CY,

By all means, let's get that censure meme going!
I for one would welcome the visual of Hastert and Sensenbrenner and other Republican House stalwarts standing in front of a camera and calling for censure for Rep. Murtha. As the Preznit says, bring it on!

nick f, you do seem to have a great deal of difficulty staying on topic, don't you? CY made his points very well, yet you parade off into Never Nerver Land...

CY, I believe you may have momentarily forgotten the Liberal Law of Logic, and I would be remiss if I did not recall it for you. The Liberal Law of Logic: "Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about."

Remember, liberals cannot respond when facts and fundamental logic are used in the same argument. It just sends them into overload and that is not a pretty sight.

(this originally posted by Nick F. and was deleted accidentally)

CY calls again for censuring Rep. Murtha. Why is commenting on that "never never land"? I know it's difficult for you but please try and address what I say instead of your usual "Liberals=bad, wingnuts=good" BS.

As to the validity that I charged for Murtha to be censured again, I suggest you check your reading comprehension. I was explaining a position already made, not stating it again as a separate event.

nick,

"It is a fair question to ask why I chose to call for Murtha's censure, while ignoring Kline's comments thus far,..."

I believe CY's words; "chose to call" and subsequently, "I called for..." refer to the past tense and are not really relevant to the point of the current post.

I read the current topic as being: first a response to a small "d" diety, and second an opinion as to why Kline's words were an acknowledgement of what was already reported, versus the irresponsibly inflamatory words espoused by Murtha. A further or new call for Murtha to be censured was not made.

Two former Marines spoke of the incident; both carefully chose their words. One was careful to acknowledge a possible bad situation for the Corps; the other invoked a political advantage in support of formely stated opinions about the war. Believe me, Murtha's "in cold blood" are not words carefully chosen to deflect aspersions against his "beloved corps".

CY,

Understood, you were restating your call for censuring Rep. Murtha. That's what I'm addressing. I for one think it's a great way to elect Democrats. As for OS, I don't know where to begin. He doesn't much care for comments that conflict with yours. Too bad.

Nick F is either intentionally being obtuse (and thinking he’s clever by doing so) or he is mind-numbingly dim not to understand what is being stated here. Censure is not the subject of this post.

Any further attempts by you to purposefully change the subject of a comment thread to an off-topic discussion will be met with banning. I’ve been a good sport for several weeks, but as you have proven time and again that you are far more interested in trolling than substantive conversation, I’ve pretty much reached the limits of my patience.

If you are interested in discussing why Kline’s commentary on the Haditha shootings is contextually different than Murtha’s, then by all means engage in a thoughtful discussion. If you can’t stay on topic, please head elsewhere.

As for Old Soldier, he knows far more about the military than you or I ever will. I suggest you try to learn from him. I certainly have.

I have no idea what is going on, but my trackbacks are not showing up here or in several other blogs I link to. I've linked this one, Bob. Thanks for doing such a nice job with it.

Gaius

I really hate to go off topic after CY's post, but aren't comments like this also off topic:

"Remember, liberals cannot respond when facts and fundamental logic are used in the same argument. It just sends them into overload and that is not a pretty sight."

Listen, I understand why smart-ass, partisan logic pisses people off, but please, take the high-road and don’t sink down to their level with generalized ad-hominem attacks. You’re just going to further divide this country, and with all the challenges facing us right now, partisan bickering is the last thing this country needs. I hope you’ll excuse me for going off topic; the partisan attacks that have increasingly dominated the comments section of this blog have really been irking me and I’ve been meaning to say something.

Kline stated known facts. Murtha added supposition and speculation.

When I read some of Murtha's statements, I formed the perception that he was tarring more than just the few Marines involved, all as part of his larger issue with the war. That stinks of politics and is why I believe that Murtha is a useful idiot for the enemy.

When beheadings were occurring and innocent civilians are being blown up in the market, where is Murtha in being judge, jury, and executioner for those "crimes"? Maybe if he were as voiciferous against all of the "innocent" killing as he is against us and these Marines, then maybe I would belive him to be sincerely against this war. Politics.

Just gather and confirm the facts and then act on them accordingly.

Judging others before their day in court ?? Shocking !! And let's all remember theat O.J. should always have been thought of as innocent. Reps Kline (R) and Mutha (D) were both at the same briefing. A briefing that was done by the Commandant of the Marines. As was Sen Warner (R) they all reached the same conclusion: that there was every reason to believe that something horrific had taken place. Perhaps not as bad as My Lai but something that may be an insurmountable obstacle to cover up.

”Listen, I understand why smart-ass, partisan logic pisses people off, but please, take the high-road and don’t sink down to their level with generalized ad-hominem attacks.”

Keram, since you quoted me, I’ll respond; I accept your criticism as being intended to mediate. However, I will tone down when I see the olive branch being extended from the left along with a spirit of mutual respect. Until such time I shall respond to liberal comments that are intended to insight in kind. (That implies that the host will indulge my comments.) I spent 31 years active duty defending everyone’s right to free speech. To suggest that I should exercise constraint when confronted with antagonism is charitable, but most unrealistic. I commend your intent at mediation; but rest assured, I shall respond within the confines of my conscience.

This is not meant as a rebuke; rather as insight into this old soldier’s position.

Banned is exactly what I would expect from a bully. Can't defend what you say? Ban the critics!
No need, you're deleted from my hard drive.

Asking Nick to stay on topic was too much for him, I take it.

The "general" has tried to rope me into playing along with his folie a douchebag a few times. I think I bit once, and regret it to this day.

He's an asshole, and best ignored.

But if you're gonna answer him, CY, this was probably the best way.

J.

hehe good work CY.

Let us be honest for a second. Practically noone comes to blogs such as this, or DailyKos, or Jesus General, or Townhall, or Huffington Post, or NRO, etc., etc. to actually debate anything. Like myself, there are just a whole lot of people that like to see their thoughts on the page, and if people will read them and get pissed off, then even better!

Please answer me honestly: How many times has your mind been changed on an issue by what you read on a blog or a blog's comment section? If there was such a time, what was the issue, and how did your opinion change?

Comment sections on sites like the ones I've named above are for people to say the same thing over and over and over again so they can get some perverse pleasure out of rehashing the same argument with no interest in opening their minds to the possibility that they might be wrong.

Why do we always seem to forget that one-half of an argument is almost always wrong, and oftentimes it's more. This CAN and WILL include you, no matter how sure you may be.

"This was not an accident," said Minnesota Republican John Kline, a former Marine colonel who was briefed about the killings along with other members of the House of Representatives armed-5ervices committee. "This was not an immediate response to an attack. This would be an atrocity," he told The New York Times.

Time to call for censure of Kline too, I think.

Tired, were you analyzing motives or self-fulfilling?

CY,

Seems like splitting hairs to me. Anything more than "No comment" is giving an opinion about what happened, thus passing judgement. How can one be "saddened, surprised and outraged" if you haven't been given enough information to make up your mind about what happened? Hmmm...what could Kline be saddened, surprised and outraged about in this incident...hmmm...Maybe all the Marines are innocent and he is saddened, surprised and outraged they didn't kill all of the people in those houses...yeah, that must have been what he meant by that...

Don't care for General JC's tone, but it does seem he caught you fair and square...

The "General" is Tim Hill, a deranged leftyloon, he used this stchick with Art Bell a few years ago.

matt a, remind me never to play poker with you if you feel general jc caught CY "fair and square." There is a significant difference between being "saddened, surprised and outraged" at news versus leveling an accusation of "cold blooded murder" before the investigation is completed. If you have any powers of reasoning left, you must acknowledge the difference...

Old Soldier - plenty of reasoning power left, the difference is semantics and rhetoric of politics. "There's a significant difference..." Not WRT what happened, just how it is spun. One side is going to spin it up, the other side is going to spin it down. The crux of CY's argument is that Murtha should have said nothing before the investigation was completed, yet here was a Republican accusing the Marines of a "horrible aberration". CY showed it himself with Kline's quote in NY Times, "a small number of Marines who fired directly on civilians and killed them". If a Republican says it, why even have a trial, eh? Did Kline say "cold blooded murder"? Seems like everyone is more upset because Murtha had a better sound-bite than with the actual incident...

