What to make of this? http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/25/hagee.iraq/index.html Tough circumstances lead to less than acceptable behavior at times. Also tough commentary on the way things are in Iraq.
This sure sounds bad, but experience has taught us to be cautious of any news story from CNN, especially one that quotes Mother Murtha. I'd like to hear more and see what other sources are saying...
I don't think any of us can judge unless we have been under those circumstances. Murtha seems very quick to sell out his Marine brothers. I know a few personally who don't speak highly of Murtha because of this. I also suspect that incidents similar to these alleged examples have occurred in all wars but with the level of reporting today, e-mail and camera technology the word spreads fast. And I still remember my son telling me on hisi return from the mideast that they all hate us; some are just more prone to campaign actively against us than others.
As to Murtha apparently his motto is "sometimes fi." But we learned this week in the William Jefferson matter that members of our congress are above the law, the laws that they write. Their arrogance is truely astounding. So apparently, once a Marine always a Marine is tempered with, "unless they become a member of Congress in which case they are now gods.
Here's what "Fair and Balanced" had to say and it isn't pretty. (N.B. emphasis added) Marines Could Face Murder Charges in Deaths of Iraqi Civilians in Haditha Friday, May 26, 2006 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197168,00.html WASHINGTON — Murder charges may be brought against some Marines for what may be the worst atrocity committed by U.S. military personnel in Iraq, a senior Pentagon official said Friday. The official said Marines were likely responsible for killing as many as two dozen unarmed civilians, including women and children, in Haditha last November. A separate investigation is under way into whether Marines tried to cover up the killings. The official requested anonymity, citing the ongoing criminal investigation of the incident. The Marines initially reported that one Marine and 15 Iraqi civilians had been killed in crossfire when U.S. forces responded to an insurgent attack on Nov. 19. The first report to the contrary surfaced in March, when Time magazine quoted witnesses saying the Marines "went on a rampage after the attack, killing 15 unarmed Iraqis in their homes, including seven women and three children." In addition, photos taken of the scene reportedly do not support the Marines' original account of how the incident evolved. A Pentagon official said that the Time report was "fairly benign" compared to what the investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and Multi-National Forces Iraq has uncovered. Lawmakers have been told that the results of the probe will be issued in about 30 days, a congressional official said. Three Marines have been relieved of their command, though the reasons have not been announced. Any Marines found guilty of murder, a capital offense, could face the death penalty. Last week, Rep. John Murtha, a decorated Vietnam veteran and former Marine who is the ranking Democrat on the House Defense Subcommittee, told reporters after being briefed on the probe that the killings were committed "in cold blood." On Thursday, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner told reporters that "incidents of a very serious nature did take place." A Pentagon spokesman said Friday that he believes the military's investigation is winding down, but that no announcements should be expected in the next few days. Eric Ruff, the Pentagon press secretary, did not comment on reports that murder charges were possible' he said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was being kept apprised of the investigations. "Needless to say, we have to take seriously allegations of that type, and they're under investigation and they will then be handled in the normal order of things," Rumsfeld said on FOX News last week. On Wednesday, the Marines announced that a separate investigation had been launched into the alleged killing of an Iraqi civilian in Hamandiyah by Marines in April. As many as eight Marines who may have been involved were relieved of their command and ordered back to the United States, an official said. A Pentagon official said the death occurred "outside of any authorized operations" and that some Marines have already confessed to involvement. On Thursday, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Michael W. Hagee flew to Iraq to warn his troops against allowing the unrelenting insurgent violence to leave them callous to human suffering and the loss of life. "We do not employ force just for the sake of employing force. We use lethal force only when justified, proportional and, most importantly, lawful," Hagee wrote in a statement issued by his office. Aides said it was the basis of remarks he intended to make to Marines in Iraq this week. "Many of our Marines have been involved in life or death combat or have witnessed the loss of their fellow Marines, and the effects of these events can be numbing," Hagee said in his statement. "There is the risk of becoming indifferent to the loss of a human life, as well as bringing dishonor upon ourselves." "To a Marine, honor is more than just honesty; it means having uncompromising personal integrity and being accountable for all actions," Hagee said. He urged all Marines to have the moral courage to "do the 'right thing' in the face of danger or pressure from other Marines." He referred to "recent serious allegations about actions of Marines in combat," but he did not specifically cite the two cases — one from last November and the other in April — of alleged killings of civilians. Both the House and Senate armed services committees plan to hold hearings on the matter. Hagee met with top lawmakers from those panels this week and discussed the November and April incidents
Nobody judged them in this thread. But the point is BS anyway. Only bank robbers should serve on bank robbery case juries, right? They'll be judged under the UCMJ by a panel of Officers and NCOs. You'd be all over MCG if he put that kind of specious comment. It's The Trailer Trash Defense. Smear the commentator to deflect focus from the participants. Murtha isn't running the investigation(s) the military is. I'll bet your parents didn't buy the "But Everybody Else Does It" alibi when you were growing up, did they? And you didn't buy it from your kids. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? No doubt many/most of them do. But what the hell does campaigning having to do with violations of the rules of engagement and coverups?
