Deleted - anti-American slanders

Give it up, Axis...I'm not going to let you post slanders against the United States Marine Corps on this blog...

Deleted - unsubstantiated allegations.

Really Mark. You consider First hand accounts as unsubstantiated allegations? You consider a news article by by major Canadian publication as unsubstantiated?

I see you are showing your true side, deleting comments that you dont agree with.

To let people know, what was deleted without apparently slandering anyone, just doog a google search for keyword: Joshua Key

Removing the apparent "slanders", my original comment was that apparently the investigation has progressed to the point where guilt has been determined allowing a lawmaker to comment on them

I don't know Joshua Key personally so can only comment on what I have read http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/08/02/IraqDeserter/:

First he signs up as a 'bridge builder in a non-deployable unit' in the army and ends up in Iraq fighting. He is upset about this. Correct me if I am wrong but joining the army means that you may be placed in a war zone - that’s what the army does.

2. "Even though he was being shot at, Key felt that the Iraqis were just fighting for their country" - no the Iraqis who are 'fighting' for there freedom vote and support democracy.

3. "“I thought I was there to promote democracy, but I think I was there to prevent it.” - this does not make sense. How many elections where held under Saddam.

4. Recounts of tragic civilian casualties - I wish this had not happened but innocent people die in war.

5. Recounts of unacceptable US soldier behavior. The troops in Iraq need to be supported 100% and the benefit of the doubt given to them unless they are proven guilty. I am not saying that soldiers should not be investigated, however spreading rumors about what a soldier may or may not have done puts the lives of the troops in danger. In war rumors have the potential to kill people so extra caution must therefore be taken.

How many brides has Murtha taken lately anyway? I am amazed anyone would have him but, you know, I think maybe Helen Thomas might prove to be interested...

Joshua Key is a traitor. Just like John Kerry. Look, hearsay is not allowed in court. Courts want actual evidence. John Kerry came back and testified before congress about atrocities he took part in that, well, he never took part in. Kerry said troops were doing things they never did. This Key guy is just trying to sell a book to a bunch of leftists who don't understand government and certainly don't understand what 'evidence' means.

Certainly in Fallujah we went house to house. And in a few otherplaces where the insurgents were hiding among a civilian population. No doubt their choice of hideout locations was Bush's fault.

I am not impressed by Key's story. Now if he can get some evidence or compatriots to bolster his story then maybe... But it is easy to make up lies and slander people. Look at Ward Churchill. Look at John Kerry. Look at Cynthia McKinney and the police. So what?

If Key had a real case he wouldn't have to flee to Canada: he could go to a military court and press charges against his officers. But he fled the country. That tells you a lot about his faith in his own story. He does not beleive it himself but he likes that it excites reporters and far left socialists.

The area here in Canada where Josh is in, is very close to me and there have been local articles as well.

He is young and was sucked into the recruitment dream story (Learn a trade, money for college etc.)

The point is not that there are troops there that are possible committing acts against humanity, but it is that the army is NOT training the soldiers how to treat the enemy and how not to. They are supposed to train soldiers to act within the confines of the Geneva convention. This is not being done according to what Josh is telling the Canadian Immigration Board which has his refugee application before them.

JJ,

Unacceptable behaviour on the part of US service personnel has occured during every military operation in history. Hell, unacceptable behaviour on the part of US service personnel occurs during peacetime. What sets this unacceptable behaviour apart is the fact that the President is named George W. Bush (R).

You see, he personally ordered the Marines to "overreact" after their patrol was hit by an IED. Just like he personally ordered the Army to humiliate the terrorists captured and detained at Abu Ghraib. I also heard that he made a secret trip to GITMO and went around flushing the Koran down toilets. Watch for the report on the news.

Did you know that contrary to popular belief, he doesn't go to bed early? He actually goes into a secret room at the White House and personally spys on people's phone calls. There's also a room in the basement of the West Wing where he tortures terrorists. Wait till that gets out.

If the Marines weren't in Iraq to give the Iraqis an opportunity to live in a democratic society this never would have happened. If we weren't over there, the Iraqi people wouldn't have purple stains on their fingers. If we weren't capturing and detaining the terrorists, there wouldn't be incidents at Abu Ghraib and GITMO.

It's all George Bush's fault. Don't you see.

/sarcasm off

I would not call this an "over-reaction". If the original Time article ( http://www.time.com/time/world/printout/0,8816,1174649,00.html ) is anywhere near accurate, they systematically executed unarmed Iraqis including women and young children

The troops are overworked, stressed to the max and are not being taught rules of conduct. Combine these and you have a recipe for disaster.

Even when they come back, suicide rates are at a near all time high as is family violence as the troops are unable to process the horrors they saw and lived and are struggling to reintegrate back into society

Joshua Key is a deserter who will say anything to keep from being extradited to face justice for his actions. Not a single assertion he has made has stood up to scutiny. When he joined (voluntarily, of his own free will) the United States was at war, and any reasonably intelligent person understands what happens during a war is that soldiers go off to fight the war. He is a coward who dicovered that he doesn't have what it takes to be a soldier and is unwilling to face the consequences of his own decisions. Not exactly a sterling role model.

"This is not a site for slandering the good name of the American fighting man or woman."

Unless that person is John Kerry. Mark, I don't recall you getting all worked up about people calling Kerry a coward and worse for "shooting a kid in the back."

I don't remember any "gold-plated proof" citing Kerry acted inappropriately. In fact, those who were there commended him for his actions.

Keep up being a hypocrite.

