Nice job, dumbass. Tbogg took you to school this morning: http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/08/well.html

Linked from
Old War Dogs >> Marine Names Murtha in Defamation Suit (Updated, bumped)

Sam, How dare you question the narrow minded focus and incompetence of CY. Facts are for fools.

Oh well....

Aug 2, 9:46 AM (ET)

By ROBERT BURNS

WASHINGTON (AP) - Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentgon official said Wednesday.

Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.

Liberal bloggers and their fans are so amusing. As I left in a comment at tbogg:

Uh, Short Bus,

From the time this story broke to the public, there was never any doubt that the Marines had killed these people. The question was whether or not the killing were criminal (i.e. outside the rules of engagement). That still has not been decided by the investigators to date, and no Marines have been charged with a crime.

One again, you raise a non-issue and act like it is a profound statement.

When a lefty blogger gets the basic facts right, that will be news.

His sputtering response was even more amusing.

That his blog-hopping commentors aren't any more intelligent shold be expected, I suppose.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060802/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/haditha_investigation_3

Seems odd that the lawyers sueing Murtha are saying that defense dept officials deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false info, so Murtha is to blame for libel. Wouldn't he had to know it was inaccurate and false for him to be guilty of libel? How would he know that if he was being briefed by people supposedly giving him accurate info? Kinda like the GWB Iraq defense, "I was given faulty intelligence". It will be interesting to see if the courts will touch "statements made outside the scope of a congressman".

Confederate Yankee,

I'm still waiting on you to give an answer to tbogg's "sputtering response". How could shooting unarmed women and children be considered within the ROE?

I'm all ears.

Wow. That sure was a "sputtering" response. So are you going to explain to us bloghoppers (as opposed, presumably, to your devoted fans, who might be referred to as "circlejerkers") how killing women and kids is now within the rules of engagement?

I'm guessing not, but I'd love you to try. God knows the world isn't already so full of BS that we can't do with a little more.

Guy, even the Pentagon is taking the line that the Marines shot the women/kids on purpose. At least read the news and see what the military has to say before running with your story. It just makes you look like you lack common sense.

When the women and children are shooting, when they are hidden behind obstructions near the ones doing the firing and are caught in 'incendental' cross fire, when they are in their homes while a gun battle is going on in their street and they decide to peek out a window.

There are many scenarios that need to be investigated to see if the "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" Marines are at no fault, partial fault, or full fault for the deaths.

Well, I guess that Marine should sue the DoD for providing those facts.

He also may want to sue the JAG officers who bring any criminal charges against the guys who killed those women and children.

Oh my gawd you can't be this obtuse.

It wasn't the AP that chose to break this non-story (and it is in fact a story Sparky) it was the Pentagon.

Who hate Marines and America and want the Islamafacists to win no doubt.

You keep questioning timing and we'll stick to questioning your intelligence and sanity.

Retired Navy,
If the Pentagon says the women and children were "unarmed" then how could they have been shooting at the Marines? Also, if the women and children were caught in a crossfire, how is that "deliberate" as the Pentagon says?

As to the bigger question: How is Marines deliberately killing unarmed women and children not cold-blooded murder? If that's not it, then the word has no meaning any longer.

I was answering Southernboy's question of how.

As to the the facts of Haditha, I stand by innocent until proven guilty. That civilians were killed I have no doubt. That some Marines killed them is probable. The question is HOW it actually happened.

I very much Doubt it was an Execution like Murtha stated (Hence the Libel suit).

They could have been used as shields, crossfire, stray fire etc. The point is, WE don't have the intelligence, that was sent to the JAG office and they are reviewing it to see when and IF charges are to be filed.

To sit at they keyboard and proclaim "GUILTY" doesn't let our justice system play out. Our system isn't perfect, but from what I have seen (I've been around the world, literally) it's the best around.

Now, if any are found guilty, let justice serve and send them to jail. Until then INNOCENT.

How could shooting unarmed women and children be considered within the ROE?

There are more scenarios than I can dream up to be sure, but lets take a look at one that has happened dozens of times that has been well documented.

Troops manning a checkpoint on a road notice that a vehicle is approaching their position at a high rate of speed. Despite warnings (the exact kind may vary), the vehicle continues to close at a high rate of speed. The soldiers, according to their rules of engagement, open fire on the vehicle.

