Hey Mutha! Wanna Say You're Sorry Now?

Today both News Max and Sweetness and Light are reporting that new evidence continues to emerge that U.S. Marines did not wantonly kill Iraqi civilians in Haditha last November,and what’s more, videotape shot by an ultralight vehicle will prove their innocence. Plus, there appears to be all sorts of radio communications that further buttress the marine’s version of what happened last November.

If this is true, the law calls this exculpatory evidence, and the marines will will NOT be guilty if charged with "cold-blooded murder" as the big-mouth Congressman so breathlessly reported months ago.

How about them apples, Jack Murtha?

If that is the case, and these marines are exonerated, will you do the right thing and resign from Congress and return to your car wash?

Your disgraceful conduct of using your powerful position to try and convict these marines in the court of public opinion without giving them their day in court did nothing except denigrate the Corps, denigrate the war effort, empower the insurgency, and has reduced yourself to a sad, pathetic caricature.

By the way, your "cover-up" of the alleged incident already blew up in your face last week, didn't it Congressman?

Anyway, you're political capital with the Corps is shot, veterans think you're a joke, you're now THE anti-war spokesman, and I think the only thing left for you is to become a candidate for president with either Cindy Sheehan or Howard Dean as a running mate to finish off this whole shameless affair.

What a disgrace.


Posted by Sicilian Eagle at June 26, 2006 3:09 PM
Comments
Comment #161904

Sweetness-Light:


linktext

NewsMax

linktext

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at June 26, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #161906

whoops


Sweetness-Light:


linktext

NewsMax

linktext

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at June 26, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #161910
From (sadly, not always reliable) Newsmax:

Got a source that doesn’t plaster Ann Coulter’s picture all over the site?

Posted by: womanmarine at June 26, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #161914

Mr Eagle:

While I agree that Murtha’s comments were premature and utterly reprehensible, let’s make sure we don’t fall into the same trap that Murtha fell into.

This further information may be accurate or not, may be exculpatory or not, and may exonerate the Marines or not. I believe it still can be said that there was not enough proper investigation early enough by Marine officers—that’s still far different from a “cover-up”. But it shows that the situation has far more complexity than the simplistic version Murtha gave.

As I’ve said, regardless of the disposition of the allegations against the Marines, Murtha jumped the gun in claiming they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. His comments will have immense propaganda value to our enemies, who will use his words whether they are correct or not.

At first glance, it appeared you were claiming innocence based on the new evidence. But you held back from that, showing a measure of reserve that Jack Murtha did not show. You have demonstrated that there is much evidence to be reviewed before determining the outcome of the allegations.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at June 26, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #161917

If Murtha has to resign for being wrong, what about everyone who sold us on the WMDs? I’d definitely take that trade.

Posted by: David S at June 26, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #161922

If Murtha has to resign for being wrong, what about everyone who sold us on the WMDs? I’d definitely take that trade.

Posted by: David S at June 26, 2006 04:12 PM


They found WMD’s. Don’t you watch the news? Oh, and I know they are old. Saddam is old. Does that mean he is good.

Posted by: Yankee Dawg at June 26, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #161924

“They found WMD’s. Don’t you watch the news? Oh, and I know they are old. Saddam is old. Does that mean he is good”

They have not found “THE” wmd’s.
We were sold on a Porsche and have only seen a Yugo so far.

Posted by: kctim at June 26, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #161925

Dawg -

So, we spent $300 billion, lost 2500 American soldiers in a 3+ year war to rid the world of 500 shells of 30 yr old degraded chemical weapons…???

I guess if they had one of those anthrax viles Powell held up at the UN, we would’ve had to resort to ‘nukin’ the whole country.

Good thing we caught ‘em!

Posted by: tony at June 26, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #161928

Yankee Dawg-

Really? Is that the best you can come up with? If were the police and had executed a warrant, there wouldn’t be enough evidence to go to trial. There would definitely be a huge civil rights suit, though.

Posted by: David S at June 26, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #161932

I am beginning to think the only way a liberal would think Saddam had WMD’s was if their supreme leader(Michael Moore) did a documentary stating that. Dean and Kennedy would probably have to be there as well. Al Fraken would also need to be in the documentary. Then and only then would the liberals come around.

Posted by: Yankee Dawg at June 26, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #161934

Anyone seen this?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200908,00.html

Posted by: Yankee Dawg at June 26, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #161937

Anyone seen this?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

Posted by: tony at June 26, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #161938

JBOD et al.

Here’s the point: Several weeks ago I wrote on possible defenses to these marines including the possibility that perhaps drones were up there and video and ot other communications were in existence.

Note I wrote those words AFTER Murtha opened his big, fat mouth.

Now, exactly what I said could happen IS happening….evidence that was “impossible” to predict back then is coming forth.

Again, as I said back then, the atmospherics weren’t there. Now, the case is beginning to get rolled up.

My friends at Sweetness and Light have been relentless in catching error after error,as a matter of fact Time, has issued three corrections thus far as a result of their efforts. I too have been relentless, and will continue to be, because this guy is a skunk.

He wants pressure? Rest assured that every right wing blogger worth his salt has this guy in their cross-hairs of credibility now…forget the Hanneties, Coulters,ect., I am talking about bloggers who will expose the truth about this incident.

As far as me taking shots at Murtha, I will continue to do so. He is fair game. If all these allegations prove correct, then he has abused his office for political motives at the expense of these marines, and should be pilliored by guys like me.

Every day, the Eagle is scouring all his sources and we are all sharing what we find. I have become myself a one trick pony about this particular case because it is the single most important story our there.

We will never fall into the same trap that Murtha has because we are not accusing anyone of “cold blooded murder”. What we are doing, instead is showing that there MAY be another side to this story, and that he should have considered this other side before mounting the rostra and preaching as if the gospel were being told again.

Regarding the WMD issue: If 500 shells were found, even with inert gases, then Saddam lied. It’s that simple. If he lied about those, then he lied about other things. A lot of other things. Logic tells me that Syria has plenty of Saddam’s WMD there, but that’s a story for another day, I think.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 26, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #161940

“What they found was only the starting point, not the ending point!! Who cares you Liberals are so intent on destroying this country, no matter what they find! I guess you feel that Saddam would not kill you or your family. Be hey at least you have Al Gore lying about global warming.”

Wow… you are so right. Damn, how can I live with myself.

Guess I’ll nip off and shoot myself…. DAMMIT! (hippies don’t have guns… aggh!)

Posted by: tony at June 26, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #161941

C’mon Yankee Dawg, you know Fox News is just the broadcast arm of the Republican National Committee! :-)

The best part of being liberal is that the facts never keep you from believing in your own omnipotence.

I don’t think Murtha should resign his seat in the US House. His constituents re-elected him after his involvement in the ABSCAM bribery scandals, so they knew what they were getting.

Should he be exposed for the shameful example of incompetence he is… ABSOLUTELY!

He’s up again in November, maybe his constituents will do the right thing and vote him out of office.

Swarm forms to the left.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 26, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #161943

The only way a Party before Country Republican would believe that there were not real WMDs is if Bush and Cheney admitted that there were none. Wait a minute, that already happened.

Rick Santorum can claim all he wants, but no one in the administration thinks this “discovery” proves there were WMD of any importance. 30 year old Mustard gas is nasty, but does not cause “mass destruction”. Santorum lives in a fantasy land.

So I guess those of you that always put your party before your country will believe whatever your party leaders tell you to believe. Must be nice to save all that energy some use to think freely for other things.

Look at the Democrats they use all that extra energy to slowly tie themselves in knots. It is hilarious watching them try and come up with a cogent, original idea.

So we have one party whose members are incapable of seeing the truth, and one that is just incapable.

Both of the major parties are vacuous, insipid, worthless institutions whose petty battles are driving this great nation down the toilet. Those of you that spend your time as foot soldiers contributing to the tit-for-tat battle between the parties are pathetic.

Posted by: Frank at June 26, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #161954

Hippies don’t have guns cuz they’re too stoned to remember why they went to Wal-Mart in the first place.

They just end up buying more munchies. :-)

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 26, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #161955

Pathetic, perhaps. But at least we have a good time Frank. What a buzzkill! :-)

Remember, politics is showbiz for ugly people.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 26, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #161958

Frank,

I am a licensed chemical engineer, so I have some expertise in this area. Give me those 500 shells of degraded mustard gas & some financial support & I WOULD NOT (but could) kill thousands of people.

Understand, this is not kitchen chemistry, so the untrained would probably kill themselves, not others. But trained people with proper equipment could make make use of this material with a little motivation and effort.

Posted by: Martian at June 26, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #161965

If the new evidence is true them Jack Mutha has proved that he’s nothing but a blow hard. Which anyone that doesn’t have political blinders on can see is true of ALL politicians on BOTH sides.
The problem is the Democrats won’t admit Mutha is a blowhard anymore than the Republicans will admit that Bush is screwing the pooch in the war.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 26, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #161968

Ron:

I don’t have my RNC talking points in front of me… but, I’m fairly certain… we don’t support “pooch screwing” by humans.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 26, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #161969

Martian,

I am not looking to suck on old Mustard Gas, believe me. Nor do I discount their capacoty for causing misery. But their presence in Iraq is not a justification for war. Our adminsitration did not say that Saddam had some old shells. They said he had current, modern, Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Pakistan has Mustard gas, Nukes, brazenly supported the Taliban and has provided more aid and support for terrorism than Saddam ever did. Do we talk of invading Pakistan?

Iraq was seen as an easy target to accomplish a laudry list of conservative think tank goals (remove Saddam, use light infantry to do it, “democrotize” the middle east, prove military might is better than dimplomacy.) Well they got rid of Saddam at least…..

Saddam may have lied, what dictator hasn’t? Do we invade because we were lied to? Hell we would have to invade Canada if that was the case.

Do we give our own leaders a pass on their fanning the flames of war about a threat that really did not exist? Apparently we do. All I know is that many of you on this list would have comepletely different takes on current situation if George Bush was a Democrat. You do not look at what is actually happening, but what party affiliation someone has while they are doing it. Partisans on both sides are guilty of this.

Politics is show biz for ugly people? It would be a hilarious quote if those ugly people were not squandering the capital of the greatest society in the history of the world. A pox on both thier houses!

Posted by: Frank at June 26, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #161970

Martian:

Don’t bother. These are the same folks who said we didn’t give the UN enough time to find WMDs.

And you have to admit WMDs are pretty tough to find when you’re not allowed in the country to look for them. (Even though you signed a treaty saying you would.)

