As much as i would like to see Murtha get nailed for his ignorant comments about our Marines, unfortunately the Democrats will circle the wagons, the media will circle the wagons and i don't think anything will come of it. The only places i hear about Murtha and the Haditha comments are on blogs and on the occasional talk radio show...

I hope i'm wrong though and that he does get nailed to the wall on this one.

There is precedent for a civil suit against a sitting member of Congress. SCOTUS case Hutchinson v. Proxmire established solid grounds for LTC Chessani to go after Murtha.

http://crotchetyoldbastard.com/blog/2007/08/murtha_to_face_a_civil_suit.html

You're right Dave W. Murtha attacking and slandering our brave troops is not news and will not be reported. Now if Murtha was Republican and turned out to be not 100% heterosexual, that would lead the news broadcasts for a month at least.

But will this jibe with the MSM "narrative?"

No, it won't, but at least we know the truth despite them.

"...it's about time someone got some justice over one of these slanders."

Amen brother.

They're gonna sue the bejesus out of Murtha.
=======================

He flat out said there had been a cover-up and it was a lie. The troopers were damaged, and Murtha's tortious dereliction of his duty was the direct cause of their damages. It's a slam dunk. Won't even get to court.
==============================

Woman and children were murdered. There were lies and cover-ups. Not slander if it's true. The country has an unfortunate history of military injustice.

So where are the moonbats and trolls, badmouthing the falsely-accused Marines. I expected one by at least comment 5.

Right on schedule . . . jp2

With yet another content-free comment.

Perhaps we should keep in mind this...
"what to think of the young enlisted marines who, illegally or not, clearly killed unarmed people in a combat zone."

It is not in dispute that Iraqi men, women and children were shot and killed there. Maybe this was deemed necessary to "clear" an area that was hostile.
This is after all an occupation in which every troop serving in Iraq is a target.
I doubt that few here have had the military experience in which you caused the death of someone who was not trying to kill you...but at the time took action you felt was necessary...

But hey...as you are not over there...continue to ask our troops to find themselves in that situation...and for what?
What is your benchmark for Victory?
Has the death of 81 troops this month brought us closer?

jp2:

Woman and children were murdered. There were lies and cover-ups. Not slander if it's true. The country has an unfortunate history of military injustice

Well thank you for your insight, can we call you "Murtha-Lite" now?

P.S. nogo - you can pack about 10 pounds of rare roast beast in your pocket and jump in Sealand's shark tank.

You can call me anything you like - and get creative, because I've heard quite a bit of name calling here.

Defending the murder of women and children - how do you do it?

jp2, oh maybe by actually having a command of the english language and thereby knowing the actual definition of the word "murder" - at least that would be a start for you.

jp2:

Defending the murder of women and children - how do you do it?

First of all take SPQR's advice and learn the definition of murder.

Secondly I don't see you providing any evidence of your charges of a cover-up or murder.

Got any or just talking points from Rep[rehensible] Murtha's Senate office.

marc: (#12) 10 to 1 that he got spit back out.

Well
...
lets say...you are in you home...you are shot and killed at close range...you are a child who has not fired a gun or detonated an IED..
What do You call it....
when you say you see no evidence...
please give some sources that refute this

"The 24 Iraqi civilians killed on Nov. 19 included children and the women who were trying to shield them, witnesses told a Washington Post special correspondent in Haditha this week and U.S. investigators said in Washington. The girls killed inside Khafif's house were ages 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1, according to death certificates."

I did not say....these troops were not following procedure for clearing an area...
All I am saying....is simple...

Those of you that clamor for putting troops... not related to you... in this sort of position...
Please visit your Local V.A. Hospital...inquire how you can volunteer to assist our brave troops returning with PTSD

Naturally, if the Marines' attorneys come a-callin', we will gladly provide them with the IP locations on the spineless weasels who throw out false and vicious accusations, libeling the Marines, while thinking they can hide behind "anonymity" . . . ain't no sech animule, people . . .

