Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bad Timing Award

8:58 am:

US Marine accused in Haditha case to sue Murtha
The case, to be filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, says Murtha's statements in the press about the case have pressured the Pentagon to pursue charges against Wuterich and other Marines, and to use them as "scapegoats" to prove that allegations of atrocities committed against Iraqis will be pursued, "no matter how baseless."

10:04 am:

Source: Haditha evidence implicates Marines
Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

UPDATE: I just saw that the cartoonist/blogger Tom Tomorrow blogged the same two stories in the same order. I hadn't seen his post before I put this up.

Comments

[Solitudinarian]

I think I'll wait until after the courts martial.

[joe]

Sol,

Put yourself in Wuterich's lawyer's place.

If your client is innocent, do you file the civil suit before or after the court martial?

And if he's guilty?

[Bubba Zanetti]

I'm guessing that this cat Weigel was a writer for the daily show before being hired by reason....he's a prick but in that reveling in the tragedy of the human condition way, almost Menckenesque....a good hire.

[SR]

Wuterich may be innocent, but he's a moron for filing a libel suit before the conclusion of the criminal case. In a libel suit it's his burden to prove that he didn't commit the murders and didn't engage in a cover-up (and which he'll probably have to show by clear and convincing evidence, although I'm not familiar with DC defamation law), which means he's going to have waive his 5th Amendment protections. If I was his attorney I'd need a signed, notarized affidavit from God verifying Wuterich had no connection to any aspect of anything bad that happened in Haditha.

[Jennifer]

Big surprise, that a man who would kill unarmed civilians (including children) in cold blood might be somewhat reluctant to take responsibility for his vile actions.

I'm sorry--allegedly kill unarmed civilians including children. If it turns out he didn't do it, or the babies were all poised to throw hand grenades at him, I'll gladly apologize.

[Jozef]

Ladies and Gentleman, the Bad Timing Award

Unless there's only one gentleman reading this, the proper salutation should be "Ladies and Gentlemen". Or "Gentlebeings", if you want to be asexual.

(Sorry; had some grammar nazi soup for breakfast.)

[John]

"I'm sorry--allegedly kill unarmed civilians including children. If it turns out he didn't do it, or the babies were all poised to throw hand grenades at him, I'll gladly apologize."

After you and Murtha ruin an innocent person's reputation and life, I am sure your apology will mean a lot to him.

Murtha was in the military, he knows how the court-martial process works. He knows what things like unlawful command influence and due process mean. Murtha got on the Sunday talk shows and said there was cover up because the investigation hadn't been completed and there hadn't been any convictions in the case. This was like a month after the incident. He knows that no criminal case in the military move that fast especially one of this seriousness. He also knows that facts are rarely as simple as they appear. That is why you have trials and investigations. The preliminary investigations hadn't even been completed yet, but Murtha convicted these people in the press and spoke like he knew the facts when the facts just were not known.

Murtha is a piece of shit bottom feeder. He knew what he was saying was a lie and would do real damage to people's lives who had not yet been convicted and may not be guilty of the crimes alleged. He didn't care because he wanted to get on TV. All this is for Murtha is a way for him to get people to forget the fact that he was an un indicted co-conspirator in abscam and ignore the fact that he is a bottom feeding scumbag.

[Heinrich]

Regular or chunky-style?

[Heinrich]

My question works for both Jozef's AND John's posts ...

[SPD]

John,

Do your personal feelings about Murtha change the possibility that a massacre of civilians may have occurred? You're as bad as those who presume these Marines are guilty.

[Herrick and His Balls]

I'd prefer a piece of shit bottom who's only a Congressman to the piece of shit bottom feeder who's currently our President.

[joe]

"After you and Murtha ruin an innocent person's reputation and life, I am sure your apology will mean a lot to him."

I would have never even known Wuterich's name, if he hadn't filed this suit.

"Murtha got on the Sunday talk shows and said there was cover up because the investigation hadn't been completed and there hadn't been any convictions in the case." Er, no. Murtha said he was worried there was a coverup because there had been no investigation or the beginnings of a court martial for months after the incident, and because the Marines had made statements to media that contradicted the known facts - for example, that the civilians had been killed by an IED.

[Jennifer]

Murtha is a piece of shit bottom feeder. He knew what he was saying was a lie

So you, and Murtha, both know that what happened in Haditha was not murder, but justified self-defense? How do you know this? I can buy the idea that a Congressman knows things about Iraq that the average American doesn't, but where are you getting your information?