Sometimes, they kill a suicide bomber. Sometimes they kill the enemy. Other times, they kill civilians. In the later instance, troops followed their rules of engagement, but committed no criminal acts.

Let's look at another one.

A military convoy is ambushed. Soldiers in the convoy return fire. A vehicle in the convoy fires into a building where they see muzzle flashes just seconds before.

Civilians are killed. The soldiers were responding well within the rules of engagement, and civilians died. Again, not a crime.

Let's try some more.

Another convoy is ambushed with an IED. Some in the convoy are injured or killed in the initial blast, which is immediately followed by small arms fire from surrounding buildings. The convoy fires back, and engages in foot pursuit of the enemy, firing as they run, clearing buildings. Civilians could have been killed, but weren’t

Yet another convoy is ambushed with an IED. Some in the convoy are injured or killed in the initial blast, which is immediately followed by small arms fire from surrounding buildings. The convoy fires back, and engages in foot pursuit of the enemy, firing as they run, clearing buildings. 24 civilians are killed.

The last two incidents sounds very similar, don't they? The former describes the convoy attack that nearly killed ABC News co-anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt. The later describes the Haditha incident as reported by the Marines in Haditha.

The Marines in the Haditha incident may be guilty of crimes, they may not, but to date they have not even been charged. To ignorantly assume that the killing of civilians is automatically outside the rules of engagement and a is a crime shows just how detached some of you are from the reality of war.

Yes, civilian deaths are always a tragedy, but that does not automatically make them a crime.

( moe or less cross-posted to Tbogg, for both of you who care)

Murtha doesn't have to "know" his statements were false in order for them to be defamatory. A reckless disregard for their truthfullness/accuracy can suffice.

What part of "that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians" is giving you the stupids?

If all your scenarios applied here the Pentagon wouldn't be pursing the case would they?

Those Marines deliberately murdered civilians, of that there is little doubt, now we need to know why.

salvage, in the scenarios I outlined above, the Marines deliberately shot civlians as well. But there is a huge difference between shooting civlians and premeditated murder (or for that matter, a crime), which is what I'm trying to pound through your wee little mind.

Nice of you to pass judgement prior to them even being charged, though.

Should we just skip the trial and execute them?

CY,
I notice you forgot the "deliberately" in that last comment. Oversight, I guess.

Should we just skip the trial and execute them?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 2, 2006 11:36 AM

Sounds like that's what happened in Haditha. Can you not see the convoluted nature of your arguments?

For those of you who have never cleared a room in a building(which is what was going on in this case under orders by the way) You throw in a grenade and then continue in firing to clear the room. These Marines did what they were trained and told to do.
I feel bad that civilians died but if you dont align yourself with the enemy in the first place they wouldnt have had to clear your building.

Yes David, they "deliberately" shot them. Are you happy now?

Of course, the question I perhaps should have brought up earlier is that if these Marines are so bloodthirsty murderers as all of my liberal commentors seem to suggest, then why haven't they already be charged?

*crickets*

For all my military readers, just remember:

They support the troops.

If you can't understand deliberately shooting civilians in self-defence or a combat situation and just shooting them then you can't be helped.

It has been confirmed that they killed unarmed civilians and then tried to cover it up by claiming that insurgents had done it. Hardly the actions of innocent men, had it been an understandable scenario like you describe they would have called the medics and their leaders and said “We’ve got civilians caught in the crossfire.” and that would have been that. Civilians get killed by American soldiers in Iraq all the time but they aren’t the subject of criminal investigations by the Pentagon, what does that tell you about this situation?

I do not believe that Marines are in the habit of killing civilians like this. Did they snap? Were they ordered to? Is there some piece of the puzzle we’re missing? Are they a unit were all the dregs and psychos were put together creating a time bomb? (that’s what I think happened with the animals that plotted and executed a child rape and murder.) I have no idea what the full story is and that’s what I hoping the trial will bring to light.

If there is one.

You can bet that the Bush Administration will do all they can to prevent one, as is their way.

And CY, do I really need to go through your archives to find examples of you or approving links to those rendering judgement without trial?

Actually the Marines did inform there squad and platoon leaders that they civilians down. If they had just went shot them up and walked away how would we know about it now?

If you can't understand deliberately shooting civilians in self-defence or a combat situation and just shooting them then you can't be helped.