Why can't you libs just say, "Marines, sorry for Murtha denegrating your character. Regardless of what we think about the war, you were wronged". But naw, just the usual unsupported smears (as was the subject of the post) by JP2, and Nogo lecturing us about death in combat.

btw Nogo, there's a bunch of us here that know it first-hand. Save your pseudo-lectures for your pals down at the coffee house. These troops are professionals highly trained to operate in hostile environments, not the poor sods you people perceive them as. As much as many of you dislike it, their rules of engagement can't cover every scenario. Be advised if there had been ANY hint of improper use of deadly force the JAG ambulance chasers who initially brought these marines up on charges would have nailed there asses.

But I see Nogo already has figured out something went wrong. He just believes the marines are at fault, regardless of the facts. How tolerant of you.

"Naturally, if the Marines' attorneys come a-callin', we will gladly provide them with the IP locations on the spineless weasels..."

Tattling and name calling. Be prideful.

"Secondly I don't see you providing any evidence of your charges of a cover-up or murder."

Have you read ANY of the testimonies? They themselves said it was murder. Actually read the report from Dela Cruz. They were lined up and shot.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010502248_pf.html

-24 people killed, including woman and children

-Investigation delayed until Time magazine report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010502248_pf.html

-Investigating Col. states: "The reporting of the incident up the chain of command was inaccurate and untimely."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5033648.stm

-More investigations launched. Soldiers testify:
-"Dela Cruz told investigators that he pumped bullets into the bodies of the Iraqi men after they were on the ground and later urinated on one of them."
-5 Iraqis shot attempting to surrender

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010502248_pf.html

Sheesh.

jp2, so you are just ignoring all of the more recent stories that reveal the collapse of the supposed evidence, that the prosecution has been unable to get past preliminary hearings and instead rely on a six month old story?

That is pretty lame.

It's really very simple SPQR. It's not about the marines, it's about them. What they think, believe and feel, regardless of the facts. Their supposed superior intellect and gracious tolerance allow for them to rise above. Of course attacking the president, his administration, and the military is all completely justified and hence these attributes need not apply. The end result is they feel good and it's all about them.

Lets start here jp2:

-24 people killed, including woman and children

What the WaPo fails to note, and what you fail to know or care, of the "24"... eight of the dead, including four of the five occupants in the white car were known insurgents and the dead civilians therefore numbered 16, not 24.

As far as Dela Cruz goes you do know he admited he desecrated a body and shot at some of the Iraqi civilians killed in Haditha?

You do know he was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony against co-defendants right?

Do you think that may have, shall we say, "colored" his testimony? Given his evidence was obviously countered by many other witnesses and believed by those sitting in judgement seems to answer that question.

But that's where you slip in the "cover-up" charge isn't it jp2?

Oops... more later... I got a couple rug rats needing my undivided attention.

BTW, you need to read the timeline of how Rep[rehensible] Murtha's "story" changed over time in relation to news events.

Again... more later.

SPQR, that's our jp2. If it doesn't fit his preconceived notions, he disregards it.

"jp2, so you are just ignoring all of the more recent stories"

I gave 3 quality links. Why don't you do the same? Show me where I am mistaken.

marc: "Do you think that may have, shall we say, "colored" his testimony?"

So you are calling Dela Cruz, an American soldier, a liar? Yes or no? If so, please provide evidence.

jp2 - back for a hot second:

I gave 3 quality links. Why don't you do the same? Show me where I am mistaken.

You call a report that doesn't mention 8 of the 24 deaths were IN FACT terrorists "quality?"

So you are calling Dela Cruz, an American soldier, a liar? Yes or no? If so, please provide evidence.

I don't have to provide anything, it's provided in the testimony given by others and... oh yeah, he's been discounted by these cases being dropped faster than a hot rock.

Those hearing the cases didn't believe him... go ahead, insert your cover-up canard here______.

Hold the phone.

jp2, who earlier in this thread insinuated that our soldiers are murderers, recoils when it is suggested that one might stretch the truth a bit?

Does anyone besides me see something wrong with this picture?

Picture... what picture?

All I see from jp2 is lens flare.

C-C-G ~ jp2 did not "insinuate" any such thing. He flat out said it.

