| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
The Haditha incident
If the reports coming out of the media from anonymous sources are true, it looks like the much-discussed Haditha incident in which a small group of US Marines allegedly killed 24 Iraqi civilians is the real deal. Via the the LA Times:
SAN DIEGO — Marines from Camp Pendleton wantonly killed unarmed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, and then tried to cover up the slayings in the insurgent stronghold of Haditha, military investigations have found.
Officials who have seen the findings of the investigations said the filing of criminal charges, including some murder counts, was expected, which would make the Nov. 19 incident the most serious case of alleged U.S. war crimes in Iraq.
An administrative inquiry overseen by Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell found that several infantry Marines fatally shot as many as 24 Iraqis and that other Marines either failed to stop them or filed misleading or blatantly false reports.
The report concludes that a dozen Marines acted improperly after a roadside bomb explosion killed a fellow Marine, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas.
Looking for insurgents, the Marines entered several homes and began firing their weapons, according to the report.
In its initial statement to the media, the Marine Corps said the Iraqi civilians were killed either by an insurgent bomb or by crossfire between Marines and insurgents.
But after Time magazine obtained pictures showing dead women and children and quoted Iraqis who said the attack was unprovoked, the Marine Corps backtracked on its explanation and called for an investigation.
The Marines, many of whom were on their third deployment to Iraq, are part of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment of the 1st Marine Division.
The battalion commander and two company commanders were relieved of duty last month because, a spokesman said, Maj. Gen. Richard Natonski, commanding general of the division, had lost confidence in their leadership.
The Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which conducted a separate investigation, is expected to call for criminal charges, including murder, negligent homicide, dereliction of duty and filing a false report.
After the roadside bomb killed Terrazas, the Marines conducted a sweep of the area, a common military tactic. But instead of following the Geneva Convention rules about identifying combatants, the Marines killed Iraqis in homes and five sitting in a vehicle, reportedly without provocation, the investigation found.
AllahPundit points to Junkyard Blog blogger Bryan Preston’s thoughts in the comments section at Hot Air and I think Bryan’s comments say it best:
Haditha does not compare to My Lai in raw numbers, but raw numbers have meant next to nothing in this war. By historic standards, Iraq has been a low-level insurgency occassionally flaring up into a mid-level one. But by press accounts, Iraq is the apocalypse and the End of Days all rolled into one. Likewise, Haditha will join Abu Ghraib if not surpass it as the enemy’s rallying cry and the left’s beating stick. That’s just a fact. This is a post-modern war, and these Marines (should they turn out to be as guilty as they presently seem) have handed the enemy a major victory they could not have won in straight up battle. Their crime makes the war harder to win. Some folks writing here need to understand that.
There is no excusing this. It’s not Hiroshima, a justified destruction to end a war and prevent much greater loss of life. Haditha appears to be a crime, and should be treated as such. It resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians and will hurt the war effort. It’s unfair, of course–the enemy targets civilians as a central part of his strategy. But it is the reality of this war and those Marines knew that.
As a former military man, this saddens and sickens me. Every time a crime is committed by one or more of our troops, it reflects on all of us. Two or three sailors commit crimes off-base in Korea and the thousands who stand ready to protect that country get smeared for it. A small group of Marines commits very serious crimes in Iraq, and their actions will be used to smear the noble work and sacrifice being done throughout that country. But that, too, is the reality of this post-modern war, and those Marines knew that. The bottom line is or should be, they killed innocent civilians and made the war harder to win.
Michelle Malkin has a link roundup, including a link from the Confederate Yankee who points to some on the left who are already gloating over this. Yeah, I know – I’m not surprised, either.
Others blogging about this: Tom Maguire, Captain Ed, Flopping Aces, QandO, Iowa Voice
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
30 Responses to “The Haditha incident”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Oh great. The anti-war zealots finally have their modern version of My Lai. The fact that both My Lai and this are aberrations, not common practice, by our military (as opposed to being standard operating procedure for our enemies) will be immediately forgotten and never mentioned. The fact that this is being investigated and that the guilty, if it’s true, will be punished, will also be ignored. Murtha, in his best imitation of Kerry, has already come out and slimed the Marines over this, we’ll undoubtedly be treated to infinite replays of Kerry calling out troops barbarians worse than Ghengis Khan. The press will have a field day, this will undoubtedly eclipse Abu Ghraib, except that this will be another excuse to talk up Abu Ghraib as evidence of how evil the US is. And on and on and on.