Oh, that's right. They just wandered into a neighborhood, and for no reason whatsoever, they started slaughtering people.

There wasn't an IED explosion that killed one of their fellow Marines. The Marines weren't fighting running gunbattles all across Haditha that day. Tapes of the Marine radio network did not catch apparent sounds of hostile gunfire, and others did not see suspected insurgents running from the area. It was just a leisurely afternoon stroll/massacre. No reason at all try to celar buildings like they've been trained, as a previous commetor with actual military service notes.

As always, the liberal's primary interest in this matter is trying to find another way to discredit a president that, though presumably a dumb fake Texas hick, outsmarts them at nearly every turn. Screw the presumption of innocence if BusHilter can be even slightly tarnished in some odd way.

As for your final comment, salvage, I make judgements all the time, about all sorts of things, but I do try to give soldiers in a warzone the presumption of innocenceat least until they are charged, even when the media-presneted evidence is strongly slanted against them.

As an American that actually appreciates those that put their lives on the line for me, I figure I owe them that much.

PP - "reckless disregard for their truthfullness/accuracy", seems like that would be a high threshhold to prove given the source of his information. Its not like he over heard something in the mens room and repeated it as fact. He was briefed by deceptive Pentagon individuals according to the lawsuit. I guess congressmen should now assume every brief they receive is suspect unless independently verified.

I agree with CY. Deliberate does not mean a criminal act. People are killed deliberately all the times. SWAT snipers taking out a hostage taker or cops shooting criminals with drawn weapons pointed at them or others. The criminality of the act depends on WHY. If the Marines thought they were getting fire from the buildings where the civs were, its tragic but probably no charges. If they were in some sort of "war-rage" then probably there will be charges.

"As an American that actually appreciates those that put their lives on the line for me, I figure I owe them that much."

When in doubt, wrap yourself in a flag and claim righteous indignation -- preferably with a healthy dose of moralizing self-importance.

Face it CY, you're losing this battle just like we're losing the war. You should get a volume discount on white flags.

Lint,

What is wrong with letting the trial come to the truth? I agree with CY, we DO owe them that much. That doesn't mean let them go if they are guilty of a crime but it does mean let those that have the facts (not just news stories) present that at a trial and let a jury decide. Your remark was totally uncalled for.

You don't like what is said, present your facts, even an opinion, not a slur.

Unlike the circling jackals, I’ll wait for the OFFICIAL report before condemning these Marines. An IED was detonated near them, they were shot at, they shot back, and civilians were killed. Was it within the ROE? Was it, as Murtha claims, “cold-blooded murder”? That’s what the investigation is for. The AP story today only confirmed that the Marines shot the civilians, but it still doesn’t answer the above questions. It also states that no bodies were to be exhumed, so a large part of forensic evidence will not be available for the defense of these Marines.

Those of you pounding CY seem to be of this mindset in regards to our troops:

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. -- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971

When I consider the job our troops have, I start with the highest respect for what they do. When someone makes claims against them, I will wait for the investigation to complete before I pass judgment – as CY and Retired Navy point out, we owe them that much because they earned it. If the investigation shows that they are at fault, they should be tried and punished accordingly.

Why are you in such a hurry to convict these Marines?

CY, is apologizing for this administration not getting more and more difficult every day? Why are you working so hard? Quit fighting it, come into the light. You sound exhausted. It's much easier over here, where the facts can be reported as is and still support your arguments. Think about all the time you'll save to spend with your loved ones when you can skip the microsopic parsing and history re-writing phases of making your points. You can be happier, sleep better and help your fellow man all at the same time. Imagine, no more justifying killing innocent women and children. Sounds good, doesn't it. You can do it, man.

CY: "I question the timing."

"...a pentagon official said Wednesday."

Damn objectively pro-terrorist pentagon officials.

Southern Roots:"The AP story today only confirmed that the Marines shot the civilians, but it still doesn’t answer the above questions."

I believe the word you were looking for is "deliberately". It must be a slippery sucker because you guys keep leaving it out whenever you reference that story.

matt a:"I agree with CY. Deliberate does not mean a criminal act. People are killed deliberately all the times. SWAT snipers taking out a hostage taker or cops shooting criminals with drawn weapons pointed at them or others. The criminality of the act depends on WHY. If the Marines thought they were getting fire from the buildings where the civs were, its tragic but probably no charges. If they were in some sort of "war-rage" then probably there will be charges.