"You'd be all over MCG if he put that kind of specious comment. It's The Trailer Trash Defense. Smear the commentator to deflect focus from the participants. Murtha isn't running the investigation(s) the military is." Jack, To be sure there is a shoot the messenger mentality around here when the news reported doesn't support the "home" team in the "Bush" league.
I'm not buying that BS MCG...Let's put things in perspective, for a moment. There have been atrocities commited by rogue soldiers in every conflict in this nations history. That is not to say that it is any less heinous or deserving of disgust and appropriate criminal proceedings. It assuredly is and those responsible should be dealt with in the most severe manner. But it is to say that Bush is no more responsible, than was Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, et al. He should of course hold the relevant military commanders accountable and he will.... War is a terrible thing and bad things happen. There are bad guys wearing the uniform of every military that has ever been and they willl do bad things but I would say that the men and women that make up the armed services of the United States today is the best educated, most professional military that the world has ever seen, bar none. Terry
T, Don't get me wrong....I'm not saying this has anything to do with Bush. Didn't mean to infer that at all. My comment was directed at the "shoot the messenger" ammo that comes out when I do post articles that may reflect negatively on W or don't seem to tout his many attributes. :wink:
Now, now, MCG... I don't ever recall anybody "Shooting the Messenger" over you posting an article...it's usually over the button pushing...you know what I'm talking about... -MCG :lol: stu
Jack: I have no combat experience so I can't judge the alleged actions of these Marines. Perhaps you do and have already formed your judgement. I never made any reference to "the messenger" or to shooting him. What the hell are you talking about? I 'm not making any excuses for anybody. I'm just not ready to jump on the "guilty as alleged" bandwagon. Admittedly I don't have the concern for Muslim life that you must. I would have much preferred a generalized destruction of Iraq's military and infrastructure followed by an immediate evacuation of our forces and let them clean up the mess. I never thought Iraq should be democratized; that's a pipe dream.
George, I truly think this is all about strategic oil reserves formerly belonging to Hussein's evil clan. I think the WMD fiasco was just a way to justify taking over control of Iraqi oil away from Saddam. If it is not about that then it is about personal vendetta, etc. and I would be very, very disappointed in our nation's leaders to think that's what it was truly about. To send our nations sons and daughters to die for such a cause is heinous so I won't believe that was a root cause. So....if it's about oil then how do we win? What can we do to ensure a friendly supply of oil from Iraq? Is this scenario an impossibilty and if so then I say it's time to pack up and get the hell out of there. Either admit what our true reasons are for being there or vacate immediately.
MCG, Be careful. Your last post sounds like you are for what you are accusing the Bush administration of doing. So… I read this to say that if we can work out a way to get friendly oil supply from Iraq, then we stay to that end. This is one of the many fingers that you pointed at the Bush administration. Now I’m confused… Should we be there for oil?
