Blue Crab Boulevard

This Is Very, Very Simple

Representative John Murtha has given an interview to Capitol Hill reporters alleging Marines murdered civilians and said of the alleged massacre:

"“It’s much worse than was reported in Time magazine,” Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill. “There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people,” Murtha explained, adding there were “about twice as many” Iraqis killed than Time had reported.

This is very simple. If the crimes alleged were committed, then the guilty should be charged and given their day in court.

If the incident is found to have not happened, then Representative Murtha should immediately resign his position, because he has frankly abrogated his responsibility as a member of Congress and actively charged fellow Americans with crimes that they did not commit. If Representative Murtha refuses to resign, the Congress should remove him for cause. Period. And I'll be one of the people screaming for it.

It's very, very simple.

UPDATE: I was so ticked when I wrote this that I forgot to add one thing: Representative Murtha, who likes to point out his years in the military and his great love for the troops, should know enough to keep his mouth shut when there are troops in the Field, in harms way. If he lacks the sense to keep his mouth shut and decides his politics are more important than the lives of soldiers, he does not deserve to hold the office he does.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has a really thorough roundup as well. Frankly, I would not be able to be civil to Murtha if I ever met him in person.

UPDATE: This is the website of Diana Irey. She's challenging John Murtha for the seat in Congress in that district. I will be donating – the first time ever to any candidate. I encourage people to do the same.

UPDATE: Wow, this one is getting people upset – and it should regardless of your politics. Putting fellow Americans at risk for some shoddy political gain is beneath contempt. Others blogging: Blue Star Chronicles, Flopping Aces, Mac's Mind, The Wide Awake Café, Sweetness and Light, Carry On America, California Conservative, Expose the Left , Verifrank, Political Pitbull, Hugh Hewitt and Boots and Sabers. I only find a very few lefties linking this story, most repeating the Vietnam meme, so I won't link them at all. Suffice it to say, if you believe it's cool to kill your fellow Americans, do not even try to comment here. You will be banned – permanently. There is no appeal on this one – it is highly personal for me.

UPDATE: Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for linking. Please do take a look around the place. More here, here and here.

UPDATE: A blog named The Daily Irrelevant has pointed to a blog named "patriotboy" that used extremely selective quoting from this and several other blogs completely out of context. Not one – not one – of the blogs quoted to prove the ~~Irrelevant's~~ original blogger's point has said what they are accusing us of. I apologize to the Irrelevant. I missed the link to the original blog that was being pointed to.

Politics, War | Gaius May 17, 2006

By Fresh Air, May 17, 2006 @ 8:41 pm

The man is a complete disgrace to the Marine Corps. Perhaps he’s delusional? Maybe he thinks he’s John Kerry?
By beth, May 17, 2006 @ 9:27 pm

I think he’s already committed treason. Regardless of whether the Marines are guilty, Murtha has made an internal investigation public and undermined the military’s morale and ability to carry out their missions during wartime.

I have a quote from Abraham Lincoln on my blog – he said any Congressman guilty of this during wartime should be exiled or hung. I agree.
By beth, May 17, 2006 @ 9:47 pm

Thanks for the link to Murtha’s oponent! I agree with you – he’s got to go.
By Gaius, May 17, 2006 @ 10:04 pm

I agree – he’s toast if I can help Irey in any way at all. He’s a horrible human being.
By Diva, May 17, 2006 @ 10:24 pm

He didn’t need to leak any information on an ongoing investigation – he should be brought up on ethics charges, maybe even treason charges for endangering the lives of other soldiers for his own political gain. He’s a disgrace. It was simple enough for him to shut up until the investigation was over and then give his opinion on the outcome based on the facts. I can’t even begin to imagine how you must feel with your son in harms way and this bozo spouting off as he did in a manner that will endanger our military.
By Shawn, May 17, 2006 @ 11:10 pm

The investigation has not been concluded and this gaseous blowhard spews forth those remarks?!? If…IF…the allegations prove true, this fool should still be penalized for compromising the investigation and smearing Marines before they are granted due process. If you are part of committees, review boards, grand juries, etc. involved in an investigation you keep your pie hole shut until the matter is concluded. A former (and this is hard to say) Marine ought to know this. He claims 37 years spent in the USMC, so why sell-out your fellow Marines? If they are guilty then let the process prove as much and keep your bit, Democrat gaping hold shut!