You are very smart.

matt a,

But the other thing you hve to consider is the behavior of these two gentlemen (and I always use that word tongue-in-cheek when it comes to Congresscritters of either party) in the press/media over the past few months. Remember, Murtha has used the war as a political objective - to tar the Bush administration. Kline has not. CY's censure idea is just a result of a cumulative effect. It is not just this incident. Look at the bigger picture. I'll give you an example - Murtha hanging out with Code Pink - the group that sits outside hospitals and protests soldiers. Cause and effect here.....

tired,

Sorry CY - a bit OT.

You are right that people do not change their minds much, but people do learn more of the background and that can help. For example I leared a lot about Kerry's Silver Star incident from Doug Reese over at JOM. I still don't like Kerry - but I learned.

nick f,

Banning? Well - at least places like CY tolerate people for weeks at a time and warnings are posted. I got banned from TruthOut in one day because the regulars did not like my comments. No warning given. That sounds more like lefty sites. It is rare when a right site bans people. When you get to nutz, we just ignore.

Specter, do you live in La La Land? Your last post certainly seem to indicate so. Any person on any blog who attributes any particular displeasing activity solely to the other side (i.e. only lefties band posters) has lost his capacity for meaningful reason. Look, there's a-hole lefties and there's a-hole righties that run blogs, and both groups of those folks ban commenters in relatively similar frequencies.

More importantly, let's consider my hyperbolic description of blog managers who ban commenters as a-holes? Does banning a commenter really make a blogger an a-hole? Probably not, as they are most likely going to ban trolls who waste time and space by spouting talking points, abusive generalizations and the like. Fact is, we don't read blogs to hear some snarky lefty/righty insult our view points or our politics. We read blogs to get perspectives on current events from people of a like mind. Thus, the fact that TruthOut banned you is probably more a testament to your trollitude than to any inherent quality of theirs.

And finally, with regards to Murtha's "hanging otu with Code Pink", of what relevance is that to anything, including censure? As our Supreme Court has pointed out, the freedom of association permits individuals to associate with other people of their choice, and the freedom of expressive association cannot be abrogated without a showing of a compelling state interest. I dare say that you nor anyone else on here can elucidate a compelling state interest that might serve to bar Rep. Murtha from chillin' with the Pinkies.

Old Soldier, and any others who claim Senator Murtha gets any political advantage from his stand:

First, I disagree with you on this point. I think Murtha's motivations lie entirely elsewhere, and that if you were paying attention you would notice this.

But please ask yourselves where, and why you think he can get any political advantage, and then compare with the Administration and the monarchical powergrab over the past five years.

How do you think Murtha will get more power, influence or support in government by making these statements? He's a Democratic Senator in a Republican controlled Congress. Many, if not most, of his party colleagues take an opposite position. So it's not going to get him on any committees or move him up the party hierarchy. It does not stand to give him more power or influence.

The popular support for his position is nationwide, not in his state, so it doesn't particularly secure his position as a delegate.

His only possible audience is in the Armed Forces, who are loyal to the Commander in Chief, and as such they're historically more likely to vote for the boss and his party. So no extra votes there either.

On the other hand, the political advantages to the Administration of staying in Iraq are transparent: withdrawing troops now, with Iraq in its present state, would be an admission of failure, weakness and wrongheadedness by this already unpopular Administration. These would be massive political disadvantages (and if there were Democrat support for Murtha in Congress, then you'd have a point - but there simply isn't). Politically the Administration will not do the thing that would have prevented this atrocity (in Kline's own words), this random act of violence by marines who are losing their discipline because they have been at war for too long.

Decry this act of political expediency, then, because it is real, and call instead for the courageous act of withdrawing troops because it is what our troops need.

Or it will just get worse, and we will get weaker as a nation.

Everett,

You obviously missed the point. Try acting like a troll on most right sites. You will be tolerated, made fun of, etc. But rarely banned. Yes - there are going to be extreme sites that ban people quickly, but it is more rare than the left. TruthOut, which is not considered far-left extreme bans people right and left - no warning - nothing - all you have to do is disagree with their position and it happens. That isn't La La Land boy, it is fact. So does Larry Johnson. I can name others.

Yet here, trolls as well as people who can disagree and discuss positions are tolerated to a point and then warned. Case in point - you start your post with an attack against me. Listen pal - I don't know your experience on the net but I've been around since george, lisa, gopher, telnet, etc. I participated in usenet debates when most people didn't know that the internet was more than the WWW.

You are right that Murtha has the right to hang out with Code Pink. Never said he didn't. I said it shows his attempt to use Iraq as a political leverage point, rather than showing concern about our soldiers. C'mon - These people gave money to the insurgents. They supported the people killing our soldiers and then protest against wounded soldiers outside the hospital. Do you think that is the right thing to do? You see - you tried to change the subject. It wasn't about Murtha's rights. It was about his behavior and character. Get a grip!

Specter -- please make your arguments without lying. Even in right-wing news sources, the most damning signs in Code Pink's protest that they could cite were "Maimed for a Lie" and "Enlist here to die for Halliburton." I don't much like these protests, but this is hardly "the group that sits outside hospitals and protests soldiers", as you say. They are not protesting soldiers, they are protesting those who get soldiers wounded and killed for lies.

"It is rare when a right site bans people." -- this is so at odds with reality as to be risible. The banning practices at right-wing blogs are far more aggressive, just compare Daily Kos with Red State. CY is a rare exception, and even here...

Also, your smearing of Murtha is very unbecoming. Murtha is a war hero who bled for his country, an old war hawk who's been a tireless defender of the military in Congress over many, many years, initially supported this war, and is the person in Congress with the closest and deepest ties to the Marines command structure. Most everyone in Washington understands this: if you want to know what the Marines generals are thinking but can't say, listen to Murtha. He was willing to speak up when even Democratic leaders wouldn't -- and expose himself to this kind of smearing -- because his ties to the military have made him more aware than most of what a strategic disaster we are in, what damage is being done to our armed forces, and what an intractable lose-lose situation this has become. Your smearing of an honorable man says much about your character -- putting party about country.

I believe Murtha came forward on Haditha for two reasons:
(1) he is genuinely shocked at the moral damage to his beloved Marines that's being done by being calously thrown into this hopeless situation and by a morally corrupt leadership (cf. Gonzales' torture memos, Rumsfeld and Miller's role in Abu Ghraib), and
(2) to get ahead of the WH/RNC treasonous spin, who would blame it all solely on the Marines (cf. Abu Ghraib) to protect themselves politically, without regard for the damage to the Marines' morale and to our security (cf. Plame, Valerie) -- that's why Murtha's top talking point is always how this is a failure of leadership.

(Typo, that would be: putting party *above* country.)

bat guano,

How do you think Murtha will get more power, influence or support in government by making these statements? He's a Democratic Senator in a Republican controlled Congress. Many, if not most, of his party colleagues take an opposite position. So it's not going to get him on any committees or move him up the party hierarchy. It does not stand to give him more power or influence.

The popular support for his position is nationwide, not in his state, so it doesn't particularly secure his position as a delegate.

Well....let's see how to discuss this. According to the MSM dems will controll Congress come the fall. Would you think that maybe he was promised something to make a vocal stance? Look at it this way - who ever heard of obscure Murtha before he came out with his "cut and run" strategy? Nobody. He was completely off the radar. But - he has a solid service record so somebody propped him up (ummmm.....DNC maybe?) to start making waves about Iraq. Could it be that he is a small cog in a bigger strategy? 'Twould seem so.

Please show your evidence about people "nationwide" supporting Murtha. And be careful because most of the polls have been very thoroughly vetted. But I would really like to see you back that point up.

mikezw

Standing outside a military hospital spouting off that you were wounded for lies, oil, corrupt politicians is extremely tactless.