Dude, I do not think that story means what you think it means.

Why do facts hate America?

No one is in a hurry to convict these Marines. No one is suggesting that a full investigation be bypassed and, if the evidence warrants, a fair trial be held.

All Tbogg did was point out that CY made a fool out of himself by accusing Murtha of "Cold Blooded Libel" for suggesting the killings were esentially murder, when on the same day an article comes down, based on statements from a Pentagon official made today, that evidence supports a continued investigation into the possibility that it was essentially murder.

None of us knows the truth of it, though the DoD knows more than us -- the same DoD which fed Murtha information (which the libel case alleges is "inaccurate and false") supporting the charge of wrongdoing, and which today confirms evidence exists which supports a continued investigation. To the same extent that it is wrong to state without further investigation and trial that the accused troops are guilty, it is wrong to call Murtha libelous.

One serious question to CY and his supporters: Why bend over backwards to try to establish through conjecture and hypotheticals the innocence of these accused troops, beyond the "innocent until proven guilty" standard for all accused? The war in Iraq is now well into the "hearts and minds" phase, where quelling the insurgency requires a lot of support from the Iraqi people. The quickest way to thwart that is for US troops to indescriminately kill innocents, mistreat disarmed prisoners, etc.

Thus, any actions by individual troops that are seen as excessive violence is counterproductive to our mission, and can lead to anger against US troops generally, thus fueling the insurgency. Simply put, individual troops who kill or mistreat civilians or disarmed combatants may breed more insurgents and get other troops killed down the line.

Therefore, a wait and see stance concerning these particular charges is fair. Perhaps Murta went over the line in proclaiming them cold blooded killers before the investigation is complete. But can't you see why he would be concerned, why we all should be concerned, about this type of behavior? Why are you rushing to figure out ways to exculpate these accused troops, when, if true, their actions have very negative results on our mission in Iraq?

David - You've made that accusation a couple of times and it is stupid and misleading.

I would trust that when our troops are responding to an attack they deliberately pull the trigger. I would also trust that they deliberately point their weapons in the direction of the attack.

The question is, were the civilian deaths an unfortunate result of return fire (response to an attack), or did the Marines actually go in and intentially commit cold-blooded murder?

I'll wait for the OFFICIAL report. What's you hurry?

Southern Roots, do you think that pentagon spokesman is simply saying they've confirmed the bullets in the victims came from marines' rifles? If so, I believe you've misread the piece.

And, by the way, what's with the "stupid" stuff. Are you a dick?

David, I'm no more of a dick than you are. In the case of our soldiers, I'll stand with "trust, but verify". We'll see.

In the last few years of reading AP and other media outlets, I have been forced into a case of "Be skeptical, but verify", especially when "anonymous sources" are used.

The word "deliberately" was used in restating the accuations made against the Marines. It is not clear to me that the Pentagon made that statement or if the AP wrote their own interpretation of what they were told. The AP story also made it clear that, "[investigators] may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges"

Which means, I'll wait for the OFFICIAL report.

I swear to god when I read "America's most disgusting ex-Marine" an image of Ollie North leapt immediately to mind.

We should let them have a trial before passing judgement.

And if someone comes out and passes a guilty judgement guilt before the trial, sue them because, you know, the individuals involved are really innocent.

Which we know before the trial.

CY, earlier you asked if we should just skip the trial and execute them. Would you like to just skip the trial and give them all medals?

Actually, HR, I gave my answer back in May:

Someone who truly supports the troops, even if they do not support the war, would want this incident fully investigated to uncover the truth. They would want to know the facts.

They would want to know if the Marines fired out of blind rage at the loss of their friends, and they would be equally interested in finding out if the Marines assaulted that location because someone inside fired upon them, as they claimed. Was it a slaughter of innocents, or were insurgents firing from within civilian homes? Were those that triggered the IED among the dead? We do not yet know, and some are already passing judgment.

Of course, I'm asking for facts, while you're side is going for a firing squad before charges are even filed.

And to think...people call RWers like this extremist and nutsy. What can they be thinking?

And to think...people call RWers like this extremist and nutsy. What can they be thinking?

Wow CY, Tbogg's just torn you asunder over this one, hasn't he? lol...

