MikeAdamson:

Barbaric acts are barbaric acts even when committed by the good guys. I don’t expect many here to accept that view but that’s life I guess.

I accept this view. If American troops did this, they obviously committed barbarous acts.

However, unlike you, I have a severe case of distrust of the veracity of press reports. I consider them to be as accurate as rumors written on paper. In my work, I sort data based on primary versus secondary source. I wouldn’t even give the time of day to a researcher who presented me with information from an anonymous source.

In the event that these printed rumors turn out to be true, the only positive spin I could give it is that, unlike the insurgents, the US leaders are not ordering them to commit atrocities.

Act as shocked as you like. This shit happens every day in Iraq, usually The only newsworthy part is that this incident involved American soldiers instead of foreign terrorists.

I keep my eye on the ball, and remember who is who. I don’t practice the moral relativism of equating nearly daily senior-command-sanctioned atrocities with the putative actions of a few soldiers in over their heads. I don’t expect you to accept that view, but that’s life I guess.

r108 asks

but why do you insist on continue to allege something that has now been publicly proven to be wrong?

Because no such thing has been proven of course. Ask General Miller about it next time you’re talking to him.

WOOF:

You do not have to be enraged to kill in cold blood, cruel, depraved, sadistic, vengeful works.

Does it give you a hard-on to ascribe those emotions to our soldiers?

In any case, Murtha said that our troops “overreacted because of the pressure on them” then killed on cold blood.

If you can’t see a contradiction there, you need to leave the playing field.

MikeA: It’s your wishful thinking there again. The publication of the photos delayed the ajudication of the matter, no doubt. It only served to advance the political agenda of the lefties here. There have been no connections to higherups at all, since it was a matter of local disobedience of orders, as it appeared to be from the first. Your assertions have no facts behind them. You are free to make them, of course, but why do you insist on continue to allege something that has now been publicly proven to be wrong?

“Funny the Canadians you actually bump into are fine folks.”

Including, obviously, those you actually bump into here.

MikeAdamson:

we know it happened and we know that Marines committed the acts.

What we know is that something happened. As to the rest, how do you know Marines committed the acts?

I’m not saying they didn’t, but there are other people in Iraq with guns besides them.

So, what’s your proof? Eyewitness accounts by insurgents?

Way to go, Bat. Stand up for those Marines no matter what they do. Wasn’t that the message of
your assinine post?

once a Marine, always a Marine, and that Marines, no matter what the circumstances, never betray their brothers in arms.

McCarthy replied that he understood. At which point, legend insists, the officer said, “And besides, man, this is Carlson! You get him riled, he will f***ing kill you!”

Only people with the IQ of a retarded flea would live by that kind of code. As for f***king kill you…that I wouldn’t doubt from the ones I’ve seen and heard in my life.

They seem to go berserk when they put on that uniform.

MikeA: I realize you approve of Murtha’s actions, but that wasn’t my question. As in the case of Abu Ghraib(US version), the investigation was proceeding when the photos were published. The net effect on the justice process was to delay and distort it. I think the same thing is true in this case, as well. The only benefit in both cases is to a certain political group, and their meme of “a culture of corruption”. I think the allegation of a coverup is also a lie. Jumping over a military investigation in time of war is almost always a political stunt. I disagree that this in any way advanced the cause of justice to offset the prejudicial harm to the Marines involved. In other words, the cost outweighs the benefits, IMO.

Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.

Parse this for me.

If they overreacted, how then did they kill in cold blood?

Murtha is a fucktard, no matter which way you slice it.

rbb: Questions you apparently can’t or won’t answer.

Do you have any evidence of a coverup? No, just claims which are, at this time, unsubstantiated.

MikeA: I would like to hear any purpose(other than political) that was served by Murtha’s statements. Don’t judge my response before I give it.
Also, docdave was talking about your approval of the treatment of the troops, not any actions they are alleged to have taken. Thought you would know that.

I guess you must all be Irish, because you are all answering my questions with questions.

but I refuse to jump on a bandwagon just cause MikeAdamson says its ok to.

