Originally Posted By Mort2 There has been much talk as of late how Congressman John Murtha is anti-military and against the troops. For example, "The very military that Murtha likes to smear will tell you of amazing progress in Iraq." Please post here all direct quotes from Murtha that shows he is anti-military and against the troops. Thank you.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon The very fact that Murtha accuses the troops of being guilty of an "atrocity" before the facts are in is disgraceful enough for me. Murtha is a shameful opportunist of the first order, and the fact that he tries to use his past military service as a way of immunizing himself against all forms of criticism of his irresponsible comments is what I find most disgraceful about him.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Murtha has been extensively briefed by the military on this matter, and has far more knowledge than you or me. So does another congressman highly briefed on the matter (I posted this on another thread, but it bears repeating here). Check out the words of John Kline (R-MN - note that R before his name), himself a retired Marine colonel. <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magaz" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/magaz</a> ine/article/0,9171,1198892,00.html "This was a small number of Marines who fired directly on civilians and killed them," said Representative John Kline, a Minnesota Republican and former Marine who was briefed two weeks ago by Marine Corps officials. "This is going to be an ugly story." (snip) "There's no doubt that the Marines allegedly involved in doing this--they lied about it," says Kline. "They certainly tried to cover it up."
Originally Posted By Mort2 From post 2: "The very fact that Murtha accuses the troops of being guilty of an "atrocity" before the facts are in is disgraceful enough for me..." >>> Proof of Murtha saying the troops are guilty, please. And link to quote for reference, thank you.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon Here's one interested party who doesn't think much of Murtha. SLAIN MARINE'S KIN BLASTS JOHN MURTHA The aunt of slain Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, whose death in a roadside bombing in Haditha, Iraq last November prompted his fellow Marines to launch what military critics are calling a massacre of innocent civilians, is blasting Rep. John Murtha for prejudging their actions. "Putting Michael's battalion in a bad light, it's like putting Michael in a bad light," Rosario Terrazas told radio host Steve Malzberg, filling in on Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" show. "It's especially hurtful when certain people make statements that may be opinions but come across as facts," she added. "It's a little difficult to hear people making statements indicating that these allegations are true. There's an ongoing investigation and nothing has been concluded to this point." Asked if she was referring to Rep. Murtha specifically, Mrs. Terrazas told Malzberg: "Yes, his statements come across as though they are facts at this point and it's a little bit unfair." Mrs. Terrazas said Miguel had a number of relatives who served in the military. "Mike's grandfather was in the Army and two of my brothers were in the Marine Corps." Of the allegations against Lance Cpl. Terrazas' fellow soldiers, she said: "It's very difficult to believe that Marines would react in the way that they're being accused of."
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon And incidentally, no matter what kind of "briefing" Murtha or any other grandstander in Congress has gotten (and those with an R after their party label are also capable of that), they are not the ones who will be the final judges of what really happened. His conduct is irresponsible at the bare minimum, and reeks of an attempt to attract more publicity for himself as an anti-war spokesman who knows the media will bow at his feet at any opportunity, and that if the ruling ends up being that the story is not as he characterizes it, we can then expect some chorus of "cover-up!" to then emerge.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Oh there's a chorus of "cover-up" alright - but directed at the pentagon, not murtha. By THOMAS WATKINS, Associated Press Writer Thursday, June 1, 2006 >> The Washington Post reported Thursday that investigators will conclude that some officers involved gave false testimony to their superiors, who then failed to scrutinize the reports adequately. << So why is your outrage directed at murtha? What about the 'soldiers' that did this? What about the officers who abetted by lying? Not a peep outta you, huh. 24 innocent men women and children shot dead in their own home - by us - and all you can do is squawk about murtha. Where are your priorities?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The very fact that Murtha accuses the troops of being guilty of an "atrocity" before the facts are in is disgraceful enough for me. << "Disgraceful" is it? And maybe you're squeamish about the word "atrocity". What do you call it? The facts are in. They're dead. We killed them. Do you think maybe there are some mitigating factors that could explain how our military could drag children from their beds and shoot them point blank in the head? This whole line of GOP talking points about attacking murtha while ignoring the incident itself shows just how morally bankrupt these so called christian moralists really are.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon My priorities are with standing by the troops. Which is more than I can say for those who've been trying to undermine their mission in Iraq for months with false stories and urgings to bug-out.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon If atrocities were committed, the military will deal with those who are guilty. That's how our system works. What I am sick and tired of is seeing how grandstanders then try to exploit something to falsely impugn our troops with being the equivalent of those who practice terrorism, or who want to use it as a means to achieve their cherished desire of America leaving Iraq with its head between its legs. This kind of exploitation happened before in Vietnam with the incessant drumbeat of attention given to My Lai, an isolated instance exploited by the anti-war Left to paint America as the bad guys in Vietnam...and not one word was ever devoted to wholesale slaughter of villages and peoples by the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese in the Hue Massacre which should have been enough to remind people of which side was fighting for the decent cause then. Let the facts come out and let any guilty people be properly punished, but do not use something like this to smear the troops as a whole, which is beyond shameful from those who evidently have little regard for the positive impact the vast majority of American forces have brought to the Iraqi people.