They are right up there with those that protest at military funerals. IMO.

Now, back on topic.

Saying that bad things happened, civilians were shot and killed and it is a horrible situation is understanding that a horrible incident happened. The investigation will bring out the details as to HOW it happened. Doesn't make it an easier pill to swallow but it could be the difference between a terrible crossfire that killed innocents and some rogue military purposly killing those innocents. That is for a court to decide, not Murtha.

Concern and sympathy is ok, Telling the world that those Marines are guilty after looking in a crystal ball is not.

mikezw,

I never questioned Murtha's service, did I? You see - you tried to change the subject. It wasn't about smearing him for his service record was it? But you insinuated that is what I did. Now prove I said that since you decided to say that I did. Go for it.

One thing I haven't heard from those saying that Murtha was doing this for "political gain" is just what "gain" they're talking about. It reveals it as a talking point and those that use it as stenographers for someone else's purpose. And why the implication that all "political gain" is bad? Working for the Civil Rights Act was working for "political gain," and it was obviously good political gain. Working to end the Vietnam War—and pointing to the deaths of tens of thousands of young Americans to end it—was working for good politcal gain.

Your implication seems to be that Murtha's's trying to simply get reeleced—in Ohio—by smearing Marines.

WTF?

Seems to me that Murtha is working for the good gain of taking Marines and other fighters out of harms way in a wrong war. And, like Jean Schmidt did, a decorated, combat-serving Marine is being smeared here...for a much less honorable political gain.

Thom,

Show one place where any one in this forum smeared Murtha's record. Just one. Try it. You may not like what you find.

Whatever happened in Haditha will come out. If it was rogue military they should get what they deserve. But what we know for a fact about culpability is...well....nothing yet. More and more details are coming out. It is not right for anyone - including Kline - to be making any statements about the issue yet. Certainly not "cold blooded murder" statements. Here is some information from yesterday's WaPo:

Drone's Video May Aid Marine Inquiry Footage Shot on Day of Iraq Incident

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 30, 2006; A03

Military investigators piecing together what happened in the Iraqi town of Haditha on Nov. 19 -- when Marines allegedly killed two dozen civilians -- have access to video shot by an unmanned drone aircraft that was circling overhead for at least part of that day, military defense lawyers familiar with the case said in interviews.

~snip~

Yesterday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said charges will be issued against troops if the evidence merits it. For now, however, "it would be premature for me to judge" the outcome of the two U.S. military investigations, Pace said on CBS's "The Early Show." "We'll get to the bottom of the investigation and take the appropriate action."

Iraqis who say they witnessed the violence in Haditha have said U.S. troops shot men, women and children at close range in retaliation for the death of a Marine lance corporal in a roadside bombing. The two investigations -- one into the incident and another into allegations that military personnel tried to cover it up -- began this year after news reports challenged an early military statement that the civilians were killed in the bombing.

~snip~

"There's a ton of information that isn't out there yet," said one lawyer, who, like the others, would speak only on the condition of anonymity because a potential client has not been charged. The radio message traffic, he said, will provide a different view of the incident than has been presented by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and other members of Congress. For example, he said, contrary to Murtha's account, it will show that the Marines came under small-arms fire after the roadside explosion.

Well...it could be spin too, but the obvious bottom line is that we do not know the outcome of the investigation yet.

Specter -- you said: "It wasn't about Murtha's rights. It was about his behavior and character." You smeared Murtha's character, for your own petty political gain. *You* made character the issue, so it is legitimate for me to argue back based on his character. Like Thom said, Murtha has nothing to gain personally from speaking out. His concern is for the Marines and for the country. The same cannot be said of those who smear him.

Retired Navy -- I never condoned those protests, actually I specifically said I don't like them (although they are perfectly legitimate, and the country needs to return to a tradition of respect for dissent which is central to its character, if America is to remain America). The point was that Specter was lying about the nature of the protests in order to smear Murtha. While I don't feel much affinity for them, I believe that people in Code Pink genuinely care more for the welfare of the soldiers than those who put party above country to defend the criminal incompetence and disregard for the welfare of soldiers of this Administration (cf. cuts after cuts to the VA budget).

BTW Thom - it would be kinda hard for Murtha to be reelected in Ohio seeing as he is from Pennsylvania. Facts anyone?

Spector, you can't be serious.

How about the headline for the very latest CY post: John Murtha: My Lai-r

And I how about his from May 26:

Even if these accusations are proven true—once charges are finally brought and duly prosecuted—Murtha's grandstanding is still a reprehensible act, trading upon horrible (alledged) murders for temporary political gain.

You really can not be serious.

Specter --

A chain of speculative assertions ending up with "T'would seem so" does not make a cogent argument.

Thanks for playing.

mikezw,

That is because there is a problem with Murtha's character. But you said:

Also, your smearing of Murtha is very unbecoming. Murtha is a war hero who bled for his country, an old war hawk who's been a tireless defender of the military in Congress over many, many years, initially supported this war, and is the person in Congress with the closest and deepest ties to the Marines command structure. Most everyone in Washington understands this: if you want to know what the Marines generals are thinking but can't say, listen to Murtha. He was willing to speak up when even Democratic leaders wouldn't -- and expose himself to this kind of smearing -- because his ties to the military have made him more aware than most of what a strategic disaster we are in, what damage is being done to our armed forces, and what an intractable lose-lose situation this has become. Your smearing of an honorable man says much about your character -- putting party about country.

Right off the bat you tried to tie the questions about Murtha's character to his war record. Look at your own words mike. You think he gets a free pass for his stances today because he has a solid service record? Why? It does not make sense. Try again - explain to me who (besides his local constituents) had ever heard of Murtha before last year. Why don't you find a few articles from say 2000 about his stances.....

And your assertion that he is has the closest ties to the command structure? Where did you get that? I would be willing to bet you are wrong. So put up your proof and then we'll talk. You made the claim - not me - it is up to you to prove it.

You're right, Spector. Pennsylvania, not Ohio. More facts?

Spector, I just saw your word game with me. I said:

And, like Jean Schmidt did, a decorated, combat-serving Marine is being smeared here...for a much less honorable political gain.

You changed that to:

Show one place where any one in this forum smeared Murtha's record. Just one. Try it. You may not like what you find.

I didn't say someone smeared his "record." I said they (you) smeared him. That's weasely.

By the way, I went to check out the original post, and it turn out that "Jesus' General" has a reply to CY:

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_05_28_patriotboy_archive.html#114904819525164952

I'm not sure it's my favorite style of satire... but he does hit the key point: the full quote from Kline is 'pre-judging' as much as Murtha.

And, by the way, there's nothing wrong with 'pre-judging', i.e. discussing how you see the facts available, we all do it all the time for every kind of case. Commenting publicly on how you assess the available facts so far would only be an problem if he was in the command structure or somehow involved in the legal proceedings. Otherwise he can and should discuss it. Murtha is regularly in touch with the Marines generals, more than anyone else in Congress, and wouldn't be speaking up if there was any doubt that this is a serious problem.

Thom,

What happens is Murtha was wrong in his assertion? I'm not saying he is or is not - we simply do not know at this point. What happens to the families of those soldiers that have been accused. Aren't they already guilty in your eyes? In the eyes of everyone who hangs on Murtha's every word?

Nevertheless, your implication was that people are smearing Murtha's military record. I asked you to show one place. Still haven't seen it. Try again.

Specter -- let me spell it out real slow:

1) We were discussing the validity of Murtha's comments on Haditha, how they compare with Kline's, etc.

2) You tried to impugn Murtha's character by bringing up issues unrelated to Haditha (the silly Code Pink stuff), and suggested Murtha was interested in harming the military for 'political gain'.