I get that a lot at home too…nite all.

I know, just as Kline and Murtha know, that you don’t shoot women and children in the heads and backs. I also know that you don’t cover it up.

And further, I know that this war was a war of choice from the beginning and has never been about upholding, nor defending the United States or the Constitution of the United States. These kinds of things happen when there is no just cause and there is no perceivable goal . . . it’s just survival and buying time for those guys. Some of my buddies are still in, and some of them are over there, and none of them know why.

CV Rick:

that’s the way cover-ups are exposed

More nonsense. Murtha had absolutely nothing to do with exposing the apparent coverup. He jumped on the bandwagon when the parade was already in full formation.

no more judgements pre-verdict regarding any accusations.

Point me to examples of where I have done this, so that I might do better in the future. Usually I rail against this. I’ll skip the boring part about my personal life code, since I’m pretty certain you’re uninterested in that in any case (other than in trying to score points).

Though if you read what I said above, I make a distinction between a private citizen prejudging a case and an elected official like Murtha, who is expected to uphold the rule of law. The only persons I’m being judgmental about are the elected officials who should keep their fucking mouths shut and let due process run its course.

Can anyone possibly justify Murtha’s behavior? Seriously?

MikeA,

Like you, I try to avoid cliches, however vigorous or tedious they may be, if I can.

That aside, if I have a clock that cannot tell the correct time when I need to know it, I replace the clock.

Bat One…I disagree although I wish I had said “stopped” instead. While we don’t know when it’s right, we do know that it is right twice a day. I’d also like to hear an untired cliche if you have one.

The other MSM agenda with regards to the war is to make equivalence between our military and the terrorists. Kerry has already done this in public, and the entire Abu Ghraib fiasco was in service of that meme. One commentator even said as much. He equivalenced Saddam’s AG with the fraternity pranks a few of our people did. Remember, with every atrocity allegation comes a call to shut down that part of the war effort. They did it with AG and Gitmo, then tried to get Rumsfeld fired. Guess what they will call for even before this one is ajudicated?

“He must have been quite disgusted with what he learned to go public in the manner that he did.”

Or he has sold out to his political party and their continuing strategy of attempting to Vietnamize this war against terror. After all, they have been attempting to do just that since the war began. It doesn’t matter what Murtha might have done in the past; he is trying to lynch these Marines now.

Woof: That is his agenda. He could say nothing else. Yes, don’t bother with the actual report, don’t bother with presumption of innocence, don’t bother with subjecting the prosecution’s case to cross-examination; Murtha has spoken. Let’s just lynch them and get on with trying, for the umpteenth time, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Like “leftie principles”? I forgive you, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

cover-ups are exposed by making the incident and atrocities public, thus forcing that investigation and trial you rail about. without the exposure, the investigation ends and the trial most likely never happens.

barbaric acts even when committed by the good guys

It would have been nice to see ‘good guys’ in quotes, MikeA, but I’ve read enough of your posts so it doesn’t bother me like it would if someone else had said it.

Americans are ‘supposed’ to be the good guys and this isn’t good; in fact, it’s a direct result of what an immoral war does to people who participate in it.

And the Marines’ parents are part of the conspiracy as well, correct? Everyone but you, Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld are suspect.

MikeA: The “sold out” part could be regarded as speculation, or an incredible coincidence, but the Vietnamization part is not. It’s a fact. From the beginning of the war in Iraq, the MSM and many Dem politicians have been comparing Iraq to Vietnam. You really don’t know this?
I was taught at one time that there are no coincidences. Murtha is a Democrat. His party is, and has been, trying to Vietnamize this war from the beginning. He advised Clinton to cut and run from Somalia, which emboldened(in his own words) Bin Laden to initiate and continue jihad against the US. Murtha got a lot of media fame and attention for his cut and run speech where he preached the defeat of the US in Iraq, much to the delight of the Dems. He now tries to get a My Lai type incident going in Iraq. Coincidence? I don’t think so. I can’t say specifically that he wants the fame, but he is certainly not turning away from it.

also you, Carrick . . . no more judgements pre-verdict regarding any accusations.

this board is going to be very quiet.