Hi Axis

I remember reading that article in time - 'Last November, U.S. Marines killed 15 Iraqi civilians in their homes. Was it self-defense, an accident or cold-blooded revenge? A Time exclusive'

The point is that Time cannot say definately what happened. So until the investigation is over they should stop speculating.

Axis: Even when they come back, suicide rates are at a near all time high as is family violence as the troops are unable to process the horrors they saw and lived and are struggling to reintegrate back into society - Do you think an article like this one from Time helps the troops?

Stuff like this happens in war. That's why you make damn sure the war is necessary or justified before you start one.

Evidence doesn't look good for these guys. Tragic stuff.

As for the troops, I am not of the belief that they should have gone there to Iraq in the first place, however they are not getting the body armour they should, not getting the armoured vehicles they should either.

They are not getting proper training, and they are not getting proper suppport and vet benefits when they get back.

The Army has armoured vehicles all ready but has been sitting on them for months and months while more troops die every month from IED's than the month before.

I support the troops, too bad the Bush administration doesn't.

“Unless you have gold plated proof of accusations against our magnificent men and women in uniform, don't even bother trying to post it. This is not a site for slandering the good name of the American fighting man or woman.” Mark

Unless his name is Jack Murtha

"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."

So, A) we know that troops killed these people.

"The next day a Marine communiqué from Camp Blue Diamond in Ramadi reported that Terrazas and 15 Iraqi civilians were killed by the blast and that "gunmen attacked the convoy with small-arms fire," prompting the Marines to return fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding one other."

B) They were civilians, according to the military.

"According to eyewitnesses and local officials interviewed over the past 10 weeks"

C) Time did it's own intensive investigation. They do not report any account in which those killed attacked US troops.

As I said, it doesn't look good. Not at all. It's a tragic situation.

Murtha knows first hand the pressure and horrors of war. Maybe that's why he's been so against this war while many on this site remain for it.

According to the Time article, the military says the troops did come under fire from the direction of the house:

"According to military officials familiar with the investigation, the Marines say they came under fire from the direction of the Waleed house immediately after being hit by the IED."

If this story turns out to be true, look for a comparison with Mai Lai. I saw Rumsfeld on O'Reiley last night and he told Rumsfeld that if it turns out to be true, "it would be another Mai Lai."

Nothing could be further from the truth. While any innocent civillian death is tragic, Mai Lai involved an estimated 350 to 500 villagers that were murdered. Villagers were herded into ditches and executed. The accusations in this case, while horrific, are nothing like the massacre at Mai Lai.

Until a verdict is announced, our soldiers deserve the presumption of innocence. Murtha's excuse, that the soldiers acted while under stress, is simply to lay the groundwork to blame the Bush administration.

"Until a verdict is announced, our soldiers deserve the presumption of innocence. Murtha's excuse, that the soldiers acted while under stress, is simply to lay the groundwork to blame the Bush administration."

Or to simply tell the truth.

And if this is true, it would be very similar to Mai Lai. Troops under stress snap and kill civilians. Yes, there were more deaths at Mai Lai, but it's the same situation.

If you read the time article, there is an accussation that four men were placed in a closet and executed. Though that account is disputed by the US military, as they said they encountered the men, armed, near the closet.

Dear Shipley -

do u not recall that Lieutenant Kerry put himself in for a purple heart for falling off a ladder in a war zone?

then in his sworn "winter soldier" congressional testimony he testified to atrocities committed by US service members. It was known to him AT THE TIME that these accounts were fabricated. further, he solicited from others fabricated sworn testimony which was known to him AT THE TIME as false.

knowingly false, sworn testimony is known as perjury & solicitation to perjury which is criminal.

he's never retracted nor apologised for this false testimony & therein could never have gotten the vote from this Gulf 1 vet.

that is, my friend, "inappropiate" to say the least.

will you guys believe it when the Pentagon says they did it? Murtha has been vocal based on conversations with current commanders who have seen the report.

Pentagon report said to find killing of Iraqi civilians deliberate

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14604376.htm

"U.S. military authorities in Iraq initially reported that one Marine and 15 Iraqi civilians traveling in a bus were killed by a roadside bomb in the western Iraq insurgent stronghold of Haditha. They said eight insurgents were killed in an ensuing firefight.

(do our marines and Iraqi civilians travel on buses together often, I wonder?)

But Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the ground commander of coalition forces in Iraq, ordered an investigation on Feb. 14 after a reporter with Time magazine told military authorities of allegations that the Marines had killed innocent civilians.

(investigation ordered AFTER a reporter told authorities of the allegations?)

After CNN broke the news of the initial investigation in March, military officials told Knight Ridder that the civilians were killed not in the initial blast but were apparently caught in the crossfire of a subsequent gun battle as 12 to 15 Marines fought insurgents from house to house over the next five hours. At that time, military officials told Knight Ridder that four of the civilians killed were women and five were children.

(oh, so they weren't on the bus together, but the offical story has changed. How could the original be so wrong, unless... )

Subsequent reporting from Haditha by Time and Knight Ridder revealed a still different account of events, with survivors describing Marines breaking down the door of a house and indiscriminately shooting the building's occupants.

(...something needed to be covered up!)

Twenty-three people were killed in the incident, relatives of the dead told Knight Ridder.