So, instead we gave Saddam enough time to sneak them to Syria.

Gotta love that UN!

That’s the problem with warning a perp you’re about to enter his house by knocking first. :-)

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 26, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #161971

So, its wrong for the media to prejudge before the investigation and trial, but, its OK for the Mighty Eagle to take reports to contrary and judge the Marines innocent and Murtha wrong, before the investigation and trial are over. I see, that’s how I thought this worked all along. Bit of a double standard here: wrong when Murtha prejudges (agreed) but, OK when the Sicilian Eagle prejudges both the case and Murtha as having been completely wrong from the first reporting.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #161974

Again, you jump the gun and try to politicize this mess.

re: aerial photography- much of the action took place indoors. Unless you have special cameras, it won’t see in the structures. Even where it doesn’t, the question is whether or not anybody is identifiable, and if the insurgents are placed in such a way as to validate the theory.

But then you still have to explain why the targets who died were killed. If they had all been grown and in the prime of their life, that might not be a problem, but as these people are often elderly or young, it fails to justify the homicides.

Wait for the end of the investigation. Don’t just take the word of a far-right news organization that even your “Sweetness and Light” people don’t find entirely reliable.

As for finding faults, that’s easy, if you’re looking for them. The question is whether the faults you think are there truly qualify as such, or whether they’re simply mistaken.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #161977

Frank, Frank, Frank….

Our Canadian neightbors may be offended by your claiming they’ve had a dictator run their country. BTW: Was that Trudeau or the closet seperatiste before Martin… sorry, can’t recall his name right now.

Actually, most conservatives supported Clinton’s forays into Bosnia and Somalia. So, your “if W were a Dem” argument is a non-starter.

BTW: I don’t pay that much attention to what others tell me about the Iraq War. I know three people who are/were there. Not a one thinks its a “quagmire”, a “lost cause” or a “civil war”.

The only people I hear saying that are the Old Media and libs.

That is the basis of my distrust.

I’ll take their “boots on the ground” analysis over the “armchair warriors” stateside anyday and anytime.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 26, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #161978

“Hippies don’t have guns cuz they’re too stoned to remember why they went to Wal-Mart in the first place.

They just end up buying more munchies. :-)”

Naw - can’t go to WalMart, I maxed out my card at the local ZippyMart. (Mostly on slurpies and funions…)

Posted by: tony at June 26, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #161979

Hey, SE, why don’t we both agree to shut-up about this until ALL the evidence is out…Hmmm?

Posted by: RGF at June 26, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #161980

“I am a licensed chemical engineer…” by the Martian

If we all freaked because someone had the makings of chemical weaponry, there are bunches of chemical plants in the U.S. that are vast warehouses of potential chemical weaponry. In fact, I could make some pretty mean stuff from chemicals under the kitchen sink. The highways are full of trucks carrying extremely dangerous chemicals through major metropolitan areas.

Degraded chemicals found in Iraq do not show me a current threat of WMD use by Saddam Hussein. Where are you people coming from? You are determined to exonerate Bush and his Humpty Dumpty sidekicks from their out and out lies about WMD and imminent threats from Iraq. Bush lied and thousands have died. And the story has no logical conclusion because it was not a logical invasion to begin with.

Posted by: KDTEXAS at June 26, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #161982

SE:

” American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to a crowd of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.”

Looks like your comment about Cindy Sheehan or Howard Dean was right on. Looks like he is getting ready for 2008.

Posted by: JimmyRay at June 26, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #161986

wehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060625/pl_nm/iraq_usa_post_dc_1

For every report that WMDs is a legitimate Bush reason for invading Iraq, there’s another report disavowing the WMD story. Even Powell himself has since admitted he was forcefed information to regurgitate at the appropriate times.

At least Murtha takes a stand instead of tiptoeing around every issue.

FYI Sicilian Eagle, the correct spelling of the shortened Marine Corps is The Corps (with an S-but in pronunciation, the p and s are silent).

Posted by: KDTEXAS at June 26, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #161990

Wow, what a firestorm! Whatever happened to that little girl’s account of her family and people being killed? Was she proved wrong? Was she lying? Or is she just too young to know the truth, beyond what her eyes tell her. Whatever the case, the poor little girl’s eyes told her some terrible things.

I do know at least two things:

  • Murtha is a blowhard (but most politicians fit that, so I’m not surprised.)
  • bush is a weasel (no offense, other weasels.)

Get them both out and things will be better - oh, almost forgot, better fire cheney first!

And Dawg - I read your link and there’s lots of confusion amidst it; lots of asking SH for stuff and him probably talking back somehow, but little about him actually doing any of it (although I don’t doubt he did - he’s a real scumbag.) But one thing I DID notice in there was Bangladesh was mentioned with a lot more certainty than anyone else. We should attack them, ya think??

Posted by: myles at June 26, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #161991

David R. Remer

Big difference when I do it, David. I am not a Congressman with access to the MSM on a daily basis.

Would you agree that when he first “broke” the story, that everone knew little about it? Time Mag had its piece but it wasn’t until a sitting Congresssman, with the power of the Congress behind him, pushed the story that bells began to go off. Then, he (and others) used this incident for their own politicial reasons. For Murtha this was the main reason for pulling out…our troops are under “pressure” he said. He wasn’t interested in the guilt or innocence of those marines;rather he was interested in using them as an example to further his agenda.

Plus, all I am is a pundit on this forum. When I speak, the insurgents do not listen. When he spoke, his words go all over the Mid-East. He was used by them in forceful propaganda against us, the “devils”.

Why can’t you see that one point alone?

Stephen

I think you have turned into a Murth apologist, which disappoints me. As a liberal,you should be right here at my side….due process and innocent until proven guilty are hallmarks (or were, anyway) of your party. Why are you defending him? He crucified marines before they had their day in court and were found guilty,Stephen. That is NOT the American way. Instead, you say that pundits such as you, me, David shouldn’t be held to that standard, that we should be allowed to use the court of public opinion instead. If that is the case, then the posts that I used in this piece to hammer Murtha does that to the Congressman then, who,hasn’t been charged with murder, but rather has been charged with opening his big fat mouth.

KD Texas
You are correct, I will fix it,thanks.


Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 26, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #161999

SE -

But the point with Murtha is this: when he came out with his public statements about this, the military was still reporting this incident as a roadside bomb that killed 15 people.

Most of those 15 people, as well as 9 others mostly died from bullet wounds from inside their homes… this is what he knew from evidence he had seen.

It was the suspected cover up that Murtha was after — as well as a warning of the mounting stress our soldiers were under.

Why can’t you get that point?

Posted by: tony at June 26, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #162001

Tony
Incorrect. When Murtha broke the story, NCIS WAS still investigating…they didn’t start as a result of Murtha.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 26, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #162006

Stephen D and David R:

It comes as absolutely no surprise to me that you two are ready to vilify our military, without evidence, rather than defend the same.

My problem with you is that I naturally assume that our soldiers would not kill innocent children, regardless of the situation. I would most definitely have to see it with my own eyes before I would believe it.

You two, on the other hand, are ready to believe that they did it, even WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, other than the words of local villagers in an area of Iraq that is well-known as a jihadist stronghold.

Why is that? Why do you choose to believe “them” before “us”?

Posted by: Bruce P at June 26, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #162011

SE -

Prove it.

Come on. The story breaks that this happened, and the official report from the military was that these civilians would killed as a result of a roadside bomb. This was 6 months after the event… and all of a sudden, they’re “still” investigating.

You have much more faith in this government than I do.

Posted by: tony at June 26, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #162015

SE,

The question is the timeing or the length of the investigation. The question is whether or not it would have been a reflection of the truth with or without pressure.

Posted by: RGF at June 26, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #162017

Tony

This is the third piece that I have written on My Lai Jack.

Check the archives section of this blog, and everything is there on many links that I have provided.

However, first spend 10 minutes on the related articles provided by the links.

And by the way, I do have faith in both the NCIS, and the military.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 26, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #162018

Tony

Here’s your timeline…now say you’re sorry

linktext

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 26, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #162019

Wow - and after reading that timeline (and the military agreement of what Murtha has said publicly…) you want me to apologize? Seriously?

I am glad you linked to that timeline, because it gives quite a bit of credance to what Murtha has done. One quick question for you: Why do you think Murtha was in the position to have first hand knowledge of this event?

Posted by: tony at June 26, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #162021

SE,

Newsmax is Buzzflash for retards, no offense to retards.

Jobag odonuts,

So you don’t think the military would cover things up for the sake of holding together that coalition or building it’s numbers? Then do explain how those in high ranks got “off” for Abu Graib? God it’s like gullibility-hour at Watchblog. Hey Joe wanna’ but some beachfront property in Arizona?

The mustard Gas is obviously left over from the Iran Iraq war. This is not the big cache if there is one. As a matter of fact—hello, The DoD said the same thing. Maybe it’s cawwwwl fer’ treason!!! (cue up banjo music here).

Murtha has every right to say what he wants—except that he’s going to run for speaker. Thaaat would be cawwwwl fer’ treason!!!

Posted by: Novenge at June 26, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #162028

Tony should apologize for being unable to read.

Posted by: Don at June 26, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #162029

Tony

You asked for evidence, I provided it. The Marines were investigating before Murtha opened his yap. Point taken. You asked that I prove it, I did.

To answer your question:That guy has been on a fishing exercise since he uttered those “over the rainbow” words. Note I said rainbow, because his meaning of horizon is Okinawa, some 5400 miles away. What a genius.

He got it both barrels from the right as a result of his first utterances, which now has served the right well. The left is now the anti-war party, and he and Dean are the spokesman.

Nice. Bountiful harvest for us, I’d say.

Believe me, all summer long right wing pundits will be leaveling the heavy artillery at this nit wit.Even though I skewer Kerry regularily, at least he has a little smarts. This guy is a dolt. He owned a car wash for heaven’s sake. I wonder if he was the guy who vaccummed the inside, or just did the windows…..knowing him, he probably vaccumed the windows…

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 26, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #162031

SE-
I defend because you attack. I at least try and give both parties the benefit of the doubt. Members of the unit could be cleared. I would not howl at the injustice if that happened.

You’ve already decided that Murtha’s a liar, and are taking every bit of exculpatory theory and speculation at face value, while accusing those who beieve otherwise of being prejudiced and deny the soldiers their due process. As I’ve told you again and again, the presumption of innocence is not the same as the absence of suspicion.

If these soldiers are innocent I want them cleared, regardless of how that looks. But as long as it’s unclear what happened, neither of our positions stands proven.