It is a logical fallacy to generalize from one example. It’s a common disease, though.

Woof: If I sat in court for five days, being called a “monster” by the Corps lawyers, when I hadn’t done anything wrong, I would resign from the Corps as well. Your snide reference to a “deal” is just wrong. He was innocent; the charges were wrong. He was freed because the autopsies told the truth.

You do not have to be enraged to kill in cold blood,
cruel, depraved, sadistic, vengeful works.

The word atrocious has usually been reserved for deliberate premeditate acts of extreme cruelity. I really doubt that that word is appropriate for the actions of this group of soldiers who caught up in battle shot people that they may have assumed were the enemy or perhaps the people were caught in a cross-fire between the soldiers and the enemy. I think that it is extremely unlikely that this unfortunate engagement was planned.

docdave on May 30, 2006 at 8:25 PM

the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn – Definition in context

Appalling or atrocious condition, quality, or behavior; monstrousness

********

This fits the bill quite nicely.

You know how the MSM is, rbb.

That was brutal typing wasn’t it.

r108…your hypothesis is legitimate speculation but improbable from where I sit. I’ll speculate that such anti-Murtha sentiments are part of an agenda to refute criticism of the American decision to go to war and/or of its prosecution.

I do not believe it is a rush to judgment. I posted this earlier: “It is pretty clear from the reports coming out that the military is trying to prepare all of us for some pretty bad stuff in the next few weeks. They have obviously been talking to various legislators on the hill preparing them for the worse as well. The Marine commanders from the area are on the ground in Iraq now to work with the Marines there to remind them of their duty in wartime.

I, for one, am not looking forward to what is ahead.

Our military is NOT what this apparent tragedy will portray. But it will be a bad few weeks for us as a nation.

It is clear that military leaders continue to trust Murtha and talk to him about what is happening so he has the background information on what happened. Even Sen. Warner is expressing concerns about what happened and will be holding hearings on what happened.

Again,I believe that we are in for a few rough weeks and this incident, if true, will be an aberration not who the Marines really are. Nonetheless, it is not what we need in Iraq right now.

The interesting thing here is that the right-wing is all a’tither regarding Murtha’s behavior. Murtha isn’t on trial, nor did he kill innocent civilians execution-style, nor did he participate in a cover-up. You might do well to remember that.

Bat: Furthermore, Murtha’s position gives him more responsibility than the average person.

RBB:

Murtha was right.

By all means, let’s all rush to judgment. Why not just shoot them now and skip the trial?

Bat One…I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I don’t agree with you of course…I am particularly dubious about a code of ethics which appears to favour loyalty over fundamental human conduct although I also appreciate the demands of military engagement and that you need to count on the guy beside you when you’re slugging it out with a committed enemy.

I have already admitted that Murtha’s comments were unusual in their timing and frankness but clearly we differ as to what circumstances would justify his making them. We also disagree on Murtha’s standing in the military community but I’m sure we can agree to disagree.

Finally, there can be no question that the incident occurred. We don’t know which individuals are responsible but we do know that they are Marines and we do know that those responsible for such an act need and will be brought to account. If Murtha had identified specific perpetrators or if he had accused every marine of committing the act then i could concede your point but he did neither…which is why I find the kneejerk reaction of some, not all but some, so laughably nonsensical.

Thanks again for posting your point of view…it is honest thinking such as what you have demonstrated in this thread, that keeps me at SA.

Calling it “an atrocity” is prejudging it before all the evidence and testimony is presented.

So, we shouldn’t say anything about Saddam until after the trial is over, correct Robert?

When you use the troops and every negative story that comes out in a time of war to advance your own political career, you lose the title of Marine. The term is semper fi, meaning “always faithful”. You don’t sell out your shipmates.

That is what Kerry and Murtha have done. No heroism in time of war can trump their cowardice today. No Silver Star trumps what Kerry said in the Senate.