Confederate Yankee,

Besides being completely wrong about the "debunked" part of Murtha's representations, you have somehow managed to miss the signifigance of the Pentagon issuing the statement concurrent to the frivilous lawsuit against Murtha. If you have a suspicious mind and it appears that you do, there are no such things as a coincidence. Why would the Pentagon essentially validate Murtha's statements the day that a lawsuit questioning those statements was filed? The answer is simple and should be understood by you and the other "military readers" here: the Pentagon had provided "covering fire" for Murtha. Now why would the Pentagon provide "this fire"? The answer is again obvious, the Pentagon other than the most senior political leadership knows that the adventure in Iraq is a failure and has known for over two years. Murtha is just the messenger, and you cant handle that truth.

Are you any more dead if shot by a terrorist male than a terrorists female? As for children, there are no children above the age of three in the Islamic world. They have them brainwashed and ready to kill anyone and everyone by that age. Forget how they abuse the women and children in the name of some phony god. It seems to me that they do everything to the women, children and helpless that every lefties swears to be against, but the lefties keep supporting the terrorists. Anyone got an answer to, Why? Murtha doesn't need to be sued, he needs to be dragged out and shot, legally or illegally, just so he's shot. Use Hanoi John and Turbin Durbin as backstops for the bullets. That's my plan as soon as the lefties start the civil war they always hype.

To those on the left, please read carefully to what we are saying.

Let the TRIAL uncover the facts, if found guilty, let the law deal with them. That is NOT looking for an easy out, that is looking for JUSTICE.

As you can tell by my Retired Navy label, I served. I can say without a doubt that most of us that served want Justice done. We don't want any bad apples giving the military a bad apperance, we try to deal with them accordingly and quickly. They are trying to get to the TRUTH behind Haditha and we say let them before judgement is passed on the Marines that aren't even charged yet.

Murtha opened his mouth and STATED OFFICIALLY that they were "COLD BLOODED KILLERS". That is Libel since there wasne't even a trial and no charges yet. It is twice as bad coming from a politician, it was just grandstanding and used for political points.

Iraq has been freed from a dictator that sold the U.N. food and supplies to line his own pockets, Illegally sold oil to those countrys mostly opposed to the invasion, put people in jail for any reason he could think of, gassed villages, had his sons use people like animals, target practice, torture, rape rooms, etc... the list goes on.

Now those prisons aren't there, people can actually say what they want without fear of secret police or neighbors turning you in, power and clean water, kids going to schools, including girls (imagine that), free elections several times (These had a better turn out than the ones WE have).

There is still violence, there are still hold-outs and terrorists (many from Syria), but the overall has been a HUGE gain.

How are we losing?

If we pull out it would make the Killing fields of Viet-Nam and Cambodia look like a day at the park. So, should we pull out?

Retired Navy - I agree that the Marines should get a trial and be held accountable. That being said, it does seem like the tail wagging the dog with this lawsuit against Murtha. Make the potential defendants look good attacking an anti-war ex-marine congressmen infront of his potential jury pool (i.e. his millitary peers). BTW, what does it mean to "OFFICIALLY STATE" as opposed to unofficially state? Does anyone know if he said this "On the Record" (on the congress floor)? If I remember right, he gave an interview and stated his opinion based on briefings given to him. If that's libel then everytime someone is stopped on the street by a tv crew and asked their opinion of the President could be held to the same regard.

As far as Iraq goes, while the water and power situation is improved, lets not ignore the fact that we are the ones that bombed their water and electricity plants that put them into that position in the first place. Fixing what we broke seems a disingenuous approach towards convincing everyone the Iraqi people are better off than before. Sadam's prisons have been replaced by our prisons holding suspected terrorists, no secret police arresting people have been replaced by religious militias kidnapping and executing dozens of people at a time. I'd argure that huge gains have come with a lot of real chaos...

When people say we are losing the Iraq war, I think most are talking about the "the minds and soul" phase in which we try to create an ally out of Iraq and we are not handling that well. Sending kids (and girls) to school is all well and good but if they are learning what the Saudi kids are learning, we are just teaching the next generation to hate us as well...

I don't think pull out is the answer, but "stay the course" isn't a plan either but more of a hope things will turn around. Where is a laid out plan on how to stabalize Iraq? It seems to be more of an adhoc lets-see-how-today-goes approach. The administration is fond of saying, the commanders on the ground will make the decisions which is fine for millitary situations but it also comes across as deflecting responsibility for the chaos currently there.