On the Subject of WMDs, we didn’t begin this war because we thought Saddam was lyin to us. We fought this war because we believed, on the strength of the president’s case for war, that he had a working weapons program, that he was working towards the bomb, and that he was collaborating with al-Qaeda.

David Kay, who was no shrinking violet in advocating for disarming Saddam, when asked about those weapons said that Santorums comments were wrong both in fact and interpretation. Others have come forward and said that these weren’t the weapons we were looking for. We were supposed to be pre-empting terrorist activities and and a working weapons program that could arm them with terrible weapons.

When both failed to show up, it knocked the main supports from our pre-emptive attack of Iraq into the trashcan. You can come up with all the different justifications you want to, but we didn’t go to war over abandoned weapons with no military value. Finding those weapons not only changes nothing, but already changed nothing, as these weapons were already in the reports filed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #162032

Novange

Not nice. Especially if the story pans out. Where there’s smoke,there may be fire.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 26, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #162035

SE -

Sonce you know so much about this story, then please tell me who said this:

“I know there was a cover-up someplace. They knew about this a few days afterwards and there’s no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story. I can understand why, but that doesn’t excuse it. Something like this has to be brought out to the public, and the people have to be punished.”

Posted by: tony at June 26, 2006 9:20 PM
Comment #162037

Stephen Daughtery

And attack I will continue,until this case busts wide open, which it will. THEN what will you say?

Instead, you shit all over every link I provide, distinguishing it becasue it’s not a link from your party. Are they the only ones capable of reporting the truth?

Your expertise (I swear you’d make a great lawyer, Stephen…let me know if you decide to go to law school, and I will get you into one of Boston’s best),is distinguishing by nuance.

Without addressing the merits of the issue, you turn it, kinda like Mr. Minagi does, into your advantage. Unfortunately, friend, I wrote the book on that subject.

IF there is video, If there is ground communication, I expect you to say, “Eagle, you were right, Murtha was wrong”

Now, on the WMDs issue. You wrote last week that those “old ” shells were harmless. Not true. You know that though. While decomposed, sarin gas still is deadly….especially is a chemist is around.

Note too what I said: Saddam lied about destroying those old stocks. If he lied about the old, then it’s logical to conclude that he further lied about the new stocks. This story won’t be concluded until they are found in Syria, though. His BAATHIST Party is alive and well there, and that is where there are, I think, along with his money, and tactical decision-makers.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 26, 2006 9:26 PM
Comment #162038

SE,

If that is in reference to Newsmax, no it’s more smoke—trust me. I know the Government lies and covers things up as they do as protocol when there are bigger matters on the line. The ones who came up with torture at places like abu Graib as an option are NOT the little fish they have in the pokie now. The ones who came up with it and had it implimented are made untouchable.

As far as Jobagodonuts, I’m sure he’ll come back and rip into me.

And if you mean it wasn’t nice to say that about Murtha—no wait you wouldn’t say that.

Posted by: Novenge at June 26, 2006 9:29 PM
Comment #162040

Novenge:

So you don’t think the military would cover things up for the sake of holding together that coalition or building it’s numbers?

It always makes me laugh when someone asks questions like yours above. There is nothing in my earlier post that would cause you to ask such a question, so apparently you just wanted to ask a silly question.

I’ve not given the military a pass in ANY of my posts on this subject. I’ve not given the Marines in Haditha a pass. I’ve stated continually that they need to investigate the incident properly and get to the truth, and if necessary, punish anyone found guilty. I hold Murtha to the same standard of following the innocent until proven guilty philosophy of our country. He has not done so. Do you hold to that philosophy or not—that is the question.

If you consider my unchanging stance an adequate basis for your question, then I in turn would have to question your ability to understand the written word.

David:

I saw nothing from SE that says he finds the Marines innocent. He also focuses on Murtha’s timing and his unwillingness to look for any other side of the story than the “Marines are cold blooded killers” side. Murtha might be right—there might have been murder in Haditha—but we don’t know it yet. New evidence is being uncovered in the investigation that may show a different story—that too bears waiting for, since we just don’t know.

Why are you so willing to defend a man who has ignored the “innocent until proven guilty” standard? Why are you so willing to believe, if you do, that our Marines would be capable of the excesses they are accused of? Why are you UNwilling to give them their ‘day in court’ before finding them guilty, as Murtha has done?

These are questions that demand an answer, especially from somone normally so principled as you. If you haven’t in your own mind found them guilty, you certainly have not castigated teh man who has found them guilty. Where has your sharp tongue gone, then?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 26, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #162046

JBOD, get your reading glass fixed. I said Murtha was wrong in prejudging parenthetically. My point was that SE is quick to prejudge Murtha as wrong and asking if Murtha is ready to apologize now in light of new reports. New reports don’t decide guilt or innocence until an investigation and trial if needed are concluded, as I have said.

Time to get some new glasses, perhaps, eh?

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #162048

Bruce P, you have a clue as to what I believe. Which makes your comments unbelievable. Another one who may need new reading glasses to see what was actually written instead of their own projections.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #162049

SE

good article and good support of it.

Murtha will go down in history as a sad pathetic individual. He gave up everything he at one time held dear for a moment of limelight. Too bad.

His mouth is big but his ability to put thoughtful words in it is not. I look forward to his public humiliation.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 26, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #162050

Joe,

Perhaps I was a bit rash, the investigation, this is my bet however rhetorical, that the Jag Court will find exactly what the military needs it to find. Your statements were balanced to a good degree, so maybe I hopped the shark. You believe the government doesn’t lie and will investigate fairly.

There was an avoidance to get to the bottom of Gulfwar Syndrome, various shots they were giving military personel, the truth about who lit the wellfires in GW1, the effects of depleted Uranium weapons, the use of White Phosphorous, Bombing al Jazeera, and the list goes on. They lie as a means of protocol, it doesn’t mean they don’t defend our interests, but they will cover up this case to meet with the overall agenda.

That’s my point, silly as it may be, they are in the cover-up business when things are on the line.

Joe, you just sounded overly trusting of their system that’s all—that to me has a twinge of the silly.

Posted by: Novenge at June 26, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #162052

” If he lied about the old, then it’s logical to conclude that he further lied about the new stocks. This story won’t be concluded until they are found in Syria, though. “

And which do you think is worse: that Bush completely blew the call based on bad/cherry-picked intelligence, or that because of his invasion of Iraq, these tons and tons of WMDs were immediately wisked away into the hands of the terrorists we so desperately were trying to keep them away from? Remember when Powell said “not only do we know they have them, but they know where they are.” Could this Administration be so incompetent as to take their eye off the ball that bad?

Your argument seems to be one of jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Posted by: tony at June 26, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #162055

SE asked: “Would you agree that when he first “broke” the story, that everone knew little about it?”

Yes, which is why I was glad he “broke” the story. If the allegations were true, we did not want another failed Abu Ghraib on our hands which even the President said was a grave mistake. What we wanted was a full and open investigation.

SE said: “For Murtha this was the main reason for pulling out…our troops are under “pressure” he said.

Good Buddha, SE. Are you suggesting with 2500 dead and many thousands wounded and maimed, that our troops are NOT under pressure? How dare Murtha spread such lies?

SE said: “He wasn’t interested in the guilt or innocence of those marines; rather he was interested in using them as an example to further his agenda.”

Ahh, didn’t know the mighty SE also had mind reading capabilities. So you saw in Murtha’s mind his motives, eh? Wow!

Would you not agree that in light of the huge costs of Abu Ghraib which your President has already admitted to, that it was important that this Haditha story be gotten out in front of to prevent the appearance of yet another cover up? And if so, could that not have been Murtha’s primary motive?

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #162057

Right-of-Way; Thanks for the support. I hear ya.

KDTEXAS et al; Of course you can make deadly stuff out of common materials. However, with a little effort and training (well within the range of terrorists, but probably beyond you & other kitchen chemists) the materials present in those “degraded” shells, or those in France from 1917, can be made into something REALLY BAD. I hesitate to expound. Sadam could have disposed of this stuff by asking any one of a number of his terrorist buddies to come get it at any time.

But the fact that this absolutely counts as WMD within the definition used by the administration seems to be immaterial to you guys. Saddam agreed to show us ALL of his WMD no matter when it was made or positively account for its destruction. Besides that, he was SHOOTING at our aircraft! That is normally considered an act of war…especially when HE himself agreed to allow them to fly there!

Why do I even try?

Posted by: Martian at June 26, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #162069

David R. Remer

The Mighty Eagle can see far, far into the distance and can sense things that mere mortal men cannot. :)

Now, to answer the queries of my favorite pundit:

Abu Ghriab has nothing to do with the present case. If anything, it has caused the military to be overly cautious here. Recall that two investigations are taking place..one by the marines, and one by the army to make sure the marines get it right. Regarding the former,when troopers do bad things, they should get punished. Recall there was photographic evidence that they themselves took on their own DVD. Here, it is the word of people in a known hostile area against the word of our troops. I know who to belive here, do you?

David, you served this country as a medic. Of all people, you should know about pressure. All wars have pressure. I can imagine the pressure on Pork Chop Hill during Korea, on the 101st in the forest during the Battle of the Bulge, and 10 million other examples of pressure that all our heroe throughout history have been subjected to. My heros who bravely fought in Vietnam faced nothing but pressure…every mininute they were in counrty as a matter of fact. I think that comment was directed to the soccer moms, honestly.

On Murtha’s primary motive, I think it was pure political. Look: Representative Sam Johnson, perhaps the most decorated Congressman, and a prisioner of war himself hasn’t backed Murtha, has he? He should know all about pressure, should he not? I think Murtha will now be painted by the right as the anti war spokesman, and I do not that that was the plan for the mid-terms. Now, they are stuck with him.

This one is not a Rove plan,either. This is a home grown Democratic example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 26, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #162074

Martian,

Back in 2004 I was watching CSPAN and there was a group of people representing the Greenparty, now one of them was an army private who had returned from the Gulf with an injury of some sort and said something I found quite interesting. He said when they heard they were going to Iraq they knew right away they were going for the sake of Israel. It took me quite some time to figure this out in full. What we are doing is not looking for WMD that could light us up but what it could do to a country that albeit its own defenses could not strike out to protect itself, by strike I mean between nations.

They can have their fisticuffs within their borders but to strike to defend them selves from an outside Islamic nation could lead to a major assault as that is what sells politically to those nations “Destroy Israel”.

Now to the modern day, if they were to use one ounce of Mustard Gas in our direction they would be a wammed so hard there would be no recourse for recovery. So Saddam would never use it against us not our allies. If it ever used it on Israel—we would slam them equally hard. So those WMD really would have never been used. And if you say yes, then on who?