If it turns out Murtha is blathering incorrect information (i.e. mistruths and/or lies) then he should be ceremoniously removed from elected office and placed in stocks, where good Marines can throw rotten tomatoes at him.
By Juggler, May 18, 2006 @ 12:48 am

< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
(Comment deleted by admin)

Note: Willful misrepresentations of what people are saying are not allowed)
By Juggler, May 18, 2006 @ 7:27 am

Gaius,

I’m out of here. There’s no point posting on a board where the owner puts strict controls on dissenting views, but not on agreeing views.

If you had any courage you would post my comments and let the readers decide. Obviously, you’re afraid that someone might change their views because of what I wrote.
By Gaius, May 18, 2006 @ 7:43 am

You stated that people on the right were encouraging a coverup- flatly untrue. That is not a dissent, that is a bald-faced lie.
By beth, May 18, 2006 @ 7:50 am

Juggler, trust me, most of us are not that gullible. We aren’t progressives so we tend to think for ourselves. Opposing views are welcome, we don’t agree on every issue and won’t be swayed by what one person writes on a blog. But then we don’t have to because we aren’t part of the intollerant progressives.
By Donna, May 18, 2006 @ 8:11 am

This is very very simple…….if our Marines did in fact kill civilians [including women and children] in cold blood, their actions in Iraq had clearly already put their fellow soldiers in grave danger. Whether or not the American public, at a later date, becomes aware of and get outraged by Murtha’s account of a dishonorable atrocity…… everyday Iraqis would have already long since been outraged, and more likely to want to spill American blood.

It is interesting to me when Americans attack Murtha’s news [ahead of a complete investigation] as ‘the crime’……..and jump over the news that Marines in leadership ranks [over those soldiers who killed the civilians] have already been relieved of command.

Do realize that rule #1 for covering up bad news is to put as much time as possible between the bad news event and a ‘final accounting’.

In this instance, the more time put between the atrocity and a full reckoning that atones for wrong-doing is just that much more time for outraged Iraqis to avenge themselves against other US soldiers. It is in this sense that Murtha may be trying to save the lives of other soldiers by bringing the investigation to a speedier conclusion, rather than, as commentors assert, to gain ’shoddy political gain’.
By Scott, May 18, 2006 @ 8:29 am

I just dropped a $50 contribution at the Irey for Congress website. Thanks for the link.
By Gaius, May 18, 2006 @ 8:42 am

You’re wrong on this one Donna. Nobody – not a soul on the right – is saying it should not be fully investigated. Nobody is skipping over anything. The removal from command may have nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation – you’re assuming guilt. I do not agree that your rule #1 is valid. If an atrocity was committed – then the accused should be tried in accordance with the UCMJ. Including giving them all of their rights, not just the ones Murtha wants them to have. Which appear to be none at all. They’ve been tried and sentenced already by some.

Keep in mind that I have more at stake here than most pundits. I take this kind of stuff very, very seriously.
By Gaius, May 18, 2006 @ 8:43 am

Good for you, Scott.
By Juggler, May 18, 2006 @ 9:07 am

Gaius,

If you’ll let me post I’ll stay here, but it’s ridiculous for people to judge what I originally posted based on your description of my post.

Donna’s right–the longer that news of the event is kept hidden, the more likely that those responsible won’t be held accountable.

I’m also not exactly sure of your argument. If Murtha is wrong, then he’ll certainly pay a price, but if he’s right, will all the bloggers attacking him pay a price? I doubt it. You think he should keep information about atrocities secret?
By Gaius, May 18, 2006 @ 9:14 am

Do you really not understand this or are you being obtuse for a reason? The problem here is that Murtha said outright these atrocities happened and the Marines killed in cold blood.