Originally Posted By Mort2 >>... but do not use something like this to smear the troops as a whole, which is beyond shameful...<< I agree completely. Using this to smear the troops as a whole is shameful. In fact, it is beyond shameful. Also, it is likewise beyond shameful, in my opinion, to use this to smear the specific persons that *may* have committed this act. *If* things are as has been reported, these men snapped after being subjected to too much pressure for far too long. Everyone involved in this *alleged* attack deserves our compassion and understanding. All of them are human. They are us. - - - Now, having said my piece about this, please provide quotes of Murtha smearing the troops.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> it is likewise beyond shameful, in my opinion, to use this to smear the specific persons that *may* have committed this act. << Boy I don't know. Is it 'smeaing' them to call a spade a spade? And can you really differentiate between the perpetrators and the uniform that they wear? If they had done something heroic, people would be rallying to say what shining examples of the US armed forces they are. Well that cuts both ways. If they do something reprehensible, they were still representing our country when they did it. It reflets on us - you, me and everybody else. It's not just "these specific individuals" - it's the US military that they're representing, whether they do something wonderful or something awful. This situation reminds me a bit of the patty hearst story. Would she have robbed banks if she hadn't been taken out of her familiar life and suddenly placed into this extraordinary circumstance? Almost certainly not. And yet she still knew that it's not okay to go into a bank toting a machine gun and point it at innocent people while you're stealing. And she still knew that she was a hearst and that this was going to reflect badly on her family name. But she did it anyway, and she was sentenced to prison. So these soldiers may well have "snapped", because their's just no rationale for what they've apparantly done. But they still must have known that their actions were violating the most basic laws of humanity. And they must have known that they're representing the united states and its people. They have shamed themselves, they have shamed the marines, and they have shamed us. The repercussions of this incident cannot be waived away, as much as the neo-cons wish it were true. Instead they deflect any criticism by saying it's improper. Well guess what - so is executing 24 innocent men women and children. This cannot be minimized or dodged. And the fault does not lie with those who are critical of these heinous acts. >> If atrocities were committed, the military will deal with those who are guilty. That's how our system works. << Not really. We've seen first hand how the military deals with this situation. They lie. They say that the deaths are a result of a roadside bomb. Even as they're examining the corpses with bullet holes in them. They lie right up to the time when they're presented with incontrovertible evidence that says otherwise. Then they say that they'll investigate thoroughly. I bring up the pat tillman case yet again. They said the same thing then too, and then conducted four separate investigations that weren't worth the paper they were printed on. They lied repeatedly and knowingly. They said they'd investigate the abu ghraib incident, even as they were covering it up. More than a year later, no one of any significant rank has been convicted of anything. They lied. It's not surprising really. What motive does the military have to be forthright and open about these matters? None. Except of course for things like honor and integrity. They pay a lotta lip service to those ideals, but in point of fact they're in short supply. Incidents like this, and abu ghraib, and the criminal mistreatment of prisoners in guantanamo, are a direct result of a failure of leadership. The ultimate responsibility for this is with the leadership. Where are they? Nowhere to be found. Why are they engaging in these lies and cover-ups? To cover their own butts. How noble. So no - it's not wrong to call the military to task for their own actions and misdeeds. Some here call it "exploitation". How do you figure? Do you really think that after something as enormous as this that people are going to tiptoe around the military's sensitive feelings? It's not exploiting the story to shine a light on it and say that it's directly traceable to the leadership of the military and of the iraq war. It's not "unfair" and it's not "shameful". The only shame I feel is for my country and what our military is doing to its reputation. We need two investigations - one into the incident itself, and another one into the attempted cover-up. We cannot expect the military to investigate their own cover-up - that's ridiculous. It needs to be impartial, therefore it needs to be taken out of the hands of the military and given to an independent authority. Heresy to say so, huh. But if what you really want is to know the facts, it's absolutely necessary. To think otherwise betrays false motives - you don't really want the facts, instead you just want a tidy outcome. Not me - I want to know what happened, and I want justice for those innocent people. Crazy me.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Here's one interested party who doesn't think much of Murtha.>> The OP didn't ask for some conservative yahoo's opinion on Murtha. They want Murtha quotes, and I've yet to see one.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <This whole line of GOP talking points about attacking murtha while ignoring the incident itself shows just how morally bankrupt these so called christian moralists really are.> Amen.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Here are a few quotes from Murtha who " supports the troops " so much he calls them broken and then accuses them of killing in cold blood before we even have a completed investigation. Murtha makes it known that he feels the military are a bunch of wimps whe can't handle the pressue of their job, so they now kill people in cold blood. Murhta is a disgrace. " Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group. "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," Murtha said. "They actually went into the houses and killed women and children," Murtha said.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<They have shamed themselves, they have shamed the marines, and they have shamed us.>> You say this before the investigation is complete. Then you wonder why people say the left are anti military and accuse them of helping the enemy by saying the same things the enemy says.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The people who have been extensively briefed on this, Beau, have basically been saying the soldiers will be found guilty, and the military hasn't refuted them. Remember, there's video of the scene that completely contradicts the marines' initial story. If anything, they're subtly getting us used to the idea so that when they are found guilty, it will be less of a story. That's how it seems to me, anyway. It's like saying Pooh was going to replace CBJ, even though DL hadn't officially said so yet. At some point, everyone knew it.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon What ever happened to due process? If the soldiers were ilegals it would probably be ok.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That's just the thing. I'm not seeing even the perfunctory statements of "innocent until proven guilty" from the military about Haditha any more. Which is why I think it's pretty much a done deal. That's in contrast to that other incident in which they WERE saying such things, and in fact the soldiers were cleared today. But they're not even paying lip service to their potential innocence on Haditha; Murtha (and Republican Kline) say basically that they're guilty and the military doesn't even protest. That tells me they're just readying the statements and hoping to limit the damage to the soldiers themselves.