The uncle of one survivor, a 13-year-old girl, told Knight Ridder that the girl had watched the Marines open fire on her family and that she had held her 5-year-old brother in her arms as he died. The girl shook visibly as her uncle relayed her account, too traumatized to recount what happened herself.

war is hell, but murder is murder. I support our troops in wartime, I don't support murder.

axis,

I wonder how you would react after being shot at day after day. I wonder how you would react knowing that you must be on your toes 24/7 because someone is trying and will kill you if you let your guard down for a single instance. I wonder how you would react after seeing your friends and fellow military members blown to bits by IEDs. I wonder how you would react after days of being on edge and wondering if your next step would be your last. I can go on, but most people will get the point.

What good does it serve to degrade all of America's military for the "alleged" actions of a few? Assuming that our troops did kill some innocent civilians, what good does it do to for liberals to make it a daily issue for the world media implying that this is the way all of America's troops behave? What good does it do to smear the name of all of American's military and all of our soldiers because of the actions of a very few? What's wrong with letting the investigators finish their work and let the military try and punish anyone who may have committed a crime?

A mother kills her 5 children and we here the liberals defending her actions as stress, temporary insanity, abuse, or some other extenuating factor. A sniper goes around killing innocent civilians and we here liberals calling for a fair trial and arguing that we must consider their childhood and upbringing. Rioters trash New Orleans and kill people after Katrina and we are told their actions are justified for one reason or another. America jails foreign terrorists in Guantanamo and liberals claim they must have lawyers and are presumed innocent until tried and found guilty in a court. Demonstrators burn down entire neighborhoods and liberals aren't outraged, but instead tell us we must understand their situations. I could go back through the news and recount story after story, but most people will get the point.

A small group of American troops allegedly over react kill some civilians, and the liberals automatically proclaim them and all of America's military members guilty and cold blooded killers. What happened to waiting to hear all of the facts and a trial before they are pronounced guilty and "hanged" by liberals and the liberal media? What happened to understanding their situation?

Oh, did you hear that women and children actually shoot at and try to kill Americans? Have you heard that even women and children may be suicide bombers? Maybe someone did shoot at the troops from the location of those civilians. I certainly don't know, but I am willing to wait for the facts and to consider their situation... without condoning any improper actions.

RE: "The area here in Canada where Josh is in, is very close to me and there have been local articles as well."

I take it you are Canadian. I guess that explains your liberal posts and anti-American, anti-military comments!

For all of you liberals and Canadians who are so intent on slandering and convicting ALL of America's military for the alleged actions of a FEW, there are plenty of liberal blogs who would be absolutely thrilled to have your derogatory comments posted on their sites!

AAR

"A small group of American troops allegedly over react kill some civilians, and the liberals automatically proclaim them and all of America's military members guilty and cold blooded killers."

AAR, who has said this?

I guess I don't get your point.

Who said that exact phrase... me!

Who made the statements, charges, allegations, and comments on which I make my conclusion... read the news, read this and other blogs, read your own posts!

AAR

I don't care if Murtha is a "higly decorated" vietnam vet. You notice how everyone who talks about Murtha has to mention that? The way he gets treated you would think he walked on water, and what he says was gospel. He is a traitor. He needs to keep his big fat mouth shut. He should be giving our brave men and women who are in the Military the respect they deserve and give the Marines the benefit of the doubt,and STOP undermining our efforts in Iraq.

My own posts? Like this one?

"Stuff like this happens in war. That's why you make damn sure the war is necessary or justified before you start one.

Evidence doesn't look good for these guys. Tragic stuff."

Where do I say all members of the US military are cold-blooded killers?

---

Unfortunately “atrocities” occur during any war and are not confined to only American forces. They happened in Viet Nam, Korea, WWII, WWI, and likely every armed conflict throughout history. The pressures and horrors of war cause people to act in way they would not under normal circumstances. As long as there is war there will be atrocities because the very nature of war itself is atrocious. I think the real issue is that before we thrust our 19 and 20 year olds into war, we had better be damned sure that the results will be worth the consequences.

Mark

If you take away the little far left wing radical kooks on this site the right to smear the military they won't have anything to say.

I do not remember Congress declaring war. Did they? I may have missed that part.

We have put our brave men and women into a meat grinder over there. Military officials have acknowledged the fact we do not have enough manpower to secure the situation. We have not supplied them with the best equipment that our country can provide. We stop loss them into returning to the debacle over and over again. They are exhausted, overworked, and stressed out.

When they went in to Iraq they were going after WMD. Then it switched to "removing a ruthless dictator" from power. Then it switched to liberation of the Iraqi people. Then it switched to "bringing democracy to the middle east".

Our brave fighting men and women do what they are trained to do. Follow orders. Period. Yet, they are human. They snap. They freak out. As such my heart breaks for them. Yet, something bothers me. One must never lose their sense of humanity.

One must never lose the sense of what is right and what is wrong. One must not cross over to the dark side.

Part of the problem is the de-humanization of the whole situation there. They do not know who to fight anymore. It is a whirlwind of fatigue, stress, blood, and bodies.

I do blame your administration. I blame them for they're lack of clear concise objectives. I blame them for the de-humanization in condoning torture.

Today the U.N. admonished the United States for torture.

I blame your administration for the mismanagement of funds for re-building what we have destroyed. Now we will no longer be allocating funds for construction in Iraq.

I blame you, the moderators of this website for condoning atrocities that are allowed because we are at "war with terror".

I blame you for turning a blind eye to the real human tragedy going on over there. Always scapegoating out what have been acknowledged mismangement.

I do not blame the soldiers in the field.

I blame you.

"And if this is true, it would be very similar to Mai Lai. Troops under stress snap and kill civilians. Yes, there were more deaths at Mai Lai, but it's the same situation."