It does no good whatever to ask he read the reports, or consider the value of uncorroborated statements of an alleged accomplice under indictment for other serious crimes himself. He will believe the worst of the US military, just as he believes the worst of America in other respects.

His ilk will never be recruited to our side with mere facts. You've already noticed how he treats them.

Jim, I was attempting to be generous to jp2.

As for noticing how jp2 treats those he disagrees with, I've been on the receiving end of what he considers his rapier wit before, and come away unscathed.

marc:"You call a report that doesn't mention 8 of the 24 deaths were IN FACT terrorists "quality?""

I know, I shouldn't rely on newspapers and magazines, but "reports" from "Letfreedomringblog.com" instead. Laugh.

Okay, so you think the guy is a liar. A very easy assumption and accusation to make, but fine.

But what are these new reports you keep mentioning but failing to source?

And no one has addressed the point of the cover-up as charged by the investigating officer. Crickets.

Jim A

It does no good whatever to ask he read the reports,

True, if that were the case he would know the "witnesses" that were in the house were all under the age of 14 and their stories changed dependent on which news outlet "interviewed" them and faster than a Shamal blows.

In addition to that he makes the assertion I think Dela Cruz is a liar,(and demands I say so) when he obviously firmly believes all those that gave opposing testimony are liars.

That conundrum apparently flies straight over his head.

Or worse... it doesn't.

That's our jp2. Always assume the armed forces are guilty, even after proven innocent.

"Inaccurate and untimely" does not necessarily equal "deliberate cover-up." It could just as easily have been human error. Marines are still human, you know, jp2, and they still make mistakes.

Of course, it's clear that you think Marines are below human. Cro-magnon, perhaps?

Changing the target again, jp2?

You were labeling the Marines as "murderers" up to now. Suddenly it's the "cover-up" which concerns you?

Or is it just that the murder charges are falling apart?

Try to focus.

Try to focus.

That's like asking a pig to fly. -LOL-

jp2:

I know, I shouldn't rely on newspapers and magazines, but "reports" from "Letfreedomringblog.com" instead. Laugh.

First of all, are you disputing 8 of those deaths weren't terrorists? If so why and how?

Secondly you can laugh at the link all you care to (but not as loud as we laugh at you I might add) I'll stack that timeline up against anything you can provide that counters it.

Wanna try?

jp2 - I almost forgot this lunacy:

Have you read ANY of the testimonies? They themselves said it was murder. Actually read the report from Dela Cruz. They were lined up and shot.

All the links you provide to back that statment up are from Dec-Jan well before any courtroom testimony was given.

Excuse the ClueBat... but "testimony" is given under oath in a courtroom. They are "proof" of JACK-SHIT!

Are you sure you and Murtha weren't separated at birth?

Again, no sources, facts or credible rebuttals. You guys can fling poop all you want, but you still haven't addressed any of my points - except calling a witness a liar without evidence. (Ironically, the same behavior you hold such fake outrage for against Murtha)

As far as the cover-up goes - someone is lying about Haditha right? We know that one of the soldiers is not telling the truth, correct? De la Cruz stated that he was told to cover-up the mission. The 2nd point of the cover-up is that the original incident was not investigated until reporters jumped on the story, breaking it wide open. Thirdly, there have been numerous conflicting accounts by the Marines themselves.

So don't lies, conflicting accounts, a lack of investigations and a direct order to cover-up an incident constitute a cover-up? Maybe it's just me. Sigh.

jp2, your comments were rebutted by the first link in the posting above. All you brought were obsolete stories.

Yes, its you.

jp2, let me pin you to the wall with one simple question.

What, specifically, can we civilians provide, without violating the law, that you would accept as proof?

Mr. Addison and Marc, I am now taking wagers on whether jp2 ignores the question or spins it.

jp2:

o don't lies, conflicting accounts, a....

For the sake of argument lets' stipulate that's all true.

What are you basing it on?

All you have provided are links from news reports containing quotes from interviews that ALL occurred 5-6 months prior to the investigation being completed and before anyone went under oath in court.

And BTW, by taking the adamant stance you have you are in fact calling military prosecutors and other court officials, i.e. high ranking military officers sitting as judges, liars because well... just because they disagree with the knowledge you possess.

