ill-defined path.

The Army's broken. It has serious recruitment problems. Stop-loss, in effect, is a draft of 50,000 soldiers who can't get out. The Army Reserve and Guard have been mobilized. And (our) young officer corps is being hollowed due to the large numbers leaving the service.

Last year, the Army promoted 100 percent of its eligible Army officers from lieutenant to captain, up from a historical average of 70 to 80. This has a detrimental effect on the quality of forces down the road. If you remember, what I said was (that) I'm not only worried about the troops, I'm worried about the future of the military. This is a direct sign of the cost of the military.

Of course, these huge bonus incentives to the personnel costs even affect health care. The Quality of Life Committee couldn't put $700 million in the quality of life for TRICARE because they didn't have enough money … TRICARE is one of the most important health care problems for the military, and they were short.

Now, we're going to try to work that out, but at the present time they're short.

Now, not having adequate forces in Iraq, the National Guard's being replaced by Air Force and Navy.

I'm talking to a retired three-star general, and … he said to me that he was in a room full of Navy officers, all different specialties. One of them was a ship driver; in other words, he was captain of a ship. They had mobilized him to go to Iraq to do civil affairs, in two weeks. He said the whole room was not trained to do the job.

Now, what does it mean when they're not trained. This war is coming at a huge consequence, the unspoken consequence of an overstretched and overstressed force. And when you send in untrained people, you get Abu Ghraib.

I've told the story about the young person from my district who was untrained in that prison, who had a court order against him that he was not able to (see) his family because he abused them. He told the Army that, and the Army still put him in a position to oversee Abu Ghraib. And you know the tremendous impact this had on our troops.

And anybody that's been in combat knows it sears your soul, it's something that you never forget, and you live with it for the rest of your life…

Now, two days after I made my statement, on November 19th, we had an incident in Haditha in Anbar province, where a Marine was killed with an IED. Time magazine reported it, and it's kind of a puzzling report, because they're investigating it right now. Let me tell you what the consequences of this have been.

It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell.

Now, you can imagine the impact this is going to have on those troops for the rest of their lives and for the United States in our war and our effort in trying to win the hearts and minds.

We can't operate, we can't sustain this operation. Eighty percent of the Iraqis want us out of Iraq; 47 percent say it's all right to kill Americans.

It's time to redeploy and let the Iraqis settle this themselves.

...

QUESTION:

(OFF-MIKE)

Congressman Murtha

Yes. If you look, the basis laid for it. It happened on November 19th. It was discovered by Time magazine in March, and they started to investigate it in March. And I kept hearing reports from Marines who had come out of the field that something like this had happened.

And now I understand the investigation shows that in fact there was no firefight, there was no explosion that killed the civilians in a bus. There was no bus. There was no shrapnel. There was only bullet holes inside the house where the Marines had gone in.

So it's a very serious incident, unfortunately. It shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they're out in combat.

(There is) stress and the consequences. You saw the other day where we have so few people. I think it was today's paper (that) they have an eight-page report that I looked at that shows some people with psychological problems are being given drugs and sent back into combat. That's how short they are. And we don't have enough troops.

QUESTION:

(OFF-MIKE) Time did the report and now the Pentagon's doing an investigation?

Congressman Murtha

The Pentagon has relieved three officers …hopefully you will see the report in the paper shortly about what the results are. But there's no results so far as I've seen that indicate that it was the fault of the Iraqis in this case. One man was killed with an IED, and after that … they actually went into the houses and killed women and children. And there was about twice as many as originally reported by Time.

QUESTION:

The power of Congress in all of this is the power of the purse. They haven't listened to you for six months. All of the talk up to this point has been support the troops, support the troops, support the troops.

In order to make your point and get some action, are you willing to lead a movement to withhold funds, cut down the appropriations for the military that funds their operation?

Congressman Murtha:

Well, I've never been willing to cut funds even in Vietnam, toward the end of the war, for the Vietnamese. I think you have to fund the troops who are out in the field. I think we have to have a plan from the executive branch which shows a timetable to get out, and it has to be a short timetable.

And you're going to see that. You're going to see that this fall. …What I see is them moving in that direction. I see reconstruction money cut off. I see the State Department rehabilitation money – the money that they usually use for helping democracies – cut out. And I see one brigade delayed in their deployment.

So you're going to see a substantial redeployment. At least they won't replace people that are in there. They’ve got 250,000 troops trained, according to the reports that we see.

Now, I talked to the troops. You may have seen the other day they had these troops trained, they were graduating, they took their uniforms off and threw them down on the ground. Well, you know, that's what the troops tell me versus what the generals tell me is how well trained they are.

The general in Haditha area told me when I was there -- this was last August -- he said, "I don't have enough troops to do my mission."

And this is true, I think, all over the country.

I talked to one of the generals who was in the original meeting when they asked for a number of troops. Now, this is the first time I'd heard this firsthand. There were five people in the room: Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Wolfowitz, General Pace, General Myers and this three-star. And he said, "We asked for 350,000 troops." And of course they didn't get 350,000 troops.

So when they say they got the number that they asked for, that's just not true.

...
----
Looks like slander to me.

LeeG
06-20-2008, 05:35 PM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/

LeeG
06-20-2008, 05:41 PM
Jesus,,how dare Murtha say such a thing. Htom, how many innocent Iraqis do you think have been killed at checkpoints? You know,,killed in cold blood?

"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood"

Murtha was telling a reality the cheerleaders didn't want reported, that the grand liberation of Iraq wasn't working. The Iraqis weren't Al Qaeda, the multiple tours were causing problems, that there wasn't a cohesive counterinsurgency plan for a couple years.

How dare Murtha say the military was under stress. How dare soldiers seek help for PTSD. Everything is fine, everything is ok,,just stay the course.

Bob Smalser
06-20-2008, 05:44 PM
no Bob, you aren't a chickenhawk. Maybe you could be a consultant for WND. Somewhere is an excellent article I read about what happened at Haditha, the environment leading up to it, the conditions out at the dam, the ROE handed down from above. These marines don't seem any different than any others. They're given a very dificult task,,that left 24 unarmed Iraqis dead.

Your error is defending Murtha....not because of his political positions....but when he clearly jumped to conclusions on these Marines. The rest is just petty obfuscation on your part. Very petty.


Murtha began making accusations on May 17, 2006, yet the first official report (Bargewell's) wasn't released until a month later on Jun 16th. That means Murtha based his comments on the March 19th Time Magazine article and whatever incomplete inside dope he could gather.

LeeG
06-20-2008, 05:53 PM
maybe Murthas inside dope is as good as yours.

The rest isn't petty obfuscation, f*ck you very much, I've read a couple hours worth on Haditha and from what I've read the marines were given a very dificult task in a very dificult environment that resulted in killing a lot of people who weren't shooting at them.

Back to Murtha,, ever met him?

Bob Smalser
06-20-2008, 06:00 PM
maybe Murthas inside dope is as good as yours.