[Jennifer]

there had been no investigation or the beginnings of a court martial for months after the incident, and because the Marines had made statements to media that contradicted the known facts - for example, that the civilians had been killed by an IED.

Hey John, based on your vast military experience, would you say that this is SOP for the military when faced with evidence of a possible civilian massacre?

[John]

Jennifer,

I have no idea what happened at Haditha. They may all be guilty as hell. Some of them maybe guilty or none of them maybe guilty. The point is that regardless, they are still innocent until proven guilty. When the facts come out, then I will gladly pile on them and cheer their going to prison if they are in fact guilty. The point is that I am not going to speak with authority one way or another. I never said they were innocent. I said that we dont' know and they have a right to a fair trial and we ought to wait until we know what happened and know thier side of the story before condeming them. Murtha doesn't know anything more than I do. Instead of giving them the benefits they are entitled to, got on TV and said thing like "there is a coverup because there hasn't been a conviction" that he knew were untrue. That is what makes him a scumbag bottom feeder.

[SR]

"Unless there's only one gentleman reading this,"

Well, it is H&R.

[John]

I have no idea what happened at Haditha. They may all be guilty as hell. Some of them maybe guilty or none of them may be guilty. The point is that regardless, they are still innocent until proven guilty. When the facts come out, then I will gladly pile on them and cheer their going to prison if they are in fact guilty. The point is that I am not going to speak with authority one way or another. I never said they were innocent. I said that we don?t' know and they have a right to a fair trial and we ought to wait until we know what happened and know their side of the story before condemning them. Murtha doesn't know anything more than I do. Instead of giving them the benefits they are entitled to, got on TV and said thing like "there is a cover-up because there hasn't been a conviction" that he knew were untrue. That is what makes him a scumbag bottom feeder.

[Brian]

Ought to get that Murtha Derangement Syndrome looked at. He's like the new Cindy Sheehan for you guys.

[ChicagoTom]

but where are you getting your information?

Where John gets all his info --- the voices in his head and the boogeymen he has built up in his mind.

When a low-life like John writes :
Murtha is a piece of shit bottom feeder. He knew what he was saying was a lie and would do real damage to people's lives who had not yet been convicted and may not be guilty of the crimes alleged. He didn't care because he wanted to get on TV

The only real quesstion is why he even gets taken seriously. Because a retired marine, as we all know, would never give a shit about today's marines and all he cares about is getting on TV. Murtha is just a bottom feeder you see...he wouldn't give a shit if the marines really did commit those atrocities and brought shame to the good name of marines everywhere. Murtha, by virtue of being a democrat (and a pretty conservative one to boot) is just a camera hog and trying to...i dunno exactly what, but he's a dem so it has to be slimy. And besides...even if the marines did commit those atrocities and the chain of command did try to cover it up, only an america hating terrorist sympathizer would even bring that up. Because never forget, those brown people in Iraq, or any part of the middle east are crazy Islamofascists who want to destroy America at all costs and if they get killed, they probably had it coming to them anyway -- being death to america wanting Islamofascists.

All of his responses are boiler-plate right-wing loonie lefty boogeyman attacks. He's a fucking troll who doesn't have an intellectually honest bone in his body.

When Chuck Hagel comes out and says Iraq "absoultely a replay of Vietnam" John boy wouldn't say a word. But let someone with a 'D' next to their name say the exact same fucking thing, and Mr Trolltastic comes out spewing "Democrats are dumb and cut-n-runners who don't know anything about vietnam" anti-left garbage.

[Number 6]

Which guys, Brian? Do you even know where you are? Did you notice that opinions on Muthra seem to be slpit here? Or did you just assign Reason to a handly little slot in your left-right system?

[John]

Chicago Tom,

Since when is saying that people are innocent until proven guilty and we ought to wait until we know the facts before we condemn them such a controversial statement? The fact that Murtha was a Marine is what proves he was lying. He knows that court-martials take months. He knows that you don't just throw someone in jail and make conclusions of fact in the military system. He knows that investigations into criminal conduct follow a bureaucratic model and that they take a while. Moreover, he is a combat veteran. He knows that facts are complex things. Even if there were people on the scene who were guilty that doesn't mean everyone at the scene was guilty. Hell, even Mi Li had the helicopter pilot who risked his life to stop it. Yet, he was on TV not four weeks after the incident demanding to know why there hadn't been any convictions for this and why people were not in jail. He had to have known what he was saying was a lie and totally unfair to the people involved, yet he said it anyway. That makes him a piece of shit bottom feeder.