This is wrong on so many levels, I cannot believ you honestly think it’s just fine.

Simply stating the Marines are guilty when the investigation has not been completed is wrong. Declaring them guilty before a trial is wrong. Spreading word that an investigation is going on -that might be compromised by letting out that information is wrong.

I’m falt out stunned at this jerk’s behavior.
By Juggler, May 18, 2006 @ 9:59 am

He apparently is confident with the information. Yes, he probably should have said “alleged”, but he said his source is commanders on the ground.

There seems to be much more outrage for the messenger than there is for the perpetrators. People posting here have called Murtha a traitor. If the allegations are true, isn’t it the perpetrators who have made things more dangerous for the troops on the ground?

Don’t you think Iraqis have known about this long before Murtha talked about it?
By Gaius, May 18, 2006 @ 10:06 am

I don’t give a damn if he’s confident. This is wrong – and I think you know it.

You point to one, single “right wing” blogger who says the guilty should not be properly tried if the allegations prove true. Just one.
By Donna, May 18, 2006 @ 11:19 am

Gaius, you are correct that the investigation needs to be completed. You are correct, too, that I am assuming from the emerging information that our soldiers committed an atrocity. If that is true [or believed to be true by Iraqis because it is not yet dealt with by a completed investigation] , the dire consequences in Iraq for honorable soldiers started immediately and continues unabated. That is what concerns me…..more of our guys dying for an awful act or a not yet disproven act. I am not worried that those responsible won’t be held to account by the long time needed to assure the rights of accused soldiers……I am concerned about the interim on the ground in Iraq.

I will tell you that part of my assumption that an atrocity happened comes from a recent conversation with a soldier who served in Iraq. He himself [in a command position, and the epitome of a great soldier] was very concerned that some US soldiers [including some in command positions] were posturing about enjoying killing everyday Iraqis whom they had begun calling by a derogatory term [which term I will not repeat]…… thus lumping all Iraqis into a category of ‘enemy’.

Gaius, I wrote that last paragraph to try to give a context for my own concern. I will leave it up to you whether that paragraph should ever be printed. Thanks.
By Gaius, May 18, 2006 @ 11:28 am

Donna,

I understand your concern. I simply think there has been too much disinformation spread already – we don’t need our elected representatives being this irresponsible.
By Juggler, May 18, 2006 @ 11:48 am

Gaius,

The point is that the right is trying to change the subject–from credible allegations of U.S. soldiers committing atrocities, to attacking the messenger. And look at the language–they’re calling Murtha a traitor, whether he’s right or not, but they’re not saying that soldiers who commit atrocities are traitors, yet they’re actually the ones who are making it more dangerous for other soldiers.

The military (and the U.S. military is surely not alone in this) has a history of doing their best to whitewash atrocities.

The My Lai massacre was covered up for a year, only one soldier was convicted of crimes associated with the massacre, and he only served 3 1/2 years of house arrest.
By Gaius, May 18, 2006 @ 11:52 am

Nonsense. The right is doing no such thing.
By Randy Covington, May 18, 2006 @ 12:00 pm

Murtha is a traitor plain and simple. He has sold his love of the country for the privledge of being Nancy Pelosi’s lap dog. I am sure he is motivated to maintain as much support from the party in his upcoming election fight as he can while his knuckle dragging and drooling tendencies emerge.

I hope everyone will support his opponent.
By Gaius, May 18, 2006 @ 12:02 pm

So do I. Link to contribute above.
By Juggler, May 18, 2006 @ 1:05 pm

Tell me exactly how Murtha’s statements have made any U.S. soldier less safe. How many Iraqis that hadn’t previously heard of the accusations of atrocities know about them now that Murtha has made his statement?

Are the people at Time traitors for disclosing the allegations in March?

How well did the Army’s internal investigation of My Lai work? How many of the perpetrators were prosecuted?

By bringing this out in the open, Murtha has made a full investigation, rather than a coverup, more likely.