If they are guilty, punish them severely, not only for killing civilians with no cause, but also for providing this propaganda opportunity to our enemies, foreign and domestic (ala the press and Democrats). We are doing badly enough at information warfare in this conflict, in part due to our own incompetence in this arena, and in part due to the fact that our own press might as well be sworn, uniform wearing agents of our enemy.
This is going to turn into one big furball, and it’ll be disgusting to watch the press enjoy themselves.
“Michelle Malkin has a link roundup, including a link from the Confederate Yankee who points to some on the left who are already gloating over this. Yeah, I know – I’m not surprised, either.”
Hi. I’m one of the two bloggers Confederate Yankee called a “sick soul” and alleged that I am on the “far left” and was “gloating” over this terrible abberational event involving a handful of U.S. Marines (who are among our bravest and best)
Here are the three posts I’ve written on the topic. I’d appreciate it if you’d read them for yourself, and decide for yourself if you think I am “gloating.”
See here, here, and here.
A little sarcastic in spots, sure, about people quick to call “traitor.” But gloating about Marine deaths? I’ll be curious to know what you think.
Thanks for your consideration on this Memorial Day, when everyone’s thoughts should be turned towards those who both currently live, and who have died, in our nation’s military service.
Sorry, I should have asked not just whether I have, in your view, gloated over “Marine deaths,” but over alleged war crimes; funny which is on the top of my mind today.
I’d ask this of Confederate Yankee, but I can’t seem to get to his site at all this morning.
I most certainly didn’t gloat. This is a sad incident that will be remembered as a watershed moment.
Since I am considered a bleeding heart liberal, let me say that my heart bleeds for the reputation of the Marine Corps and the innocent parties involved.
Gary: I guess the jist of what I got, over Murtha’s willingness to “add fuel to the fire”, bothered me the most. The traitor aspect could reasonably be called into question AFTER a COMPLETE investigation, even though many “feel” he already qualifies. Long before this latest slathering of paint against our marines, he gained a rep from those who served with him or knew of his actions and words. I personally have asked more than one man who could enlighten by more than inuendo and rumor, in order to understand his past actions. W/O substantiated facts, jumping the gun is a dangerous practice.
My main beef with him over his early announcement regarding the ongoing investigation. If it’s still being investigated why was he divulging anything? Of course and appreciably, he’s priveledged to HUMINT and may know the conclusion. But even if it’s a foregone one, what purpose does he serve by being the first kid on the block to scream it in the streets. Who and what does that serve?
As war crimes go and what are considered crimes of/in war, this is not an easily definable phrase. Most of us understand the difference between humiliating someone with a dog collar around ones neck, with underwear on their head or having hundreds upon hundreds of said necks and heads sawed off. The latter obviously a war crime, not just because of the terror it’s meant to cause for the victim, while he/she suffers an agonizing, slow twisted death, but to terrorize those who are simply not members of their cult. One of it’s purposes is to remove the willingness of enemies to fight.
For those on the left, who are only too willing to claim this incident as truth and NOT as the gospel according to fluke, shame on them for the typical lack of sound judgement. It doesn’t even have to be proved true and THAT IMHO is as much a war crime, as the BDSM photo idiots created at the prison. There have always been exceptions to the rule. Does anyone recall how the “exception to the rule” guy that fragged his officers tent, was handled by the MSM, way back at the beginning of the war?
The differences between discovery of the truths that surround the exceptions and inflaming the stories, ergo aiding the enemies, are why emotions are at the core of these types of issues. Passions are not to be worn on the sleeve or IMO become the only facts needed to print any story that supports their opinionated versions of truths.
Thank you for your reasonable and courteous response, Forest.
To address a few of your points, as I wrote, it’s clearly reported that Murtha spoke after being officially briefed by authorized Marine authorities, and while not overtly stated, it’s clear that he did so with their approval; if he did not have such approval, obviously that, too, would be reported, and Marine spokespeople would have so commented.