The rest isn't petty obfuscation, f*ck you very much, I've read a couple hours worth on Haditha and from what I've read the marines were given a very dificult task in a very dificult environment that resulted in killing a lot of people who weren't shooting at them.



More petty obfuscation. Complete with profanity. Congratulations.

I have no inside dope. I only know enough not to draw conclusions that affect people's lives from first reports....like Murtha did.

I haven't heard anyone here ask for an exoneration of these Marines. By all means let it play out. And sure NCIS shoulda been there sooner. It's not like there was a war going on or anything more important.

But to ignore the sourced timelines and argue Murtha wasn't premature in his accusations is hardly the brightest move seen here lately.

ljb5
06-20-2008, 06:15 PM
Bob, it's true that Murtha's comments came before the official explanation..... but part of the reason for that is that the official explanation was (a) wrong and (b) much too late in being released.

At first, they said the Iraqi civilians were killed by the IED.

We now know this was not true. They were killed by gun shots --- American gun shots.

There was no initial investigation.

The killings were in November. The investigation started months later. Rumsfeld tried to quash it.

It took until March to figure out that the Iraqis died of U.S. gunshots, not Iraqi roadside bombs.

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/03/AR2006060300710_pf.html)

Why did they lie?

Bob Smalser
06-20-2008, 06:38 PM
There was no initial investigation.

The killings were in November. The investigation started months later.



Not really.

The Bn Cdr's signed Combat After Action Report submitted the next day (20 November) is probably the principle reason the Lt Col in question was recommended for GCM. That report is why the intelligence squad showed up to take pictures, and was the basis for the initial MNF-W press release on 20 November. It's spose to reflect ground truth as best as the battalion understands it, and is an important document.

http://192.156.19.109/lapa/Iraq/Haditha/Haditha-Timeline.htm

Seems to me they were pretty busy in Anwar back then, and if LTG Chicarelli didn't get a report contrary to the battalion commander's until late January and decided to initiate the investigation chain in February....I'm not real surprised.

But again....the issue is did Murtha have enough information to label those Marines as "cold blooded" killers before the completion of even the first criminal investigation? No. Of course he didn't.

ljb5
06-20-2008, 06:44 PM
But again....the issue is did Murtha have enough information to label those Marines as "cold blooded" killers before the completion of even the first criminal investigation? No. Of course he didn't.

According to this source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052602069_pf.html) Murtha made his comments after being briefed by the Marines.

Jack Murtha has long been considered one of Congress's best authorities on the military. It should not come as a surprise to you that he has access to information.

The initial report was blatantly false. The civilians were killed by American guns, not by Iraqi roadside bombs. Can you deny this?

There are numerous reports from many sources of the Marine's activities. We know they already lied about some aspects of it. I certainly wouldn't convict them before they've been convicted.... but neither will I pretend that this is all Jack Murtha's fault.

LeeG
06-20-2008, 06:48 PM
More petty obfuscation. Complete with profanity. Congratulations.

I have no inside dope. I only know enough not to draw conclusions that affect people's lives from first reports....like Murtha did.

I haven't heard anyone here ask for an exoneration of these Marines. By all means let it play out. And sure NCIS shoulda been there sooner. It's not like there was a war going on or anything more important.

But to ignore the sourced timelines and argue Murtha wasn't premature in his accusations is hardly the brightest move seen here lately.

Thanks, just getting real as it were with the characterizations. Haditha crystalized the mess in Iraq,,how do you liberate and kill people. How do you bring stability while being killed. When your gov't sends you out to get the terrists that brung 9/11,,how does that express itself tactically?

Shame on Murtha for not pouring the KoolAid.

Bob Smalser
06-20-2008, 07:07 PM
According to this source[/url] Murtha made his comments after being briefed by the Marines.



Well if that's true, the Marines who briefed Murtha also betrayed the accused' rights to due process. Accordingly, both those Marines and Murtha should be ashamed of themselves.

None of this is simple...especially sorting it out.


Haditha Unraveled

In a report obtained by NEWSWEEK, the affair's investigator casts doubt on the prosecution's case.
Dan Ephron
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 2:08 PM ET Oct 20, 2007

Lt. Col. Paul ware can be blunt. As the investigating officer in the Haditha affair, he has the job of assessing how strong a case the prosecution has against Marines suspected of killing 24 civilians after being ambushed two years ago in western Iraq. Haditha is the highest-profile atrocity case since the start of the war. For more than a year, prosecutors have assembled evidence against four shooters in Kilo Company, including Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, 26. But in a painstaking, 37-page report written earlier this month and obtained by NEWSWEEK, Ware tells the military lawyers their case is weak: "The evidence is contradictory, the forensic analysis is limited and almost all the witnesses have an obvious bias or prejudice."

The Haditha case seems to be unraveling. Already, all charges have been dropped against two of the shooters. Marine Gen. James Mattis announced last week that a third Marine, Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum, would face a court-martial for involuntary manslaughter, far less than the original murder indictment. And Ware has recommended a similar reduction in charges against Wuterich. (In a separate proceeding, a lieutenant colonel will be court-martialed for failing to accurately report and investigate the killings.) Until not too long ago, the case had the aura of an unambiguous revenge massacre: after losing a buddy in an IED attack, the Marines killed five unarmed men who pulled over and stood outside their car. Then the Marines moved from one home to the next believing they were under fire, and killed men, women and children.

But the sinister reality of insurgents' hiding among civilians in Iraq has complicated the case. And even in conventional wars, battle-zone murder charges can be hard to prove. Investigators did not start gathering evidence until months later, when Time Magazine published an account of the killings. By then, forensic and ballistic evidence was scant and autopsies weren't feasible; Iraqi families refused to let the military exhume the victims' bodies. Prosecutors were left to rely largely on the statements of the Marines. Earlier this year they gave immunity to two of the shooters in exchange for their testimony. But Ware suggests in his report that prosecutors immunized the wrong guys. Both witnesses, he writes, "have very low credibility," and he believes their accounts will not hold up in a cross-examination.

One of them, Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, told investigators under oath last year he opened fire on the five Iraqi men after the IED attack because they started fleeing. But he changed his story after getting immunity, testifying in a pretrial hearing in August that the men had not run and that Wuterich had done the shooting. Dela Cruz told the court he'd fired only at their dead bodies. Though Wuterich himself admitted to shooting the men in a "60 Minutes" interview earlier this year, conflicts in the sum total of testimony led Ware to recommend dropping the murder charge. As for Lance Cpl. Humberto Mendoza, the other witness, Ware describes his testimony as a "desperate attempt to cover up lies with more lies." (Ware declined to comment, but a lawyer close to the Haditha case confirmed his report's authenticity. Dela Cruz's lawyer declined to comment; Mendoza's attorney could not be reached.)