Posted by: Novenge at June 26, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #162076

David R Remer

This articles answers your question on the whys of Murtha’s action


linktext

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 26, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #162088

SE-
Look, when people go on a jury, it’s nearly impossible sometimes to find a person who hasn’t heard of the case or formed some kind of opinion. This will be one of those. People have already drawn some conclusions. On these issues, the court’s usual decision is allow jurors in based on whether they are open minded on the subject, excluding those who have already closed their mind to one possibility or another.

What troubles me is that you were convinced from the start that Murtha was guilty of betraying our troops. I can’t shake the thought that if Murtha had never called for withdrawal, his comments on this investigation would have never mattered to you.

I have been bashed up one side and down the other for the last three years based on my position on the war. You will get very little sympathy from me regarding the further bashing of a man who’s more than proven his worth on the battlefield, and who has never deviated from a record of support for the troops in his career. I’m sick of a person’s party mattering more than their argument and their facts, of political loyalties mattering more to you people than a person’s expertise or experience. I’m tired of Bush getting a free pass on an atrocious military career while Democrats and Republicans with real combat-earned medals are torn apart by conveniently astroturfed groups like the SwiftVets.

Don’t tell me that I’ve prejudged these soldiers. If the facts say something different happened, I’ll believe that. I don’t trust your sources, because they don’t trust me to come to a conclusion based on the evidence. They report, and they decide what the correct, patriotic, fair interpretation is. I’ve run into that enough, thank you very much.

If you can’t sell me on the basic facts of your case, don’t expect to sell me on the interpretation. So offer basic facts. Tell me what that doctor you guys are so up in arms about actually did. Don’t tell me what kind of beef he may have had. Some people do their jobs irrespective of what kinds of grudges they have. Tell me what that Camera man did that day, don’t just insinuate that he must have been up to no good because his organization (reportedly) was a two man operation.

I’ve had a lifetime of experience with these kinds of arguments, and I find that they are a better way of avoiding facing the facts than they are of finding them.

On the weapons issue, I can tell you point blank, without calling anybody a dirty bastard or a traitor that our weapons inspectors looked at this stuff and found it wanting. David Kay, a man who wanted more than anything to catch Saddam red handed, has recently been quoted as saying that Santorum is wrong on both the facts and the interpretation of the evidence.

Do I trust Santorum, or the guy who did this for a living. With good reason, I choose David Kay. As for reconstituting those weapons, I would think if you had the facilities to do that, you’d probably make them fresh instead, to simplify things. God knows what trouble you’d have to go through to separate things out and put them back together.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #162093

SE-
That link of yours is to somebody’s opinion column. Why are you not going right to the source? Why are you counting on another psychic friend to tell you his real mind, his real purpose?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #162097

According to Military & NGO Sources in Iraq:

Since 2003, 33,384 new Iraqi businesses have been registered.

Imagine how many would have been created and opened for business under Saddam, or if we had “changed direction” in 2003. Freedom is the only option in Iraq, for them and for us, but ‘ol John Jack Murtha doesn’t want that, any sign of victory or social improvements leave him a whole lot of votes shy come election day. He’ll apologize when Hell or Congressman William Jefferson’s $90,000 freezes over!

Posted by: JR at June 26, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #162098

SE, what Stephen said. I don’t need other people’s opinions to make up my mind. I need facts.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2006 11:22 PM
Comment #162099

JR, nice dodge of the issue. So, now our mission in Iraq is growing small businesses. Hmmm… nope, that wouldn’t have done it for me back when Bush was touting Iraqi created mushroom clouds in America, either.

Will you people ever make up your mind as to why we went to Iraq? Seems like you come up with something new every month, to replace the old reason which was refuted. I trust all this spinning will make ya’ll dizzy as hell. Just don’t look in my direction when ya’ll throw up. I just bought new clothes. I hope someday my new clothes say “Made In Iraq”. But, with Bush running things, I just don’t see it in our future.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 26, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #162109

Sic Eagle, the timeline you gave tony didn’t get the facts straight, so I feel compelled to correct it:
The day following the Haditha incident the official Marine communique from Camp Blue Diamond in Ramadi reported on Terraza’s death AND that those 15 Iraqi civilians were killed by the same IED blast. They also claimed that: “gunmen attacked the convoy with small-arms fire,” whereupon the Marines claimed they returned fire, the result of which killed eight insurgents and wounded another.
The problem with this account, is that the video tape showed the INSIDES of the houses peppered with bullet holes with blood stains on the floors, and the video also shows NO bullet holes marking the OUTSIDES of those houses — these are the revelations that Time Mag reported on. So, it looked as though the Marines lied about this incident from the beginning.
Furthermore, someone along the chain of command seemed to know that this story was somehow incorrect, because very soon afterwards, the victims families received restitution payments from the U.S. — something which NEVER happens if people are killed as the result of an IED explosion.
Before Time printed their story (and after the military tried to discourage them from reporting on it) they sent a copy of the incriminating videotape to the military, along with the information that the story would be appearing in the next months issue of the magazine. This is when the military finally began a preliminary investigation — during which, the Marines changed their story to say that the people had been killed in the alleged firefight that insued after the explosion.
Doesn’t it seem strange that money would be quickly payed out to the families by our military, but that they didn’t want to do any investigating into the matter? Like when they were first contacted by Time who told them what the people who lived nearby, as well as the victims were claiming about this incident? To me that seems a bit odd…
Anyway, when they knew that Time was going to be printing their story, the preliminary investigation then went forward, and the story told by the Marines then changed. These are the circumstances which led to an official investigation.
If as Newsmax (sardonic smirk) claims the military has videotape shot from an ultralight vehicle and radio communications which could prove the Marines completely innocent, then why did the investigation still go forward? Wouldn’t that have been thought to be pretty definitive, with no need to go further? Also, if they indeed exist, I wonder which version of events does that tape and all those radio communications back up? The first version of events, or the second one which changed during the preliminary investigations?

Finally, I don’t give a rats ass what you think of Murtha — I have a great deal of respect for the man — as I suspect many other Americans do, too. Go ahead and keep on with the vicious attacks — it makes your party look not only completely divorced from reality, but horribly nasty, and utterly disrespectful and uncivil, as well.
I believe that Liberals should be quite happy that a great many Republicans are so quick to take on these Ann Coultergeist tactics these days. Launching so many of your arguments in this vein makes you look quite unbalanced and just plain BAD for America — so feel free to keep at it, righties!

Posted by: Adrienne at June 27, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #162110

David

No, we went to stop Saddam from sharing or using WMD against us or our allies. I’m using that tid bit of info just to point out that Murtha’s claims of an “unwinnable war” are false. If the entire country of Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, how does business grow? It’s a relevant question and Murtha has no answer but to leave behind the good that is being done in order to solicit votes from the anti-war crowd. Politics is an ugly, dirty business - but leaving people who are under our care at this time in history would do exponentially more damage to the US in terms of “world opinion” than would finishing our commitments. I believe it’s you on the left that are waffling. You either voted to go to war (with the same intellegence Bill Clinton found to be compelling) or you don’t. Once your side voted to go, the only result in a post 9/11 world is total victory.

Posted by: JR at June 27, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #162115

JR, first of all, I am not on either the Red or Blue side. I am opposed to both as long as government and politics are being run this irresponsibly and to the utter ruin of my daughter’s future in America.

I was opposed to the invasion. I have written at length about it many times and why. But, I also knew that the only victory that was ever going to come from this war at an affordable cost was dethroning Saddam Hussein. Having done that, we should have begun pulling out then, and training Iraqi forces in another country and sending them back in. Then we could have declared victory of mission at an affordable cost.

But, with our national debt on track to double what it was when Bush entered office, and our nation bankrupt as far as meeting the retiring baby boom generation obligations, I can quite correctly say, that we have utterly failed our mission of nation building in Iraq at an affordable cost. What we are doing in Iraq today IS NOT affordable for Americans who will see their medical care diminish, their social security checks cut, and their taxes raised for generations to meet the national debt obligation and service on that debt wrought by this Republican government that steals from future generations to give kickbacks to their wealthiest supporters.

Shame on the GOP and all their lies about fiscal responsibility and smaller government and peace and liberty for Americans. What a wad crap that was. I left the Democratic Party years ago for similar reasons. So, don’t peg me as a Democrat. I am more conservative than most Republicans in Congress and certainly more conservative that that lie and borrow President in the White House today.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2006 12:26 AM
Comment #162124

David:
“What we are doing in Iraq today IS NOT affordable for Americans who will see their medical care diminish, their social security checks cut, and their taxes raised for generations to meet the national debt obligation and service on that debt wrought by this Republican government that steals from future generations to give kickbacks to their wealthiest supporters.”

It seems pretty clear to me that this has been the goal of the Neocons “New American Century” all along. An insane amount of militarization which bankrupts the government and all social programs at the expense of the taxpayers, while simultaneously garnering they and their greedy, self-serving Military Industrial Complex Pals enormous windfalls of cash.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 27, 2006 12:43 AM
Comment #162127

Sure glad you haven’ rushed to judgement SE. What a joke.

Posted by: gergle at June 27, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #162130

Right of way,

WMDs are pretty tough to find when you’re not allowed in the country to look for them.
And just who was it that had to leave Iraq because the Bush League was hell-bent on invasion? Oh, yeah, it was UN Weapons Inspectors

And are you REALLY saying the US was right to ignore the UN and invade Iraq … because Iraq ignored the UN????

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 27, 2006 1:30 AM
Comment #162132

Sicilian Eagle,

Nice post.

“If that is the case, and these marines are exonerated, will you do the right thing and resign from Congress and return to your car wash?”

If I may quote John Kerry (and later wash my mouth out with soap), “Would that it were, would that it were.”

Actually, Murtha’s already on the defensive. He’s gotten in front of this story by again claiming a massive military cover up.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 27, 2006 1:36 AM
Comment #162146

Elliot Bay, yep that is what’s being said. It is called a tautology. A common debate foible often revealed by Republican arguments these days.

They did something. Bush didn’t like it. Bush tells them to do it again. They do it, and Bush bashes them for doing it again.

“Bring it on!” (Damn, they really did!) They weren’t supposed to take our President seriously.

Mission Accomplished. Major combat operations are over. It’s not our fault they kept on fighting. We said it was over. And they didn’t listen. So, its not our fault we misread the Iraq war.