Murtha, of course, the decorated former Marine colonel who fought in two wars, has always been regarded as the Marines’ primary representative on Capitol Hill.
Furthermore, everything he said last week was confirmed by official Marine spokespeople, if you read the stories. Just as they were this week, on the record. And as confirmed by Marine Commandant Hagee. If Murtha is a “traitor,” so must they be for saying the same exact things. And if they’re not, obviously he’s not.
Similarly, as I quoted in two posts:
So either Rep. Kline is identically a traitor, or again, Murtha is not.
One can’t have a double-standard here, and it makes no sense in the first place to accuse Murtha of being “premature” for having said the same things said by the Marines at the time, and which everyone but the lunatic fringe is now, in the past couple of dates, agreed are a serious set of accusations.
“The traitor aspect could reasonably be called into question AFTER a COMPLETE investigation, even though many “feel” he already qualifies.”
If it’s wrong to speak now, when the investigation is not complete, than you must indict Commandant Hagee for his talking to the press, and his reported speech to the troops in Iraq, and all the official Marine spokespeople who have officially spoken — as obviously authorized — to the press.
The fact is, no one has convicted anyone by their comments, no one has even been named, and there’s nothing whatever improper about reporting that an investigation has been launched, here are the charges, here’s what we know so far, and it looks bad.
And, in fact, it does an active disservice to the United States of America, and the U.S. Marine Corps, to withhold information when everyone in Iraq knows about Haditha. It’s not as if this is a bloody secret there!
We’re trying to win hearts and minds to win this war. The Iraqis have to feel we’re not intentionally trying to massacre them, or to cover up massacres. The only way to do that is with justice, and the cleansing light of doing it publically.
This event took place last December. Time reported their findings to the Marines in early January. The Marine investigators were on the scene the day after the event. Time reported this all publically in March.
Why anyone is focused on Murtha and his saying last week what the Marine Corp was saying can only be explained by pre-existing dislike of Murtha for his politics. In other words, people are policiticizing this because of their disagreements with him. That’s too bad, though they’re free to disagree with him as they like, of course. But clearly Haditha should be left out, as he did absolutely nothing whatever improper, and was instead doing what his beloved Marine Corps asked of him.
“Most of us understand the difference between humiliating someone with a dog collar around ones neck, with underwear on their head or having hundreds upon hundreds of said necks and heads sawed off.”
Indeed.
“For those on the left, who are only too willing to claim this incident as truth and NOT as the gospel according to fluke, shame on them for the typical lack of sound judgement. ”
Who are you referring to? Please cite three. I’m sure you wouldn’t make such charges simply because you imagine that there must be such people, but you must have read some of these irresponsible and ignorant fools — and they would be, indeed, of course, to make such a nutty claim — so I’d like to know who they are, so I can condem them, too, please.
Meanwhile, I’m called a “sick soul” because I object to war heros being called a “traitor” for no remotely good reason, and because I blogged about Haditha. Again, if you can find any justification for why I can be called that, I’d like to know.
Similarly, above is a reference to unnamed “anti-war zealots.” I’m certainly not one, as anyone who has the faintest familiarity with my blogging since December, 2001, knows. I wrote countless posts before the war about the evils of Hussein, and I explained at length the justifications for the war; a link to my pre-war position, and my subsequent revisions, still stands on the sidebar of my blog. See here. Right above them are still links to the words of Osama bin Laden, put there when I started blogging in 2001, so people would be able to read the threat. I’m no pacifist, and I avidly supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and I continue to agitate that we do more there now to fight the resurging Taliban, as well as in Pakistan, and as well as fighting al Qaeda and its affiliates everywhere.
I’ve become extremely disillusioned with and pessimistic about Iraq, although I still have faint hopes that something can be pulled for the tragic fiasco it became, but that’s another story. My point is that there’s no possible justification to call me or anyone near my position an “anti-war zealot,” let alone a “far leftist,” let alone a “sick soul” (and who the heck is qualified to see into my soul?; what gives Confederate Yankee or anyone that right?).
So I can’t say I’m happy when people blithely toss these sorts of slurs and assumptions about so carelessly.