Why did Dela Cruz and Mendoza get immunity in the first place? A Marine spokesman refused to comment on the process. But a person close to the case, who did not want to be named so as not to prejudice its outcome, says it appeared investigators had marked Wuterich from the start as the instigator and the "guy to get." While still in Iraq, he alone among Kilo Company Marines refused to answer investigators' questions without a lawyer, a fact that might have heightened suspicion against him. Ware, more than a year later, predicts in his report that prosecutors will succeed in convicting Wuterich of nothing more than dereliction of duty. On the prospects of convicting Tatum on any of the charges, Ware says, "the evidentiary hurdles are too great."

Ware, described by colleagues as meticulous, shows sympathy for the Marines. He says Wuterich's suspicions regarding the five Iraqis standing outside their car were understandable: the Marines had been told by intelligence officers to watch for an IED attack followed immediately by a car bombing. Ware also says some training the Marines received conflicted with their rules of engagement and led them to believe that, if fired upon from a house, they could clear it with grenades and gunfire without determining whether civilians were inside. After the Haditha killings, the commandant of the Marine Corps himself clarified the discrepancies to his men. But by then, the sad legacy of Haditha had already been inscribed.

ljb5
06-20-2008, 07:18 PM
Well if that's true, the Marines who briefed Murtha also betrayed the accused' rights to due process.

I disagree.

As a member of Congress, Murtha is charged with overseeing the military and this does include holding hearings and listening to testimony. As a public servant, he is obligated to tell the American people how things are going over there and what is being done in our name.

The Marines who appeared before him were obligated to give their most honest opinions and judgment.

Some of the charges in the Haditha case were reduced in exchange for testimony and others were dismissed on technicalities.

The rights of the accused have not been violated because they have not been convicted improperly.

Typical Republican thinking --- 24 civilians were killed and everyone is guilty, except the guys who did the killing. :rolleyes:

Where were you to defend Hillary when she was accused of murder?

LeeG
06-20-2008, 07:19 PM
None of this is simple...especially sorting it out.

which is why it's odd that one politicians few comments are the material for vilification when he's an advocate for soldiers.


Come on, 2million Iraqs are still out of the country, 2million internally displaced, no wmd,no links to Obama, Saddam is long dead, Irans influence is well entrenched WITH US support in what is called the IRaqi gov't,,,and CONGRESSMAN Murthas few comments are worth all this??

yeah.WorldNetDaily,,,all buttons, all the time. At least they employ more people than TalonNews and former maleprostitute Jeff Gannon did.

htom
06-20-2008, 07:29 PM
Bob, it's true that Murtha's comments came before the official explanation..... but part of the reason for that is that the official explanation was (a) wrong and (b) much too late in being released.

At first, they said the Iraqi civilians were killed by the IED.

We now know this was not true. They were killed by gun shots --- American gun shots.

There was no initial investigation.

The killings were in November. The investigation started months later. Rumsfeld tried to quash it.

It took until March to figure out that the Iraqis died of U.S. gunshots, not Iraqi roadside bombs.

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/03/AR2006060300710_pf.html)

Why did they lie?

---

First reports are frequently wrong. A fact of military life. If you don't like it, find a different planet, I suppose.

At first, they didn't say anything, they just filled in a report that described what happened. I've never seen it. Supposedly, some admin person cleaned up their language and that's when the 15 (unspecifed as to whom, age, sex, ...) were killed by the IED.

There was no investigation because that kind of thing happened every day.

A couple of days later, there were more dead, including women and children. Shot execution style.

Well, well, well. Now there's something to investigate.

We do not know, to this day, which weapons killed them, or if they were American weapons, or who was firing them if they were American weapons.

This is the first I've heard that Rumsfeld tried to squash the investigation (which of the investigations was that, btw?)

There has been lying, indeed, but I'm not sure that it was done by the four Marines that Murtha tried to lynch.

Bob Smalser
06-20-2008, 07:36 PM
If y'all want to read some objective reporting, spend some time on this PBS report. The haste of the initial press release is discussed.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/etc/synopsis.html

Four months later, Time magazine would report that it was U.S. Marines -- not a roadside bomb -- who were responsible for the deaths of unarmed Iraqi civilians. Soon after, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) would claim the Marines killed the Iraqis "in cold blood," igniting a media firestorm which labeled Haditha a "massacre" and one of the worst atrocities of the Iraq war. But what really happened that day reveals a far more complex story that gets to the heart of the war troops are fighting.

......I think about that press release quite often because I wonder sometimes if that press release wasn't so inartfully done whether we would be sitting here today. Because the press release was written by now a major in the division, ... and he took the initial report from the battalion through the regiment, ... and it said that 15 civilians were killed from IED and small-arms fire and subsequent small-arms fire. What he interpreted that to mean is that 15 civilians were killed as a result of this IED. So to simplify it, he said, "Fifteen civilians killed by IED." ...

So this inartfully drafted press release that this public affairs officer released up at division started this whole firestorm because it was picked up by people like Time magazine, and they said that the Marine Corps is trying to cover something up. And it's very distressing when you read this particular public affairs officer's statement because he said, "I understood that from the get-go. I just wanted to simplify it so that the press wouldn't get confused." And that's exactly what happened: The press got confused, and then people like Tim McGirk thought that there's this huge cover-up. ...

ljb5
06-20-2008, 07:41 PM
There has been lying, indeed, but I'm not sure that it was done by the four Marines that Murtha tried to lynch.

Again, I think you're exaggerating Murtha's influence over the case. Since he was neither the prosecutor, nor the judge, nor the defense attorney, nor one of the jurors, it's difficult to see how his opnion could have influenced the outcome of the case.

You also just accused him of a crime.

Perhaps he should sue you for defamation. :)

When you say Murtha tried to lynch them, do you mean he is guilty of attempted lynching? Did he do it "in cold blood"?

That's quite a serious accusation.

Murtha's opinion, (whether right or wrong) had zero impact on the case. The Marines decided to press charges against their own members after their own investigation. You can't blame that on Murtha. Murtha had an opinion and -- like tens of thousands of others --- he expressed it. It may have been in poor judgment, but it's not the cause of the problems and certainly not a crime.

Why is Murtha being singled out? Poilitics. Some people want to attack him. Plain and simple.


I suppose it's possible that the initial report was just typed poorly, but they sure as hell didn't work to hard to get it corrected. I don't accept the argument that "there was no investigation because that kind of thing happened every day." Everything I read has said there should be an ivnestigation of every incident.

Bob Smalser
06-20-2008, 08:08 PM
Again, I think you're exaggerating Murtha's influence over the case.

Nobody said Murtha had a major influence on the case.

What was said was he threw those Marines under a bus. And by any measure of jumping to conclusions at the expense of due process, he certainly did.