But it’s so much easier to attack the bearer of bad news.
By Gaius, May 18, 2006 @ 1:13 pm

Bull – you know it. This was a partisan hack job with no honor whatsoever. There is NO patriotic reason for what he did, none at all.

You accuse much better men than Murtha on no evidence whatsoever. To say they would even consider a coverup shows exactly what contempt you hold these people in. Go ahead and worship a jerk like Murtha.

I’d trust damn near anyone before I’d trust him.
By Juggler, May 18, 2006 @ 2:28 pm

I’m not accusing anyone. I’m saying that the military has a history of covering up atrocities, and I gave a proven example. That doesn’t mean a coverup is going to happen, I just think it’s prudent to create conditions that make it difficult for a coverup to happen.

Again, take a look at what happened with the My Lai massacre.
By Gaius, May 18, 2006 @ 2:40 pm

Where in the heck do you get this misguided information, juggler. Is this a whitewash?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/MYL_Peers.htm

Buy a clue.
By Juggler, May 18, 2006 @ 3:39 pm

Lt. William Calley was the only one who suffered any consequences for the My Lai masssacre. He served a total of 3 1/2 years of house arrest.

The public didn’t hear about the massacre for over a year and a half.

For info on My Lai, go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/my_lai.html

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_intro.html

From the last link:

The cover-up of the My Lai massacre began almost as soon as the killing ended. Official army reports of the operation proclaimed a great victory: 128 enemy dead, only one American casualty (one soldier intentionally shot himself in the foot). The army knew better. Hugh Thompson had filed a complaint, alleging numerous war crimes involving murders of civilians. According to one of Thompson’s crew members, “Thompson was so pissed he wanted to turn in his wings”. An order issued by Major Calhoun to Captain Medina to return to My Lai to do a body count was countermanded by Major General Samuel Koster, who asked Medina how many civilians has been killed. “Twenty to twenty-eight,” was his answer. The next day Colonel Henderson informed Medina that an informal investigation of the My Lai incident was underway– and most likely gave the Captain “a good ass-chewing” as well. Henderson interviewed a number of GIs, then pronounced himself “satisfied” by their answers. No attempt was made to interview surviving Vietnamese. In late April, Henderson submitted a written report indicating that about twenty civilians had been inadvertently killed in My Lai. Meanwhile, Michael Bernhart, a Charlie Company GI severely troubled by what he witnessed at My Lai discussed with other GIs his plan to write a letter about the incident to his congressman. Medina, after learning of Bernhart’s intentions, confronted him and told him how unwise such an action, in his opinion, would be.

and

Reaction to the reports of the massacre varied. Some politicians, such as House Armed Services Subcommittee Chair L. Mendel Rivers maintained that there was no massacre and that reports to the contrary were merely attempts to build opposition to the Viet Nam war. Others called for an open, independent inquiry. The Administration took a middle course, deciding on a closed-door investigation by the Pentagon, headed by William Peers, a blunt three-star general.
By Gaius, May 18, 2006 @ 3:53 pm

And it was investigated and it was not whitewashed.
By chickenhawk, May 18, 2006 @ 4:47 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196060,00.html

“This report is going to be ugly,” one commander said, adding that it appears the Marines did not follow the rules of engagement. â€¦ Senior commanders said Murtha is “coming from a position of knowledge”.
By Gaius, May 18, 2006 @ 4:52 pm

And not one person has tried to say the investigation should not be done and done properly.

What matters is that Murtha is completely out of line to have done this. Period.
By chickenhawk, May 18, 2006 @ 5:08 pm

The investigation has been public since March 19, when Time broke the story:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174649,00.html

In January, after Time presented military officials in Baghdad with the Iraqis’ accounts of the Marines’ actions, the U.S. opened its own investigation, interviewing 28 people, including the Marines, the families of the victims and local doctors. According to military officials, the inquiry acknowledged that, contrary to the military’s initial report, the 15 civilians killed on Nov. 19 died at the hands of the Marines, not the insurgents. The military announced last week that the matter has been handed over to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (ncis), which will conduct a criminal investigation to determine whether the troops broke the laws of war by deliberately targeting civilians.

