Government tries to take down US Marine

Have you ever seen the movie "History of the World? It is a funny Mel Brooks movie that does a brief sceanrio about important times in history. Of course it makes fun of lots of stuff. One of my favorites is when the King of France is playing chess outdoors on a huge chessboard. He has to pee so he calls the pissboy over. The pissboy must hold the bucket while the king pees into it. In my humble opinion, our President and this fool Murtha are only qualified to hold the piss bucket. Nothing more.

Officially reblogged.

I'm with Alice....I'll reblog this as well.  Freedom is not free.  Protect our men and women who serve us.

another reblog.  Thanks for the update,  it is an outrage

An outrage is an understatement.  Amen to Mr. Kevin Robinson comment

Simon - I am surprised that you would go so far as to state that it DIDN"T HAPPEN.  Here are the peope who were killed in that non-incident. Iraqi people:

"

 Most of them died from head and chest wounds, fired at close range.  The rather procedural sounding reason for dismissing the initial case does not have me convinced that no wrong-doing has occured, only that the prosecution was handled badly.

I don't think that hanging this particular man out to dry makes much sense, Simon, nor do I think he should be punished in any way for not following some paper-pushing requirements, but I think we do need to stop with the inane attitude of our troups are always right.  It creates more enemies for us that destroys.  I fail to see how it's patriotic to support torture, humiliation, rape and the like, so long as those acts are performed by one in uniform. 

So there you go, Simon. From the lonely me, on the left.  But you are right, this should have nothing to do with party lines.  It's a much broader issue than that.

Simon- Nice points.

Inna- Tonight when someone breaks into you home, i want you to do the following:

1. Ask them if they mean you any harm.

2. Ask them if they are armed.

3. Ask them if they intend to rob you.

If they answerr "yes" to all 3 questions, them you may shoot them. But if somoene else comes out of the shadows while you are shooting them, do not shoot the new person. You must ask them the same 3 questions before you can defend yourself.

If the first person answers "no" to any of your questions, then you may not shoot them. You may call 911, but you must report the person only as a possible intruder. They may just be a travelling salesperson who happened upon your abode by accident. Maybe your front door was unlocked. Maybe its your kid coming through the window.

If you have shot the first person and the second person...

When our military is under fire, they do not always ask the questions that the armchair quarterbacks would ask. Being in the middle of a firefight is a bit different than sitting in a coffee house.

This is an atrocity...no doubt.

Does anyone remember in the 1970's when we wore patches on our jeans...well my favorite was "HONOR AMERICA - FREE CALLEY".  Calley was a Lieutenant that was court martialed and served time in Leavenworth for a similar situation.  Yes, civilians died but so did a bunch of the bad guys.  When are politicians going to realize that war is hell and no matter how they try to regulate it, it will be hell!

My dear Simon - I am not so sure I would believe any of the stories.  THe marines have changed theirs a few times, as you probably know,  Not much there adds up to the way you told it though.  THere is a such a thing as soldiers killing people in anger, having lost on of their own.  It happens in every war, Simon.  Some cases are worse than others.  To claim that it was all in SELF DEFENCE or to kill terrorists is very misleading.

The five people in the taxi (driver and four students) were attempting to surrender.  Our marines shot them, and killed them.  Then, they shot them again.  Then, they urinated on them.  There were not weapons found in the taxi.  "Sergeant Sanick De la Cruz, who received immunity in return for testimony, testified that he watched Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich shoot five Iraqis who were attempting to surrender. Cruz further testified that both he and Wuterich fired into the bodies of the five after they were dead, and that he had urinated on one of the dead Iraqis...No weapons were found in the white taxi"  I have no reaso to doubt this testimony.  Do you, Simon?

As for what happened in the homes, if women and kids were shot at close range, then it would stand to reason that our marines saw what they were shooting at.  The eyewitness report from a 9-year-old girl and other footage suggests that they did.  It was 7 in the morning, for god's sake. 

Please, refer to the source that confirms that what you wrote is the way it happend.  I'd like to see that.

See Simon - someone else calls you my dear Simon, and you want me to do that in private. :)

PS: Simon - by y count there were 24 Iraqi civilians killed, not 15. 

Kevin - your scenario is by no means comparable.  There is a procedure for sweeping houses in enemy territory.  One of the team leaders followed it, and the five Iraqis there were cuffed and not a single shot was fired.  (and they were men, not kids).  The other was mad as hell in his first ever firefight, and he didn't and but for a few lucky enough to escape, everyone in those houses was killed.  Same situation with drastically different outcomes.

I will repeat what I stated earlier though.  I don't think Chessani needs to be hung out to dry here, but I think there is enough evidence pointing to Wuterich not following code.  If anything, the reports filed are in conflict with evidence gathered.  Politically speaking, it is more expedient of us to cover this up than to admit that our marined did something wrong, so I don't see how this case does any politican any favors.  Here is a link to an article I think you all should read.  An account of one marine who was there.  I am not suggesting his is 100% accurate, but it's certainly drastically different from Simon's, who wasn't there.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/July-2008/Witness-at-Haditha/

Simon - you can call me dear any day:-)

The testimony initially came out long before any offers of immunity or that marine's knowledge that he would not be prosecuted.  In fact, he tried to stick to the story as told initially and coulnd't (i.e failed the lie detector test..).  Anyway, I think you should read the story linked to below.  It's not Time magazine. 

PS: Lastly, please tell me why you think in the houses on the one side, the people were handcuffed and unharmed, and across the street - killed... I really want to know.

When the enemy hides behind women & children.... you need to give our young/underpaid guys a little leeway

Simon,  John Murtha is under investigation by the ethics committee. He has long been known as a corrupt politician.  Problem is at home, he brings in the bacon and keeps getting re-elected.  Perhaps not much longer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/politics/31ethics.html

If you were there, in the line of fire, what would you do?

If you had to choose between a US Marine and a terrorist, who would you believe?

If you had to decide between the media and a US Marine, who would you believe?

I find it hard to believe that a US Marine would go out of his/her way to kill innocent folks.

Maybe I'm naive, but I believe this from the bottom of my heart.

I have discussed this subject with many Vets and Active Duty Military, I specialize in VA loans here in TX.  I work with Vets who are 100% disabled because they could not "return fire" in time.

Give us your young men and women, let us send them in to a war zone where the enemy does not play by any rule book, then we will put them on trial if they make one mistake.

Yes- any innocent killed in a war zone is a terrible mistake.  I value human life.  They are more than casualties to me.

Georgia - it would be so much easier to communicate with you on here if you didn't hide behind the cloak of anonimity, but be that as it may.

No where did I say that I knew exactly what happened, simply that there were evidence, including testimony of marines who were there and video and photo footage that more than suggested that the initial reports filed by our marines made no sense.  What I have a hard time with is the bizarre line of separation most of you on here seem to draw between the worth of various lives.  Our men vs the Iraqi men, for example.  The way I see it, someone's kids, some very very little, got killed, shot at close range with our weapons.  Someone's brother or husband was shot at and then urinated upon... There is testimony that it was done in anger.  Please, don't preach to me about how these brave men and women were protecting my right to speak - in Iraq - they were not.  The were fighting an illegal and immoral war for the benefit of Cheney and Co - not my freedoms.  Yes, i know they were just following orders, but if any of them killed those they knew to be civilians in cold blood - theere has to be an investigation.

PS: Just so you know, we paid retribution to the survovors of the families we killed, the largest to date in Iraq, as far as I know.  I am sure the villagers at Haditha are thrilled.