....And people like Congressman [John] Murtha [D-Pa.], because they opposed the war, rushed to a judgment and called something cold-blooded murder which was not. And that was wrong, and it did a disservice to the United States of America. And it did a disservice to the credibility of our press. And what happened later, when we discovered that none of these charges were substantiated, I haven't seen Congressman Murtha and I have not seen the press put anywhere near the emphasis upon saying, "Sorry, we were wrong." ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/themes/media.html



Moreover, I'm being downright kind to Murtha compared to some other commentators:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/wait_whose_side_are_we_on_agai.html

For power-hungry Pennsylvania congressman John Murtha, the tide of negative public opinion on Iraq made Haditha the perfect self-serving political opportunity. After all, other than being the focus of corruption investigations, Murtha had never been bequeathed such extravagant attention. And when Murtha, a former Marine, spoke about Haditha, he spoke with certitude -- and the national headlines mirrored it.

Seven months before any charges were filed, the by-then ubiquitous congressman claimed that the massacre happened when troops not only "overreacted because of the pressure on them" but also that "they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

In some circles, Murtha's reputation remained unblemished after this unsubstantiated slur. Only a couple of months after his remarks, presidential candidate Barack Obama said of Murtha: "I would never second guess John Murtha . . . I think he's somebody who knows of which he speaks."

"Never"? Really?

htom
06-20-2008, 08:50 PM
Murtha is welcome to sue me, if he wants. One of the features of this country is that almost anyone can sue almost anyone else.

He was on his "withdraw NOW" campaign before this happened, and, I think, seized on it as a reason to do so, forgetting what he should have remembered about first reports, and third hand reports. Then he couldn't back down, since the only folk defending the Marines were other Marines, old vets, and Republicans, none of whom would be either voting for him or contributing to his campaign.

"Lynching" is appropriate because if they had been convicted of murder -- which is what "cold blooded killing" of "innocent non-combatants" would translate to -- they'd be executed if so sentenced by the court martial.

Osborne Russell
06-20-2008, 09:16 PM
Lord knows there's enough to criticize about the war and policy generally. Why is it necessary to comment on a pending criminal prosecution? All of the stuff about no training, no equipment, no support, boneheads in charge, fog of war, only human, etc. can be dealt with without even mentioning the criminal case.

At best it's a distraction and at worst it deprives the accused of procedures untweaked by politics, which is their due, even if they're guilty.

BrianW
06-20-2008, 09:22 PM
Lee,

You really shouldn't go down the slippery road cleared by ljb5. The source, even if it's WorldDailyNet, is not an editorial piece. They are quoting the Marines, lawyers, and Murtha. I don't care if it's written in crayon by Michael Moore and Barbara Streisands love child, it's not an opinion piece, it's a series of facts.

BrianW
06-20-2008, 09:29 PM
At best it's a distraction and at worst it deprives the accused of procedures untweaked by politics, which is their due, even if they're guilty.

A distraction from what? It's not election time for Mutha, so it's not a political move. Even CNN has backed off Iraq as "Issue #1" and that honor now belongs to the economy. So it's not a distraction from the war.

I do agree however that Murtha most certainly deprived those Marines of due process before the press and the American people. Of course that was the whole point of the thread.

BrianW
06-20-2008, 09:36 PM
Because something bad happened at Haditha and your focus is on an offhand comment by Murtha from years ago. It's kinda out of the blue.

It's not out of the blue, the news is recent. That still doesn't explain your question meant to infer I didn't accept that something bad happened there.

Osborne Russell
06-20-2008, 09:38 PM
A distraction from what?

Restoring the nation's safety and honor after the last eight years.

BrianW
06-20-2008, 09:39 PM
Yes, I've created a huge disturbance in the Force.

LeeG
06-20-2008, 10:31 PM
Hey Brian, the Force is strong,,,just keep posting more pictures of your place up there

ljb5
06-20-2008, 11:36 PM
He was on his "withdraw NOW" campaign before this happened, and, I think, seized on it as a reason to do so, forgetting what he should have remembered about first reports, and third hand reports. Then he couldn't back down...


All due respect, Tom, but all the same arguments appear to apply to you also....

You've been on your "stay the course" campagin for years and we all know you'd sooner gnaw off your own leg than admit any fault.

As for "first reports" and "third hand reports," you probably ought to remember that Jack Murtha was briefed by the Marines ---- and you were not.

Jack Murtha has a long-established reputation as one of the most well-connected and authoritative congressmen when it comes to matters military.... and you do not.

Clearly, something awful --- and not fully acknowledged --- happened in Haditha. A young marine died and then a bunch of civilians were killed. An official story was told --- and then a different official story came out. Some testimony was given --- and then some different testimony was given.

No one has been "exonerated." There were some charges filed and then some charges dropped. Some deals were cut. Some technicalities were exploited.

That's not the same as "exonerated."

You're clearly wed to your position.... but don't think that's the absolute truth.

Murtha has more information than you, more friends, more experience, more access and more insight.

Don't write that off too quickly.

brad9798
06-20-2008, 11:40 PM
Go to bed school boy ... ;)

LeeG
06-20-2008, 11:45 PM
hey Brad,,aren't you glad you aren't an Iraqi?

ljb5
06-21-2008, 12:21 AM
Source? Perhaps he deserves some hammering, too.

That's odd.

Since you seem to care so much about the issue, I sorta assumed you would have taken the time to educate yourself about the subject.

Imagine my surprise to learn that you're ready to throw Murtha under the bus yet not really aware of some Republican who said pretty much the same thing.

Shocking!

abbyj
06-21-2008, 12:30 AM
You want answers?

Ljb5: I think I'm entitled to them.

You want answers?

Ljb5: I want the truth!

You can't handle the truth!

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Ljb5 ?

I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.

Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
(A Few Good Men 1992)

Bob Smalser
06-21-2008, 12:35 AM
Competence matters.

What I can't figure out are those who demand full rights for GITMO prisoners, yet with incredibly weak logic support a lesser standard for their own troops.

I don't care how many Generals briefed Murtha, or how many Republicans were also involved....it and Murtha's accusation that those Marines were cold-blooded killers took place well before the criminal investigation was complete. They were all wrong to prejudice or abet the prejudice of the case with public statements that drew conclusions.

But I really don't expect you to understand that. It would be plumbing for depths in the shallows.


Wait! Whose side are we on again? - David Harsanyi, Denver Post

Art Read
06-21-2008, 12:40 AM
So, Leslie, Norman, et all... Tell me... Are you somehow "dissapointed" that there was no "slam dunk" case against the gentlemen in question? You seem awfully quick to point out that "just 'cause they wern't found guilty, that don't make 'em innocent!" Why do you feel the need to argue so strongly that maybe our guys did something really, really evil that day? To suggest that perhaps all our guys might do the same if we don't get 'em out of there RIGHT NOW? Maybe even that ALL our guys are in the wrong for just being there with loaded weapons and rules of engagement? A sad and cynical position if you ask me...

(Oh... And the reason Mr. Murtha should be held to a higher standard with regard to his public statements than most of the rest of us is that he, as an elected representive of his constituants, is understood to represent, officially, a responsible organ of our federal government. It kind of sucks for you and your loved ones when folks with that kind of juice take it upon themselves to unilateraly, and prematurely, pass judgement on you.)