I’m more or less my own sort of individualistic “liberal,” fair to say. Check the set of comments on the left sidebar of my blog for what various folks left and right have said about me in that regard, please. I don’t need to “prove” any “credentials” in this regard, but when someone idiotic on the left says something I think worth denouncing, I say so. I’m pleased that most conservative bloggers I’ve read in the past two days have spoken up against this absurd “Murtha-is-a-traitor” stuff, but it would be nice if word would also get out to your lunatic fringe, just as those on our side denounce ANSWER and their ilk.
Thanks for the consideration.
Gary, I think Iraq is far from being the disaster you seem to think it is. We don’t get true and accurate reporting of the successes and the positive events unless you go digging for them, usually on blogs and other non-mainstream news outlets (or if you have other sources, I have a few due to work). The MSM, who have their own anti-war, anti-Bush anything biases, overemphasize the negative, basically that’s all they report. There is ample evidence in the documents seized by our troops from the local Al Queda cells of the fact that the insurgents are suffering, and see the US media as their only real successful effort these days. Stategically and tactically, they are getting more and more marginalized. Also, the long promised civil war has sputtered, even the rampant destruction of religious shrines couldn’t get it up and running at full tilt, just localized insanity.
Whether or not Bush’s grand experiment in seeding democracy in the Middle East will work is an open question, only time will tell. However, continued and repeated defeatist mutterings from both the press and leaders of the Democratic party do nothing but make that less likely, this is the first real war of the Information Age, and the US isn’t that good at that unfortunately, particularly when people put political advantage above national goals. I do know that the stated objections of Iraq being a “diversion” from the “real war” are false, there were and continue to be numerous very good and valid reasons to pursue the conflict in Iraq.
Murtha is somewhat more involved of an issue. Yes, it turns out, much of what he opined recently is true, but when released in such a public way, by such a potent public figure, it only pours gasoline on the fire, rather than letting it be handled and announced by more official, and lower key, channels. If this were the first time Murtha had done something like this, he could perhaps be forgiven, but it’s not. He has made a name for himself by extremist, defeatist statements, and I believe he does it for two reasons, one, he’s part and parcel of the Democratic machine attempting to gain advantage by denigrating anything this administration does, and because his ego was bruised by not being invited to the White House for consultations as he had been in previous administrations and even earlier in this admin, he’s as much as admitted that in some comments about feeling ignored.
Whether or not he is right about this, he has been a “useful idiot” for those we are fighting against, and that is why I still call his actions borderline traiterous.
“Gary, I think Iraq is far from being the disaster you seem to think it is.”
That’s fine, and I’m not here to persuade you otherwise, though certainly none of the Iraqi bloggers seem terribly happy. But that’s neither here nor there, and you’re free to be as cheery about it as you like.
“Whether or not Bush’s grand experiment in seeding democracy in the Middle East will work is an open question, only time will tell.”
Indeed, as I’ve said since before the war started. I happen to think that the last three years have gone vastly more badly than I’d ever hoped, and I blame the President and Secretary of Defense (not our troops, who have fought bravely and died by the thousands), but, again, neither here nor there. I shouldn’t even say that much, as it has nothing whatever to do with when it’s reasonable to declare someone a “traitor” or has a “sick soul,” which is what I’m objecting to.
“However, continued and repeated defeatist mutterings from both the press and leaders of the Democratic party do nothing but make that less likely, this is the first real war of the Information Age….”
Regardless, that’s the merits of a free society, in which argument and opinions we don’t like, and the most inane and offensive opinions are inevitable. That’s what we used to call “the price of freedom,” and last I looked, it’s what we’re supposed to be fighting for, and it’s the cause that’s supposed to rally those around the world to us, and to see us as a shining city on a hill, and to inspire the world.
You may disagree and oppose freedom of speech, on the grounds that dumb opinions are harmful. I don’t know, but I’m for freedom of speech, myself, including for opinions that offend me, and for lies, and for the most utmost stupid statements.
“Yes, it turns out, much of what he opined recently is true, but when released in such a public way, by such a potent public figure, it only pours gasoline on the fire, rather than letting it be handled and announced by more official, and lower key, channels.”