Democrats spent our country toward ruin. We had to double their national debt to try to rescue fiscal responsibility. Its democrats fault we borrowed so much from our children who haven’t even entered the work force yet.

Utter nonsense. No wonder the comic shows are having a ball with the Bush administration. They have enough material to last generations. Just goes to prove, a college degree is no guarantee of intelligence.

If Murtha hadn’t made this a public deal, it all would have been taken care of quietly by the military like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. It’s Murtha’s fault the public is questioning what happened at Haditha. Who the hell does the public think they are anyway sticking their noses into our military affairs? If everyone would just not look at what we do or the consequences of our actions, and just listen to what we tell them, everything would be fine!

But, no! Americans want to stick their noses into government business all the time. What the hell do they think this is? A democracy or something?

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2006 3:53 AM
Comment #162155
I guess you feel that Saddam would not kill you or your family.

Indeed. The same can’t be said from the most radical neocons.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 27, 2006 6:06 AM
Comment #162156

SE,

I notice this time you omit the “complete” word in your last sentence. Does it means you acknowledge that Murtha claims could be NOT all wrong afterall or what?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 27, 2006 6:09 AM
Comment #162157

May I remind some of the distractive U.S.A. leftists for one of the President Abraham Lincoln’s statements: “Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.” It is so sad to see that openly devastating effects of left oriented traitors against their own father/motherland during wartime in the name and under falsely stated excuse of democracy, fed and influenced by that long time implanted Marxist/Communist moles in the U.S.A.
Gabe J. Anticom at June 27, 2006

Posted by: Gabor J. Bartabas at June 27, 2006 6:48 AM
Comment #162159

David Remer:

Your reply isnt even worth answering, especially as you failed to address even one question. Your ideology, which used to be more covert, is now more overt, and your replies simply don’t even try to engage in discussion.

Novenge:

I’ll admit it: I’m willing to give this administration the benefit of the doubt. I recognize that is the opposite of many in here, who won’t give them the benefit of the doubt. Both sides have their reasons.

In the Haditha case, though, its not about the administration or the government. Its about the troops. I’m not so naive as to think a massacre could not have happened. But I’m also not so callous as to conclude that our troops have done so without seeing the full proof first. The troops are really the ones investigating, also, unless we choose to not consider officers as “troops”.

I have a son who will become an officer in the Navy. A very junior officer at first, and potentially rising to become a very senior officer one day (got his talent and brains from his mother, obviously). But I will always consider him to be part of the “troops”, not part of teh government or “management” regardless of what status he achieves.

My main point has been that Murtha spoke prematurely, and in his position as unofficial anti-war spokesman, his words carry more weight than most. His statements are not in support of our troops. He may mean to support them, but his words do not.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 27, 2006 7:37 AM
Comment #162160

Adrienne

Please quote your sources, as I’d like to verify them. I’m chomping to respond to your post, but first I want to carefully review your sources. I have been forthcoming and have shown repeatedly where I have been getting information .


Stephen

At trail, an attorney impeaches the credibility of the opponent or the opponent witnesses on cross-examination. When someone is impeached, he has shown the judge or jury that the witnesses testimony is not worthy of belief. This can be accomplished a number of ways: The witness can be confronted with facts that oppose his testimony; the witness can be confronted with inconsistent statements that he himself made; the witness can be probed to try to show a bias, a prejudice,the witness can be shown that he has a reputation for not telling the truth,the witness’ character can be attacked in certain instances, other witnesses can be put on the stand to berut the testimony of that witness, plus many many more methods, including presenting contrary evidence are used every day in courts throughtout America.

You sited two instances in your post, that you basicially brushed aside as being insignificant to this case, when in any American court, they would in fact have significance.

Both can/will be shown in about, say two minutes,that their “statements” were either biased, or prejudiced. Additionially, their statements could very well have been spoken under duress, coercion, other reasons . This area had seen many violent attacks. Any potential witnesses would pay with their life if they would say something to exonerate the marines. However, the biggest “fact” of all is this: Those 24 corpes would tell the story in short order, yet the families opposes this, siting religion. HOWEVER, any local insurget mulla would simply have to issue a fatwa saying that in this case, it is permissible, yet that has not happened. Why?

My bais or your bias means nothing. However,if you want the truth, you can’t rely on a twelve year old whose statements have changed three times thus far, and may very well be coerced, nor can you count on a camerman who had already been jailed once on suspicion of terrorist activity, or a human rights group that was non-existent practically prior to this incident.

These are many many holes in this tale.

BUT, that being said, the fact remains that a sitting Congressman, before any of these facts were brought to light, or (for your benefit here) investigated, concluded publicily that they murdered in cold blood.

If you cannot see that, well, we differ on how we see things, that’s all.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 27, 2006 8:10 AM
Comment #162161

What, a liberal apologize? Murtha will believe he’s right no matter what the proof is. Liberals don’t need proof. Unless we envoke the name of God, then we need proof. This do-nothing congressman got his ill-begotten 15 minutes of fame. It’s time to disappear into obscurity like his previous tenure in the house.

Posted by: Norm at June 27, 2006 8:23 AM
Comment #162162

Hello, my name is Tony and I am a liberal. If anyone cares to argue against what I post, that’s wonderful, but please use a quote or my name to help clarify your argument.

If however, you simply want to attack a certain belief system, affiliation, whatever - then I will ignore your comments.

(In other words, when you start off your argument with “you liberals” or anything similar, you’re argument immediately looses credibility.)

Posted by: tony at June 27, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #162163

Gabor J. Bartabas,

“Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.”

Does US still give death penalty by hang?

It is so sad to see that openly devastating effects of left oriented traitors against their own father/motherland during wartime in the name and under falsely stated excuse of democracy, fed and influenced by that long time implanted Marxist/Communist moles in the U.S.A.

I’m french, so I don’t care a bit about your 50’s anticommunist fearmongering rant.
Time to move on, even the communist nations did, why not you?!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 27, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #162179

Maybe on Murtha’s next trip to Walter Reed, he should check himself into one of the psycho wards?

WMD’S…….no one will ever convince me there weren’t any, until every CUBIC mile of Syria, Iraq, and Iran have been shifted through a find mesh screen!!

The Bushes….War Mongers? Too bad WE didn’t invade both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in 1991, along with all the other Arabic countries in the region! Only then, we could be called War Mongers! Whew, just think of the consequence of that action? Mecca and Medina would be ours to play with…..

Posted by: Nathan Adams at June 27, 2006 9:41 AM
Comment #162185

David Remer:

I’d like to ask you a couple honest questions about your comment below:

If Murtha hadn’t made this a public deal, it all would have been taken care of quietly by the military like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

I don’t have a problem with Murtha making the investigation public. In fact, I’m happy about that fact, regardless of what the outcome is. What I found reprehensible about Murtha’s comments was that he concluded guilt before the investigation he called for was conducted. John Warner, in calling for the same investigation in the same press conference, made no conclusions about eventual investigation results.

The questions:

Do you feel Murtha is pre-judging the Marines in his comments? If not, how so?

If so, do you think he is justified in doing so in a public forum?

Do you prefer Warner’s or Murtha’s methods and statements?

Do you think Murtha’s comments will be propagandized by the terrorists, similar to how Jane Fonda’s or John Kerry’s words were used by the enemy in Viet Nam?

This might help me understand your position better and more completely. Thanks.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 27, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #162199

SE-
I studied a course in Neuroscience under a man whose specialty was memory. Those who expect eyewitness testimony to be precise, completely consistent, and unmalleable expect what they will not find. Memory is reconstructive, and vulnerable to interference. Go read Daniel Schacter’s The Seven Sins of Memory and Searching for Memory.

Our biases can mean a lot, especially when it comes to what WE remember. Or in this case, you.

The first McGurk article was published March 19th. Following the reporter’s inquiries, which were initially greeted with hostility, the military investigated. Murtha made his statement on Hardball almost two months later on May 17th.

More importantly, while looking up the information about the statement, I came across this:

Military officials say Marine Corp photos taken immediately after the incident show many of the victims were shot at close range, in the head and chest, execution-style. One photo shows a mother and young child bent over on the floor as if in prayer, shot dead, said the officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity because the investigation hasn’t been completed.

One military official says it appears the civilians were deliberately killed by the Marines, who were outraged at the death of their fellow Marine.

“This one is ugly,” one official told NBC News.

Three Marine officers — commanders in Haditha — have been relieved of duty, and at least 12 Marines in all are under investigation for what would be the worst single incident involving the deliberate killing of civilians by U.S. military in Iraq.

In your bias, you have neglected to establish the real timeline, assuming that Murtha’s comments prompted the investigation, instead of things going the other way around. The article prompted the investigation, and the investigation uncovered further evidence from our own side that things happened this way. Other evidence could exonerate them, but it would have to explain somethings to do so.

It’s easy to imagine holes in any case, but sometimes the hole rest entirely in the mind of the beholder.

If the soldiers are innocent, it would not pain me to see them exonerated. If they are not, I would see them punished. That is the best that a reasonable person can do, whatever way they believe things happened.

The suspicion is legitimate, and details like the Marine photos indicative of acts which would very well fit the label “Cold-Blooded”. It’s one thing, in a rage, to spray a room of civilians with gunfire, but execution style killings indicate a level of premeditation in the perpetrators, and that the people were under the control of their killers at the time.

Are the Marines guilty of this? That remains to be seen. But those trying to pass this off as a crime of passion or a set of collateral casualties would have to explain those photos, taken by our own men in Uniform in the aftermath.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #162206

Phillipe: Please learn a little US History. our 50’s anticommunism movement was led my Senator Joe McCarthy. Not President Abraham Lincoln, who was assassinated in 1864 (or 65). Lincoln was the President during the Civil War and tried to keep this country together. He was also a Liberal of the time, in that he opposed slavery.


Joe: My answers to your questions:
Yes, Murtha Pre-judged. everyone does, although some less than others.
He is justified doing this in a Public Forum, it is his first amendment right to do so.
I believe the Terrorists will use Murtha’s Words for their own gain.

I do not however, approve of Murtha’s statements. He is a Congressman, and is understood by the people of the world to be a spokesmen for the United States. While it is wonderful that he chooses to blab his mouth under the First amendment, that our troops have died everywhere to protect, He needs to show some restraint. He is a role model, and the people look up to him. All congressmen need to show respect to our justice system, and let the investigation conclude before any of them speak to guilt or innocence

Posted by: crazygonuts at June 27, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #162224

crazygonuts-
It is dirty little secrets that hurt us the most. To the extent that this administration has kept the true problematic nature of this war secret, they have paralyzed our country from correcting it, or at the very least becoming adjusted to the reality.