Knowledge you have gained not by being in the courtroom but apparently from 6 month old news reports.

Do I have it right?

Am I close?

"jp2, your comments were rebutted by the first link in the posting above."

The first link is from "crotchetyoldbastard.com." I think I'll pass.

"What, specifically, can we civilians provide, without violating the law, that you would accept as proof?"

I am looking for plausible explanations as well. As far as evidence:

-Well you could clear up the lying part. I assume you think De La Cruz is a liar as well, so any evidence of that would be great.

-I would certainly accept any Iraqi eyewitness accounts that strayed from the story. All I have read confirm that it was murder, including an Iraqi soldier.

-Explain the discrepancy in the Marines' accounts of 15 civilians dying from a bombing and the military later stating that those 15 had been killed by Marines. Why was the initial report so vastly different than the later report?

-Explain how this information was sat upon until reporters brought it to higher-ups.

Any of those would be great, for starters.

jp2:

The first link is from "crotchetyoldbastard.com." I think I'll pass.

Having a Homer Simpson moment are we...?

D'OH!!!!!

The first link "in the post" is to the Huston Chronicle"

Don't worry jp2... we "understand" now.

jp2, we have already given you the first one, and you have pointedly ignored it.

Dela Cruz's testimony has not led to prosecutions, but to prosecutions being dropped like hot rocks. If there was any truth to his statements, you would not see the cessation of prosecution efforts against the other Marines.

Since you so blatantly ignore that one, why should we even attempt to provide you with the rest?

It should also be noted that I specified things that we, civilians, could procure. Obviously we cannot go to Iraq and depose witnesses (whose stories have changed, and you've been told that in this thread and ignored that as well).

Without being privy to the detailed investigative record from the Corps, we cannot answer your other two questions either, so again, you are asking the impossible.

I do thank you for the answer, however. You have quite conclusively proven by your own words and actions that you cannot be convinced by anything that we humble civilians would have access to, because we have given you part of what you have asked for and you have not been convinced by it.

Therefore, you are not here to intelligently discuss and debate, but to spin and troll.

BEGONE, FOUL TROLL!

Obviously we cannot go to Iraq and depose witnesses (whose stories have changed, and you've been told that in this thread and ignored that as well).

As an Army Lt Col in MI explained on another blog - a Lt Col who has been in Iraq and Baghdad. When you ask an Iraqi a question, the first answer you will get is something they think will placate you. The next time they'll tell you something they think you want to hear. The third time you ask them the question, you might get something that resembles the truth. By the fourth or fifth time you are probably getting close to the truth.

In reality, jp2 doesn't give one crap about the Iraqi civilians killed in Haditha. He cares that there is a club he can use to batter our military mission in Iraq. Something he can use to justify his anti-war, anti-military, anti-Bush positions. The thing that disappoints jp2 most is not that Iraqi civilians lost their lives, but that United States Marines were not drawn and quartered and hung.

"Dela Cruz's testimony has not led to prosecutions, but to prosecutions being dropped like hot rocks."

Where?! Point to where there is evidence of this. Just quote it for me. From the Houston Chronicle I get this:

"Prosecuting the Haditha case has been especially difficult because the killings were not thoroughly investigated when they first occurred. Months later, when the details came to light, there were no bodies to examine, no Iraqi witnesses to testify under oath, and no damning forensic evidence to help support a murder charge."

Very different that what you are saying, and the article makes no mention of De la Cruz at all. From where are you gathering this information?

"Obviously we cannot go to Iraq and depose witnesses (whose stories have changed, and you've been told that in this thread and ignored that as well)."

Where was I "told" this? I actually found several links to eyewitness testimony and provided a link to it from a credible source.

Again, absolutely no credible rebuttal from anyone - not even a simple explanation. Why did the initial report differ so much from what actually happened?

Very easy to pack up and go home. The article closes with this, and again it's not a great ray of support for the Marines:

"We can't say those guys didn't commit a crime," said Michael F. Noone Jr., a retired Air Force lawyer and law professor at Catholic University of America. "We can only say that after an investigation, there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute."