When I see a cite that demonstrates that the leadership of the Marine Corps agrees, I’ll agree with them. Until them, how do you explain that Murtha only revealed what he was briefed, and that it was simultaneously confirmed by Marine spokespeople, and then blame Murtha for doing anything wrong?
Why are you not, if he said something wrong, citing some evidence from the official Marine Corps? Why are you not condemning the Marine Corps for saying what he said? Why do you not respond to my quotes above and query about Marine Commandant Hagee? Why no comment about Rep. John Kline?
Why are you ignoring these points?
How are they not “pour[ing] gasoline on the fire” if such statements do such? It doesn’t make any sense, and you don’t even bother to attempt to untangle the contradiction.
“…and that is why I still call his actions borderline traiterous.”
And apparently various of our senior generals are similarly borderline traitorous.
And yet, in a democracy, disagreement is not to be considered “traitorous.” If you think Murtha’s views, or anyone else’s, are boneheaded, and wrong, fine, you should say so. But “traitorous” is punishable by death, and it’s, well, I have no idea how familiar you are with our Constitution, which I imagine we all care deeply about, but I’ll stipulate that you care as much as I do, and I’ll remind you of what it says about treason in Article III, Section 3:
Using the word otherwise is, I think, pretty darn un-American, I’m afraid.
Treason is the most serious charge there is in our country, and it doesn’t consist of someone having a different opinion than you.
It’s that simple.
You are, incidentally, if you wish to argue with me about the war, or anything else, welcome to do so in comments at my own blog, where I’m sure you can find many treasonous statements to enjoy arguing with or denouncing.
Well, Gary, Murtha is, if nothing else, a liar. Not because he has a different opinion than me, but because he lies. His statement that our armed forces are “broken” and living “hand to mouth” is a lie, plain and simple, there’s not much gray area there.
Every time Murtha opens his mouth, he is the leadoff story on Al Jazeera, the well known terrorist network. I don’t know how communicating to our enemy that our army is broken and weakened is anything but encouragement to them.
I guess the term “aid and comfort” is where alot of people have the disagreements. To some, aid and comfort, is physically helping the terrorists. To others, it may be statements that encourage terrorists to keep fighting. I certainly do not think that Murtha should be arrested for what he says, however, it is not the fact that Murtha disagrees with people, it’s the fact that what he says can be construed as helping the enemy.
As far as Iraq is concerned, I do not know how relying on second hand reports from reporters who never leave their hotels can be considered accurate. Until you look into the eyes of some of the Iraqi people, you will never understand why some of us feel the way we do about it. Of course, the insurgency was never intended, and not planned for. There were plenty of mistakes made in this war, just like every single other major war this country has fought.
I believed in what we were doing when we started, and I still do. Until you meet some of the Iraqis and hear the horrible stories of torture, rape, and murder of men, women, and children simply because somebody said something bad about Saddam, you will never understand. Until you talk to police colonels whose eyes start filling with tears when they talk about the way people were treated under Saddam, you will never understand. Until you are hugged by Iraqis who talk of their appreciation of you and America, you will never understand. And neither CNN, nor ABC, nor CBS, nor NBC will ever give a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq, because it is not in their best interest to do so. So forgive me if I don’t jump right in with the MSM’s “scandal du jour”, since they have been proven to be so reliable.
Nobody ever said the plan was perfect, nobody ever said good soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors would never die, nobody ever said that it would be done in 6 months. But don’t tell me that it wasn’t the right thing to do.
Didn’t mean to go off in another direction!!
This entire incident saddens me and I pray for everybody in Iraq, including the innocent Iraqis. I hope to God this isn’t true, but it seems like day after day there are more reasons to believe it did happen.
The sad thing is that they will paint this with a wide brush, saying it is all Marines that are like this, that they are breainwashed, ect.
In every group there are bad apples, in churches, in politics, and even in the military.
Of course the media, just like with the Duke case, will broadcast, talk about it, speculate about it, and try and blow it up even more to help inflame their viewers and listenrs to promote the stopry – not caring one wit about whether or not they wait for the facts, they will whip public sentiment against the military.