3) Since you had shifted the argument to impugning Murtha's character and motives with unrelated issues, it was important to respond: Murtha has proven himself to be a man of great character over his entire life, and a tireless defender of the Marines -- and this had to be said in response to your smear. He has nothing to gain politically from this (when almost every other Democratic politician is cowering, that should give you a clue), he's speaking out and putting himself in the line of fire (politically speaking) out of a sense of duty to the Marines and to the country.

Holy crap. Is this what I should expect here? From Spector:

Nevertheless, your implication was that people are smearing Murtha's military record. I asked you to show one place. Still haven't seen it. Try again.

Here's what I said:

And, like Jean Schmidt did, a decorated, combat-serving Marine is being smeared here...for a much less honorable political gain.

First, I never said anything like what you claim I did. And you have no response for the smears I did find.

God, what a waste of time.

Thom,

I am going to break this into two posts.

Now just where did I "smear" Murtha. I do not like the man. I do not like his politics. I do not like the game he is now playing. I do not like lying and trying to take advantage of issues like this for political gain. But you show me where he was so well known for his positions before a year ago.

But don't take my word for it. Let's go to Murtha's words himself:

From Face The Nation, March 5, 2006:

Congressman Murtha, thank you for coming this morning, and I want to start by quoting something that General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said this morning on "Meet the Press." He said he believes the way in Iraq is going, in his words, "very, very well." What is your assessment?
Representative JACK MURTHA (Democrat, Pennsylvania; House Appropriations Committee): Why would I believe him? I mean, that administration, this administration, including the president, had mischaracterized this war for the last two years. They, first of all, they said it will take 40,000 troops to settle this thing right after the invasion. Then they said there's no insurgency. They're dead-enders is what the secretary of defense said. On and on and on, the mischaracterization of the war. They said there's nuclear weapons. There are no nuclear weapons there. There are no biological weapons there. No al-Qaeda connection. So why would I believe the chairman of the joint chiefs when he says things are going well. I ask my staff--when my staff--when they make a statement like this, I say, `Look, look in the latest report that the State Department puts out, the Weekly Report, and tell me how much progress we've made.' So they look at it, and we've made no progress at all. Sixty percent unemployment, the Iraqis want us out of there. Eighty percent of the Iraqis want us out of there. Oil production below prewar level. Water production, only 30 percent of the people getting water. Now our troops are being fed well and being taken care of. They're doing everything they can do militarily. But they're in a situation where they're caught in a civil war. And there's two participants fighting for survival and fighting for supremacy inside that country, and that's my definition of a civil war.
So I don't believe the secretary. I think we're not making progress. We're caught in a civil war. We've lost almost 20,000 people in this war, if you count the casualties and the people who've been killed in the three years we've been involved.

More to come...

Part II

From the State Department Weekly Report - the same time week - the one you would think Murtha was referring too:

-Iraqi Police and Coalition Forces conduced a raid resulting in the death of Abu Asma, the Al Qaeda military leader of northern Baghdad.
-The Police Chief of Diwaniyah Province...and Col. Larry McCallister, commander of Gulf Region South District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cut the ribbon to officially open the 32nd police station in Diwaniyah Province.
-The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed construction on the $118 million New Power Generation Plant in Basrah Province. The new plant will provide power to approximately 1.5 million residents.
-On February 21, the US Army Corps of Engineers completed construction on the $3.4 million Al Abara Substation, an Electric Distribution Project in Diyala Province. The rehabilitated substation is capable of providing power to approximately 60,000 residents.
-U.S. and Iraqi troops have stepped up their patrols in Iraq's Baghdad and Babil provinces, and with assistance of ordinary Iraqis, discovered and defused numerous roadside bombs, mine fields and weapons caches.
-Total trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces: 232,100.
-Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Ja'afari claimed that sectarian violence in his country would not derail efforts to set up a new government and said the security situation was as now under control....The number of attacks has dropped sharply over the last few days.
-Construction is complete for the Al Basasel School project that 150 students and eight faculty members will utilize in Mosul. The US Army Corps of Engineeers completed constructed on several other educational facilities:
--Renovations on the Malk Al Ashtar school project in Diwaniyah, that will benefit some 2,000 Iraqi students.
--A girls' school housing 480 students in Khairat, Karbala Province.
--Refurbishing of the Imam Ali School in Karbala....This school will serve approximately 960 students.
-US Army Corps of Engineers completed a water pump station project that will benefit approximately 100,000 Iraqis in the western part of Mosul.
-Construction is complete on two US-funded Village Road Projects in the Basrah Governorate that will provide improved transportation for 6,000 local residents in Taha and Al Khas....
-The dinar remained stable against the dollar this week, ending at 1,476 dinars per USD on March 1.

So let's see...Murtha's staff reviews this report and tells Murtha that no progress is happening? Yet the report clearly shows progress? How dishonest is that? It doesn't smear his service record does it? It shows disregard for facts though.

Part III

Let's look at more of his statements. According to the CIA Factbook for 2005 the Iraqi unemployment rate was 25%-30%. Seems like Murtha's 60% was stretching things a bit, doesn't it? Not only that but from the same source:

Although a comparatively small amount of capital plant was damaged during the hostilities, looting, insurgent attacks, and sabotage have undermined efforts to rebuild the economy. Attacks on key economic facilities - especially oil pipelines and infrastructure - have prevented Iraq from reaching projected export volumes, but total government revenues have been higher than anticipated due to high oil prices. Despite political uncertainty, Iraq has established the institutions needed to implement economic policy, has successfully concluded a three-stage debt reduction agreement with the Paris Club, and is working toward a Standby Arrangement with the IMF. The Standby Arrangement would clear the way for continued debt relief from the Paris Club.

Murtha claimed that 80% of Iraqi's wanted us out of there. Yet the worst poll for us I've seen is the World Public Opinion Org poll entitled What the Iraqi Public Wants, published January 31, 2006, and it says:

Support for Timetable

Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of the Iraqi's favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of "within six months" and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years. Just 29% say it should "only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq."

So it seems Murtha's number was somewhat high. Hey - he has staff to check this stuff.

You see...I don't question Murtha's service record. In fact I have never seen anyone attack it. But I do question his politics. And that isn't a smear. I just showed you through his own words how he, at best, tries to stretch the truth to prop up his position. That is wrong. And just so you know - if you have read my stuff - I don't much trust any politician. There are those I like better than others, and some I loathe.

mikezw,

That is not what happened, although you may twist it so. The comment I made was about whether CY's issue of censure makes sense. The issue was why Murtha and not Kline - that is where we were in the discussion where you popped in. My point was very simple for those that can read and comprehend at the same time - It isn't just Murtha's comments on Haditha that culminate at this point. It is his overall behavior over the last year or so. Kline does not have that type of record. Here is what I said:

But the other thing you hve to consider is the behavior of these two gentlemen (and I always use that word tongue-in-cheek when it comes to Congresscritters of either party) in the press/media over the past few months. Remember, Murtha has used the war as a political objective - to tar the Bush administration. Kline has not. CY's censure idea is just a result of a cumulative effect. It is not just this incident. Look at the bigger picture. I'll give you an example - Murtha hanging out with Code Pink - the group that sits outside hospitals and protests soldiers. Cause and effect here.....

It was simply a comment. You are the one who tried to take it from there and insinuate that I am smearing a "warhawk's" record. LOL...warhawk. Right. But you went further with unsubstantiated claims that Murtha is the closest congresscritter to the generals. Gee...his comment from face the nation sure don't support that.

I have put up my opinion about Murtha. Take it or leave it. But if you think it is right to support a man who supports groups like Code Pink - go right ahead. Elections are coming - even in PA right Thom? ;)

Spector:

Now just where did I "smear" Murtha. I do not like the man. I do not like his politics. I do not like the game he is now playing. I do not like lying and trying to take advantage of issues like this for political gain.

You changed the field to fit your play midgame again. Now it's you I was supposed to find a smear from? That's not what you asked:

Show one place where any one in this forum smeared Murtha's record. Just one. Try it. You may not like what you find.