"The thing that disappoints jp2 most is not that Iraqi civilians lost their lives, but that United States Marines were not drawn and quartered and hung."

A little extreme, don't you think? I don't usually respond to crap like this, but I'm on a roll tonight.

I'm a human being long before I am an American. And when little girls and boys are shot to death, I take heart. I would like to believe our soldiers had nothing to do with it (I'd actually prefer that they were not even in Iraq), but there is so much contradictory evidence in this case that it's hard not to look at it as murder.

jp2:

Where?! Point to where there is evidence of this. Just quote it for me. From the Houston Chronicle I get this:

Jeeebus, what does it take a 2x4 to the cranium? What was said, at least by me, was his testimony was countered by other witnesses and the judges sided with the other witnesses.

And if you discount them you are calling them at least incompetent and at most lying bastards. And BTW, don't you mean "crotchetyoldbastard.com" and not the Huston Chronicle?

Where was I "told" this? I actually found several links to eyewitness testimony and provided a link to it from a credible source.

Yep, I was right it takes a 2x4. "eyewitness testimony" given not under oath and 6 months prior to any trial.

"We can't say those guys didn't commit a crime," said Michael F. Noone Jr., a retired Air Force lawyer and law professor at Catholic University of America. "We can only say that after an investigation, there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute."

And I woulda bet a million bucks I don't have you would have quoted that.

He may be right. And it could very well be his judgment is not valid because.....

.... say it along with me. He wasn't in the courtroom and NOT privy to anything more than press reports.

"We can't say those guys didn't commit a crime," said Michael F. Noone Jr., a retired Air Force lawyer and law professor at Catholic University of America.

True.

And in America, we have this concept called innocent until proven guilty.

You should be familiar with it, jp2, it gets invoked any time a lefty gets into legal trouble.

But apparently, in jp2world, it doesn't apply to Marines.

And yes, I just love hamstringing you with your own quotes.

As for the rest of your diatribe, I see marc has adequately dealt with it, so I won't stick my oar in.

"What was said, at least by me, was his testimony was countered by other witnesses and the judges sided with the other witnesses."

There is nothing remotely like this in the Chronicle article. Is it from thin air?

"And I woulda bet a million bucks I don't have you would have quoted that."

Huh?

And again - can someone please explain the contradiction between the initial reports and what the investigation found?

And again - can someone please explain the contradiction between the initial reports and what the investigation found?

And again, how do you know what the investigation found?

Did someone inside the investigation--illegally--leak you documents?

Were you present in the room where the hearings were held?

Or are you relying on second or third hand hearsay?

"And in America, we have this concept called innocent until proven guilty."

Well, if you cover-up a crime in a war zone for several months it's tough to get a trial. Still waiting for any explanations.

A nice cut and run though. You addressed 0 points.

Are you saying that innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to Marines in a war zone, jp2?

And you're showing your lack of reading comprehension again. I said marc had addressed your other points so I was not going to stick my oar in. I'm also not rising to that particular bait, so please don't waste bandwidth on it.

"And again, how do you know what the investigation found?"

Ooo easy:
"According to military officials, the inquiry acknowledged that, contrary to the military's initial report, the 15 civilians killed on Nov. 19 died at the hands of the Marines, not the insurgents." (Time)

"Col Stewart Navarre, announcing the charges on 21 December 2006, said: "The reporting of the incident up the chain of command was inaccurate and untimely." (BBC)

So we have press reports from Military officials AND statements from the investigating officer.

Doesn't get much simpler than that, does it?

jp2, were those statements made before or after the hearings?

You do know that there are two sides (at the very least) to every story, don't you? Why do you focus on the prosecution to the exclusion of all else?

Come on, man, give me a challenge. I can answer these with half my brain tied behind my back, to quote a famous conservative.

I'll break it down for you:

There was the Haditha "incident."

Months passed.

Investigations and eyewitnesses including a Marine contradict the incident report.

Due to these contradictions and lack of truthiness, a trial is set.

Now - very slowly here - how do you - CCG - explain the contradiction in reports?

