Comments on: “This one is ugly”

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Fri, 19 May 2006 11:12:53 +0000

That they can’t comment during the investigation confirms that the parties being investigated are guilty?
Are you sure that’s a principle you would like to generalize?

By: Susan Abe

Susan Abe — Thu, 18 May 2006 22:49:17 +0000

Ummm … Murtha said the “cold blood” part, but it’s some unnamed “military official” who said the Marines were outraged.
No inconsistency to explain away.

By: Christopher M

Christopher M — Thu, 18 May 2006 22:18:06 +0000

Russ also writes: “Second, there is his over-the-top description of killings he says were done out of outrage as ‘in cold blood.’”
First, being “outraged” about something doesn’t prevent one from acting “in cold blood.” I’m outraged over lots of things going on in this country, but if I decided to go kill people because of it, that would be pretty damn coldblooded of me.
Second, what an odd notion to quibble over the legal accuracy of a few words in Jack Murtha’s description, when the apparent crime is that U.S. Marines SHOT CHILDREN for revenge. Perspective, please.

By: Christopher M

Christopher M — Thu, 18 May 2006 22:16:02 +0000

Russ writes: “First of all, there is the question of morale impact on the troops, especially if the overall charge of killing of innocents turns out to be incorrect.”
The constant calls for people not to criticize the government or the military because of “troop morale” are beyond bizarre. Are the Marines a bunch of whiny little babies who are going to curl up and stop fighting if they don’t like what some politician says about them? I don’t think so, and I sure hope not.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 18 May 2006 20:20:37 +0000

What’s sad is how pro-Marine folks will tend to react against media coverage and criticism, whereas (if the facts are true as reported) their rage ought to be directed against the killers. “How dare you soil our good name,” etc.
Hell, they should be volunteering for the firing squads (ha; when is the last time America executed a soldier for murdering foreign civilians?).

By: Laertes

Laertes — Thu, 18 May 2006 18:45:33 +0000

Murtha IS on our side. He’s on the side of a proud, honorable, and decent America. If that’s not your side too, you’ve got some hard thinking to do.

By: Lets Save Democracy

Lets Save Democracy — Thu, 18 May 2006 17:58:57 +0000

“supposed to be on ‘our’ side?”
it is ever more obvious that a small group of “crazies” has hijacked our nation’s enlightened principles and is now raising hell. i’m on the side of the principles, and justice, not the side of terrorists who are momentarily (I pray) holding US government jobs–who’ve commandeered our forces for their evil intentions…. I’m on Murtha’s side, supporting his leadership of our troops…

By: Lets Save Democracy

Lets Save Democracy — Thu, 18 May 2006 17:57:23 +0000

By: Tom Hilton

Tom Hilton — Thu, 18 May 2006 17:49:30 +0000

It’s ugly, and the reaction is ugly: the right-wing bloggers have unanimously reacted with a slime-and-defend effort at Murtha. (Russ is more civil than most of them, but the gist is similar.) People who can’t summon any moral outrage at the crime itself are full of self-righteous fury at those who can. That much, at least, is exactly the same as Abu Ghraib.

By: russ

russ — Thu, 18 May 2006 17:43:21 +0000

and Murtha does *not* appear to be handling this correctly.
First of all, there is the question of morale impact on the troops, especially if the overall charge of killing of innocents turns out to be incorrect. Second, there is his over-the-top description of killings he says were done out of outrage as “in cold blood.” People who act out of rage can never be said to be acting “in cold blood” which is generally defined as “a state of mind marked by premeditation and deliberateness.” Isn’t Murtha supposed to be on *our* side?

By: SomeCallMeTim

SomeCallMeTim — Thu, 18 May 2006 16:10:05 +0000

Credit where credit is due: the military seems to be handling this in the appropriate fashion.

By: Ole Blue

Ole Blue — Thu, 18 May 2006 15:32:52 +0000

“That suggests that he’s speaking for at least a significant chunk of senior-officer opinion.”
When I was in the Army we hated Clinton, now people I know who are still in Wish Clinton was back. The hostility towards Bush in the Military is growing at an alarming rate.

By: Henry

Henry — Thu, 18 May 2006 13:56:30 +0000

The reason for the contrast with Abu Ghraib is that the torture and murders there are official Bush policy, whereas murdering non-detainees is not. Note that I didn’t say that murdering innocent people is not, as most detainees in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are innocent.

By: Prup (aka Jim Benton)

Prup (aka Jim Benton) — Thu, 18 May 2006 07:01:42 +0000

Should have given the more important Treasure of Baghdad cite. Its http://baghdadtreasure.blogspot.com/2006/03/accident-or-cold-blooded-revenge.html#comments

By: Prup (aka Jim Benton)

Prup (aka Jim Benton) — Thu, 18 May 2006 06:59:42 +0000

What took you so long? Treasure of Baghdad reported on this on his blog, and TIME Magazine reported it in the March 27, 2006 issue. (I also discussed it on my blog on March 25, for the few people who have discovered it and can put up with my long-windedness. The cite is
http://jimbentn.blogspot.com/2006/03/haditha.html)
It is the Iraqi MyLai, as simply as that.