Art Read
06-21-2008, 01:04 AM
But perhaps that doesn't mean anything here anymore... Anybody bothered to follow up on the George lynching lately?

Osborne Russell
06-21-2008, 09:37 AM
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it!

Answer the questions. That's an order.


I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.

Answer the questions, then shut up and take your post. What you'd rather is insignificant.

Osborne Russell
06-21-2008, 09:43 AM
I suspect that last little bit (the notion of a lawsuit) was nothing more than partisan 'hot under the collar' empty threat.

Which illustrates my point, which is that Murtha's comments provoke a lot of debate which accomplishes little for anyone, except maybe for him, but only in the short run, at that. At what cost? Criticism of the war is deflected onto the character of the critic. The war goes on because the criticism is rejected on extraneous grounds.

Osborne Russell
06-21-2008, 09:53 AM
They were all wrong to prejudice or abet the prejudice of the case with public statements that drew conclusions.

I agree.

1. Morally wrong because it denigrates and maybe violates the rights of the accused.
2. Bad government because denigrating the rights of the accused injures respect for the rule of law and the integrity of the government, at home and abroad.
3. Bad politics because it gives the other side ammunition, for very questionable returns.

ljb5
06-21-2008, 10:38 AM
For sixteen years, the Republicans accused the Clintons of everything including rape, theft, fraud, murder, kidnapping, treason, drug use and generalized moral torpitude.

Four years ago, the Republicans accused Kerry of murder, lying, theft, fraud, treason and desertion.

Four years before that, they did the same to Gore.

This year, they will do the same to Obama.

If you're so upset about slander and defamation, take a look in the mirror.

SamSam
06-21-2008, 10:55 AM
You want answers?.....






Kaffee: Did you order the code red?
Jessep: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.
Kaffee: Did you order the code red?
Jessep: You're goddamn right I did!!.......

Art Read
06-21-2008, 11:03 AM
"Four years ago, the Republicans accused Kerry of murder, lying, theft, fraud, treason and desertion.

Four years before that, they did the same to Gore.

This year, they will do the same to Obama."

Got any suppport for those claims, Leslie?

Kerry: Lying and fraud, I recall... Treason would be a stretch, even if his post service "testimony" was disingenuous.

Gore: Be specific.

Obama: ???

(Clinton: Other than the rape, murder, kidnapping and treason part, we already know about him...)

ljb5
06-21-2008, 11:57 AM
We're you born yesterday, Art?

Why do you insist on arguing such obvious points into the ground?

It's a nice day out, do you really want to spend all day with me posting stuff which we all know you won't read and won't acknowledge?

How about you just acknowledge the obvious and let it drop?

ishmael
06-21-2008, 12:10 PM
I haven't read this entire thread. But if Murtha ran his mouth irresponsibly then I say go for it.

To be a Marine on the ground there has to be incredibly hard. We don't want to dismiss abuses, but we have to try to understand.

Going after Murtha seems more than a bit political. I notice he's shut his yap of late, not because of this suit, because things have turned better and the yowl makes less press.

Lew Barrett
06-21-2008, 12:17 PM
I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom.....You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives.......And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives..........



I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.

Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!


What specific services have you provided us AbbyJ that entitle you to such a POV? Curious about your service record.

Lew Barrett
06-21-2008, 01:01 PM
I notice he's shut his yap of late, not because of this suit, because things have turned better and the yowl makes less press.

We had 33 dead in Afghanistan this week. Four hundred Talis escaped from prison, and we're now in the thick of it again. If things have been better for a bit, let's see how it goes when another 300 assholes show up to make a mess of things in Iraq. That's all it takes. Better? How so? And for whom?

Indeed, it's hard on the ground for our troops, no doubt. In respect to cutting them slack when they err, we can cut slack for understandable errors as much as we'd like. It doesn't mean the Iraqis will. Indeed, there may be no innocents among the occupied, but in that event, what's to be made of our presence? Otherwise, every time somebody with no ax to grind in Iraq gets killed, the question will rightfully arise. Who are we protecting, and how do we measure the effectiveness of that protection?

By any reasonable yard stick, it can't get notably better until the Iraqis take measures into their own hands. It's the very definition of better. Body counts? I remember those. "Better" turns on a dime.

When the Iraqis are responsible for their own good order, things will be better. Until then, it's all just about the body counts, their variability towards better or worse, and the perception of direction, which I argue, is difficult if not impossible to scope out in the short term.

Art Read
06-21-2008, 01:07 PM
"Got any suppport for those claims, Leslie?"

Nope. Didn't think so.

High C
06-21-2008, 01:11 PM
"Got any suppport for those claims, Leslie?"

Nope. Didn't think so.

Nope, but he should be along shortly to offer support for some slightly different claims using some of the same words, and declare himself victorious. :D

LeeG
06-21-2008, 01:37 PM
. In respect to cutting them slack when they err, we can cut slack for understandable errors as much as we'd like. It doesn't mean the Iraqis will. .


kind of odd how nearly four million displaced Iraqis is ignored, as though they're all on a long vacation. I keep wondering what the secondary effects of having 100,000's of Iraqis losing wealth and living as second class citizens in Syria does for inspiring non-state sponsored violence.
It's as though they don't exist.

ljb5
06-21-2008, 01:49 PM
Did anyone else notice the thread down at the bottom of the page entitled "Murtha Causes Casualties, Says a Sgt", in the 'Similar Threads' section?

Murtha is responsible for troop deaths? That's a pretty serious allegation, isn't it?

Perhaps Murtha should sue David Bellavia, World Net Daily and Alan D. Hyde.

Kinda ironic, isn't it?

ljb5
06-21-2008, 01:51 PM
"Got any suppport for those claims, Leslie?"

Nope. Didn't think so.

Hey, idiot.... you already acknowledge that the accusations have been made. What more do you want?

Gad, you're stupid. :rolleyes:

Do you really think it's so difficult to find examples of conservatives accusing people of crimes?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RTB80XM9L._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

Do a google search for "Larry Sinclair." You want to talk about slander and defamation? There you have it.

LeeG
06-21-2008, 02:11 PM
wow,,never perused WorldNetDailys website before, they do declare their bias. Magnetic stickers saying NObama. Now we're talking news.

Top stories are titled under the heading, Faith Under Fire, then after that it's sports and Election 2008:


ELECTION 2008
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
'Obscure' GOP activist influences Dem camp
He says, 'I will cease 527 activities if Obama accepts public financing'
--WND

MAGNETIC MESSAGE
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
McCain, Obama or 'none of the above'?
2008 could be historic election of non-participation
--WND

MAGNETIC MESSAGE
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
President Barack? Just say NObama!
New, removable bumper sticker lets everyone know your thoughts about Democrat
--WND

WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE
The McCain crystal ball
What will life really be like under presidency of maverick Republican?
--WND

LeeG
06-21-2008, 02:13 PM
www.GOPUSA.com looks a lot less secular for the Republican leaning "news" consumer

ljb5
06-21-2008, 02:16 PM
Here are accusations of treason agianst Kerry (http://johnkerry-08.com/patriot/record.php)

If there are any other issues which interest you, you are invited to look for yourself.