A simple "I can't" is fine.

jp2 whines "And again - can someone please explain the contradiction between the initial reports and what the investigation found?"

The initial reports were wrong. Happens all the time in combat. If you want to make a case that the initial report was itself a crime, the JAG prosecution would be happy to charge it if they could prove it.

The question is what is known now, not how many times you can repeat "back and to the left" as though you were Kevin Costner playing Garrison. The Marines as an institution is not covering up the Haditha incident, they've done a very detailed job of not only investigating it but trying to prosecute allegations of criminal behavior - a prosecution which failed because of a lack of evidence.

So what we are left with is that you refuse to advance your own knowledge of the incident beyond January of 2007.

jp2, you neglected my question. Therefore, I reiterate it, and take the opportunity to expand upon it.

Were the reports you base your statements on issued before, during, or after the hearings? If before, why do you not acknowledge reports that have been printed during and/or after the hearings?

I know why you ignored the question. So does every other conservative here. So refusing to answer does not help your cause.

Laugh. A sad laugh.

"Were the reports you base your statements on issued before, during, or after the hearings?"

Clearly I am speaking of the investigation that determined the original Marine story to be FALSE. You didn't read any of the links obviously. So to be more blunt, this investigation I am referring to was after Haditha and before the trial for murder.

"If before, why do you not acknowledge reports that have been printed during and/or after the hearings?"

Umm...dead wrong. I myself quoted from the first article sourced several times. See 47.

I have also asked you personally to back up statements you have made with recent articles. You have refused. See comment 47 - I quote myself:

"Where?! Point to where there is evidence of this. Just quote it for me."

You did provide any quotes.

So for I think the 5th time - how do you explain the contradiction in the original report? The one where the Marines listed that 15 people were killed by a roadside bomb when it actually turned out that they were killed by the Marines? Please, with sugar, answer.

A little extreme, don't you think? I don't usually respond to crap like this, but I'm on a roll tonight.

No, I don't think it's a little extreme. I do think you, jp2, are very extreme. And the only roll you're on tonight is a slow roll.

I'm a human being long before I am an American. And when little girls and boys are shot to death, I take heart.

Now, sing along with jp2

I'd like to build the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow-white turtle doves

I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I'd like to hold it in my arms
And keep it company

I'd like to see the world for once
All standing hand in hand
And hear them echo through the hills
For peace throughout the land

jp2 is the typical liberal i expect, and the typical liberal i expect Murtha to emulate. He won't back down and he'll have the propagandists circling the wagons for him.

Yes, very creative. I suppose I would prefer it to your theme song...

Drowning Pool - Bodies Lyrics print version

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Beaten why for
Can't take much more

Here we go...Here we go...Here we go

One - Nothing wrong with me
Two - Nothing wrong with me
Three - Nothing wrong with me
Four - Nothing wrong with me

One - Something's got to give
Two - Something's got to give
Three - Something's got to give
Now

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

jp2, that's what we thought. You are so committed to the BDS rhetoric that you won't deal with any change in your fantasy world.

Here's a clue: there was no one on the grassy knoll.

jp2, obviously you are either an illiterate, or think I am.

Comment 47 contains no links, no definitive references of any sort, just quotes that you could have pulled out of any available bodily orifice and one reference to the Houston Chronicle--but, tellingly, no date for the edition where your quote allegedly appeared.

You, yourself, have provided exactly zero links to the Houston Chronicle. You have, however, provided three to the Washington Post and one to the BBC, proving that you do know how to link.

However, the original author did link to the Chronicle, so I peruse that article and found your quote. The question arises as to why you would not wish to make it easier to find the article to which you refer. The answer is apparent to anyone who possesses the ability to read.

The paragraph immediately following the one you seem so fond of quoting--the one that begins "Prosecuting the Haditha case has been especially difficult..." says, and I quote the paragraph in full, adding emphasis myself:

Walter B. Huffman, a former Army judge advocate-general, said it was not uncommon in military criminal proceedings to see charges against troops involved in a single episode to fall away under closer examination of evidence, winnowing culpability to just one or two defendants at the heart of the case.