Tom, I'm with George. I don't believe that Iraq can be "democratized" permanently as an oil-U.S. friendly country. If oil has been the agenda all along with this administration hopefully they will pursue it to successful completion and set something up where we absolutely control it. If oil is not the agenda and they are just trying to fix a mess then I say set an internal unpublicized timetable and get of Iraq before many more U.S. lives are lost for an uncertain cause. I just don't buy the "Saddam is a bad man" answer that I have seen put forth here as the reason we should have gone in there. There are bad men running the show all over the globe and millions dying in some country's internal strife but we don't sacfrice our young people in those places to get rid of those bad men. From CBS: "CBS) The United Nations has called it the greatest crisis in the world. The United States calls it genocide. It's happening in the African nation of Sudan, and 60 Minutes went to see for ourselves. What we saw and what you will see again tonight is evidence of a government-backed campaign to wipe out a race"
I believe that the official reason was to rid Iraq from a genocidal dictator, a mass murderer and a man who never accounted for lots of missing WMDs. This should have been a job for the United Nations but that organization has been gelded to the point of total uselessness. Alterior motives, in my opinion, were to position ourselves in the region between our two biggest enemies in that part of the world, Syria and Iran. Along with our base in Afghanistan we now, in theory, have them in check. I think the stabilization of the oil supply definitely played a role in this whole thing. The "personal grudge" angle is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Mr. Murtha's Rush to Judgment Sunday, May 28, 2006; B06 A year ago I was charged with two counts of premeditated murder and with other war crimes related to my service in Iraq. My wife and mother sat in a Camp Lejeune courtroom for five days while prosecutors painted me as a monster; then autopsy evidence blew their case out of the water, and the Marine Corps dropped all charges against me ["Marine Officer Cleared in Killing of Two Iraqis," news story, May 27, 2005]. So I know something about rushing to judgment, which is why I am so disturbed by the remarks of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) regarding the Haditha incident ["Death Toll Rises in Haditha Attack, GOP Leader Says," news story, May 20]. Mr. Murtha said, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." In the United States, we have a civil and military court system that relies on an investigatory and judicial process to make determinations based on evidence. The system is not served by such grand pronouncements of horror and guilt without the accuser even having read the investigative report. Mr. Murtha's position is particularly suspect when he is quoted by news services as saying that the strain of deployment "has caused them [the Marines] to crack in situations like this." Not only is he certain of the Marines' guilt but he claims to know the cause, which he conveniently attributes to a policy he opposes. Members of the U.S. military serving in Iraq need more than Mr. Murtha's pseudo-sympathy. They need leaders to stand with them even in the hardest of times. Let the courts decide if these Marines are guilty. They haven't even been charged with a crime yet, so it is premature to presume their guilt -- unless that presumption is tied to a political motive. ILARIO PANTANO Jacksonville, N.C. The writer served as a Marine enlisted man in the Persian Gulf War and most recently as a platoon commander in Iraq. © 2006 The Washington Post Company
"Alterior motives, in my opinion, were to position ourselves in the region between our two biggest enemies in that part of the world, Syria and Iran. Along with our base in Afghanistan we now, in theory, have them in check. I think the stabilization of the oil supply definitely played a role in this whole thing." This I buy George. Anything else offered is a fishing expedition for those that need a reason for all this. The Saddam reason is B/S unless of course he could be identified as the meanest of the mean, the baddest of the bad and the one person we absolutely had to rub out or else witness the destruction of the world. I just don't buy that he had that kind of capability....he of the SCUD Duds.
Another thought on reasons why: I have seen it stated here on SB more than once that without question "all the WMDs did exist and they were all just moved to Syria before the invasion...yeh...that's the ticket..for sure that's whappened...yeh." If that's so true then why Has Bush and Blair together in unison both admitted they were wrong and that there were no WMDs? Where are you other guys getting your intel that Bush himself doesn't seem to have? Limbaugh? Maybe he's just afraid to implicate Syria because they are sooooo intimidating?
Murtha is throwing his fellow Marines under the bus for political reasons and that is disgusting. He should have let the Corps take care of things, they are doing it. But then that doesn't help his political agenda. The way the war is being fought at this point I am not surprised that there are instances of US Troops going off against civilians, that's who they are fighting and it's tough to tell good guys from bad guys, they also send children out to kill US GI's. But I understand that our guys are trained to have discipline and if they lose that discipline and shoot noncombatants out of frustration and/or rage that there has to be a price to pay. I wish in a way there didn't have to be, but that's the way it works. Terry