We should not put ourselves in a position where the terrorists can be more honest than us about what we’re doing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #162226

Joebagodonuts, As an engineer, I deal with issues of support daily. I was curious at your use of the word.

sup·port Pronunciation Key (s-pôrt, -prt)
tr.v. sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports

1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping.
3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: “His flaw’d heart… too weak the conflict to support” (Shakespeare).
4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.
6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story.
7.
1. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
2. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes.
8. To endure; tolerate: “At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult” (Samuel Johnson).
9. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer).


n.

1.
1. The act of supporting.
2. The state of being supported.
2. One that supports.
3. Maintenance, as of a family, with the necessities of life.

I think John Murtha has always supported our troops. He does not falsely hide or ignore weaknesses. In engineering, a person doing this would be criminally neglegent. It isn’t George Bush or even Don Rumsfeld who visits the wounded vets every week. By exposing corrosive factors such as a leadership that for political purposes understaffs and under budgets, he in fact strengthens the support for our troops. I’m sick of the phoney partisanship being used here to attack Murtha. This kind of chicken-shit, chicken-hawk strutting is why the Republicans are going to lose big in 2006.

Joe you get an F in Engineering this week.

Posted by: gergle at June 27, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #162227

If there was any doubt that we are fighting a 2-front war, it is now fully removed.

front #1 - fighting the Islamo-facists in the Middle East, Europe and parts of Asia

front #2 - fighting the domestic supporters of Islamo-facism and the Axis of Evil: The AP, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and unhinged political hacks like Howard Dean and Jack “Okinawa is near Iraq” Murtha.

Fortunately most Americans still remember a time when “journalists” actually rooted for the US to defeat evil, even if they were not fond of the sitting US president.

Today, the old saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is in full force.

People like Bill Keller are conducting Special Ops for the Islamo-facists: Anything that hurts George W. Bush is good. Anything.

To hate the president at the expense of the nation’s security is a sign of abject depravity.

Posted by: jcmeredith at June 27, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #162229

Maybe Tom Delay can support our troops. He is learning a lot about jurisprudence.

I wonder if the terrorists will use the corruption of the Republican party as an example of the decaying values in our society?

I wonder if the terrorists will use the invasion of a sovereign Arab country using false info to predicate the attack?

I wonder if the terrorists will use the jingoistic pronouncements of Bush, Cheney,& Rumsfeld to demonstrate the aggressive nature and intent of the US?

I wonder why Colin Powell resigned?

Posted by: gergle at June 27, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #162233

Stephen Daughtery

Hold on there, partner. Murtha did NOT prompt the investigation. If that was the case, then he would be even more foolish than he already appears by blabbing about a “massacre” even before an investigation took place! PLUS, that Time piece had many inaccuracies that already have forced them to issue three corrections thus far.So, if that’s what compelled him to open his mouth, he is even more out of line.

And finally, Steve, even if evidence were presented that these marines did in fact pull the trigger, it would most definately be of the crime of passion variety. However, this isn’t what happened, I think. Let’s let the story fall apart a little more.


Gergle

I suggest two asprins and an air conditioned room for you to ponder your queries. While you at it, ponder on why your party is incapable of unifying itself, let alone a country.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 27, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #162236

Gargle (sic)

I think you will get a F- in prophecy after November this year.

Freedom of the press is precious. It should be used just as carefully as any other freedom. The NYT’s Bill Keller and company has elevated themselves above the government and law by printing on several occasions over time, information that should not be printed. If their argument that I have a right to know is true, then why have they not told me. They only reveal enough to destroy a program and not enough information for me to know what is going on. They have said that our intel groups are not doing what they think is right. My belief is that our intel groups have a far better grip on making those decisions than Bill Keller and the Al-Quida Times aka NYT. Of course the NYT is only one of a number of printed press that declared their supreme authority.

Posted by: tomh at June 27, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #162239

jcmeredith-
Calling what we face in the Middle East Islamfascism is not helpful. It lumps the Egyptian government and Egyption Islamic Jihad, Bin Laden and the Saudis, Saddam and the Ayatollahs in Iran all under one unifying label. How can this term possibly be helpful if it can’t distinguish these pairs of rivals and enemies from one another, when it can’t distinguish one kind of Islam, one kind of government, or one kind of ethnic group from another?

Worse than the distinctions you fail to draw, are the distinctions you don’t. Support for one man, one leader, becomes the litmus test for one’s support of American values. Along that line of thinking runs monarchy, a King ruling over you who you must swear to. America was not founded on one’s required loyalty to leaders. We are loyal to the law, to the constitution first, and the Leader by proxy, if we so see fit.

Bush is expendable, as is every politician who comes to Washington, rain or shine, by foot, by car, or by boat. Our nation’s destiny is something we all decide upon, and the sooner we lay down the useless, self-destructive hatreds of partisan politics, the better. America cannot be united by having one set of Americans attack another set. We must find our area of common agreement before circumstances hand it to us once more, as they did on 9/11.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #162243

crazygonuts,

Phillipe: Please learn a little US History. our 50’s anticommunism movement was led my Senator Joe McCarthy. Not President Abraham Lincoln, …

Can you tell me where in my post I’ve said that?
Please???

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 27, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #162244

SE-
You didn’t read closely enough: the investigation had been underway for two months before Murtha opened his mouth. The Times article wasn’t where Murtha started, it was the investigation itself.

So far, the story’s fallen together more than it’s fallen apart. The Military’s taken this seriously, where two months ago it accused the reporters of taking the insurgent’s side.

As for crimes of passion? If what those photos show is the reality, then it doesn’t qualify. There are too many deliberate acts required to argue that somebody couldn’t think about what they were going to do before they did it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #162245

jcmeredith,

People like Bill Keller are conducting Special Ops for the Islamo-facists: Anything that hurts George W. Bush is good. Anything.

To hate the president at the expense of the nation’s security is a sign of abject depravity.

*If* it was true, Bush himself would have figure out long time ago that the best way he could secure more the nation is by resigning.
But… he didn’t.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 27, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #162250

Oh, BTW…

front #1 - fighting the Islamo-facists in the Middle East, Europe and parts of Asia

… so, being an european, I’m right in the middle of a global war? I can’t believe it!

What US calls War on Terror is called counterterrorism in every nation since the 90’s. And no nation did have nor want to call it a war. Because it’s not one (no draft, no tax raise to support the war, no official declaration of war… and no peace ever, probably.)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 27, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #162253

gergle:

If the best you can come up with is a pithy diatribe on the semantics of the meaning of “support”, I’d suggest you work harder at providing something more salient to the conversation.

I think Murtha wants to support the troops. I honor him for going to see the troops in the hospital—that’s a wonderful thing.

Had he called for an investigation to determine innocence or guilt, I’d have been behind him all the way. But he didn’t…..he called for an investigation to prove that the Marines murdered people in Haditha. That’s the sole point I take him to task for.

He could have called for an investigation into the allegations. He did not need to go further and conclude that the allegations were true and that our Marines committed horrible atrocities. With that kind of “support”, who needs enemies?

He may end up being correct on the facts of the case—the investigation will hopefully bring forth the truth—- but his prejudgement will never be correct.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 27, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #162261

joe-
He didn’t call for the investigation, period. You folks have your chronology wrong. You also have your semantics wrong. What is so supportive about maintaining an operation in an undermanned state, of not providing proper armor until it becomes a national embarassment? What’s the support in sending our troops to war without a cross-checked and doublechecked reason for being there?

No, the GOP has basically taken support for the troops and used it as a means to emotionally blackmail support of their policies out of the American people. Well, their policies don’t seem to be doing that much good.

What good a policy does is the point. If it helps our soldiers win or complete their mission, that policy supports the troops. Otherwise, it’s a burden to them. The administration has asked these soldiers to win the war on their own, without the support of sensible policies. It has asked the American people to support themselves in the soldier’s name at the same time.

Forgive me for asking for the first to be done by the administration before I do the second for them. It just seems to me that I would be a coward to see the problems I see, and then support those people creating the problems, and call that support for the troops.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #162276

Sic Eagle:

“Please quote your sources, as I’d like to verify them. I’m chomping to respond to your post, but first I want to carefully review your sources. I have been forthcoming and have shown repeatedly where I have been getting information .”

Indeed you have. It seems that you’ve been taking most of your info from obvious rightwing websites like Sweetness and Light, Malkin, and Newsmax.

My info comes from several of the Time Magazine articles written about this incident, one you’ll find links to on the “Sweetness and Light” website, namely: “Collateral Damage or Civilian Massacre in Haditha?” and, “One Morning in Haditha.”
Additionally such articles as these:
Washington Post: In Haditha Killings, Details Came Slowly
Official Version Is at Odds With Evidence

BBC News:
Haditha: Massacre and cover-up?
Good graphic on this one, showing the difference between the Marines version of events vs. the Eyewitness’ version.

US to publish Iraq deaths probe

US investigations into Iraqi deaths
Graphic with timeline of events toward the bottom of the page.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 27, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #162284

Sorry, small mistake on my last post. The graphic with the timeline of events can be located in the “US to publish Iraq deaths probe” link.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 27, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #162304

SE:

As usual, you started a big argument. How do you do it? By finding a guy you don’t agree with and attack. Who would be better for that purpose than Murtha, the guy who presented an exit strategy from Iraq.

You don’t discuss the issue he raised: should we have an exit strategy. No. You pick what he said about Haditha in order to show that he is a danger to our society. And you do not care how you do it. You quote some item you read and say that “IF” it were so, then Murtha is a sleaze.

It makes no difference to you that nobody knows exactly what happened. You attack. It makes no difference to you that this guy is a veteran and he has been a representative for about 30 years. He is a conservative and always has been. You just attack.

As David Remer says, you have a double standard.

This is the Republican motto: Attack now, discuss the matter later.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 27, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #162307

There must be some truth to what murtha reported of marine killing orthe commanders would not have been relieved of command so lets wait till the investigation is done before passing judgement. On finding old artillary shells why was it kept secret solong was because they had made in America stamp on them. I here no comment on congressional OMB cost of Afganistan ,Iraq wars at 1.3 trillion of borrowed money What gives Conservites.

Posted by: earl at June 27, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #162331

Paul Seigel

I don’t attack, attack. attack, all the time…sometimes I can be a very nice Eagle, you know.

BUT, yes, it is time to confront the cut and runners and cut and joggers head on, so spread the word…I am developing a piece that we can discuss that one issue. It will be an epic joust for the ages…so call AP, Stephen D, John T, Andre H. and all the rest of the crew, and I will invite David R, and Aldous from the middle and we can have a go at it…maybe it should be a PPV..whadaya think?