LeeG
06-21-2008, 03:05 PM
Speaking of patriot meme in the anti-Kerry attack, http://patriotpetitions.us/Kerry/
you can show your love of country by mounting an NObama bumper sticker!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66830

Posted: June 11, 2008
8:33 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily




Do you love America?

We hope the answer is yes.

Do you think Barack Obama is the right man to lead this great nation for the next four years?

If the answer is no, then just say "NObama!"

WND is now offering a new, magnetic bumper sticker that's sure to become an instant classic, bearing the message, "NObama '08."

fstrumpf
06-21-2008, 04:32 PM
Bob and Brian have provided facts and well thought out arguments. LBJ, you are just spinning in a narrow direction.

Please be respectful of their opinions They do not attach you, just reply to your comments.

Fred

fstrumpf
06-21-2008, 04:35 PM
ljb.

Bob and B rian are just restating facts, and their opinions. You spin and attach. Why can't you be respectful of any position that is contrary to you?

Fred

LeeG
06-21-2008, 05:27 PM
Fred, Murtha didn't throw those marines "under the bus" or prejudice their case. Murtha is a political enemy to the supporters of GWs misadventure even though Murtha is an advocate for the military. Not unlike Valery Plame becoming a political enemy even though she worked on non-proliferation for the CIA, RichardClarke who was a counterterrorism expert in the WhiteHouse who couldn't provide the bad intel that Cheneys neocon buddies could provide. Murtha was guilty of criticizing the adminstrations bunglings in Iraq and it's consequences for ground forces.

For that every comment will be used to show him as "not supporting the troops",,even if it's not true.

Murtha will feed the war machine as good as any Republican.

fstrumpf
06-21-2008, 05:38 PM
I was not arguing the point. You do not know if I agree or disagree with your position based on my post. I was just commenting on the tactics, not the issue.

I enjoy the back and forth when it is respectful debate. But I can't abide political spinning when you have a disagreement. Don't we get enough of that on the major news networks?

Just my opinion, please keep the discource going as I do learn a lot from these diverse opinions.

Thanks for your reply :cool:

Fred

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-21-2008, 05:38 PM
ljb.

Bob and B rian are just restating facts, and their opinions. You spin and attach. Why can't you be respectful of any position that is contrary to you?

Fred

If you want to be an arbitor of good taste you have come to the wrong place.
All ideas posted here are legitimate targets.
Anyone who reposts ideas from other web sites had better be willing to defend them and whoever is responsible for them.
The sides were drawn up during the first Bush administration so the philospophical and political leanings of most contributors are known and any current fight may actually be a continuation of a previous fight.
My biased assessment says the REDS who post here have seen their heart's desire, Dubya, crash and burn and are looking, looking, looking for any crumb of criticism to hurl at the BLUES, who appear to be in the ascendency.
Since this situation is not likely to change in our lifetimes, I suspect any invective generated by the REDS will become more and more bilious as their anguish increases.

fstrumpf
06-21-2008, 05:53 PM
I do not necesarrily disagree with you. In fact my politics are probably closer to yours.

My only problem is that when the debate degrades to spinning and back biting, we may lose the good (right) battle.

I see when LJB starts to loose an argumet, to perhaps Bob's facts, he gets less objective and more idealistic, and sometimes, immature.

Now I may not understand the mentality of the bilge. Perhaps I'll find I am too sensitive and need to remain above deck.

Non-the-less, this is really an interesting forum.

Just my opinion.

I am not an arbiteur, just a humble observer.

Regards

Fred

Art Read
06-21-2008, 06:01 PM
Careful, "strump". You're very close to being called an "idiot".

fstrumpf
06-21-2008, 06:03 PM
Thanks Art

I'm out of here.

Fred

Art Read
06-21-2008, 06:06 PM
"Hey, idiot.... you already acknowledge that the accusations have been made. What more do you want?

Gad, you're stupid."

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Tee, hee...

Art Read
06-21-2008, 06:10 PM
Gad, you're obnoxious...:D

ishmael
06-21-2008, 06:25 PM
Blaming anyone in war is a hard row to hoe. There may be clearcut examples, such as during the Nuremberg trials, but for the most part it's all a bit vague.

Have there been war crimes committed by our troops? I have no doubt, they are at war in very difficult circumstances. What is the place of a legislator here at home? If you see the action as wrong you can't just shut up, yet if you speak out you are, rightly, seen as undermining the troops in the field.

I'll reiterate what our Constitution says. A joint resolution of both houses is needed to go to war. We haven't had that since 1941.

ljb5
06-21-2008, 06:59 PM
I see when LJB starts to loose an argumet, to perhaps Bob's facts, he gets less objective and more idealistic, and sometimes, immature.

Sorry, Fred. I disagree.

Brian and Bob posted some facts.... but they also overlooked many other facts. They failed to put everything in context. They chose (for political reasons) to emphasize the facts they prefer and overlook the facts that they find inconvenient.

Jack Murtha was briefed on the events by the Marines.... and then he made a public statement. His statement was perhaps ill-advised, but was actually pretty much the same thing that the Marine Corps alleged -- and consistent with statements from witnesses.

Jack Murtha didn't bring charges against the marines.... the Marine Corps decided to bring charges against them. Jack Murtha's comments had nothing to do with that.

The accused enjoyed a fair trial..... perhaps even a little more than fair because some of the charges were dropped on technicalities, not on the merits, and some others were reduced in deals.

There has been no "exoneration." The legal standard for finding a person guilty is entirely different than the standard for exoneration.

A few other facts Brian and Bob have neglected:

Many other people besides Jack Murtha made similar comments about the incident. The focus on Murtha is purely political. Even some Republicans made similar comments --- yet no one is thinking of suing them. Many Republicans routinely make disparging comments and/or accusations of criminal activities about Democrats.... yet no one bothers to sue them. Jack Murtha has been accused improperly of causing troop deaths, which would also be considered defamation, if anyone were interested in applying a consistent standard.

Like so much else coming from the Republicans, it's a classic double-standard. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is allowed to express it freely. Unless it's a Democrat they have in the cross-hairs. In that case, it's a crime.

They feel perfectly justified slandering and defaming anyone they wish. Republicans actually have made an industry out of slandering other people. They never before acted like it was a crime.

Lew Barrett
06-21-2008, 07:34 PM
Fred,
If you haven't been here very long, you should be clear that bad manners pass in both directions, and quite frequently.

ljb5
06-21-2008, 07:40 PM
Yup, that's true.

I said Art was stupid because he challenged me on something that was pretty freakin' obvious.