Was Time “competely out of line” as well?
By Gaius, May 18, 2006 @ 5:15 pm

Did Time announce the Marines were cold blooded killers?

Take your trash elsewhere.
By Juggler, May 18, 2006 @ 6:06 pm

It turns out you left out an important sentence when you quoted Murtha:

“Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That is what the report is going to tell

That last one makes a difference. It says he has information from the report.

How many right-wing bloggers included that last sentence? You didn’t.
By Juggler, May 18, 2006 @ 6:09 pm

Gaius,

If the report says what Murtha said it does, will you apologize?
By Gaius, May 18, 2006 @ 6:16 pm

Where exactly in the article I linked does it say that?

I have NOTHING to apologize for – he still said they did it in cold blood – guilty, and sentenced.

And you are getting to be a pain – Stop trying to drop extraneous crap here – I mean it. You keep bringing in stuff I did not say and did not link and demand I refute it – that’s a sleazy technique and I am really getting sick of it. And I am not going to keep tolerating it.
By Juggler, May 18, 2006 @ 6:38 pm

The article you linked didn’t have it, but another article had the full quotation.

I notice that the right-wing sites don’t have that sentence in the quotation.

Man, you are touchy. I like to do a little independent research. That seems to bug you.
By Gaius, May 18, 2006 @ 6:48 pm

Go look at what AFP is reporting – I linked it above – and tell me about nuance and parsing. Tell me all about hairsplitting a couple of extra words into one other report I did not link. Then accuse me again of deleting your post.

You simply do not realize the damage you and people like Murtha are doing to this country with this crap. Nor do I think you really care.
By Donna, May 21, 2006 @ 6:53 am

Murtha is being pillored for his statement. Will the pilloring extend to Duncan Hunter [R-CA] who is the House Armed Services Committee Chairman?

According to the WAPO, Hunter just said, “Forthcoming military investigations into alleged war crimes in Iraq WILL SHOW (emphasis mine) that a squad of U.S. Marines killed about 24 Iraqi civilians, including women and children, while on a patrol in Haditha in November – a higher number than first believed – and then gave inaccurate reports on the incident to their commanders.” The WAPO article also reported that Hunter’s committee will be holding oversight hearings on the investigations into the incident ‘to ensure that they are undertaken by the military with integrity.’

Gaius, I would appreciate your thoughts about Hunter making such a statement…….should Duncan Hunter also be pillored?
By Gaius, May 21, 2006 @ 7:00 am

It would help if you gave a link to this. I cannot find it in the WaPo.
By Gaius, May 21, 2006 @ 7:30 am

Ok – Found it and posted about it, above.
By Jeff, May 21, 2006 @ 10:13 am

Murtha’s assertions are based on the Marine Corp’s own account of the incident. Therefore the tactic you propose is cover-up. In any society, that is a failed policy but it is particularly loathsome in a liberal democracy. The right course of action is to discipline violaters and to officially correct any wrongs. Uncle Sam’s eye is blackened only if we fail to right a wrong.
By Gaius, May 21, 2006 @ 12:34 pm

Bull. They are not “assertions” they are flat statements passing judgement.
By Roland Hesz, May 22, 2006 @ 12:15 am

Funny to hear theat “the Marines should not be accused while the investagation is not concluded” and such, and not hearing “non-american people should not be put in prison and held there without proven guilty at a fair trial”.

I do agree that “pressumed innocent” is a very important, and basic right, but I also think that it should apply to everyone, not only to the “selected few”.

And while Murtha was not entirely fair, everyone knows that if not brought to the public, the whole thing would be swept under the rug, so to say, without any consequences.

After all, as a US soldier said “they were only iraquies”.