You're right, Tom, troops can snap under pressure and kill civilians, but the vast majority don't. I disagree with you on it being like Mai Lai. Yes, it would be the same situation (troops killing civilians), but on a completely different order of magnitude. A Cessna 172, with 2 on board, flying into a mountain is the same situation as a Boeing 747, with 350 on board, flying into a mountain but that's where the comparison ends. Both are horrific for the victims families and friends but I think you would agree that the visceral response of the public to both would be different.

Having said that, any death of a civilian, whether 1 or 500 is tragic.

And, dav, I don't think any of the poster's support murder. If the charges are true (you'll have to forgive me for wanting to wait for the results of the Courts Martial and not Time's reporting), those Marines convicted deserve to spend the rest of their lives locked up. At the very least.

I'm getting the impression that the argument is being made that if Bush hadn't sent them to war or had sent more troops this wouldn't have happened.

Piffle. Combat is inherently stressful. In my 20 years in the Army, I can tell you that there were times that I was so scared that you couldn't have drove a pin up my behind with a 5 pound sledge hammer. A few snap, most don't. If the standard is that a president has to worry about whether the troops are under too much stress before he can commit them, there wouldn't be any need for the armed services. Come to think of it, I wish that was the standard when I was in. I'd have been able to spend a lot more time at home, not get shot at, and probably not have as much gray hair and a limp.

Sorry for the length of the ramble. I've given myself a headache.

raker13,

RE: "Today the U.N. admonished the United States for torture."

Tell the U.N. to TAKE A HIKE!

The U.N. can't even stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons! They can't even stop the murder of hundreds of thousands, millions in Africa! Let them go do something important rather than worrying about how we handle terrorist prisoners!

If the U.N. had been capable of doing their job -- doing anything really constructive -- America would not be in Iraq now. America would not be doing the job the U.N. should have done, but couldn't. If it were up to the U.N. and you liberals, Saddam Hussein would still be murdering and torturing hundreds of thousands of his own people, paying for suicide bombers to blow up innocent Israeli citizens, and would ultimately have restarted his own WMD programs in the future once sanctions were removed -- as they would have been at some point. The world would have Saddam and his barbarous sons to deal with and continue their torture, killing, and who knows what else for years and years to come if you and the liberals had their way!

RE: "I blame you."

Well I blame you and the liberals for many/most of the problems in America today... period!!!

Liberals will ultimately destroy America and turn it into a third rate power if they are allowed to continue!

My opinion, but I believe it is shared by millions!

AAR

Barney,

Unless his name is Jack Murtha.

Oh, you mean the same Murtha who convinced Clinton to cut and run in Somalia? The act which convinced OBL that America was weak. The very same Somalia that we are being drawn back into because it has become worse?

Jack Murtha-pathetic, senile, worthless representative that is PERPETUALLY WRONG!

axis:

"As for the troops, I am not of the belief that they should have gone there to Iraq in the first place, however they are not getting the body armour they should, not getting the armoured vehicles they should either."

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. They were deployed with body armor. As the terrorists modified their tactics and began to use 155 mm artillery shells as IED, we have modified the armor to give the troops more protection. Just for your information, a 155 mm artillery shell will take out an Abrams M1-A2 tank, so it would take quite a bit of armor to protect an individual troop from that IED explosion.

As for armored vehicles, the combat vehicles (Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting vehicles, and the Stryker) are armored. The HMMWV (Hummer) was not designed as an armored vehicle, although it did provide more protection that the vehicle it replaced, the M151 1/4 ton (the Jeep). Because of the IED threat, the HMMWV have been retrofitted with armor. The got the armor they needed.

"They are not getting proper training, and they are not getting proper suppport and vet benefits when they get back."

Wrong again. The are the best trained military force the world has ever seen. Who the hell are you to judge the quantity and quality of their training. Have you served in the US military? Have you observed the training they go through? I have served so I can personally vouch for the training they are receiving.

As for support when they return, my full-time job is to ensure that before they leave and when they return they have the support of their, and America's, employers. We have over 4,500 volunteers, nation-wide providing this support. There is also a nation-wide organization of Family Support Groups that provide support for their families and provide grants to families with economic difficulties.

As for veterans benefits, If approved by Congress, the fiscal year 2007 budget for VA medical care will be 69 percent higher, and total appropriations for all VA efforts will be 64 percent more, than they were in 2001. So much for a lack of support.

"The Army has armoured vehicles all ready but has been sitting on them for months and months while more troops die every month from IED's than the month before."

Where's your proof of this claim? I am not going to let you get away with un-substantiated claims.

As for IED related troops deaths, you're lying, and you know it. The highwater mark for IED deaths was 59 last October. In March it was 12. While the number grew in 05 over 04, it was because the terrorists changed their tactics.

"I support the troops, too bad the Bush administration doesn't."

I don't believe you do support the troops. Give me a list of what you have done to support them, other than post drivvle on this blog.

I do not remember Congress declaring war. Did they? I may have missed that part.

I'm not sure how you could have missed it, raker. You can read about it here and here

They are exhausted, overworked, and stressed out.

And you know this how? Personal experience? A friend of relative who's served? I asked my nephew, a Marine Helocopter crew chief who spent most of last year in Iraq about many of the allegations you're making. He said most everything you read, hear and see in the MSM is slanted and exaggerated.

When they went in to Iraq they were going after WMD. Then it switched to "removing a ruthless dictator" from power. Then it switched to liberation of the Iraqi people.

Actually, all this happened when Clinton was still President, and the goal to spread democracy to the Middle East was, IIRC, expressed long before the Iraq conflict began.

