Comments on: Murtha: Marines Murdered 15 Unarmed Iraqi Civilians

By: Hollywood, Interrupted

Hollywood, Interrupted — Mon, 22 May 2006 04:57:50 +0000

DOLLARD DISPATCH #5: WHERE’S THE CIVIL WAR? – MEET ALI BABA...

The cold metal in my hand may as well have been the palm of Jesus Christ welcoming me into heaven. As I gripped the Humvee door latch, pulled it, and dragged myself inside, it meant I had made it out......

By: Bithead

Bithead — Thu, 18 May 2006 23:31:21 +0000

The question, to my mind is, will we see an apology out of dishonest John, if the troops are found innocent by one way or another?

I figure we stand about as much chance to see an apology of that as we will of the story about supposed domestic wire tapping, and the story about how a everybody knew that Karl Rove had been indicted.

By: Herb

Herb — Thu, 18 May 2006 22:26:35 +0000

That Female Ohio Congresswoman had it right. Murtha is a coward. Gary Gross has it right also, he is a traitor. A traitor to the American People as well as to the US Marines.

Murtha is no doubt seeking his 15 minutes of fame by making charges that are no less than that of an Anti American rumor monger that is hell bent on trying to destroy a Military group that has the highest traditions of patriotism under their belts and who have proven the highest integrity standards obtainable.

Murtha should be driven out of office with a Yellow Stripe painted on his back.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 18 May 2006 22:21:07 +0000

Dave, according to the reports, women and children were killed execution-style as they prayed.

If that's not "in cold blood," what is?

If the charges are true, let's hope that the killers are executed and that the rest of the Corps applauds the purification of their service.

If not, then a big dish of crow to Murtha and others, & maybe a defamation suit or three.

By: All Things Beautiful

All Things Beautiful — Thu, 18 May 2006 22:08:31 +0000

The Murtha Court-Martial...

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa), one of the Bush Administration's chief critics, and an ex-Marine himself has made a public accusation that U.S. Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush tha...

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Thu, 18 May 2006 17:12:11 +0000

Consider the following different formulations: "killed" "killed accidentally" "killed in the heat of battle" "killed in cold blood" All may describe the same objective phenomenon. The difference among them is intent and, presumably, degree of culpability. Use of the words "in cold blood" implies first degree murder. It's inflammatory in a way that saying, simply, "killed" would not be and I don't see how that can be seen any other way.

By: MrGone

MrGone — Thu, 18 May 2006 16:40:21 +0000

In spite of what many are saying, Murtha doesn't strike me as the political grandstanding type. For instance, he's been in the congress for 32 years and the first any of us heard of him was when he called for troops to be pulled because he thought that there was a civil war going on and that we were now targets. He was called a coward and many other names then but it's interesting how much of what he said is true and now beginning to happen. Including the draw down. At the time, I got the impression that he stood up on this because of his genuine concern for the guys in the field. It didn't appear, to me at least, that he was politically motivated. Indeed, his proposal was rejected by nearly everyone, including the dems. So now he comes out talking about this incident. The MSNBC account mentions confirmation by military sources. â??This one is ugly," one official told NBC News. One should also keep in mind that he's a fairly plain talking guy. "In cold blood" may be just the way he talks not an attempt to be inflammatory. He may also be really upset about what happened. So, I'm not sure what his motivation here is. Whether it's to keep it from being hidden or maybe it's still due to ongoing concern for the troops. But I can't really agree with the blogswarm that he's a traitor, should resign etc. Call me naive, but he strikes me as one of the very few principled people we have in Congress. There's a reason he's talking about this and it's probably a good one. You don't have to do much imagining to realize the S#$@Tstorm this would cause and he's not a fool.

By: The Unalienable Right » Rep. John Murtha prejudges Marines to score political points

Thu, 18 May 2006 16:08:12 +0000

[...] Others: Outside the Beltway Michelle Malkin Captain’s Quarters Hugh Hewitt Memeorandum posted by: The Editors @ 7:56 am May 18, 2006 [...]

By: legion

legion — Thu, 18 May 2006 15:47:07 +0000

LJD, You assume there would even be an investigation if Murtha, or someone with his clout, didn't open their mouths. The whitewashing of Abu Ghraib, the 9-11 commission, and other so-called 'investigations' makes for a strong argument otherwise...

By: LJD

LJD — Thu, 18 May 2006 14:44:47 +0000

Regardless of the ultimate result of the investigation, it is absolutely inexcuseable for Murtha to open his fat mouth before completion of said investigation, or before these troops get their day in court. I guess that standard only applies to 'eenmy combatants'.

By: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Dishonorable Murtha

Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Dishonorable Murtha — Thu, 18 May 2006 14:38:26 +0000

[...] Outside The Beltway Haditha Marines Murtha Filed in: The Iraqi War | 11 Comments » [...]

By: Ugh

Ugh — Thu, 18 May 2006 14:35:13 +0000

Other speculation seen elsewhere: He did it to try to prevent Rumsfeld's toadies from classifying and then deep sixing the investigative report, as they tried to bury the Taguba report on Abu Ghraib.

By: lily

lily — Thu, 18 May 2006 14:34:10 +0000

Murtha also stated that he believed the incident was the result of stress. I don't know if he went on to say that the stress came from the insufficient troop levels, but that conclusion seems reasonable to me.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 18 May 2006 14:17:57 +0000

Fair enough. But his statement is about what the investigation will find. That much, we'll see soon enough.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Thu, 18 May 2006 14:11:55 +0000

Furthermore, this is a factually falsifiable statement that will either soon be authenticated or proved false.

Not precisely. Whether the incident took place or not is factually falsifiable. Whether it was done "in cold blood" is subjective. That's a characterization of state of mind which is only subjectively falsifiable.