I enjoy a good debate, but some people here try to derail any form of discussion by making the most absurd demands and denials. They aren't interested in discussion -- they're interested in preventing discussion.

I said Republicans have defamed Democrats --- and he challenged me to prove it. Did he really think for a moment that Republicans haven't defamed Democrats? He couldn't figure that out for himself? That's dumb, and therefore, I callled him on it.

Is it bad manners to call him an idiot? Perhaps --- but it's also bad manners to deny reality just because it doesn't bend his way.

High C
06-21-2008, 08:04 PM
...I said Art was stupid because he challenged me on something that was pretty freakin' obvious...

No, you said Art was stupid because you're socially retarded. :rolleyes:

ljb5
06-21-2008, 08:18 PM
... you're socially retarded. :rolleyes:

Oh golly!

Who's calling names now? :rolleyes:

Like Lew said -- it goes both ways. You're just going to have to get used to it, you fat, ignorant whiner. :)

Hey, aren't you the guy who swore up and down that we'd find those WMDs? Yup, that's what I thought...

brad9798
06-21-2008, 11:33 PM
"you fat, ignorant whiner."

EXCELLENT class right there, leslie ... :rolleyes:

Bob Smalser
06-21-2008, 11:47 PM
The other handy technique used here is to keep posting aggressively long after you lose an argument. Post anything....doesn't matter. Your interlocutors yawn and quit and you bury your shortcomings under one or more pages.

ljb5
06-22-2008, 01:57 AM
The other handy technique used here is to keep posting aggressively long after you lose an argument. Post anything....doesn't matter. Your interlocutors yawn and quit and you bury your shortcomings under one or more pages.

Lose an argument? Not hardly.

Frankly, I much prefer my way, which is to keep posting the facts over and over again until the weight of reality exhausts you.

I find that much more rewarding than some other people who prefer to post a bunch of B.S.... and then slink off into the shadows when the facts come out.

The simple fact is that Republicans have been slandering and defaming people for years. They have been throwing around accusations of theft, murder, treason, rape, fraud, kidnapping, drug use and a thousand other unproven and unprovable allegations.

This is normal for Republicans. They slander and defame. It's what they do. Only when it runs counter to their politcal stance, do they make a stink about it.

_____________________________________________

What's the matter, Brad? Didn't you see I put a smiley face after that last post?

Bob Smalser
06-22-2008, 02:21 AM
Lose an argument? Not hardly.

Frankly, I much prefer my way, which is to keep posting the facts over and over again until the weight of reality exhausts you.

I find that much more rewarding than some other people who prefer to post a bunch of B.S.... and then slink off into the shadows when the facts come out.

The simple fact is that Republicans have been slandering and defaming people for years. They have been throwing around accusations of theft, murder, treason, rape, fraud, kidnapping, drug use and a thousand other unproven and unprovable allegations.

This is normal for Republicans. They slander and defame. It's what they do. Only when it runs counter to their politcal stance, do they make a stink about it.

_____________________________________________

What's the matter, Brad? Didn't you see I put a smiley face after that last post?

The longer you keep your mouth open the better you make my points for me.

This thread isn't about Republican liars....this thread is about Murtha, who called these young Marines cold-blooded killers long before the initial criminal investigation was even complete. This is real simple. He was wrong....low-bred, cowardly, despicably wrong....to pick on those Marines prematurely for his own political gain....and so were any who either helped or supported him.

Moreover, to follow your blindly partisan line of thought, Murtha was justified in wrongfully accusing these youngsters because Bush and Cheney lied five years ago. That I can't friggin believe. Not only a patently ridiculous piece of logic, but new lows in moral abasement to pick on young soldiers in place of Bush.

BrianW
06-22-2008, 02:35 AM
He never loses his arguments. Except there not the same thing everyone else was talking about.

LeeG
06-22-2008, 06:17 AM
24 unarmed Iraqis were killed and you're in a snit over a congressmans characterization of the incident(US perspective)/massacre (Iraqi perspective)

the SecDef and Vice president, both complicit in misrepresenting the threat, the task of invasion, the sequestration of diplomatic and military knowledge away from the task of occupation resulting in historically insufficient forces to secure the ground with an intentional effort to not have a post invasion plan in place results in a mish mash of tactics on over loaded ground troops.

But that's obfuscation, the real issue is Murthas few comments, and not dead families or a car load of students fleeing the scene.

Right. Why don't they like us, we're liberators.

MiddleAgesMan
06-22-2008, 07:22 AM
24 unarmed Iraqis were killed and you're in a snit over a congressmans characterization of the incident(US perspective)/massacre (Iraqi perspective)

the SecDef and Vice president, both complicit in misrepresenting the threat, the task of invasion, the sequestration of diplomatic and military knowledge away from the task of occupation resulting in historically insufficient forces to secure the ground with an intentional effort to not have a post invasion plan in place results in a mish mash of tactics on over loaded ground troops.

But that's obfuscation, the real issue is Murthas few comments, and not dead families or a car load of students fleeing the scene.

Right. Why don't they like us, we're liberators.

I believe it's called misdirection. Magicians use it all the time. Rattle some bones over on the right and everyone looks to the right and the dirty deeds taking place on the left go unnoticed.

Yeah, attack Murtha for having and stating an opinion but pay no attention to the war criminals Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and their criminal bosses Bush and Cheney. Those four have the blood of thousands on their hands but Murtha's a bad guy for having an opinion. Those four set a military machine in motion but forgot the lug nuts and the wheels came off, to the tune of a trillion dollars or more but let Jack Murtha state an opinion and he's the bad guy.

Yeah, makes perfect sense if you're a Republican.

ljb5
06-22-2008, 09:32 AM
This thread isn't about Republican liars....this thread is about Murtha....

Not exactly.

This thread is about the standard applied to Murtha's comments.

We know Murtha made the comments. The question now is, "Were the comments wrong?" To prove that, you must demonstrate an established standard by which to judge them.

In my support, I submit numerous examples of similar comments (including some by members of this forum) which clearly demonstrate that no such standard exists.

Whether you like it or not, we live in a nation where people are allowed to have opinions and people with opinions are allowed to express them.

The standard we use in this nation allows us to do this.

Republicans use their right to opinions with impunity. They frequently accuse their enemies of the most ridiculous crimes -- without fear of retribution.

By that standard, Murtha's comments (although perhaps misguided) are perfectly acceptable.

As a policy maker and a public servant, Murtha was obligated to tell the nation his judgment of the situation on the ground. Lord knows he isn't the only one.

In a situation like this, the Republicans always rely on one of two fall-back positions. If the guy speaks up, they say, "He was wrong to speak up before he had all the facts." If the guy doesn't speak up, they say, "He was a coward for not having said something sooner."

The entire Republican philosophy is based around the core belief that there must always be some reason why no one should speak out. The Republicans have a thousand reasons for why no one should express their opinion.... and if they don't like it, they'll sue you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Besides ---- 24 Iraqis were killed and the U.S. Marine Corps saw fit to press charges.