You let the facts come out. Murtha is basically asking to fry these men so that his own political agenda gets advanced. What a piece of shit.

Since this happened in NOVEMBER, I doubt your claim of a ‘rush’ to judgment.

Calling it “an atrocity” is prejudging it before all the evidence and testimony is presented.

May a god have mercy on us all.

Murtha was right.

Lance Corp. Ryan Briones was among the Marines sent in to recover the bodies, and he told the Los Angeles Times he is still haunted by what he saw, including a young girl who was shot in the head.
“[The victims] ranged from little babies to adult males and females,” Briones told the newspaper. “I can still smell the blood.”

Briones says he and another Marine were told to photograph the bodies. Military officials say those photos — which they say show people shot at close range in the head and chest — clearly contradict initial reports that the civilians were killed by a roadside bomb.

“>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=2017565

**********

Hey, rbb…save your emotion.

THEY DON’T CARE.

If you ever had any doubts these folks weren’t normal, they should be gone after this one.

Scary, isn’t it????

What has this country become under Bush? Thank goodness his ratings are down so low. Maybe people are waking up before the cancerous immorality yeasts it’s way through the whole country.

MikeA.

Since mine was the first comment, and it is based on personal experience and personal ties, I’ll be glad to answer you.

My point was not that Murtha does not have a “right” to voice his opinion. In fact, I said just the opposite. But just as he is free to voice his opinion on something in which he was not directly or personally involved, so too are others free to criticize Murtha. It’s how freedom of speech works, actually.

My point is simply that in prejudging the Marines involved in this incident, prior to the completion of the formal investigation, and prior to a court martial determination on their guilt or innocence, Murtha has surrendered his “right” to continue to call himself a Marine. And I would be very surprised if you will find any other Marines who would disagree with my assessment.

The rules are really pretty simple. You do NOT leave a wounded comrade on the field of battle. And in essence, that is exactly what Murtha has done here.

Incidentally, you earlier stated,

Murtha has long been regarded by senior officers as sympathetic to the cause of the fighting men and women which is why he has always received information outside of the normal channels.

This is nonsense. The regard by senior officers toward Murtha stems as much from his position on the House Military Appropriations Subcommittee on which he is the senior Democrat, and of which he was formerly long time Chairman, a role which fit rather nicely with his lobbyist brother’s list of Defense contractor clients. If Murtha was highly regarded by senior officers beyond his role in doling out DoD contracts, it certainly is not apparent in the fact that after 37 years service, over 30 of which was in the Reserves, he attained only the rank of Colonel. Hardly impressive.

Finally, you state,

One can agree with your view of Murtha only if one accepts the notion that criticism of American policy is anti-American and anti-military. He must have been quite disgusted with what he learned to go public in the manner that he did.

I would not speak for Rob, or anyone else, but to me Murtha’s lack of judgement on matter is which he is suppoedly an expert is the question. Not Murtha’s patriotism, but his judgement. Our withdrawal from Somalia, and the manner in which it was done, at Murtha’s insistance, and UBL’s later reference to that very fact, are certianly reason enough to call Murtha’s judgement into question when he offers the same lame advice again, presumably knowing, despite his advanced years, what the response will be to his suggestion.

In short, for anyone with his record of appallingly bad advice, to again offer the same advice, whatever his reason or justification, is clearly a matter of faulty judgement. Partisanship, his or mine, has nothing to do with it.

r108…I’m talking about Murtha and not what other Democrats may or may not be saying or feeling…just Murtha.

Atrocities are what women do to their unborned when they abort (kill) them. What is the latest statistic? How many millions? Funny how the liberals never say anything about those atrocities.

docdave on May 30, 2006 at 8:37 PM

No ‘doc’, your duplicity is disgusting. I decried abortion in the abortion thread and I decry this here.

Not you, though. No…couldn’t be the U.S. is perpetrating atrocities, could it?

Yeah…it could, they have and they have for some time. You just whitewash or deny.

It’s going to come back to haunt you.