There is the answer to your question. Right in the same article you pull your accusation from.

So, are you so illiterate that you could not read that? Or so dense as to not comprehend it? Or did you merely assume that no conservative would be intelligent enough to understand it? Or some combination thereof?

And would you like your crow baked or fried, jp2?

63. Posted by jp2

What's it mean? Is it about break dancing or a mash pit at an ecstasy fueled concert?

Hilarious:

I'm a human being long before I am an American.

I'll pick C: None of the above.

"Comment 47 contains no links, no definitive references of any sort, just quotes that you could have pulled out of any available bodily orifice and one reference to the Houston Chronicle--but, tellingly, no date for the edition where your quote allegedly appeared."

Pathetic.

As I stated multiple times, it's from the Houston Chronicle article - the first link of this post that the Wizbang author used.

And again, you prove you are unable to answer a simple question.

I really do like honest debate, but I won't get it here and certainly not from you. A for Avoidance though. You would be a great lawyer/liar.

Does your forehead hurt jp2? you've been slamming it against this brick wall all day today. It must be at least a little bit sore.

But then again you've been doing it for years now so maybe you're used to it...

jp2 - your quote of me:

"What was said, at least by me, was his testimony was countered by other witnesses and the judges sided with the other witnesses."

Your comment on my quote:

There is nothing remotely like this in the Chronicle article. Is it from thin air?

Do you not see "AT LEAST BY ME" within my quote?

Gee... no wonder you didn't see it in the H Chron article. Funny how that works eh?

But it does confirm one thing, you are knee-jerking your way into blithering status.

Again S.L.O.W.L.Y.... every case that has been dropped has countered his testimony by the fact more witnesses were more credible than he was.

I'll break it down for you:....There was the Haditha "incident." Months passed.....investigations and eyewitnesses including a Marine contradict the incident report. Due to these contradictions and lack of truthiness, a trial is set. ow - very slowly here - how do you - CCG - explain the contradiction in reports?

First of all there was one investigation by one investigating officer. The one you keep quoting in the BBC report from DECEMBER.

THEN comes your first of many mis-statement of facts. A trial wasn't set. A Article 32 Hearing was conducted. Note the long definition at the link asshat. Here's the cut-to-the-chase version:

No charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a through and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.

As a result of all the Art 2 hearings all but one have been dismissed and the last one has gotten a recommendation to dismiss.

So no asshat there wasn't ONE investigation there have been five at this point. And they have all been conducted by professionally trained lawyers who sole purpose in the military is to put bad little soldiers and sailors away for being bad little soldiers and sailors.

And from my personal experience as part of the Master-at-Arms force on board ship and being a bailiff on numerous occasions at both Article 32 hearings and Courts Martial I can tell you they take great pride in putting bad little soldiers and sailors away for as long as they can.

So YOU LOSE four investigations to one get over it!

marc,

Relax man, you can't let these guys get to you. I'm smart when it comes to stuff like this, really, you can trust me.

Here's what you do: The next time one of these selfhating, scumsucking pieces of flagellum delves deep into his or her, soulless, prone to chil touching "intellect" and pukes up another thoughtless attack on liberty and the defenders thereof, just imagine the little pervert up to his neck in al qeda "carpenters" with all of their tools of (de)construction.

I know, it'll never happen. But we can dream, can't we ? Ah, the sweet serenade of pleading liberals...Whoa, got carried away there. Sorry.

( #13 ) jp2
you tell us jp- how do you defend the murder of women & children- on 9/11 ? I would like to know

pudge, I'm far from needing your advice on any matter considering you spew just as much hate and nonsense as some of the trolls around here. Save it.

Bush: "They hate us because our love of freedom"..No George they hate us because we excuse actions like this, and blogs like Wizbang take the side of the perpetrators rather than the women and children who did not accept what one marine "NO AMERICAN SOLDIER should rest, until every person on the planet is living under the light of freedom that God intended for us all".

Me thinks jp2 has got his ass tied in knots and cannot untie himself. Has he been appointed to take leeward's place?
Oh yeah marc (although I agree with what you say most of the time), how far do we kneel when we mention your name?