Matt,

I was in error, his actual words to the News conference were "killed innocent civilians in cold blood,". That is an official statement he made to the press. He could have just said that it appeared they were killed by the Marines and an investigation was started as was reported to him.

It's the "in cold blood" part that irritates me. Maybe it's not libel and I can see your point on that part that its the tail wagging the dog.

I still don't like his statement and believe it was grandstanding on his part to gain some political points at the expense of the Marines. Let them have their trial.

As to Iraq, look up some clips from before the war, conditions Now are vastly better than they were then. I wasn't comparing now to when we invaded, I was comparing it to before the war.

As far as a comprehensive plan goes, I would like to see something for the rebuilding but no dates as to pulling out troops, that part is rediculous. Stay the course isn't a stratgy, but the DEMS 'cut and run' is even worse.

I know there are more plans out there that we aren't privy to but some of them should be shown to us.

As to what the Iraqi kids are learning, that is all the more reason to keep plugging away at a Democracy there, so there will be an option to learn other than Programmed Brainwashing.

Retired Navy,
By your logic, I would be libeling OJ Simpson if I called him a killer, because the courts cleared him as innocent. Yes. The courts have the final say in our society when it comes to meting out punishments. But we are all entitled to our opinions, including Murtha, who is probably basing it on some pretty damning evidence.

As for Iraq, I'm sure it is more ideologically pleasing for democracy lovers such as yourself, what with the purple fingers and all. But for people trying to get by in Iraq, I'm pretty sure life is worse. Saddam killed a lot of people, but not at the rate we're seeing (something like 100 dead turning up a day, right?). Also, Saddam was secular. Women could actually walk about and work under his rule. Now, the country is effectively under siege from the fundamentalists. Women might have the freedom to vote, but not to walk around on their own without fear. Even worse, the country is practically in the opening movements of all-out civil war. Tyranny is terrible. Anarchy is worse.

By the way, Saddam was, if anything, even more of an S.O.B. back in the 80s when he was shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld. Back then, we didn't have such a problem with gassed villages and rape rooms. Even today, we deal with plenty of horrible dictators (including that charmer in Uzbeckistan, Karimov, who is fond of boiling people alive). We can't claim the moral high ground in taking out Saddam when it is clear that we had no problem with his tyrannizing ways until he stopped becoming our S.O.B.

Retired - I agree that Murtha was grandstanding but I think that is a given for any politician (Remember Frist diagnosing Terry Shiavo's condition from a video tape?).

Conditions in Iraq - Still somewhat disingenuous to say look at before the war (I assume you are talking about the second war, not Desert Storm). We bombed/rocketed Baghdad mercilessly for months before we took back Kuwait and then Iraq was under economic sanctions prohibiting them from doing much for almost a decade. Yeah, Sadam started it and got punched in the nose but the US has been responsible for the destruction of much of the Iraqi infrastructure. We like to forget that but I'm sure there are plenty of Iraqi's that remember the living conditions (water and power wise) from before Desert Storm.

I would like to see comprehensive plans too. I believe we are in there for at least 10 more years. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a plan laying out year 1 - build roads, year 2 build sewers, etc. Instead we get lets "toss a ton of money at willing contractors and get taken to the cleaners" approach. I agree that setting dates for troop removal is stupid given there isn't a comprehensive rebuilding plan that would eleviate the need to have them there.

Kids and learning - Democracy doesn't prevent brainwashing, however, it can institutionalize it (i.e. see the great debate about creatism vs evolution going on in our democracy now).

NOTE: This post has just been updated. It seems the AP's account has been directly contradicted.

Iraq was messed up before GW I, Iran-Iraq war in the 80's, many coups in the 40's, 60's, an 70's kept the area unstable and but Saddam in charge.

He brutalized the people to keep them down so they wouldn't get power the way he did, gassed a whole village because they opposed him and killed an unknown number of his own citizens.