I didn't like what I found. I found smears. And showed them to you. You showed your inability or unwillingness to face things directly and dodged to "Murtha's record." Now you dodge to "where I smeared him." And then you dodge to another subject completely: But you show me where he was so well known for his positions before a year ago. and print two large excerpts which I will not read.

And BTW, you smeared him while denying smearing him: I do not like lying and trying to take advantage of issues like this for political gain. Calling someone a liar who takes advantage of deaths for selfish gain is a smear.

But you knew that. Now show us how big of a man you are and don't dodge. Face this.

Specter -- you are poorly informed on Murtha's record in Congress as a hawk and a tireless defender of the Marines (either that or you're lying), and you're impermeable to logic (you can't ask us to listen to an argument based on Murtha's record and then rule out 99% of his life-long record as out of bounds from the discussion). Have a nice life.

mikezw,

I hear you pontificating, but I posted Murtha's actual words and facts - yes facts - that actually belie his words. Where are your facts and links? Any? Any at all? Or are you just going to use your brilliant rhetoric?

Old Soldier you have yet to answer for why it is terrible for Murtha to comment on the incident, but ok for his republican counterpart to comment on it.

You see why your credibility is at zero on this, don't you? We KNOW Murtha is a decorated marine, well loved by his fellow marines. We DONT know that you are anything more than a lowly enlisted member of the 101st Chairborne Division of the Fighting Keyboardists Corps. Thus, anything you have to say is of no consequence.

Thanks for playing.

Thom,

We are cross-directing - if that is a good word. Ok. You meant general smear. I meant smear his service record. I don't think anyone has smeared his service record - here - or anywhere I have read about. But I think frank discussion and criticism of his current politics is in order.

But then again - I posted some facts that you have not responded to. Do I smear his current politics - not sure smear is the right word - but I do not like his politics. Never will. If he was my congresscritter I'd be out to depose him. Yet I support Joe Lieberman who is one of my Senators. Go figure.

I think the mistake you may be making here, CY, is assuming that you know as much as Murtha knows about the situation. Jack Murtha has been an influential voice within the Pentagon and the foreign policy establishment for years. Without a doubt, he has access to information that the So-called Liberal Media and blogs alike do not. Regardless of how one feels about Murtha's politics, I think one has to consider a little more respect for the source. He has certainly earned the benefit of the doubt.

Beyond that, have you ever heard of a Marine that did not support his fellow Marines and the Corps? Look at Murtha's record: he's consistently a supporter of the military. True, Murtha is against the war, but then so is most of America. That doesn't disqualify him as a credible source on military matters, especially sensitive issues like Haditha, given his access to military top brass.

Finally, I think there is a definite tone in Kline's comments of condemnation for the act. I find it too much of a stretch to believe that Kline, an avid supporter of the Iraq war, would be "outraged" at 20 or so civilian deaths. There have been tens of thousands of deaths of Iraq. No one supporting the war can credibly claim to be "outraged" by the casualties, unless they have a child's understanding of the realities of war. Kline's comments clearly indicate that he sees something particular about this incident, and, if you believe Murtha is wrong to criticize, then you're being hypocritical not to hold Kline to the same standard.

Lisa,

Read the whole thread. Already answered because what was said was different. One said - something happened and it was horrible no matter the reason. One said cold blooded murderers of women and children. All this before the facts are out.

I agree that civilians being killed is horrible. No question. I believe that the investigation needs to be completed. No Question. I believe that no politician should be making public comments before the investigation is complete (reminds me of Nifong saying that the DNA would prove all - but having to back off that after the results came back). Any statement can prejudice the results. Which one do you think made the more prejudicial statement?

Game over.

Spector:

We are cross-directing - if that is a good word. Ok. You meant general smear. I meant smear his service record. I don't think anyone has smeared his service record - here - or anywhere I have read about. But I think frank discussion and criticism of his current politics is in order.

Thanks for attempting to come to common ground on language.

Now that we're here—I'm not what the difference is. To call Murtha a liar who uses the deaths of Marines for selfish gain is to smear him as a person, obvioulsy, AND especially a smear as a Marine. That doesn't require a lot of thought, does it? If you don't mean to smear his "record"--fine--but I think you do anyway saying what you do. Please consider that.

And let me remind you, I entered this conversation saying that of the people accusing John Murtha of using this for "political gain," none spell out what that gain is. And, replying to the charges by very many in the right blogosphere, here included, that Murtha's words were harming the Marines, I said it seemed that Murtha—a Marine—was the one being smeared. That's an unfortunate irony, IMO.

You then came after me, let me remind you, by saying nobody in this forum smeared Murtha. That's obviously not true, and I showed that.

And your response to the "political gain" question was this:

According to the MSM dems will controll Congress come the fall. Would you think that maybe he was promised something to make a vocal stance? Look at it this way - who ever heard of obscure Murtha before he came out with his "cut and run" strategy? Nobody. He was completely off the radar. But - he has a solid service record so somebody propped him up (ummmm.....DNC maybe?) to start making waves about Iraq. Could it be that he is a small cog in a bigger strategy? 'Twould seem so.

Wow. Spector, you can't really want to use this. You seem to be really hot about asking for "proof" here...so what about this?

and you can't see the smears built into it? "Cuta nd run"? And he was "promised something" (????????????) to diss the Marines that he served with for 37 years?

Man. I'm trying to stay polite now, Spector, but I think it's time you offered something like an admission about some of these points.

Spector

You asked me: "What if Murtha's wrong?" I'd ask you the same question. What will you do if Mutha is wrong? What will you feel? What will you say and write? What is the fire that burns your anger at Murtha? What if he's wrong?

What if he's right? is surely as good a question, you can't argue with that, can you? What if he's right? What will you feel? What will you say and write?

I'd charge that if this turns out to be true and Murtha had waited until after all the Marines involved were convicted to say a word—your anger and vitriol for Murtha would be the same. I charge that of you, CY, Malkin, Powerline, etc.

This is about disagreeing over this war—and the tactics used in arguing the disagreement. I charge that these tactics displayed here are base, are smears, are disingenuous, are intentional distractions. They reflect the strength of the overall argument of this side.

What if Murtha's right, Spector?

If he's wrong, I'll be shocked and angry, to tell you the truth. And I'll probably write him an email asking him to very plainly explain himself and apologize.

You have to realize that this is largely about trust: Getting info on Marines—who am I going to trust more? A 37-year Marine and current member of Congress (and ranking minority-member on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee), or CY? Or Malkin? Or you? Of course I'm going to take his words very seriously. And I can not take seriously the words of those who, without any showable proof or even access to proof, call him a liar and a coward and on and on and on. And because, it seems demonstrated, he doesn't agree with you on the war. That's it. Disagree--get smeared.

If you want respect, attention, all that--this stuff has to change.

If he's wrong, I'll be shocked and angry, to tell you the truth.

Why? Its obvious he's gone soft in the head in his old age. I can't hold senility against anyone.

Spector, I offer you Purple Avenger as Exhibit A in my argument.

I'm sure you understand.

You said:

How many times has your mind been changed on an issue by what you read on a blog or a blog's comment section? If there was such a time, what was the issue, and how did your opinion change?

While my opinion may not be changed all that often, I am often forced to at least think about those opinions by comments at dailyKos, much like comments from my moderate conservative father-in-law do.

Those that visit blogs to see thier words on the screen are not there to listen. W/o listening, there will be no growth.

Cheers

Specter,

In impugning John Murtha as an unknown who is making his name by criticizing the Marines and Bush you really show your ignorance to national politics. Murtha has been widely known for years for his "non-Democratic Party" views. The man has been a long-time friend of the GOP in Congress "crossing the aisle" continually to vote against abortion rights and gun regulation. He has regularly earned a 0% rating from NARAL and A+ from the NRA. And, due to the "man bites dog" nature of the ratings, has long been a known factor in politics.

Republican Presidents and the Republican Congress have made Murtha their first stop when attempting to gather bi-partisan support. Now that the "party machine" has been turned loose on Murtha it's doubtful he has improved his position, as you think. His name has been so tainted it's doubtful he's the first destination for the GOP.