How about the Marines’ families?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13038563/

HANFORD, Calif. – Two Marines were severely traumatized after following orders to photograph corpses of unarmed Iraqi civilians that members of their unit are suspected of killing, their families said Monday.

The parents of Lance Cpl. Andrew Wright, 20, and Lance Cpl. Roel Ryan Briones, 21, both members of a Marine unit based at Camp Pendleton, said their sons were sent into the western Iraqi city of Haditha to help remove the bodies of as many as two dozen men, women and children who were shot.

While there, the two were ordered to photograph the scene with personal cameras they happened to be carrying the day of the attack, the families told The Associated Press in separate interviews. Briones’ mother, Susie, said her son told her mother he saw the bodies of 23 dead Iraqis that day.

“It was horrific. It was a terrible scene,” Susie Briones said in a tearful interview Monday at her home in California’s San Joaquin Valley.

…Susie Briones called the Nov. 19 incident a “massacre” and said the military had done little to help her son, who goes by his middle name, deal with his post-traumatic stress disorder.

…One was a little girl who had been shot in the head, Susie Briones said.

“He had to carry that little girl’s body,” she said, “and her head was blown off and her brain splattered on his boots.”

If Murtha/Time/etc. didn’t put daylight on this would the Marines have covered it up?

Think the Iraqis consider this incident unusual?

Lt Calley first sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor.

wo days after the verdict, Nixon ordered Calley to be placed under house arrest while his appeal worked its way through the courts
his sentence was reduced to ten years by Secretary of the Army Howard Callaway. After a great deal of legal wrangling, Calley was paroled on September 9, 1974. He had served 3 ½ years under house arrest

No one else was convicted of any crime/

Carrick: I have a very different take on this. Even if the present reports are 100% true, this is not the way to handle it, with all the political grandstanding. It should be handled after the end of hostilities, and not out in public. The present micromanaging tactics of combat started in the Vietnam War, and its purpose was to cripple the war effort. The media and the left succeeded, and so now they have a green light to do the same thing in Iraq. The real purpose of all this, IMO, is to cripple our ability to fight and win in Iraq. Murtha has already called it a defeat and for us to cut and run, and he has a position to support here. Crippling the ability of the Marines to fight the terrorists will result in more casualties on both sides and a prolonging of the war, both of which the MSM/Dems want. Their worst nightmare is a positive outcome before 11/06, and their second-worst one is a positive outcome before 11/08. Or, it might just be a big coincidence.

Reality is Murtha reported what he was told by the Military.

Again

Murtha reports you decide.

“I understand the investigation shows that in fact there was no firefight, there was no explo Murtha

“Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That is what the report is going to tell.“

Again

Once again, in their usual mode, the MSM is only reporting one side of the story. Even in a trial, the prosecution always goes first. Then, the defense refutes(or not) some or all of the prosecution’s case. If the defense does that, it doesn’t matter what the prosecution said, since it is not proven. Since this has not happened yet, all we know is the MSM’s highly agendized recitation of the prosecution’s charges. In other words, unless you were there at the time, you don’t know anything, other than the MSM/Dems/Murtha want to lynch these Marines. If they are so sure of their case, why the rush to judgment? Surely not for the purposes of justice. Maybe they know the case is weak, and are trying to get maximum damage to the President and the military, so that when it’s all disproven, they can bury it on page 101 and trump up the next phony story, hoping the public will soon forget another one of their egregious errors in reporting.

we have eyewitness accounts from survivors including one boy who was shot in the back and lived. survivors who were sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, of those who were slaughtered.

Wrong. That’s not how military justice works. Making it public usually has the opposite result. Lt. Calley would have been thrown into Leavenworth without the public attention. You just don’t get it.

robert, the word atrocity is an overkill for whatever the marines did.

Remember, that ‘doc’, if someone blows the head off you grandbaby and her brains splattered all over your military boots. Just ‘overkill’. What they allegedly did was OVERKILL.

CV Rick:

Since this happened in NOVEMBER, I doubt your claim of a ‘rush’ to judgment.