Adrienne

As usual, you use old news. Has anyone told you yet the hula hoop is now passe`? Nonethe less, in the spirit of true compassionate conservative conservatism,look at this independent link and tell me what you think:

a href”http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4668_0_3_0_C/”>linktext

Once you get current, we’ll proceed.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 27, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #162335

Whoops

linktext

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 27, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #162363

Sic Eagle:
“As usual, you use old news. Has anyone told you yet the hula hoop is now passe`? Nonethe less, in the spirit of true compassionate conservative conservatism,look at this independent link and tell me what you think:”

Some independent link…
What I gave you was the official Marine statement that was given after the incident. Your link is giving the “it was a miscommunication” version that (heavily implicated) Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich has given to his lawyer. Now, whether Wuterich gave false information to his superiors is undoubtedly a focus of the military investigation — and if he is telling the truth this should be easy enough to trace, don’t you think ? He also claims that the platoon leader, who was there on the scene, never expressed concern about the actions taken by the unit, nor did he attempted to hide them.
So then, the question becomes, if it was not the Marines who claimed this, how did the official report end up reporting that the 15 people were killed by the IED? Is there a reason to believe that this was an attempted cover-up by someone else higher up the chain of command? Someone who was not on the scene?
Hopefully the outcome of the investigation will give us clear answers to these kinds of questions.

Btw, the Hoola Hoop is now considered a Classic form of juvenile self-stimulation. As long as plastic can be recycled, it will likely never go out of style, because kids love them.
Also, I see no reason for me to believe that there is any such thing as “compassionate conservatism.”

Posted by: Adrienne at June 27, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #162367

ElliotBay said:

And just who was it that had to leave Iraq because the Bush League was hell-bent on invasion? Oh, yeah, it was UN Weapons Inspectors

And are you REALLY saying the US was right to ignore the UN and invade Iraq … because Iraq ignored the UN????

Bush kicked out the UN weapons inspectors?

Are you stoned?

Read the next line very, very carefully…

SADDAM HUSSEIN KICKED OUT THE UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS!

You have to believe it… it was even reported by the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, NPR, etc.!

The US ignored the UN?

Again even the NYT reported that the UN Security Council adopted a resolution… UNANIMOUSLY… warning that “grave consequences” would follow if Iraq did not readmit UN weapons inspections.

See, that means the UN inspectors WEREN’T IN THE COUNTRY and NEITHER WERE US TROOPS.

Saddam refused. Then Bush publicly gave him one final chance to COMPLY WITH THE UN RESOLUTION. Guess what? Yep, Saddam refused again.

The US, the UK, Australia, Poland and other nations then joined in providing troops and equipment to uphold the resolution and the treaty which ended the Gulf War.

Geez, get your facts straight before bloviating.

But first stop smoking the lib loco weed. :-)

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 27, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #162370

JBOD said: “Had he called for an investigation to determine innocence or guilt, I’d have been behind him all the way. But he didn’t…..he called for an investigation to prove that the Marines murdered people in Haditha. That’s the sole point I take him to task for.”

That was a point very well made, JBOD, and I agree. He was wrong to declare murder had taken place. He was not wrong to demand an investigation to see if murder had taken place. It is not a subtle disctinction for a Congressperson who makes laws. In the big scheme of things however, I must also add that his misspeaking in this manner should in no way deter from the grave task before our country to try and avoid another Abu Ghraib or GITMO scandal due to cover-up or less than transparent investigation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #162377

JBOD said: “Your reply isnt even worth answering, especially as you failed to address even one question.”

I love it when folks just can’t bring themselves to respond. Oh, I addressed them, alright. You apparently just didn’t like the manner in which they were addressed. And that’s fine. Thank you.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 27, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #162392

Sic Eagle,
I was curious, so I went and looked into the “independent” link you gave me. It is NOT independent in any way shape or form. Accuracy in Media is actually a shamelessly Conservative organization. And Roger Aronoff, the guy that wrote that article you linked to, writes commentaries for websites like Conservative Voice.
Honestly, I can’t help but wonder sometimes — who do you righties think you are fooling?
It certainly isn’t me.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 27, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #162397

To One and All,
I am a VietNam Vet and served three tours of duty over there.Unless any of you have served in a combat position you don’t know what you are saying. Yes,I know that Murtha is a decorated vet, that is why his comments are so hurtfull.
He should know that anything can and will happen when you are close combat with the enemy. Mistakes happen, the wrong people get hurt along with the right ones. So to blame these Marine’s for killing these people in cold blood is wrong.
Please just wait for the investigation to be completed and then let the chips land where they fall.

Posted by: TheFith at June 27, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #162398

David Remer:

That was a point very well made, JBOD, and I agree. He was wrong to declare murder had taken place. He was not wrong to demand an investigation to see if murder had taken place.

I’m glad we found where we agree. I also agree with you that nothing should deter us from a thorough investigation to find the truth. Truth sometimes is a hard thing to find, due in part to our own biases (that lead us in specific directions), or due to people engaged in their own agendas (Iraqis lying about what happened/Marines lying about what happened etc).

But we seem to agree that we must strive to find the truth in this situation, regardless of how ugly or negative it might end up being.

David, you have now answered my earlier questions. And I thank you for that. I don’t believe you had done so in your earlier post. I’m glad we could find our area of agreement and disagreement.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 27, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #162403

SE-
Jousting? Nah, I’m better in the melee. I’m a swashbuckler. ;-)

Right-of-way-
Though I will not be so unkind as to imply that you are under chemical influence, I must unfortunately inform you that you are wrong.

Bush didn’t kick them out, but he sure told them to leave before they were wanting to. It was a kind thing to do, given that he had already decided to invade without their input. We wouldn’t have wanted them to get hurt.

The US was told that a second UN resolution would be required for the UN to go to war, and that resolution never came. The UN never authorized the War in Iraq. Small detail, I know, but oh-so-inconveniently placed.

Bush had no standing, therefore, to demand Saddam’s additional compliance. He did have a hell of a big army at his back, though

And yes he did build a coalition, though unfortunately it had to be one in name only, most countries contributing only triple or quadruple digits. We have over a hundred thousand troops there. The next biggest force has about ten thousand and it doesn’t get better from there. Many of the coalition members have skedaddled, I think including Poland. Don’t worry, I remembered Poland.

I would be the last to argue that Saddam didn’t deserve a swift kick in the nuts and more for his years of lies and deception, but Americans deserved a better planned and better justified war than that, and if Bush couldn’t provide one there, he should have just finished the job in Afghanistan and then turn to much worthier targets in terms of terrorism. America doesn’t need to bleed internation support, prestige, and power over the likes of a tinpot dictator like Saddam.

If he had approached the evidence with a calmer, more skeptical eye, looking to carve away all but the most reliable information he might have found a way to free the Iraqis without having put both them and us through this bloody, divisive fiasco.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #162407

Not all liberals are crazed idoits and some have good points but where do ya draw the line!I come from a military family and im a nam vet and i did my duty my father did his in korea and 2 uncles in the battle of the bulge and infact my daughter has done 2 trips to iraq.But it is true loose lips do sink ships and kill people!Mr murtha is plain flat wrong!and now you have news papers legaly but moraly wrong printing stories that effect the way we defend ourselves its there legal right to do so!but what does that say to the folks whom will die today and tomorow due to the newspapers legal rights and there fredom of speach.Is it so bad in this contry that we cant walk and chew gum at the same time.and when your family member is in that battle you are a da.,;[ fool to think its ok to spring leaks!

Posted by: allen stephens at June 27, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #162412

Adrienne said:

Accuracy in Media is actually a shamelessly Conservative organization. And Roger Aronoff, the guy that wrote that article you linked to, writes commentaries for websites like Conservative Voice.

Honestly, I can’t help but wonder sometimes — who do you righties think you are fooling?
It certainly isn’t me.

Right-of-Way responds:

But quoting the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, et al is proof of truth.

Honestly, I can’t help but wonder sometimes — who do you lefties think you are fooling?

It certainly isn’t me. :-)

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 27, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #162423

TheFith-
It would do the country and the armed forces some good to give people the benefit of the doubt on their motivations.

Yes, people do make mistakes in war, but evidence indicates an act of much more deliberate character. as I posted in an earlier comment, there are Photos taken by Marines cleaning up the scene later that indicate execution style shootings. Those happen neither as accidents or crimes of passion. If Murtha saw those, calling it cold-blooded might have been a reasonable response.

I think a good examination of Murtha’s own words would be in order, and not just the ones saying that it looks like Marines were responsible for the 24 deaths. This is not a man, I feel, who does these sorts of things lightly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #162431

Stephen Daugherty said:

The UN never authorized the War in Iraq.

The US is a soverign nation that does not need the UN’s permission to go to war.

Small detail, I know, but oh-so-inconveniently placed.

Bush had no standing, therefore, to demand Saddam’s additional compliance.

No standing? Did you forget about that surrender document Iraq signed at the end of the Gulf War?

That document stated Iraq would disarm and permit full and complete weapons inspections. That was the price for Saddam to keep his position.

(BTW: The latter was an agreement that should never have been made.)

You may remember that the UN sanctioned the Gulf War. But, Saddam made sure that didn’t happen again. He bought many of them off through the multi-billion dollar “Oil for Food” bribery program.

…Americans deserved a better planned and better justified war…

Then why did all those Dems vote for it?

Was it because they believed the “lies” first told by Bill Clinton about Iraq’s storehouse of offensive weapons and aims to join the nuclear club?

Better planned?

I think Saddam’s bunch collapsed in less than a month… and with hundreds of deaths not the tens of thousands the media’s “armchair experts” predicted.

(BTW: One could also say Democrat voters deserve better planned and better justified presidential campaigns.)

Why can’t libs just agree to win this thing and then withdraw? At least then you could take some legitimate credit for winning.

I do have a question for all you libs though…

If the NYT (or other lib media outlet) published evidence of Iraqi WMDs… whether still in-country, or say in Syria… Would all of you still say the Iraq War was unjustified?

I’m interested in what would persuade you, if anything could.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 27, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #162440

allen stephens-
This story was already out, published two months prior. Murtha’s response comes principally out of the investigation he was informed about.

You should reexamine your argument because what you’re basically saying is that people should be kept in the dark about things like this.