Murtha has been in Congress for 31 years and is quite well known for his term on the Armed Forces Committee, his hawkishness and his willingness to stand up for the "common fighting man", the grunt on the battlefield. His recent stands in the public eye against the Bush Policy in the Middle East is nothing new for Murtha and it is perfectly mirrored by the actions during his long term in office. And, it is also about time someone in Congress stood up and talked about accountibility for ones actions. He finally got your attention (and took the right's indignation over the Spanish version of the US Anthem off the front page as a bonus!!!).

Thom,

Sorry - had to mow the dang lawn.

Listen - I have pointed out many times that I think Murtha's strategy here is just a small cog in a bigger strategy. The DNC has been actively trying to pull down this administration for 5 years now. You can't even question that. They needed someone who has a solid military record to be the point on the Iraq policy issue. Now if they did not care about the record - why not just use Kerry - I mean at least he was well known throughout the country. But no, we bring out Murtha because no-one can actually pick at his military record. But he is still talking just the DNC talking points.

Now lets talk semantics. Obviously your definition of smear is not anywhere near mine. Smear means villify to me - and is much more serious in my mind than in yours. You think "cut and run" is a smear. I don't - I think it speaks accurately of Murtha's position. You think my saying Murtha "lies" is a smear. But did you read my Part I above as to what Murtha said on "Face the Nation"? Did you note that in part II, the very thing that Murtha says he used to determine that there was "no progress" in Iraq (the Weekly Report) had a ton of good news in it showing just the opposite? Why would Murtha say the opposite? I posted information that showed that many of Murtha's statements were at best exaggerations, at worst outright lies. Not a smear if the facts back up the claim. Sorry...the quotes speak louder than plain rhetoric.

Rick,

Find one national level article about all that about Murtha from before 2004. You have made statements, now back it up. Sorry - plain rhetoric doesn't cut it for me. Sorry if you like it when people believe you simply because you say it is so.

I have been debating national politics for many, many years. Quite frankly I lived in PA for quite some time. Never heard of Murtha before 2004. So educate me - but with something besides just words.

Above I posted actual words that Murtha spoke that were not true. Why haven't any of you who would malign me spoken to those actual words from this year?

Kline notes the undisputed facts that the killing of 24 civilians was conducted by Marines, that this was going to be an "ugly story" and that in his opinion, such killing by Marines were "an aberration." At no point in his commentary did he attempt to assign motive, nor guilt, nor innocence. He merely commented on what most of us already knew from the Times and ABC News follow-up reports in mid-March.

John Murtha, however, has apparently declared himself prosecutor, judge and jury in this case. He pointedly accuses the Marines of killing civilians "in cold blood," and even attempts to ascribe a motive and a mindset, more than six weeks before the report of the investigation is even ready for release.

Wow, that's splitting the hair mightly finely there. I assume that you have the same sources as Mr. Murtha, so you're right, we should let the investigation run its course.

If it is indeed true, I'm sure you'll show some of that conservative moral fortitude that I keep hearing about and apologize.

Spector

Befoe I go and look, and I don't know if I'll be able to until this evening, your "proof" of Murtha's lies falls flat to me in a couple ways. First: You could list out the yin-yang reports of "progress" in Iraq and say Murtha's ignoring it and it seems equivalent to saying he ignored that "Mussolini made the trains run on time." Are an obviously strong indurgency, daily bombings, scads of other "non-progress related" events, not to mention 2,500 American deaths just a friggin' blip to you? That I can not understand.

As to the Weekly Reports. So he thought the "progress" reported didn't mean a lot compared to rather horrible parts of the report. I agree with him on that. It really does seem like lipstick on a pig.

And id you get the CIA numbers on unemplyment from Powerline?

Murtha claims the unemployment rate in Iraq is 60%, which is unbelievable on its face. This is a figure that is sometimes cited on far-left blogs, which I suspect are Murtha's source; the CIA's World Factbook estimates Iraq's unemployment rate for 2005 at 25-30%. (The Factbook didn't attempt to estimate the unemployment rate under Saddam.)"

And why go to the CIA Factbook when you were claiming he ignored the Weekly Report? What did the Report say about it? did it say anything? Here's the Voice of America (why won't that link work?) in February of this year:

Although the Iraqi soldiers say they joined the army to fight terrorism and defend Iraq, in a country with an estimated 30 to 60 percent unemployment rate, the contractor says money is also a big incentive."

So what are you gonna go with?

Huh. The site does not seem to allow VOA news.

You mean here? Yep - CY doesn't allow links to various sites. But you can look up the sites and stats yourself. But my statement stands - Murtha said on national TV that based on the "Weekly Report" he could see that no progress was being made in Iraq. Flat out lie from my perspective. How can power plants, schools, etc. be no progress? He did not qualify it as "well the bad outweighs the good." He said, to quote specifically, "So they look at it, and we've made no progress at all." That is BS. No getting around it.

So now you want to dispute the numbers. Go look for yourself.

Spector, that's quibbling and you have to know it. If someone standing next to a burning house puts out a fire in their dog house and says "I'm making progress," and I report to the neighbors that "No progress has been made," I'm not lying. I'm giving a good portrayal of what's happening. That is entirely reasonable and applicable here.

And give me the link to the Weekly Report.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/62580.pdf

You can look at all of them. BTW - it is not quibbling. It is a fact that Murtha said this on national television without any qualification. It is a fact that he said it specifically in response to the reading of the Weekly Report. Go figure.

CJ=Troll. Good DNC talking points CJ. Nice pet doggy. Can't even spell....gawwwd....

But listen CJ - you obviously did not read the entire thread. Too anxious to get to the bottom and be a troll right? I said a few times above that NO POLITICIAN should be speaking out about this before the investigation is over. Bet you missed that huh? The reason that Murtha is worthy of more disrespect is his record of stretching the truth beyond credibility. He is the one who called the marines cold blooded murderers and insinuated a cover-up. Not Kline.

But CJ - I will agree with you that it is a sad incident. I also believe that we are doing more to get to the bottom of it than at any time in our past. But that does not mean that Murtha's statements are a foregone conclusion.

CJ - please benefit us with the divine knowledge of the General about how long it took to defeat insurgencies in Germany after WWII. Just have him look in his crystal ball....Let's see...Iraqi army defeated, Hussein dethroned, Democratic government (ME style of course) elected, New Iraq army and police forces taking over security of major areas of the country, PM selected, Cabinet selected, government holding meetings, new shcools, employment up over pre-war, government not stealing the Oil For Food money from the civilians, Al-Quaeda saying they are hurting. All that and we can't say we won. I wonder who we are fighting - who are the parties in this war that the General tells you about?

Folks just a reminder that here, we have certain, quite reasonable standards of what we consider acceptable speech that we try to observe. Keep your language clean, or you'll find your comment gone.

Thanks CY. Where can I figure out what links you allow and which ones you don't?

Hey CY, why no linkage to VOA allowed?

It sounds like the mu.nu spam filter is getting overly aggressive again. As you folks hit a snag, shoot me an email and I'll see if I can clear it out. Thanks for your patience.

Thanks CY. Great minds think in similar ways huh Thom?

Sorry, but I did read the "thread." I remain unconvinced.
The "progress" Specter lists is not only exagerated, but is not what we went there for.
Iraq is moving into open civil war. Today, the Pentagon is sending 1,500 more combat troops into Iraq.
Hostile Militas control the State Security Forces- not the other way around. The various factions are going to fight it out with themselves and Americans- as long as we stay there.
This is Vietnam all over again. The question is not whether or not we Bug Out, but when.
I just hope my Air Force nephew doesn't pay with his life for Bush's hubris.
As far as Murtha Vs Kline, your picking of nits over what they said is very unconvincing and doesn't change the facts.
Certain Marines have broken faith with their nation and commited murder. Others will pay with their lives because of the fury of the Arabs.
I blame Bush.