I am sorry folks. Even Marines are entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence. The Constitution thing is a real bitch sometimes I know.

[joe]

"Where John gets all his info --- the voices in his head and the boogeymen he has built up in his mind."

That's untrue. Virtually everything John writes can be found in the archives of Powerline, NRO, and Free Republic.

If he was at least original, like RC Dean or Genghis Khan, his contributions would be worthwhile. But he so dependably parrots the weeks' talking points from the right wing of the Republican Party.

Volunteer astroturfer - how pathetic.

[John]

So Joe,

Is this your way of saying I deserved to be murdered like Steve Vincint was?

[joe]

Murtha didn't warn of a coverup because the soldier's weren't convicted within a month of the story hitting the papers, but because the Marines had come out weeks before, when the event first happened, and declared that the civilians had been killed by an IED.

Murtha didn't declare any individuals guilty or innocent. He stated that a crime had taken place, and that it had to be investigated.

Both of John's excuses for declaring Murtha a liar are at variance with the facts.

I am sorry folks. Even Sunni Iraqis are entitled to have mass murders investigated and prosecuted.

[Brian]

Number 6 - I was talking to John specifically. The WarBlogaHawkoSphere in general.

Maybe a bit of that fury could be directed towards the president who sent those marines into an impossible situation rather than some congressman talking about it?

[joe]

Curses! My facts and logic are no match for John's Mega-Certainty!

[bago]

Yeah. Why would a life-long marine care about the reputation and honor of his colleagues? Defies description it does. Semper Fi or some gay ass french bullshit.

[ChicagoTom]

Yeah. Why would a life-long marine care about the reputation and honor of his colleagues? Defies description it does. Semper Fi or some gay ass french bullshit.

bago, didn't you get the memo?? Only GOP ex-marines give a shit about the reputation and honor.

Non GOP ex-marines are bottom feeding media whores who only want to use the marines as a tool to get more TV face time and to spew their hate filled anti-american garbage.

[BG]

This brings up an interesting question:
They can't (and shouldn't) convict anyone unles they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Suppose however they are able to say that someone is probably guilty or they can't say with confidence that he is innocent. Does the army have some policy of not putting such people back into combat positions, just in case?

If accusations are clearly baseless then there is no reason to not allow the person back onto the battlefield. But if they aren't sure, it would seem to make sense to have such a policy. I don't know what kind of discharge it would be (perhaps there should be some kind of agnostic discharge in addition to honorable and dishonorable, I don't know). It seems reasonable though to err on the side of caution in making sure no murderers are serving in active duty.

[MainstreamMan]

To continue the Tom Tomorrow parallel posts...

?Until civilians ? frankly, I?m not sure how many of them are actually just innocent little civilians running around versus active Hezbo types, particularly the men ? but until those civilians start paying a price for propping up these kinds of regimes, it?s not going to end, folks. What do you mean, civilians start paying a price? I just ask you to consult history for the answer to that.?

Rush Limbaugh
On the Qana Massacre
July 31, 2006

?We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal . . . As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places.?

Osama bin Laden
On His Fatwa Against America
March 1997

You can put Iraqi civilians "supporting" the insurgency into the same box, I guess. Or democrats, or republicans or...

[BG]

Slightly off topic but:

But I wonder: what does everyone think the US government should do now with respect to Iraq?

I would suggest that they should make some concrete statement of when US troops will witdraw (and they would probably need to work out an agreement with other governments that have troops in the country so they would coordinate their exit plans). I would prefer a timetable but it could also be something like "Once the number of murders in a province goes below 30 per month for 3 consecutive months we will transfer control of that province to Iraqi security forces".

If for example the US had a timetable , they could say "Look, if all you want is for the US to leave there is no sense in fighting us anymore because that won't make us leave a day sooner. The only question is how screwed up your country will be afterwards and it will be less screwed up if you cooperate with us now in fighting terrorists and fanatics". This would greatly reduce at least one incentive to support or join the insurgency. It might also help open a dialogue with some secular and/or nationalistic armed groups to collaborate with the government against pro-theocracy groups and terrorist organizations (eg. Al-Qaeda in Iraq).