I am not saying it did not happen, but they do deserve their day in court, albiet it will be a military court, they should still get the fair shake they are entitled to, without the media whipping the story up into a frenzy, calling it a massacre, and cover up, and all sorts of things till the facts are KNOWN.
Again every group has bad apples, it is how we deal with those bad apples that determines how we view the whole of it.
They should let this be investigated fully, if found guilty they should do the maximum sentence, because we need to set the example that if someone does something wrong they will be punished for it. Otherwise we will show the wrong image to the Iraqis and what we are trying to accomplish there.
Gary: I tried to provide some background into why a fellow marine might think and therefore speak as he (Murtha) has. I’m sure you understood that. My introspection is based on my beliefs. Those basic concepts are subject to the perusal and judgements of any, who are privy to and capable of, reading english.
I find no enjoyment nor seek denunciation to anything. Did I misunderstand your initial request?
Gary: you asked about what I refer to as a blanket explanation in deference primarily to Murtha, no. Did you catch what I wrote of Murtha earlier? I think it’s likely this story has more weight than I’d like to believe, but one must consider the source and the motivational practices prior to now, for people like Murtha and other politico’s.
“Why are you not, if he said something wrong….” I said nothing of the kind Gary. My point was what I said earlier. What “blithely toss(ed) about slurs and assumptions….. did I speak of?
“We’re trying to win the hearts and minds…..”, and so how does providing addittional in your face style of “my bad” help the cause Gary? You seemed earnest in your initial appeal of being referred to as a “sick soul” and more than one here has attempted to provide input. I presume that your cause is noble.
I work for a living Gary, so when you ask about Hagee and the other three questions I don’t have all the answers. But again, you wanted and got input as to the references you mentioned earlier, no.
“The sad thing is that they will paint this with a wide brush, saying it is all Marines that are like this, that they are breainwashed, ect.”
I don’t know who the “they” there is, but obviously no one but a few lunatic extremists will say any such thing. Obviously most of the folks who want withdrawals as soon as possible — of whom I don’t happen to be one — don’t feel that way, and implying they do is either ignorant or dishonest (I’ll choose ignorant — most folks don’t do well at understanding people they disagree with).
“I presume that your cause is noble.”
Thanks.
I’m about ready to bow out here. Thanks for your courteous input and responses.
Incidentally, I finally got through to Confederate Yankee’s site, and he reiterated that I am a “sick soul” and a “sickening soul” because I take a different view from him. I’m sorry he doesn’t believe in civil disagreement, and that’s been my only issue here, not discussing Iraq policy, which I’ll note again, I gave a lot of verbal support to as regards the invasion. My own position, before the war, as it went on, and through today, is that reasonable people can differ on what we should have done and should be doing, and that none of the moral choices available have ever been perfect, or without cost. No matter what, innocent people were going to suffer. It’s the real world, and there are never perfect moral options.
And we’d also have a better world, and a better country, in my view, if people were more willing to attempt to understand the points of view of those they disagree with, and to grant them the benefit of the doubt that they are sincere and looking to do the right thing, rather than assuming the worst of them.
Lastly, I think more Iraqis, in the end, will be impressed by the strength of our devotion to free speech, if we display that prominently, and there’s more chance they, and other oppressed people around the world who eventually find freedom, will adopt free speech, if we stand up strongly for it, rather than what will result if we stomp about trying to suppress it and condemn it on the grounds that we deeply disagree with it, are offended by it, think bad results will come of it, or that bad people will get the wrong idea from it.
I believe freedom of speech is one of our greatest strengths, not a weakness.
I don’t join with those who wish us to instead act more like North Korea, Cuba, Myannmar, China, and so on, and suppress Wrong Opinion, because Bad People will get the Wrong Idea from it.
But that’s me.
Anyway, I’m outa here. Thanks again for a good discussion, although I’m sorry Sistertoldjah never responded.
Happy Memorial Day weekend, and as I wrote, one soldier we shouldn’t forget is Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, who died at Haditha.
I don’t know who the “they” there is, but obviously no one but a few lunatic extremists will say any such thing. Obviously most of the folks who want withdrawals as soon as possible — of whom I don’t happen to be one — don’t feel that way, and implying they do is either ignorant or dishonest (I’ll choose ignorant — most folks don’t do well at understanding people they disagree with).