From the AUMF linked to above:

“Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338) [22 U.S.C. 2151 note ] expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

One must never lose the sense of what is right and what is wrong. One must not cross over to the dark side.

You're kidding, right? ROTFLMAO.

Part of the problem is the de-humanization of the whole situation there. They do not know who to fight anymore. It is a whirlwind of fatigue, stress, blood, and bodies.

Again, you know this how? See complete response above to your second assertion.

I do blame your administration. I blame them for they're lack of clear concise objectives. I blame them for the de-humanization in condoning torture.

Evidence? (something besides a link to Kos or an audio link to Air American would be preferable)

Today the U.N. admonished the United States for torture.

Be still my beating heart. And this from an organization who peacekeepers routinely rape girls as young as 4 or 5 in Africa. Yeah, they've got a lot of moral authority all right.

I blame you, the moderators of this website for condoning atrocities that are allowed because we are at "war with terror".

I'll let Mark respond to this one.

LaMano,

Good point!

If we had stood up to Osama Bin Laden then, maybe he would have KNOWN the U.S. would fight back. Maybe there would not even have been an attack on the World Trade Center. Maybe those thousands of people who died there, on the airplanes used as flying bombs, and in the Pentagon would not have died at all!

If the liberals had stood up in Somalia, fought back, and now cut and run, maybe Osama Bin Laden would not have attacked the U.S. Had that not happened, we would not have gone to war with Afghanistan. Those liberal role models, the Taliban, would still be in power. We worried about Saddam using WMDs to attack the U.S. We would not have been at war with Iraq now!

And what book did Saddam Hussein have his troops read before the war began... Black Hawk Down! Saddam knew how liberals act. He knew they cut and run. His problem is that he didn't understand that President Bush is not a weak liberal who runs from a fight.

You see... it all goes back to President Clinton. He cut and ran from Somalia. His and similar actions convinced the terrorists and our enemies that America was weak. That lead to the attack on the World Trade Center which culminated with the war on Iraq. Now, if you want to blame the President for the war and Iraq and all of the problems you have with it... go talk to President Clinton about his weak, liberal actions culminated with the war in Iraq.

If liberals had stood strong with the President in Iraq instead of providing comfort and encouragement to the terrorists and insurgents, maybe the insurgency would not have grown to what it did. Maybe many of our troops would not have been killed by IEDs. Maybe the thousands of Iraqis killed or injured since the war ended would still be alive and healthy. But... a liberal is a liberal is a liberal.

President Bush raised the Stars and Stripes... not the White and Yellow Flag of the liberal left!

Someone should work up a good white and yellow flag to sell on their websites. I'm sure the liberals would like to buy several to use in their protest marches! It should be a big seller!!!

AAR

Deleted - slanders against the US military

raker13,

"I do not remember Congress declaring war. Did they? I may have missed that part."

Correct, they did not declare war. They twice authorized the use of US Armed Forces to fight terrorism and to inforce the UN Resolutions against Iraq. Which is what we have done. An authorization of the use of military force is tantamount to a declaration of war. A war declaration was not used against terrorists as they do not claim to be a soverign state.

So what's your point?

"I blame your administration for the mismanagement of funds for re-building what we have destroyed."

The majority of the funds are not for "re-building what we have destroyed", as the destruction caused by the liberation of Iraq was minimal in historical terms. What the funds are being used for is re-building the country's infrastructure that Saddam had allowed to deteriate. We are re-building the power grids, oil production facilities, schools, roads, hospitals, and thousands of other projects that the MSM ignores.

"I blame you for turning a blind eye to the real human tragedy going on over there."

The real human tragedy was the millions of Iraqis that Saddam murdered. Those that were fed, alive, into plastic shredders. That's not happening anymore. Those that were tied to poles and were eaten alive by starving dogs. Not happening anymore. The populations of entire towns that were gassed to death. Not happening anymore. The execution squads that killed hundreds and filled the mass graves. Not happening anymore.

I blame you for refusing to admit that what we have done in Iraq has saved thousands of Iraqis from death by the hands of Saddam and his henchmen.

AAR,

You seem to have given up on the topic of this thread, but I'll play your game. Ok, the Clinton administrations actions in Somalia led to Osama and Saddam erroneously thinking that the US was weak. But lets go back further: who armed, trained, and encouraged these nutjobs?

Why, of course, it was the Reagan administration!! Arming and training Islamic jihadis in Afghanistan to fight the Russians, what did that lead to? The Taliban and Osama. Thanks, Reagan, for the really well thought out plan on that one!

(Edited out known lie), what did that lead to? Iraq War I and II. Again, another great idea!

Sorry AAR, the blame's still on Republicans. You'll have to dig a little deeper.

Aar “If we had stood up to Osama Bin Laden then,..” So, OBL was behind Black hawk Down affair?

AAR ‘President Bush raised the Stars and Stripes...” You mean how bush is spitting on the graves of the brave soldiers that gave their lives in that fight by giving money to warlords that were responsible for the attacks? See below:

“More than a decade after U.S. troops withdrew from Somalia following a disastrous military intervention, officials of Somalia's interim government and some U.S. analysts of Africa policy say the United States has returned to the African country, secretly supporting secular warlords who have been waging fierce battles against Islamic groups for control of the capital, Mogadishu.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625_pf.html

steve,

Or like the billions of war materials we supplied to the Soviet Union during WWII? Or how we helped the Chinese fight off the Japanese during WWII? Oops. Both of those countries became our adversaries during the 50 year "Cold War". Who's to blame for that? FDR.

Barneyg2000,

RE: Aar “So, OBL was behind Black hawk Down affair?"