Is Confederate Yankee trying to sound like William F. Buckley? Cause it just comes off as pompous.

Is this a universal winger thing? I see this a lot on winger blogs and it really turns me off.

See CJ - you just did what Murtha did. You claim they murdered. How do you know? Has the final report been sent out? The answer is no. You are making assumptions.

ManOnBlog,

So don't come back. Don't let the door hitya on the way out....

Specter,

You are obviously only interested in pitching a fit.

My comment was dead serious. What is it with everybody doing the fake WFB in wingerland? Doesn't it embarrass you?

Ah, but you didn't really respond in the first place. Fool me once...

Spector

Didnt get what you were referring to with the "great minds" remark. Am I being to hopeful that you were being nice to me? I thought we'd come to a pretty civil argument.

Thom,

I do appreciate thought out arguments rather than just ad hominem attacks. And even though there are going to be points we can agree to disagree on based on our own POV, I still do learn from discourse and debate. Quite honestly, I don't think I was "mean" to you, but we both know that we aren't going to agree about Murtha. 'Course I don't get to decide if he stays or goes - Johnstown/Somerset people do.

Great minds comment was that one after the other we both asked CY about the links posting rule. Just thought it was funny.

ManOnBlog,

Apologies if I misunderstood your stereotypical attack on all right wing bloggers and people of a conservative bent. Ahhh...but then again you knew you were attacking people's beliefs with your first post. Obviously, you were not interested in discussion of any point of view - you just wanted to get yours in. Sorry that reality burst in on you.

It may have been missed in the hinterlands, but the stink of something being very wrong with the action in Haditha was around form the day after the attack, when the Iraqi government first raised an alarm and called for investigation. Mind,the only place that I heard of this was on such 'liberal' institutions as the NPR and the BBC; in the main American media, it was a number of insurgents killed, same old, same old...

all nice and quiet, at least until Murtha spoke- his was a voice that could not be easily dismissed or ignored. In the view of man, he did the honorable thing, when faced with a corrupt administration who's preference for hiding ugly truths is lamentably well documented- he ensured that the truth would not remained buried. Restitutions was offered to the Iraqi families involved soon after the incident- someone on high knew what happened and tried to make amends, even as they also apparently attempted to keep it quiet...

At this time, what happened in Haditha appears to be an egregious tragedy- but what the silence afterwards speaks of, is of something more monsterous.

My Cousin is a Marine. They're a real touchy lot when it comes to Honor and the Corp. A piece of dust on another guy's uniform sets them off. Right or wrong, I can see where Murtha and Kline are coming from. Jarheads, they love that Corp more than anything. ( I was in the Army). The whole affair points out one thing I think we can ALL AGREE on. The TROOPS have been hanging in the game WAY too long. Rotated over and over and NOBODY is talking about ending this thing. I had some neighbors once, we didn't get along and I thought they were NEVER going to move, the thoughts I had, the things I dreamed. Yeah, I can see how this came about. I'm not condoning anything I'm just saying. It all just shows, we need to do more for our TROOPS than what we're doing or we're going to be seeing a whole lot more or worse.

Wow. You have to get up pretty early in the morning to slip one past Confederate Yankee.

BTW, you wingnuts would make things a lot simpler if you would just explicitly state for the record that you believe that the commission of war crimes is far less serious than the discussion of war crimes. Your side used this logic with the young John Kerry, and now you're using it again with Jack Murtha. So at least you're consistent, at least when it's Democrats doing the discussing. When Republicans like Kline or John McCain do the discussing, they get a free pass. Do you really imagine for a second that you aren't completely transparent with this act?

Hey CY, if you want to soft-pedal the crimes of baby killers, that's one thing. But to accuse the General of blasphemy is too much. Even though his manliness must seem God-like to you, he has never called himself a deity. He is merely the humble servant of (The Republican) Jesus. Hence the apostrophe in the title of his blog. (For more information on this concept, try googling the phrase "possessive case.")Hey CY, if you want to soft-pedal the crimes of baby killers, that's one thing.

As Michelle Malkin points out, now that unauthorized, anonymous leaks of the full situation have come out, we can go ahead and start treating it as a war crime. That doesn't mean Murtha's not a girly man traitor, since he did it first, before any unauthorized, anonymous leaks. I think the distinction is clear.

Anyway, the list of people we need to swiftboat now is unfortunately getting pretty damn long. We must keep up the effort, it's just the going is going to be tougher from here on out.

And this is nothing like My Lai, so stop saying that.

Uhhh....Arkanjil,

The investigation into the incident started right away, and is now coming to a close. Murtha did not start the investigation by speaking up. He just opened his yap at the wrong time - again.

lazerduh,

Sounds like you are trying to conflate the records of the two together. Murtha has a solid service record and deserves it. Kerry...well don't start on that. He deserved what he got.

But here is the point, other than Murtha's position on San Salvador in the 80's, find one national issue he was prominently involved with up until 2004. An issue where people knew his name and face from the exposure. You see - it is near impossible. Contrary to what has been posted, the man really isn't a hawk. He is very supportive of troops and equipment for them. But the Dems needed someone with a solid service record to speak about the WH policy in Iraq. They obviously could not use Kerry - he was tainted by his own self-inflicted campaign wounds. So out pops Mrurtha - speaking the DNC talking points.

Quite trying to make it sound like the feelings about Kerry and Murtha are anywhere close to the same. They are not. You should try reading the whole thread. I laid out some pretty durn good quotes about recent lies from Murtha (at best wild exaggerations). Rather than just attack back with your words, why don't you try to find some way to rebut what has been presented as Murtha's recent congressional level blunders.

Wow....I think that Jeff is actually Murtha. He starts right off with baby-killers. Right into DNC talking points. Such a mesmerized group....

So Jeff - I seem to remember several times in this thread where CY and I and others have stated that when the investigation is completed, if the soldiers have done what has been rumored, they should be put on trial and get everything they deserve (and to me that is much, much more than the 3 1/2 year that Calley got). So don't say that we soft-pedal. That is not true. But we are patiently waiting for the report. Then take action to make sure nothing like this happens again. You, on the other hand, have already become judge, jury, and exectutioner. So much for the legal process - Murtha threw it out and now Jeff does. You guys ever heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"

I bet Jeff that you were one of the people blogging around that talked about "Like...duh...hey man, I support the troops, but not, you know...like...the war." And now you don't even support the troops....

Spector, read Arkanjil's comment again. She didn't say that Murtha started the investigation. Not even close. She said it was "all quiet" public-wise. that's correct. I am personally thankful to Murtha for bringing it to the light. Best disinfectant and all that.

And if you've been in combat then I'll listen to a single word from you about kerry in combat. If not, not a single word.

And again, the conspiracy theory you roll out about the Dems and Murtha is just that--a conspiracy theory. It deserves as much attention as the 9/11 theories. You go on about "proof" from one side and then bring out this from the other. Spector, we're not idiots here. That shit ain't gonna fly. Stand up, speak straight. Please.

And your wild-eyed contempt and had-wringing over Murtha's words would be more believable if (and now back to the orignal subject) you, and CY and others, expressed the same for Kline. But you don't. You make hairbrained excuses for him. "But Kline didn't say 'cold-blooded! And he didn't insinuate a coverup! And he didn't use it for political gain!"

Stand up.

Specter, you must live in a bubble. You make the most absurd unsubstantiated assertions, and believe that by repeating them they become true.

I have pointed out many times that I think Murtha's strategy here is just a small cog in a bigger strategy. The DNC has been actively trying to pull down this administration for 5 years now. You can't even question that.

The only part of this statement I can agree with is that there's no question: the problem is that the rest is speculation and nonsense.

Go back and read the debate on the AUMF. I listened to it at the time. You will find almost none of the Democratic Senators opposed to granting the President the authority to deploy troops in Afghanistan: most clearly, I remember Robert Bird, of all people, dissenting, on constitutional grounds.

As a body, the Democrats have given, and continue to give, this Administration a pass.