The Iraqis are finally figuring out that our game over there is 'fair cop'. Steve, when will you figure that out?
=======================================

and blogs like Wizbang take the side of the perpetrators

And here we have another murtha-lite making a judgment of a trial that just started.

Nice non-response, jp2. Never reply to the facts when you can toss in an ad hominem attack.

Now that you've got that out of your system, how about answering the fact that the answer to your question is in the paragraph following the one you love to quote so much?

Ok.."side of the perpetrators" was too strong..but no one has taken the side of the women and children..Although George Bush is constantly talking about "innocent lives lost" when the terrorists take their shots, I never hear about the innocent lives of women and children that are victims of our troop's actions or in the case of Haditha vengeance..It is always wait for the trial and the judgement (not for the cases of purported terrorists of course,) ..and then the judgment of our soldiers a few years later, if if is disfavourable, is meant with silence, or the scapegoating of 'a few bad apples' that had nothing to do with the actions or orders of their superiors which set the tone, years earlier.

Son, in assymetric warfare, with the opponent hiding among the 'innocent', the fact that they are deliberately exposing the innocent to danger by their choice of the arena, would make objective observers place the onus for harm to innocenst on the irregulars.

Can you explain your judgement about our soldiers in any other manner than lack of objectivity?
=======

Show of hands, Who didn't know the lefty trolls who infest this site would be outraged that one of their favorite narratives (soldiers as baby killers) was being blown out of the water?
I know they didn't let me down.
Distortions, old, discredited stories, untruths and outright slander.
It really is funny how these supposed bastions of peace, love and tolerance are acting as the propaganda wing of al Quaeda.
Funny in an "end of western civilization" sort of way.

Crickmore, so you don't care anything for the facts of the matter so long as you get your daily dose of BDS?

Impressive.

jhow66 said, "Oh yeah marc (although I agree with what you say most of the time), how far do we kneel when we mention your name?"

Ooo, burrrrrn! You need a catchyer name ol' jhow66 my man. You know, something that sounds good when when saying things like, "I like Ike", or,"I'm Sparticus!",or, "I, am Tiger Woods."

"I like jhow66" just doesn't flow, you know what I mean. Please disregard if you have no aspirations for fame, public office, restroom romances etc.

You're absolutely right Crickmore. They'd all be so much better off living under a dictator. Thankfully for the US our founding fathers didn't agree with the likes of you.

Anyone in the reality zone (which excludes JP2), should read this:

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/08/post_234.php

to get a first-rate assessment of what happened at Haditha.

As for JP2:

When you can rebut the facts presented in the linked url, come back and do so. Until then, stop wasting bandwidth by quoting stale newspaper and newsmagazine articles that have been overtaken by events.

Newspapers and newsmagazines are history's first draft -- not the record of what actually happened. If you go by newspaper reports of June 1942, the Army Air Force won the Battle of Midway by sinking the Japanese fleet with high-altitude bombing from B-17s.

mark.. I read the linked article..The thrust of it..It was considered a hostile house, Geneva Conventions don't apply..but no guns or weapons were ever found. in the house. Contradictory testimony by the Iraqis..but no mention of the commanding American soldier's order to kill expressedly all the women and children herded into one room,...not even a scratch on any of our soldiers, from the clearing of the house 24 civiians killed (following the IED an hour earlier)...This IED is constantly referred to as the catalyzt..It very probably was, and I assume it justified to our soldier all manner of reprisal and punishment.. But hey let's go after the bad guys, who no doubt left along time before, not women and children huddling in a room for God's sake.

Thanks, mark I, I've put the link in the main post.

Naturally, the anti-military left prefers to cling to the first reports, which subsequent investigations have discounted, since those fit their world view more closely.

Pudge have you gone nuts? What the h^%& are you spewing about? Comment was not even about you.

I note that jp2 has apparently vacated the thread.

Good riddance.

Crickmore, the article 32 hearing officer found that the claim that women and children were to be herded into one room was not credible.

SPQR, you know Crickmore is just gonna claim that the officer is part of the great coverup... which is of course being run by the (whispering now) Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.