I heard somewhere that Iraq's prime minister recently proposed a "National Reconciliation Plan" that originally included a request for a timetable but he was pressured to drop that request by the Bush administration. Does anyone know anything about this?

I am not an expert on this stuff so I could be wrong. It seems to me though that there is a perception in Iraq that the US government thinks it can do whatever it wants and doesn't care what happens to innocent Iraqis or Iraq's soveirgnty(sp?). If that perception exists we need to demonstrate that it is false. We should also make it clear that we don't intend to establish permanent military bases there against the will of a large majority of that country's population (as well as our own).

Does anyone have any insight on this subject? Are there any military experts who can further explain the situation? Am I just talking out of my ass about the timetable or is there something to this?

Aside: As for the effect of the war on domestic US politics, I think in the 08 presidential election US troops are still in Iraq it will be a major issue. Specificly candidates will be under tremendous political pressure to support either immediate witdrawal or at least some very concrete statement indicating witdrawal in the near future. It won't make that much difference in the 06 congressional elections because the makeup of congress is unlikely to affect military poliicy with respect to Iraq.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Murtha is an opportunistic media-whore.

A bunch of shell-shocked Marines went nutso and murdered people.

I'm willing to believe both.

[P Brooks]

"They may all be guilty as hell. Some of them maybe guilty or none of them maybe guilty. The point is that regardless, they are still innocent until proven guilty."

And this is because- they are AMERICANS; is that correct, John? If they were Iraqis, or Afghanis, it would then be perfectly permissible to presume, without bothering to investigate the facts, their guilt and imprison them without rights or trial in perpetuity.

[the other Mark]

If you want to be amazed, go to Johnstown, PA (but make sure to leave quickly - the town is such a shithole that God smites it with floods every few decades) and look at all the public buildings named Murtha something. There's the Murtha airport, various Murtha business parks which are filled with offices working on DoD pork projects, a Murtha convention center, blah blah blah.

The entire town is basically dependent on the pork he brings in. He's like a smaller version of WV's Robert Byrd, though at least he was a Marine instead of a Klansman.

[John]

"And this is because- they are AMERICANS; is that correct, John? If they were Iraqis, or Afghanis, it would then be perfectly permissible to presume, without bothering to investigate the facts, their guilt and imprison them without rights or trial in perpetuity."

I guess when you start standing for these people's rights you might have some standing. As it stands, all you can say is "so do you!" That is not much of an argument. That said, no I would agree they are entitled to due process and a fair hearing.

Lets look at the things Murtha has actually said.

"Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that "there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Who is this source? How do we know Murtha isn't making it up? Further, even if there is a source, how do we know the source if correct? This is totally irresponsible and wrong. It is just McCarthyism. Murtha might as well be saying the he has the names of 25 known war criminals in the defense department.

""Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," said Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, a decorated Marine Corps veteran who served in Vietnam and is among the most influential Democratic voices on military matters. "
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/05/18/murtha/index_np.html

He is saying that these Marines are guilty of murder. Before a trial or event he completion of the initial investigation. Nothing about the investigation or the troops side of the story has been made public and Murtha knows this. How does Murtha know this? What are his facts? It is just a bare accusation.

More Murtha

This is on Chris Mathews show

"REP. JOHN ?JACK? MURTHA: Well, I?ll tell you exactly what happened. One Marine was killed and the Marines just said we?re going to take care ? we don?t know who the enemy is, the pressure was too much on them, so they went into houses and they actually killed civilians. And, and ?"

So Murtha knows exactly what happened even though when he said this he had read the investigations or obtained any first hand accounts of the incident.

From Knightrider after he said this.

"Murtha's comments were the first on-the-record remarks by a U.S. official characterizing the findings of military investigators looking into the Nov. 19 incident. Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee and an opponent of Bush administration policy in Iraq, said he hadn't read the report but had learned about its findings from military commanders and other sources."

Murtha admits that he doesn't know anything. He is a bottom feeding scumbag. Just because he tells you people what you want to hear and confirms your pre-existin prejudices doesn't change that fact.

[Herrick and His Balls]

My brain says that the US troops in Iraq should be used to carry out a population transfer (with payments for lost property) so that there are clearly defined Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish areas that can be three independent countries. The people are showing that they can't live with each other absent a tyrant, so they should be broken up

[Commenter]

Do any of you have jobs, or do you just battle it out on the internet all day everyday?

[John]

Do any of you have jobs, or do you just battle it out on the internet all day everyday?