Murtha was not alone in expressing his opinion about the situation.

Murtha's opinion had no substantive impact on the case and did not deprive the accused of their rights.

Art Read
06-22-2008, 11:39 AM
"The simple fact is that Republicans have been slandering and defaming people for years. They have been throwing around accusations of theft, murder, treason, rape, fraud, kidnapping, drug use and a thousand other unproven and unprovable allegations."

Yes. And democrats too. Pundits, columnists, bloggers and powerless internet forum posters alike. They, however, are not elected, official representatives of the federal government. Mr. Murtha is. Politicians of all stripes have a nasty and well deserved reputation for mud slinging and personal slurs. In this case Mr. Murtha, in his capacity as part of our national leadership declared members of our armed forces to be "cold blooded killers" before their case had recieved any sort of impartial consideration. He is not the first, and won't be the last politician to so abuse the authority entrusted with him. If you find that "acceptable", then I guess we'll just have to agree to dissagree.

Go ahead now... call me stupid again.

LeeG
06-22-2008, 12:00 PM
Art, you aren't stupid. On a strictly logical level you are right, he shouldn't have characterized them as killing in cold blood. I think your quotation "cold blooded killers" is in error. It kinda matters if you're talking about Murthas comments to not reinterpret them.

"they killed innocent civilians in cold blood" is not the same as "cold blooded killers"


On a strictly logical level cold blooded killers are desirable as they'd be less prone to the emotional consequences of killing people called the enemy. My understanding is the more highly trained soldiers who are engaged in killing are less prone to PTSD than others.
Those marines were effective, they killed 24 people going room to room and the taxi where the driver and passengers tried to flee after they came around the corner.

It's kind of bizarre to extract Murthas comment, then reinterpret it when Murtha was basically pleading for people to understand that they're totally undermanned for task given to them and that things like this happen as a consequence of unclear goals.

Are we there to get the terrists that brung us 9/11, to get the wmd, to bring democracy, to win hearts and minds, to bring restore security to a country ravaged by two wars and sanctions?

Come on,,the WhiteHouse pretty much engaged in criminal acts to make this war happen, and dumped it on a very small percentage of the population knowing it wouldn't impact 95% of Americans,,who could put on magnetic ribbons while doing patriotic shopping for the GWOT.

Murtha was telling a truth about Iraq when he made those comments, a truth that FOX, GOPUSA,TALONNEWS and a ream of cheerleaders for disinformation did not want to have reported. "what civil war?, I don't see one", "wmd, they could still be discovered"

ljb5
06-22-2008, 12:54 PM
Yes. And democrats too. Pundits, columnists, bloggers and powerless internet forum posters alike.

Whew! I'm glad you can finally acknowledge that rather obvious fact. When I first brought it to your attention, you challenged me to provide evidence.... as if there was any doubt.

Nice to see you've acknowledge the reality. That's a step in the right direction.


They, however, are not elected, official representatives of the federal government.

Actually, some of them are. We have already pointed out to you that an elected Republican made similar comments. The Marine Corps also made similar comments.

The fact that the Republican isn't getting attacked indicates that the focus on Murtha is politically motivated.

More importantly, Mr. Murtha was not acting in any official capacity when he made those remarks. He made those comments out of Congress. His words were not entered into the Congressional record. He did not introduce a resolution or sponsor a bill. He did not influence the course of the investigation. He was not the judge, a witness, the prosecutor, the defense attorney or one of the jurors.

None of the accused were denied the right to a fair trial.

They all enjoyed due process.

Phillip Allen
06-22-2008, 01:06 PM
I do not necesarrily disagree with you. In fact my politics are probably closer to yours.

My only problem is that when the debate degrades to spinning and back biting, we may lose the good (right) battle.

I see when LJB starts to loose an argumet, to perhaps Bob's facts, he gets less objective and more idealistic, and sometimes, immature.

Now I may not understand the mentality of the bilge. Perhaps I'll find I am too sensitive and need to remain above deck.

Non-the-less, this is really an interesting forum.

Just my opinion.

I am not an arbiteur, just a humble observer.

Regards

Fred

GO FRED! (I've been trying to say that for years but don't have the correct degree(s) to be taken seriously...

ljb5
06-22-2008, 01:49 PM
GO FRED! (I've been trying to say that for years but don't have the correct degree(s) to be taken seriously...

It's not really a matter of degree(s), Phillip. It's a matter of how much thought you're willing to invest in the matter.

You should ask yourself these questions:

What was the actual effect of Murtha's comments? Did he change the outcome of the case? Did he deny anyone their right to a fair trial? Why is there so much focus on Murtha? Why are other people, who made similar comments, not being attacked?

When you are able to honestly answer those questions, you will see that Murtha is being attacked for political reasons, not for legal reasons.

I've been asking these questions over and over. It's become apparent that some people really don't want to look for the answers to these questions. They'd rather call me names.

That's not a matter of degrees and diplomas --- it's just a question of if you're interested in getting a real answer, or you'd rather just attack.

BrianW
06-22-2008, 06:06 PM
But that's obfuscation, the real issue is Murthas few comments, and not dead families or a car load of students fleeing the scene.

Yep. That was the issue I brought up when I started this thread.

There's nothing wrong with that. It's a completely separate issue from what happened in Iraq.

BrianW
06-22-2008, 06:07 PM
Phillip,

Ever get the feeling ljb5 doesn't get it. ;)

ljb5
06-22-2008, 07:09 PM
Phillip,

Ever get the feeling ljb5 doesn't get it. ;)

Re-read Lee's post #127. Then re-read your own post #135....

...and you will see that you are the one who doesn't get it.

Here's a hint: The real issue is not Murtha's comments. For all the difference it made, he could have been singing in the shower or yelling down an empty mine shaft.

The real issue is that a bunch of Americans go over to Iraq, kill 24 unarmed civilians (some of them women and children!) and we even need to have an argument about whether or not this is okay.

There are some people out there (you might be one of them) who desperately don't want us to have a frank discussion about if we ought to be over there killing unarmed civilians.

These people encourage discussion of Murtha's comments because they want to draw attention away form that other issue.

Who cares what Murtha said? John Murtha isn't in charge. He may as well be Yosemite Sam for all the power he has. What he said simply doesn't matter.

A hundred thousand people said the same thing Murtha said. Republicans say that sort of thing all the time. It doesn't matter at all.

Anyone who tells you it matters is trying to distract you from something else.

Figure out who is trying to distract you and why.

BrianW
06-22-2008, 08:39 PM
Here's the rules... I start the thread, I claim the issue. If ya want to talk about what happened in Iraq, start another thread.

BrianW
06-22-2008, 08:41 PM
To be clear, the issue on this thread was Murtha throwing Marines under the bus. Just to make sure that doesn't get sidetracked again, I think I'll lock this one...