Did I say that? No I did not!

I said that after the shooting down of Black Hawk helicopter, the killing of our soldiers, and the abuse of their bodies... President Clinton chose the liberal way out. He cut and ran rather show that America would not run from a fight. By doing so, that was another example, along with the other instances where American ships, embassies, housing, etc. of the weak manner is which American liberals react to an attack. They want to cut and run!

That weakness contributed to Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists believing they can force Americans to retreat by killing Americans with their terrorist activities. Blackmail doesn't work unless one pays the blackmailer. That is why America does not negotiate with blackmailers or terrorists.

The same thing has happened in Iraq. When did the insurgents and terrorists really get motivated? When the "Negative Nine" Democratic presidential candidates spent over 6 months letting the world, the terrorists, and insurgents know that they didn't support the war and would pull our troops out if elected. The more the Negative Nine talked, the more troops and Iraqis were killed with IEDs. Why... because it was apparent that the more of our troops they could kill, the more it would turn the average American against the war, the more it would help elect a weak Democrat, and the greater the chances that America would cut and run and leave Iraq to them.

The problem again... the terrorists underestimated the will of President Bush. The liberal Democrat candidate did not win, but by then the terrorist attacks were well organized and growing. The liberal Democrats like Murtha and most others continue their anti-war rhetoric, and the terrorists continue to hope and believe they will be successful. The more of our troops and Iraqis they kill, the more they believe they are helping Democrats in their efforts to cut and run.

If the liberal Democrats had stood strong behind President Bush, we wouldn't have the problem in Iran now. The liberal Democrats have weakened President Bush's and America's ability to deal with Iran and other threats to our security! Iran knows that the liberal Democrats are all for talking and stalling and will convince the American people that will work... until it is too late once again!

What will the results of this weak position by liberal Democrats be? We won't know for some time. Perhaps it will only cost us a couple of American cities. Perhaps only Israel will be wiped off the face of the Earth... along with Iran!

Back to the Black Hawk Mentality of liberal Democrats... Weakness will get more people killed quiker than strength!

As far as President Bush "spitting" on the graves of our soldiers... I don't think so!

AAR

Steve,

RE: "Arming crazy dictator Saddam to fight Iran, what did that lead to? Iraq War I and II. Again, another great idea!"

Sometimes we fight an enemy directly, sometimes we use a surrogate and for many different reasons (one of which is the weakness of liberals). I'm sure you have read your history and understand the whys and wherefores. Why did we arm the insurgents to fight the Russians in Afghanistan... even though that lead to the Taliban and gave OBL his start? Because it was a better approach than nuking it out directly with Russia! After we've taken care of one problem, we deal with the next.

At least we have Israel to solve the Iran problem if our liberal Democrats convince Americans not to fight. Hopefully, Israel, along with our "secret" (for now anyway) efforts to support them will protect America from a nuclear bomb from Iran in the future.

No Steve, I do not need to "dig any deeper". I know where I place much of the blame -- for many/most of America's problems today!!!

Just as there is nothing I can say to change your mind -- there is nothing you can say to change my mind... because you can't change the facts... a liberal is a liberal is a liberal!

AAR

How pathetic!! Rep. Murtha I am sorry to say should go out to pasture. He is showing signs of senility or at least his age. We are talking about our military!! Those who are charged with the nation's defense!! And he is whining about how the poor little guys are so stressed out and need to come home now to be soothed by their mothers I guess. Sorry to come off so sarcastic but I cannot believe it. And this is an all volunteer army. Even our conscripted army in WWII was not treated in such a childish way. Investigate the incident and charge criminally if so needed. But stop this pathetic wailing about the "poor overused military". And these were Marines he was talking about!! My goodness!!

Aar, “President Clinton chose the liberal way out. He cut and ran rather show that America would not run from a fight. By doing so, that was another example, along with the other instances where American ships, embassies, housing, etc. of the weak manner is which American liberals react to an attack. They want to cut and run!”

The great republican President Reagan set the “gold standard” with Beirut. Cut and Run, OBL, Iran, Iraq It all goes back to Reagan.

Barneyg2000,

I'll leave it with you on that. I think President Reagan was more involved in destroying the Soviet Union at that time. I'd have to go back and research the details to give a good reply which I don't have time to do right now.

That still leaves Clinton in the loop though!

AAR

In the interest of intelligent debate, why would Republicans NOT want to know what the "liberal" MSM is printing? How can you effectively counter it's effects if you don't read it? I took great care to use only NBC's own reports, even pointing out the liberal MSM doing a bad thing in the process, and you deleted my post.

There was nothing slanderous in my post. The language was civil. The quote was directly from MSNBC.com's story HERE.

Not only did I not slander the good name of our soldiers, but I frowned on the leakers of this story, and pointed out the process by which the military polices itself, keeping it strong and reassuring all of us that they will not let one bad apple spoil the other hundreds of thousands of good apples in uniform.

This strikes me as very important, that those of us with family in Iraq know that bad things happen, but will not be tolerated. My nephew does supply line work there, and spent a couple weeks in a Kuwaiti hospital after an ambush last year burned his face pretty badly. I want to know why the civilian Iraqi people are so pissed, and more importantly, what we are doing to fix it, so that not another Iraqi ever joins the insurgency again.

I am baffled on this one. You seem to be vilifying the very thing you claim to be protecting, namely those who serve. Jack Murtha, to me, represents what every soldier in Iraq will become in thirty years. Those who NOW serve will either be respected or vilified. I would hope the next generation of Republicans, of all people, would respect those who now serve.