Fact is, we got two options. We can try and change the truth of the past (lie and coverup things), or we can acknowledge the truth of what’s gone before, change the truth of the future based on that. The quicker we get around to doing the second, the better off we are, because every future we fail to change becomes one more problem to negatively shape the present.

This administration has been so busy trying to rewrite history that it’s let a lot of simple problems become much worse. After all, to rewrite history, you have pave over a lot of inconvenient facts; facts, nonetheless that are important for changing the course of things.

Take manpower. Though Bush would call up many soldiers from the Reserve and National Guard, and enact stop-loss programs, he would never admit that he didn’t have enough soldiers. Not even as his policies screamed the fact.

Now ask yourself, if he had admitted the problem early and asked for Congress and the people’s help, would he not have gotten more help to our people in Iraq? Manpower has been one of the most important limiting factors in our ability to defeat our enemies and maintain power. Unfortunately, the political consequences of admitting that too few troops were employed meant more to him than the objective question of how those soldiers could help the issue.

Right-Of-Way-
Those are respected publications and channels whose reporting is geared towards facts more than advocacy of their favored party. The only one who is being fooled is you, as you are force-fed talking points which often contain information that is false, distorted, or out of context. It’s nice to hear from folks who think just like you, but those who venture no further have only themselves to blame when folks use that loyalty to simplify their deceptions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #162442

ROW:
“But quoting the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, et al is proof of truth.

Honestly, I can�t help but wonder sometimes � who do you lefties think you are fooling?

It certainly isn�t me. :-)”

LOL! Do I perceive a sense of pouting victimization in this comment, despite the smiley? So, all of those news-gathering organizations have a Liberal Bias? That’s okay, you can always claim that Rupert Murdoch’s Faux Tee-Vee News Station can give you “the truth” in a “fair and balanced” manner. Or Reverend Moon’s Newspaper. Or the Richard Mellon Scaife-funded “Accuracy in Media” that the Sic Eagle just tried to pass off as an “independent” source. Or the myriad of other rightwing blogs that’ll spin things just the way you want them to be! :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at June 27, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #162446

Adrienne:

You seem to be the one ranting.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 27, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #162447

SD said:

Those are respected publications and channels whose reporting is geared towards facts more than advocacy of their favored party.

Respected by libs who favor the slanted output contained within.

It really doesn’t strike you as odd that every media outlet which supports your view is “unbiased” and “respected”, yet every one that is in opposition to your view is “slanted”?

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again…

The best part of being a liberal is that the facts never get in the way of your own omnipotence.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 27, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #162458

Right of Way-
Your arguments regarding Bush’s UN mandate to do this implicitly recognize the UNSC’s authority. Part of the Authorization of War itself depends on carrying out the UN Resolutions. You’re claiming that’s what happened, but UNSC said that another resolution was need, and members of that council said they would veto such a measure.

The inspectors from the UN were the ones who were supposed to certify whether Saddam had complied. It was their judgment that was supposed to work this out. Unfortunately for Bush, they just weren’t being team players by pronouncing Saddam in material breach of the Resolutions. Without that being resolved, Bush could not move on behalf of the UN, whose final resolution on the matter had made material breach an important part of the matter.

Here’s the thing: My brother, who studies these kinds of things said we could have stood on any of the previous agreements that had been made, instead of seeking the new resolutions. Bush went for them because he needed legitimacy. The majority of Americans were not going to go for war unless Bush appealed to the UN.

As for claims after that, the strength of the claims of what should be done are as important as the strength of the beliefs of what Saddam had. Or to put it another way, nobody else suggested Pre-emptive war as the default option. Bush made it quite clear (for some reason I’d think you support this) that Bush would disarm Iraq with or without the UN’s help.

Bush made Saddam’s armaments the primary issue with his political efforts, the defiance against the UN only mattering because it left Saddam hiding stuff with impunity. The constant drive for the war was built on the notion that Saddam would prove a dangerous threat to us if he was not immediately removed from power and disarmed.

As for the plan, you have to consider that in part the collapse of Saddam’s regime was intentional. He went underground and became a founding force in the insurgency, funding it, coordinating it, his sons active participants in it. So in part, Saddam’s collapse is not necessarily a plus for Bush.

As for agreeing to win this thing and withdraw- why that’s what we’ve been suggesting from the start. Unfortunately, Bush has spent so long in political paralysis over this war (you call it “staying the course”) that many have their doubts as to whether this war is winnable now.

As for WMDs? Give me good reliable who’s what’s, wheres’ and how’s, and I’ll be happy. None of this win-by-technicality stuff. It has to be stuff that inspectors were looking for. It should be usable at the time we went to war, manufactured after the inspections regime began.

Only then could you say, we found The WMDs. No Iran-Iraq relics.

Then you can get to work on the terrorist angle.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #162470

I don’t ask the Media to support my views, and I don’t talk about the blasted right-wing media when the MSM says something that doesn’t go my way. I might complain occasionally when they buy some Republican talking point without checking the facts, but I don’t tend to speak of an intrinsic, subversive right-wing slant.

You see, I don’t look to the news to validate my politics. Mine is just one of many slants the news can support.

Hell, I could say that off it’s opinion page, the Wall Street Journal can be a reliable source. It’s when the editorial page starts getting in the way of the news that things like this happen, like with Fox news and those Iran-Iraq war relics, or earlier with that exploitation team Judith Miller was with.

If slant is that much of a sin for you, then you should remove the obvious log of republican slant from your media’s eye, before you go after the mote in the MSM’s eye.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #162471

ROW:
“You seem to be the one ranting.”

Oooh. Ouch! Oh wait, not even a scratch…

Stephen:
“Jousting? Nah, I’m better in the melee. I’m a swashbuckler. ;-)”

Yes indeed. It’s the Right who needs a lot of weighty armor and must use a heavy lance to try poke at us. While the Left goes further by adroitly side-stepping all such clumsy and overbearing tactics, and being simply armed with the facts! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at June 27, 2006 7:09 PM
Comment #162524

Hmm. Is nothing more to be heard from the Mighty Eagle, I wonder?
Well, just in case he never returns to this thread, I think it might be nice to end it with a truly astonishing vocal performance!

Posted by: Adrienne at June 27, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #162550

I still have not heard from conservitives on the cost of this invasion of Iraq. Last estimate by cong. OMB At 1trillin doolars of borrowed so lets give big tax break to the spoiled children of the rich. Who do nothing for their country!

Posted by: Earl at June 27, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #162620

Philippe Houdoin,
THIS TIME I REALY HIT THE NAIL ON ITS HEAD! - Thank you!!!
By the way, my reminder was for follow conservative learned North American Citizens!

Posted by: Gabor J. Bartabas at June 28, 2006 3:23 AM
Comment #162657

It is unfortunate that some of you did not get the real meaning of Gabor J. Barabas’ posting at June 27, 2006 06:48 AM. G.J. Barabas indicated one of (liberal) Abraham Lincoln’s statements of any Congressmen (politicians) traitorous public statements, like we experiencing from extreme left-wing/Marxism driven media and socialist/communist minded.
One last thing; President Abraham Lincoln, Senator Joe McCarthy had nothing to do with the implants of socialist/communists moles in North America during WWII and the implants and/or secretly training of fanatical terrorists since President Clinton’s two term presidency.

Posted by: Joe of North America at June 28, 2006 8:21 AM
Comment #162674

Yeah, that’s unfortunate.
Maybe because he name-called everyone that oppose his view as left-wing/marxist or just plain socialist/communist?

Hint: name-calling is not debating.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 28, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #162693

Hello Philipie Huodoin,
I stick up for G.J.Barabas’s reminder of one of our Late Hon. President Abraham Lincoln’s Quotes.
That is undebatable with a “non North American individual”, especial from the left - PERIOD!!!
That was my very last response, in order to have prove your stand! - GOOD BY MY FRIEND, I AM REALY THROUGH WITH YOU!!!

Posted by: Joe of North America at June 28, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #162951

Right of way,

Obviously you’re more interested in hurling insults than in the facts. I hate to disappoint you by refusing to stoop to your level, so I’ll only say that were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq just before the war started, and Dubya told them to leave. Read the article. If, as you claim, Saddam kicked them out, what were they doing there? Did they sneak back in?

Resolution 1441 was the resolution that specifically authorized the use of force. And it never came up for a vote at the UN, the US and Britain withdrew it because of opposition from our allies. So, no, there was no authorization. The US ignored the UN, and pre-emptively attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, no connection to al_Qaeda, and that posed no direct threat to this country.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 28, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #163268

JBOD,
Thanks for calling my post pithy, now I feel like sending in letters to Bill O’Reilly.

“Had he called for an investigation to determine innocence or guilt, I’d have been behind him all the way. But he didn’t…..he called for an investigation to prove that the Marines murdered people in Haditha. That’s the sole point I take him to task for.”

Interesting intrepretation and spin, but not at all factual. At least you haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid and spun off in to non-reality like SE has about this. A red mustache wouldn’t become you, anyway.

Tom-tomH, thanks for the juvenile response. If junior can get daddy to buy him a Wall Street Journal, he might ask himself why he only attacks the NYT when the Journal also printed a story about this info; which was public info to those who have bothered to follow the “war on terror”.

Please note Tony Snow’s response when asked what damage had been done or program had been compromised.


SE, I suggest you take two exlax, and lose the load. Something has clearly clouded your vision.

Posted by: gergle at June 29, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #163327

Stephen,
First, I would like to thank you for your response to my post. You seem to stay above the name calling and trash throwing that others do on this site.
I agree those Photo’s do look like they show that something wrong has been done.However, I think you
are just a little off when you say it was cold blooded murder.When you are in combat and you are
being shot at from all sides and you just saw one of your friends cut in half by an IED you start to loose perspective just a little. What you were trained to do and what you know the right thing to do is,those things start to fall by the wayside. You are in a different mind set, you want
to survive, you want your buddies to survive.
So mixed with the fear is a anger that you didn’t
know you had. You start to do things that you would never have done,you go after those that you think are responsible for all of this. It’s at that moment when bad things happen to good people
on both sides. Should these death’s have happened?
Hell NO! Yet that is what happens in a war be it a legal one or not.
If the investigation turns up the evidence these Marines killed these people for no reason other than to just kill them, then I will be the first in line to demand they they be brought up on charges of murder.
I say this as a VietNam Vet and as a father of a Marine set to deploy to Iraq in August.
As far as Mrtha’s comments go, I think he does not understand the damage he does to the service men and women in this war who done like this.
That is why I say wait untill all of the information is in and then make up your mind from that.

Thanks
Terry

Posted by: TheFith at June 29, 2006 4:48 PM
Post a comment