When was the court date again, and can you point me to the final report of the investigation?

If you don’t have all of the facts, obtained in an impartial manner, and especially if you are relying on eyewitness accounts of uncertain quality, then how can you consider yourself to not be rushing to judgement?

“Even a broken clock is right twice a day.”

MikeA,

The problem with that rather tired cliche, is that to know that the clock is right, one must know what time it is beforehand.

docdave said

In my opinion, the only nations that we should consider in our international plans are our allies. When Canada did not support us in Iraq and then proceeded to bad-mouth us, they ceased to be a reliable ally. So I don’t give a flip for your opinions and couldn’t care less how you and your country are affected by what we do for our national interests.

Now I’m really scratching my head. I can see rejecting my arguments because you think they’re full of shit or because I’m a leftard but it sounds like you’re rejecting them because I’m Canadian. You do know we’re just two schmucks talking on the internet right because it almost sounds like you’ve bought into this weird myth that you’re contributing to your nation by patrolling on the SA front.

Hmm yes, it would be much better if our troops spent training learning how to bake cookies, I suppose.

I never said you defended it; you just never criticize it like you do Iraq. Every negative you cite about Iraq goes double for Bosnia/Kosovo. No spin, just the facts.

Further to my use of the word “atrocity” to describe the killings in Iraq…I was bundling up my Globe and Mails for recycling this morning and saw the following headline in last saturday’s edition:

Details surface of U.S. ‘atrocity’ in Iraq

It’s quite possible that the word stuck in my mind having read the article over the weekend…the article is online if anyone is interested in reading it. I note that the congressman from Minnesota used the term in his assessment so I suppose not all Marines find the term inappropriate in this context.

r108…Murtha named no individuals but merely described the events as cold blooded murder. The fact that some in the marines apparently tried to make the events go away may have played a role in Murtha deciding to go public with his impressions thus focusing more attention on the military investigation. One hopes that people and organisations will take responsibility for their actions but sometimes a nudge or two is needed.

I respect Murtha’s war record but it doesn’t give him a free pass to do the dishonorable things he has done to these Marines who deserve a fair and unbiased day in court.

He should be ashamed to categorically proclaim these Marines guilty without giving them their day in court. I read today that now he wants to be majority leader if the democrats get the house back…ergo his motivation..

I guess he ccould add that title to his long career list of Marine Colonel, Lawyer, Judge, Jury, and despicable lunatic!

See what happens when you disagree with these jokers, CVRick?

The truth is, Murtha is on trial. And so are you, so am I, and so is everyone who opposes the war, is anti-Bush policy or just ‘looks wrong’ to these ‘folk’.

Because I just wanted to know if you think any of the criticisms are justified.

Writing at The American Thinker, JR Dunn draws the proper conclusion regarding Democrat Congressman and former Marine John Murtha far more colorfully than I have.

(Senator Joe) McCarthy planned to drag (Marine Colonel and Maoist acolyte, Evans) Carlson before his committee and expose him as a follower of the evil Mao tse-Tung, whose troops were even then fighting UN forces in Korea.

At least, that was what he planned until a high-ranking Marine officer stalked into his congressional office and explained to the senator that once a Marine, always a Marine, and that Marines, no matter what the circumstances, never betray their brothers in arms.

McCarthy replied that he understood. At which point, legend insists, the officer said, “And besides, man, this is Carlson! You get him riled, he will f***ing kill you!”

Joe McCarthy was, at best, a vulgar, cheap opportunist. But he understood where at least one line was drawn: Marines did not turn on other Marines.

It has taken over half a century, but the Democrats have achieved a historic landmark. They have produced a politician beneath the standards of Joe McCarthy. A man who does not know where the line is drawn. Who will not allow justice to take its course. A man who will devour his own for the purposes of saving his superannuated political career.

Like I said… former Marine.

Mike, you said “higher up in the chain of command.” Obviously, Bush is the highest.

Just thought that’s what you meant.

Sorry, Rob, not all Americans see government as a necessary evil.

Well, right.

Only the smart ones do.