Disagree with Murtha, sure, it's an American right. Point out where he's wrong, absolutely, that's what an informed electorate is all about. But villify a soldier because what he knows runs counter to your agenda is just sad, and worthy of hippies and freaks, not Republicans.

To quote the true Bane of Liberals, Donald Rumsfeld, as he wrote in Rumfeld's Rules: "Don't divide the world into 'them' and 'us.' Avoid infatuation with or resentment of the press, the Congress, rivals, or opponents. Accept them as facts. They have their jobs and you have yours."

If only. If only...

In the interest of intelligent debate, why would Republicans NOT want to know what the "liberal" MSM is printing? How can you effectively counter it's effects if you don't read it? I took great care to use only NBC's own reports, even pointing out the liberal MSM doing a bad thing in the process, and you deleted my post.

(removed link to slander against the US military)

Not only did I not slander the good name of our soldiers, but I frowned on the leakers of this story, and pointed out the process by which the military polices itself, keeping it strong and reassuring all of us that they will not let one bad apple spoil the other hundreds of thousands of good apples in uniform.

This strikes me as very important, that those of us with family in Iraq know that bad things happen, but will not be tolerated. My nephew does supply line work there, and spent a couple weeks in a Kuwaiti hospital after an ambush last year burned his face pretty badly. I want to know why the civilian Iraqi people are so pissed, and more importantly, what we are doing to fix it, so that not another Iraqi ever joins the insurgency again.

I am baffled on this one. You seem to be vilifying the very thing you claim to be protecting, namely those who serve. Jack Murtha, to me, represents (edited to remove a patent impossibility). Those who NOW serve will either be respected or vilified. I would hope the next generation of Republicans, of all people, would respect those who now serve.

Disagree with Murtha, sure, it's an American right. Point out where he's wrong, absolutely, that's what an informed electorate is all about. But (call a traitor what he is) because what he (lies about) runs counter to your agenda is just sad, and worthy of hippies and freaks, not Republicans.

To quote the true Bane of Liberals, Donald Rumsfeld, as he wrote in Rumfeld's Rules: "Don't divide the world into 'them' and 'us.' Avoid infatuation with or resentment of the press, the Congress, rivals, or opponents. Accept them as facts. They have their jobs and you have yours."

If only. If only...

Let's not forget about Jimmy Massey, the former Marine from Iraq who ran around screaming about all the atrocities he "witnessed" in Iraq. It was later proven that he lied and claims that he was told about the atrocities by other Marines, none of whom corroborated his story.

If this claim is true, then it is truly horrible, I can't imagine anybody who would disagree with that. Those responsible should be punished. However, I will reserve judgment until I hear the official version and the investigation is complete.

Getting back to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois ...

It struck me when I heard this story that possibly he has been spelling his name wrong. Perhaps is should be Jack Mothra instead.

Think about it: both are ancient beasts who don't belong in the modern world, flailing about and senselessly destroying civilization. Not much difference between a giant moth from the paleozoic and a Democratic dinosaur from DC when you get right down to it. At least the giant moth had the good manners to go into hiding.

Then again, maybe the stress of all this airline travel is getting to me. I hope I don't snap. ;->

bear, Murtha is from PA and not IL.

He is also an (edited to remove an incorrect discription of Murtha), show some respect.

So let me get this straight... Murtha, who is a decorated Marine combat vet, is the traitor, while Bush, (edited to remove a slander).

And after calling a Marine colonel a traitor, Mark has the gumption to lecture us not to slander the good names of our fighting men and women?

It's the bad policy of the (edited to remove slanders) Bushians that is to blame for such terrible incidents in Iraq, not our fighting men and women. I think Col Murtha realizes that.

Deleted - Anti-military slanders

I trust Murtha as well. He's regularly visited the wounded at Walter Reed and in his home district, loves the military, and hates how Bush has mismanaged Iraq. He's taken a lot of heat for speaking out, but since he's in a position to know what's going on, I respect his opinion.

Bush doesn't have many supporters left--only a core group of diehards, but those that are left seem to have a strong sense of denial.

(Ed. - Paritially deleted due to anti-military slanders)

Guys, I wasn't kidding - there WILL BE NO TOLERANCE of slanders on our military servicemembers.

Our men and women are the good guys in this war, period. You want to make slanderous allegations against men and women who are far better than all of us here on this blog, then you just take yourself to Kos or DU...

Aarontime et al..
When are you DU/Kos lemmings going to get off the old canard (p.s. you can look it up in the dictionary) that Bush avoided the AG duty...
You can read an article from the Dallas Morning News dated 2-3-04 posted at www.freerepublic (sorry I am computer challenged and don't know how to link it).Read it and weep, suckers!!!

Barney,

No, it goes back to Jimmy Carter and Desert One...though all Presidents from Nixon to Clinton bear a portion of the blame for the fact of terrorism.

My nephew serving proudly in Iraq is an anti-military slander? What universe have I stepped into?

Wow. I give up. Murtha is a scumbag. There, now do I fit in?

Oh my god, I just slandered Murtha. Is that an anti-military slander? I hope it's ok to slander ex-military people. Just kidding. Really.

congressive,

If you can't tell the difference between Murtha and a patriot, then I honestly feel sorry for you...it must be a cold, narrow little world you live in...

So you are saying now that you are only a patriot if you are a conservative? Are you that narrow minded and short sighted?

With hateful views like that, how will america ever hope to come back together.

See, thats the main difference between liberals, moderate republicans who may not always agree, but we respect and tolerate each others views...