U.N imposed sanctions along with a no-fly zone that he violated numerous times along with getting missle radar lock on our planed patroling it,(I was there for some of them), the U.N. did nothing about it. Emboldened, he decided to increase his economic power by invading Kuwait(Lining his own pockets by selling the food he got for the Oil for Food program mandated by the U.N. coupled with the now knowd illegal sales to France and Russia lined his pockets well, but he wanted more)

During the invasion he believed he had the right to take what he wanted and the U.N. wouldn't do anything about it. We did and were made to stop at the border. We did bomb Bagdad but it was already a mess still from the Iran-Iraq war.

They haven't been stable since before the 1900's, we didn't make it worse, we are trying to make it better.

Now I'm laughing all the more. Geez...let the facts come out and let's see what happens.

But for those of you who bashed CY by taking an AP story at it's word - how naive are you? The AP has been shown to blow thing out of proportion over and over again during the last two years. Now we have Time (who is usually very liberal) saying that NO CONCLUSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. Don't you feel a little silly now? I know - we're not lauging with you - we are laughing at you!!!

BTW - Battlepanda - if OJ wanted to take the time to, he could sue you. Very easily. And he could stand on his non-conviction (right or wrong) and probably win, unless you have a few million sitting around to defend yourself.

But Murtha, in his capacity as a Congressperson (one running for reelection by the way), made unsubstantiated statements about people which could have harmed their careers, reputation, etc. He is a good target for a law suit. And once he is deposed, and they find out who gave him the information, I would expect follow-on suits against the others involved. Remember - we can say things about public figures and have some immunity. The opposite is not true, because they hold so much power.

Gee...what happened to Tbogg's army? They seem to have disappeared....

Specter, David also hasn't come back as yet. He spent a lot of time pointing out the AP story using the word "deliberately" and how we supposedly glossed over it. We counseled patience against the lynch mob and today Time contradicts AP (Anonymous Propaganda).

The Marines are innocent until proven guilty. We have to wait for the OFFICIAL report, something I am will to do, unlike TBogg, David, et. al.

You got it right Southern - It is embarassing to quote an article and then have it blow up in your face. Personally - any time an article talks about unnamed sources I am suspicious to begin with. Add that to the fact it came from AP and...well you know what I mean.

the really telling part is the law suit. this is almost certainly an act one would take when they are cleared of a crime, like richard jewel or dr hatfill suing the media and the gov when they were cleared. turn out the light HuffPo, the party's over, these guys are gonna walk, for the most part, maybe something low level like bad conduct, but not murder

Only on a right wing blog is this:

It is work noting that Murtha's claim of a cover-up has already conclusively debunked.

followed by this:

We all want the truth of the matter in this incident, and if the Marines did murder Iraqi civilians, they should be tried in a court of law and then sentenced for their crimes if convicted.

Instead, many liberals seem willing to skip the trial in favor of simply lynching those accused, based upon sometimes faulty and always incomplete media reports.

Our Marines, and the Iraqi people, deserthisve better than that.

yeild to claims of like this by the posters:

The Marines are innocent until proven guilty. We have to wait for the OFFICIAL report, something I am will to do, unlike TBogg, David, et. al.

xxxxx
For those keeping score at home, Confederate Yankee has stated that Murtha's claim was "completely debunked," but concludes in an update that somehow vindicates his original premise of complete debunkment that we should await the trial before reaching any conclusions or statements. While most would probably just think that logic makes absolutely no sense and is perhaps a bit hair brained and desperate, the true beauty of this scene is the willingness of CY's fellow travellers to abscond from reality and assert the critics of CY have already made up THEIR minds about the issue at hand. If you can manage to take a step back, that is really funnty.

Ah, the liberal issue of reading comprehension and subject matter ignorance raises its ugly head once more in something that calls itself "skeeenah."

Murtha's claim that there was a high-level coverup was in fact a separate investigation from the physical shooting investigation, and it has already concluded, definitively, that Murtha was dead wrong when he tried to say their was a high level cover-up.

The actual Haditha shootings is another matter still under investigation.

Two separate issues, genius.

CY,

Let's not go confusing this witch hunt with a bunch of facts. There's an election coming up you know.

What I don't understand is why the left's whole worldview is wrapped up in atrocities being commited by American troops. Terrorists can commit the most dispicable crimes imaginable and they couldn't care less, but the smallest hint of U.S. troop involvement and they come out of the woodwork to accuse anyone of not gathering rope of a coverup. When that falls apart they go back to their cubbyholes and wait for the next unsubstantiated rumer by the AP or Reuters. I can't imagine being so overcome by hatred of whoever I considered my political foes that I would actually wish for our own troops to commit terrible crimes in the desperate hope that some of that scandal would rub off on my opponents. How pathetic.