That is funny. No. We just steal from our employeers.

[John]

Do any of you have jobs, or do you just battle it out on the internet all day everyday?

That is funny. No. We just steal from our employeers.

[Jennifer]

Nothing about the investigation or the troops side of the story has been made public and Murtha knows this.

The Marines' claim that the civilians died in an IED blast rather than a hail of American bullets has been made public, and Murtha knows this. As do you, despite your attempts to ignore it.

[John]

The Marines' claim that the civilians died in an IED blast rather than a hail of American bullets has been made public, and Murtha knows this.

He doesn't know that there isn't any truth to that. Why don't we just shoot these guys now, would that make you happy Jennifer? Why don't you just admit it. Murtha tells you what you want to hear and confirms your prejudices and for that reason you are willing to excuse comments that if they were made about another case, you would rightly find apalling.

[anon]

"Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee and an opponent of Bush administration policy in Iraq, said he hadn't read the report but had learned about its findings from military commanders and other sources."

Murtha admits that he doesn't know anything.

John, there is a big difference between "learning about it from military commanders" and "he doesn't know anything". But, I don't know why I and others waste our time with you. You are beyond redemption.

[noted without comment]

John, today, on the Steven Vincent thread:

There has never been any proof that Saddam was behind 9-11 but there has never been any disproof of it either. If this guy beleived that, you can call wrong or misguided but to call him a liar is to say that he didn't believe it or knew that it was untrue and said it anyway. That is a bold accusation and I would like to see some proof. I doubt you have it so instead you and Joe just choose to slander the guy by calling him a liar. Of course I live in a world where reasonable people can disagree. You and Joe live in a world where everyone who disagrees with you is a liar!!! Pathetic

John, today, on this thread:

Murtha is a piece of shit bottom feeder. He knew what he was saying was a lie and would do real damage to people's lives who had not yet been convicted and may not be guilty of the crimes alleged.

[TallDave]

Yeah, I'm sure it's just a coincidence the second story was released just after the first.

And I'm sure this illegal leak, prejudicial to the fate of these Marines, will receive the same self-righteous shrieks of outrage as the meaningless release of Valeria Plame's employment as a CIA desk jockey and her role in sending her husband on an African uranium safari.

[TallDave]

Oh, and let me point out again that the Marines have not even been charged with anything yet, let alone been tried and convicted. Labelling our soldiers murderers for political gain at this stage is reprehensible.

John Murtha's made a mockery of Semper Fidelis.

[VM]

more evidence, if ever more were needed, that "John" is "redeculous".

[MUTT]

The fact that Murtha was a Marine is what proves he was lying.

More chickenhawk crap. Murtha is concerned the loose/loose situation the neoconmen & thier howdy doody puppet got us in to is resultin in US troops killing civs out of pure frustration, for the hell of it. With the implicit ok of the chain of command, right up to the nitwit in chief, not that he actually calls shots. Just as he saw, just as I saw. Were both seeing it again.
The bottom feeder is this John punk.

[joe]

"How do we know Murtha isn't making it up? Further, even if there is a source, how do we know the source if correct?"

Somebody didn't follow the "10:04" link.

"This is totally irresponsible and wrong. It is just McCarthyism. Murtha might as well be saying the he has the names of 25 known war criminals in the defense department."

I don't recall Senator McCarthy ever producing evidence of those charges. Once again, I'll refer you to that second link.

"Murtha admits that he doesn't know anything. He is a bottom feeding scumbag. Just because he tells you people what you want to hear and confirms your pre-existin prejudices doesn't change that fact." John, when there are convictions in the case, and it was proven that U.S. marines murdered these women and children, will you even consider the possibility that it was YOUR prejudices that got in the way of your understanding of the facts?

Of course you won't.

[APL]

John ranted He doesn't know that there isn't any truth to that.

Firstly, you don't know what he knows. I'm willing to be it's a lot more than you. Secondly, the fact that the prosecutors are willing to bring charges indicates that there is substantial evidence to contradict the initial story, which was itself "revised" several times.

[keith]

I wonder how many of these arm chair intellectuals have ever had to defend our country? Ever been in the situation those marines were in?
Pro Bush, Pro Democracy, anti excitable congressman.

[joe]

It's rather uncommon for military prosecutors and highly decorated marine infantry colonels to be referred to as "armchair intellectuals," but to answer your question, both Congressman Murthan and the NCUS investigators have, in fact, defended their country.