Unfortunately if you think it is ignorance that brings about this statement then you are wrong.
All you need ot do is look at the news, look at who gets the news. Any one that has something bad to say about the administration gets air time.
Marines killed Iraqi civilians ‘in cold blood’: US lawmaker
Murtha calls Pentagon’s top general a liar
Murtha To Military: Don’t Blame Me
If your a critic of the military and of the administration it is already proven you iwll get the air time, even if as you say it is only a select few ‘extreme’ Lunatics that speak like this, it is these ‘lunatics’ as you put it, that are getting the air time like their point of view is te view of most Americans. THEY are the ones that will paint the military with a wide brush, and THEY are hte ones like murtha that will get the media air time, all the time, every day, to push their point of view as if it is the Majority view.
but it seems like day after day there are more reasons to believe it did happen.
What reasons would those be?
Ilario Pantano, some of you may remember him as being railroaded in the press when he was accused of murdering an Iraqi, has perhaps the MOST relevant and pertinent opinion of all about this and Murtha:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/27/AR2006052700846_pf.html
- Severin the left jetisened “due process”, factual debate, and rule of law long ago. Just one more of the myriad ways they practice hypocricy.
- Bang
Expose the Left
Now Murtha is saying General Pace, who has been an outspoken critic of Muthas, ordered the massacre.
I think it is time for Murtha to retire when he is accusing Marine Generals who criticize him of ordering massacres.
Murtha has already crossed the line more than once. I honestly think the man has lost it, and I would guess at some point he’ll become such an embarrassment, he’ll be more of a liability than a help to the left, and then like Saint Sheehan, they would be so gleeful.
- Bang
Murtha is a self important pig who will say anything to keep his ugly mug in front of the cameras. His complaining that the White House didn’t pay enough attention to him illustrates that this is all about stroking his massive ego. He felt slighted, and by damned he’s going to get even for it, no matter who he slimes and hurts. Disgusting, but typical for a Demorat these days.
Am I reading this wrong or does Gary say that he hoped that Iraq would go badly??
Indeed, as I’ve said since before the war started. I happen to think that the last three years have gone vastly more badly than I’d ever hoped,
This comment is found at the beginning of the 4th paragraph of Gary’s 5/27 10:28 post. Is he telling us that he hoped the war would go badly, and is he telling us that the war is going worse than he hoped for?? I think there is some need for clarification, and I am hoping that I am just reading this wrong. – Lorica
I’m sure he’d probably deny that was his intent but the subconcious works in mysterious ways, perhaps a Freudian slip?
Purple Avenger,
It just seems that the stories that are coming out are not painting a very good picture.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197168,00.html?sPage=specialsections.foxnews/lawcenter
It is obvious that something happened, and it is obvious that the Marines were invovled. That is all we know for sure. The rest is, indeed, speculation, however, it just doesn’t look good.
I for one am reserving judgement until the investigation is complete and the results are released, but I am afraid that it may not look good for the Marines. I pray that I am wrong and I pray that it did not happen the way so many think it did.
You know, there’s an obvious hypocrisy here in how the MSM and the libs/Dems, particularly that pig Murtha, are treating this and how they treat crimes by others, particularly special groups. I’d like to call attention to this:
Murtha (before the investigation is even done and before any charges are filed and before a trial has been performed and verdict rendered): These men are cold blooded killers who murdered these Iraqi’s (paraphrased I didn’t look up his exact words).
Dems and libs are just fine with this. Now imagine a different scenario, a black man walks into a store owned by Koreans (just so we can get the racial element in here), pulls a gun, forces the old lady and young man behind the counter to kneel and caps them execution style in the back of the head, we have high quality surveilance video and eye witnesses. Now imagine that someone on the news, a DA or a cop says:
So and so (the perp) is a cold blooded killer who deliberately murdered these two innocent shopkeepers. (all before a trial, and not saying “alleged” in his statement).
Can you imagine the screaming and wailing and gnashing of teeth that would occur? The libs and press would crucify him for daring to assume guilt.
Talk about double standards.