HUH?

First Sentence in the post:

Cold-Blooded Libel
America's most disgusting Ex-Marine is sued for libel over his allegations that Marines in Haditha "killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Next sentence ascribed to the blogger:

It is work noting that Murtha's claim of a cover-up has already conclusively debunked.

Clearly the intention was not to link your claim of conclusive debunkment to the first sentence. And these two "points", clearly concur with your third update:

We all want the truth of the matter in this incident, and if the Marines did murder Iraqi civilians, they should be tried in a court of law and then sentenced for their crimes if convicted.

Instead, many liberals seem willing to skip the trial in favor of simply lynching those accused, based upon sometimes faulty and always incomplete media reports.

LOL!

You reference an article that "completely debunked" Murtha's reporting of the civilian deaths in support of your first premise and then you and your surrogates claim the other side did exactly what you did!! Now That is pure genius, stars and bars boy.

Let me see if I understand this, Skeeenah: CY suggests waiting for a trial, before pronouncing guilt or innocence...

...and the trial was waiting on exhumation, so bodies could be examined to help in verifying guilt.
Or innocence.

But the antagonistic Shi'ah Muslim community, after giving aid and shelter to the terrorists attacking the Marines, and being informed of the consequences of a thorough forensic examination of the dead involved, REFUSED exhumation, right?

So there will probably be no trial because there's not enough evidence (without exhuming the bodies) to even merit going to trial, therefore the Pentagon is telling the special committee to stand down because as things stand now, it makes "proving murder 'very challenging.'"

So we now have no way of 'proving' the civilians were shot by terrorists on their way through, just ahead of the Marines, do we?

So the Marines, who should have been 'innocent until proven guilty', have Murtha's OFFICIAL pronouncement to deal with, don't they?

Is it making sense now, skeeeeeenah?

And in addition to the war we're winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, NOW there's suddenly a war somewhere that we're LOSING? Wow, how fast the changes come...

(CY: Concur Yr Analysis. Stay mindful, and keep up the good work.)

So we now have no way of 'proving' the civilians were shot by terrorists on their way through, just ahead of the Marines, do we?

So the Marines, who should have been 'innocent until proven guilty', have Murtha's OFFICIAL pronouncement to deal with, don't they?

Is it making sense now, skeeeeeenah?

xxxxxxxx

lol

#1) "Terrorists" set up the marines in Haditha? Call Rush or Savage or whichever liar, you listen to on Monday, and let them know that, kay? Maybe that little gem of misinformation, can start percolating through the RW noise machine? Who knows maybe Rush will hire you as a writer? Then again this is a website that questions whether Qana happened, isnt it?

#2) LOL! What is Murtha OFFICIALLY IN CHARGE OF -other than himself? He like you has an opinion in this matter. He -unlike you is wired into the Pentagon and has been for the past thirty years and has been obviously working at the direction and behest of a certain element of the Pentagon since his calls to end the debacle in Iraq.

Again and only because I am a liberal and want to help the less fortunate, the original thrust of this post was to 1) discredit Murtha and 2) support/cover for the "accused" troops. Only after the fact and much derision did the Confederate Yankee find his high ground in the third update to his original post. His first post consisted of an 1)ad hominem attack on Murtha 2) a reference to a law suit that will be thrown out in two minutes and 3) a statement to further discredit Murtha. That was it -nothing else. No "lets wait for the JAG and military investigators to figure this out. " In the shennanigans that followed, CY disputed the information that contradicted him, refuted the information that contradicted him, and at long last came to his holy "wait and see" highground -all the while he was able to call a decorated Marine disgusting and virtually a liar. That doesnt seem to be taking a "wait and see" attitude does it? It seems like he already has his chips in the pot, but then again so do you.

Get it yet?

skeeenah - "-all the while he was able to call a decorated Marine disgusting and virtually a liar.

These Marines have said that they followed the ROE. The have said that they did NOT MURDER the civilians. The investigation and/or trial will bring out the truth.

Your "decorated Marine" called these decorated combat Marines cold blooded murderers - in effect calling them disgusting and liars - before any facts were absolutely proven.

Your rants don't change any of that.