But perhaps I'm wrong...

What is the nefarious plot that lies behind the Democrats voting to approve Hayden for the CIA, Roberts for Chief Justice, Gonzales for Attorney General? You seem knowledgable about the inner workings of the dark and mysterious cabal that is the DNC: lay out the inner workings for all to see! Expose the evil machinery! If they don't take money from Abramoff, surely their souls are sold to the devil?

Naaah. You see, Specter, this is what makes you a wingnut. It's like you've got three teevees in your head and they all show Fox News. Them Dem-a-crats, they's awl trayters an' turr-rists. 9-11.

I meant to comment about that too.

The DNC has been actively trying to pull down this administration for 5 years now. You can't even question that.

What the hell do you think political parties do? That's just ridiculous.

Thom,

Well I tried to be nice, but you want to attack all the time. So be it. So where did Murtha come from then? I've asked you to point out a specific, national level, issue that made him such a well known leader of men and nationally known. Besides San Salvador in the early 80's - there is nothing. Are you seriously and intellectually trying to debate the fact that the DNC needs to cast aspersion on the administrations Iraq policy? Gawwwd...and bat guano says I live in a bubble.

With respect to Kline - read my posts. Try it just once. I've said NO politician should be making statements period. Simple. But, with Murtha's consistent dissing of the war in Iraq, he has opened himself to additional scorn and derision simply because of his past stances. Figure it out for yourself. You could not even come up with an argument about why Murtha was caught lying on Face the Nation a mere two months ago. If you don't like it...too bad. You've posted nothing that would change my mind about the man.

As to Kerry - what most of you who would support him don't get is that it isn't mostly his combat record that is in question. It was his activities after that. Winter Soldier, Paris, testifying falsely in front of Congress, claiming he went to Cambodia on a Swift Boat, etc. You guys don't get it. You try to lump everyone into a stereotype. I never questioned his combat record or the fact that he served. I do question how someone gets that many medals in 4 months of active duty - can you explain it? But look at his record afterwards. Get over it.

Here is more of what Murtha claimed:

"Who covered it up, why did they cover it up, why did they wait so long?" Murtha said on "This Week" on ABC. "We don't know how far it goes. It goes right up the chain of command."

So let's see - an investigation was going on. Several people have been relieved of command. Murtha claims cover-up. Where? Just more spin on his part? Get a grip.

bat,

You are too offensive to comment back to. Sorry. You are so brainwashed you can't even see it. They've given a pass to the President. LOL. Let's see - backing away from their statements about Iraq after the war using hindsight, cut and run, economy is horrible, PlameGate, QuailGate, President is lying,...gee I guess none of that is from the Scandal du Jour crowd that you are so enamored with. Get a grip! And you say I'm in a bubble.....yep I guess your name fits.....just a pile of non-thinking.....

Spector,

For the record Murtha never said "cut and run". He said re-deploy in the region.

You seem interested in getting things straight. Just trying to help.

Spectre,

Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

So let me get this straight:

- CY: Milquetoast WFB wannabe.
- Specter: CY's spittle-flecked attack poodle.

So tediously typical of winger blogs.

Have gone through these tedious -- sometimes childish -- comments, and not one word by CY in response to the quote by Kline about Haditha being an atrocity. CY cherry-picked a quote by Kline, ignored the bad ones, and then said Murtha is worse and thus deserves censure. CY, you are not being intellectually honest.

Reasonable Dem,

So, I’m “intellectually dishonest” for not selecting the exact Rep .Kline quote on the subject that you cherry-picked, is that correct? Interesting…

So the Kline quote that has your panties in a bunch is this one:

Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., a retired Marine colonel, told the paper that the allegations against the Marines in Haditha indicate “this was not an accident. This was direct fire by Marines at civilians. This was not an immediate response to an attack. This would be an atrocity.”

I fail to see where this approaches the level of vitriol of Congressman Murtha’s comments (which, by the way, are getting progressively more unsupportable, from his implication that the killing civilians is now a policy of our military, to his statements that the “highest authority in the Marine Corps” was somehow involved in a cover-up scheme.) Murtha said the Marines, “killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” This strongly premeditated murder without pretext; a capital offense. Murtha has not online incited the Marines, he has convicted them of first degree murder by his words.

Kline tells us what we already know. He says that “this was not an accident.” 100% accurate. These marines were not firing at someone other than those they killed. He states that “this was direct fire by Marines at civilians.” Again, to the best of what we know, this is 100% accurate, and I’ve not seen it seriously disputed.

The next sentence I’m not so sure of, but the trial (and I’d be extremely surprised if there wasn’t one) will let us know for certain if at least some of the civilians killed were not killed as an immediate response to the attack. Again, I don’t like to speculate, but some sources have indicated that very soon after the attack (and I don’t know if that time is measured in seconds or a minute or minutes), five Iraqis apparently running from a taxi were killed. Without commenting on the legality of such a shooting, that would appear to be a more or less immediate response.

The last statement, “this would be an atrocity” is a conditional: do you not see the word “would” I this sentence? It depends upon the veracity of the other three statements (in addition to others Kline does not reference, but a trial certainly would) that need to be true for an atrocity to occur.

Sure, folks on the left call this “splitting hairs,” but that is the very essence of what you do when you break down homicides into justifiable and unjustifiable, and among unjustifiable homicides, the different degrees of murder, manslaughter, etc.

Kline, in this example you were so eager for me to comment on, ends on a conditional statement say what would be an atrocity if all condition as are met as described. That “would” is very important in understanding his context.

Murtha, on the other hand, directly charges Marines with premeditated murder, with the highest levels of the Marine Corps with being accomplices to premeditated murder (what else does an accomplice do, but help commit or cover up a crime?) and implies that such killing are not only accepted, but accepted military policy.

Quite frankly, if you can’t see the gulf of difference between where these two men are coming from, then you are far less than reasonable, and I’m at a loss for words as to how to make it any more clear.

That's right, CY. By taking apart the statement and treating each sentence as separate and isolated, you remove the meaning of the whole.

That would be disingenuous.

So I go from providing not enough information about Kline's comments, to too much (thought to be accurate, I deconstructed each sentence and reassembled the statement as a whole to show what it meant as a cohesive thought, so BGC's complaint is without logic or merit).

You know, you might make people start to think that the only thing liberals are good at is constantly complaining, and that you are, as you put it, "bat guano crazy."

Let me sum up:

Dems: Good at complaining too much.
Reps: Good at getting the US into situations where "atrocities happen" and then also good at arguing the inconsequential and trivial aspects of said atrocities.

Tough choice, but I think the Dems win here.

And it's all about winning, isn't it?

Not one of Klein's first three sentences in the quote under discussion is conditional. Klein states them as fact. His concluding sentence, that it would be an atrocity, is couched in the same form as "that would be disingenuous".

Which your argument is, CY.

But what's my complaint? I'm sorry, I missed it. Could you be specific?

CY: Good at arguing (in an annoying pseudo-WFB tone of voice) a distinction without a difference to DEATH, and then calling YOU crazy.

Arg. Now my comments are being censored. Tut tut, CY. And our loss, Spector.

Okay, I was just trolling for attention with the baby killers remark, and it didn't even get me that much. Just one guy who wants to bleat about due process Yeah, yeah, let's be patient and let officialdom do its work: we all agree that this is what should happen. However, what many on the left are accusing the right of is hypocracy. Thought experiment: let us say that it was American women and children who were slaughtered in cold blood by Iraqi soliders, then further suppose there was a delay and/or a cover-up of the said murders. Do you really expect us to believe bloggers like CY would be calling for due process and measured rhetoric?

Ah, the sound of crickets from CY.

If, when Kline says "would" it's conditional, and he's not actually saying there was an atrocity, then by the same reasoning, if I say "would", that's conditional too, and there is no complaint on my part that CY is being disingenuous in his argument.

But this is a small place: in the real world, it's looking worse for our troops. The reports of indiscriminate slaughter keep coming. This is a sad time.