My 0.2$
By Mike Meyer, May 22, 2006 @ 6:11 pm

You are right “in cold blood” is the wrong thing to say, even if all else proves true. He does allude to the lack of sufficent troops on the ground as a contributing circumstance. Sit out on point long enough and dicipline goes, survival takes over, especially if you think your short. Then there’s always ole payback when one of your people get it. More troops is the answer. We need to restart the DRAFT.
By Gaius, May 22, 2006 @ 7:26 pm

Not likely. Only Democrats would vote for it.
By Mike Meyer, May 22, 2006 @ 10:02 pm

You got me on that one Gaius. I really don’t see the left wing willing to put more troops in country. If one desires victory one must do what it takes to be victorious. Let’s face facts, the insurgency has and is educating itself politically and militarily. The final throes theory died long ago. Just because you or I don’t want to go or our kids to go does not assure victory. EVERYTHING comes with a price and sometimes we ALL got to pay if we are going to win. We can’t always expect to throw a little money ourselves and have somebody else pay THE BLOOD.
By Gaius, May 22, 2006 @ 10:09 pm

There are two schools of thought on the number of troops issue. One says that the fewer troops, the less they are seen as occupiers. That appears to be what is driving troop levels right now. The other school of thought is, of course send in more troops. If that was really needed, we already have all the troops we need. We simply have not deployed them.

But it’s a handy little thing for the anti-war types to scream about.
By Mike Meyer, May 22, 2006 @ 11:23 pm

Oh, but we have deployed them, over and over again. That’s where our problems began at . Shit wears thin the fourth or fifth time around. When the troops see the only way free is to kill everything, they kill everything. When a soldier can’t go home when his or her enlistment is up, then the thought is, “only one way out.” Everybody wants to go home alive and whole and the longer you stay the greater the odds are against you. It’s just mathematics. Sometimes you got to pass the odds around, nothing to do with being a peacenik.
By Gaius, May 23, 2006 @ 5:38 am

Bull, Mike. As in you’re full of it.
By Mike Meyer, May 23, 2006 @ 11:50 pm

Gaius:
Facts are facts. I may be full of it, but that don’t change reality and neither does your dreaming.
By Donna, May 24, 2006 @ 7:46 am

Gaius, I linked to reporting of Hunter’s statement and asked whether he should be pillored as well as Murtha. Both made statements of ‘fact’ before the final investigation of the Haditha incident. Hunter went further and said his committee would be ‘investigating the investigations’.

You responded by saying that you found the link to Hunter’s statement and ‘posted about it above’. I have not found your ‘posting about it above’ nor have I found your answer to my specific question about whether Hunter should be pillored for his ‘fact’ statement ahead of a complete investigation’, as Murtha has been already thoroughly pillored.

Here are some of the responses to Murtha’s statement: ‘already tried and sentenced the Marines’, ’spewing forth ahead of the investigation’, ‘completely out of line’, ‘undermined military morale’, ’saying outright that these atrocities happened’, ’spreading disinformation’, ‘no honor whatsoever’, ‘a traitor, plain and simple’, ‘put Americans at risk’, ‘a saboteur’, ‘a gaseous blowhard’, ‘blathering incorrect information’, ‘a partisan hack’, ’shoddy political gain-minded’, ’should resign his post, and if refuses, should be removed for cause’, ’should keep his mouth shut’, ‘lacks the sense to keep his mouth shut’, ’should have rotten tomatoes thrown at him’, ‘a jerk’. Which of these responses should also be applied to Duncan Hunter for his statement?

All I have seen since I posted my question is a segue into a discussion of troop levels and the potential relevance of troop levels to the pressures felt by troops serving in Iraq. There is the stronger ‘in cold blood’ statement by Murtha, which Hunter’s statements infer by his very serious decision to investigate the investigations.

I hope you will specifically answer my question. Should Hunter be pillored because he, like Murtha, has made a ‘flat statement passing judgement’? This is important, I think. If a different standard is applied to Hunter, then perhaps the pilloring of Murtha will [and should] be dismissed as ‘a partisan hack job’. The bravery of our soldiers deserves to be matched by the bravery of honest discourse at home.
By Gaius, May 24, 2006 @ 7:55 am

http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/05/21/twisting-what-was-said/