And you radical right wingers who only recognize their own views and have no respect for those that fall outside of yours.

Axis,

Now that is a really silly thing to say - nothing like that is even remotely implied by what I've written.

As a for-instance, my best man at my wedding is a liberal guy - as anti-Bush as the day is long...but he's not a fool, and he is a patriot. You can hate Bush and hate the war and still be a patriot - but being a patriot does require that you do no harm to your nation, and to accuse our troops of war crimes is just to feed in to enemy propaganda - it is to give aid and comfort to the enemy; it is treason, in my view.

As an aside, it also makes the war longer and bloodier than it had to be...I do hope that some day you people on the left will realise that you made the war longer and bloodier than it should have been..that had you been patriots, the whole thing would have gone a lot smoother, and a whole bunch of men and women who are dead now would be alive...

just having a little fun with ya :) , but you are getting a bit radical...

But I doubt, Murtha desires to hurt the nation, in my opinion, he is drawing much needed attention to a big and growing problem that is not being addressed and needs to be very badly.

He did not make this up and was commenting based on the findings of the investigative panel.

The troops are not being taught proper rules of engagement and rules of conduct, as a result you end up with incidents like this.

They are not being provided with proper body armor when they could be easily.

There are not enough troops there to complete the mission.

An article the other day revealed that Halliburton has rationed the troops to one or 2 meals a day to save $$$ so now the troops are going hungry to boot.

Halliburton has fed the troops tainted food in recent months,giving many food poisening.

Vets coming back are having trouble getting benefits.

Families of fallen troops are being denied benefits and getting the run around.

Funding to VA hospitals are being cut by the administration and congress

Vets are not getting access to get couselling to help them reintegrate back into society, wilth many being untreated

They are not being provided with properly armored vehicles which as instead sitting in a ordinance depot yard all ready to go for many months while the troops are beiong blown up in light humvees.

The other day, a Canadian properly armored vehicle took the full brunt of an IED in Afganistan, no deaths, just light injuries, while they all would have died if in a light Humvee.

The troops are not being properly looked after. They deserve better than they are getting.

See the article below on the Canadian armored vehicle that the troops in Iraq should be provided with

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2006/05/16/1582225-sun.html

Maybe it's because everytime Murtha opens his mouth, he's the leadoff story on Al Jazeera. Just maybe that has something to do with it.

By the way, Murtha and Kerry are not currently in the middle of fighting a war. Do you guys actually think that soldiers over in Iraq are saying "Oh thank God, Murtha is telling them what is REALLY going on over here!". Wrong. Murtha's comment that the army is broken and living hand to mouth was one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. It was a flat out lie, and did nothing but encourage our enemies. He should be ashamed of himself.

How is saying that Bush went into the Texas Air Guard to avoid Vietnam combat constitute "anti-military slander"? It is well know that during the Vietnam conflict, less than 2% of Guard units were called up to combat duty. Disagree if you want with my take on Bush's motives if you want - but it hardly constitutes slander against the military.

Similarly, my characterization of the Bush admin as "lying and incompetent" does not have anything to do with the military at all. It is amazing to me how you Bush cult worshippers have equated criticizing Bush with criticizing the military. That constitutes quite a feat of propaganda.

Xango -

Read my post again. I never say that Bush avoided AG duty. I say that Bush joined the AG, as many politically connected did in those days, to avoid combat in Vietnam. In fact, I view this whole business of whether BUsh showed up for all his jumping jacks in the AG as an irrelevant distraction from the more important question of why Bush went into the Guard in the first place. Was it because he loves that kind of service? Or was it to stay out of the jungles of Vietnam?

In any case, Xango, you should read my post before commenting on it.

Mark---What portion of my post slandered the troops? I don't think any of us posting here are against our troops-we are against the policy. The troop are just doing their best with the situation they are stuck in. There's no way to fix problems if you won't admit they exist!

Condensending, Aarontime..
I did read your post, why do you think I commented on it in the first place?
Now, I will wait for your comments after you read the article.................

Aarontime,

Of course you realize that fighter pilot training is extremely dangerous, as is duty as a fighter pilot. Flying the F-102 was particuparily dangerous.

During the Vietnam War, Air National Guard units were responsible for the Air Defense of the Continental United States. President Bush flew Air Defense missions during his stint in the Texas Air National Guard.

For the first 80 weeks, over 1 1/2 years, Bush was on active duty training to become a fighter pilot. During his career with the TX ANG, he amassed over 300 flight hours.

He also voluntered for the Palace Alert program, which would have sent him to Vietnam. However, he did not have enough flight hours to qualify and they were only taking more senior pilots into the program.

There is nothing dishonorable about serving in the Air National Guard. My father-in-law served in the Air National Guard for over 30 years, retiring as a Major General. His son, my brother-in-law, has served in the Air National Guard for over 25 years and was just promoted to Brigadier General. He was one of the first pilots airborne on 9/11, flying combat air patrol over Detroit.

I would put President Bush's military record against his predecessor's any day. The 42nd President signed up for ROTC to avoid being drafted, and once his Selective Srevice Classification was changed giving him a deferment, he quit the program and went overseas. Quite a honorable record, don't you think.

A-10,

I see you conveniently neglected to mention the black eye of Bush's "illustrious" military career, that he went AWOL from active duty in 1972.

No doubt Daddy Bush saved his bacon and prevented it from going further than that.

Add that to Dead eye Dick Cheney's draft dodging and you have a winning combination.

No wonder Rush can connect so well with this administration, he dodged the draft because he had a pimple on his fat bottom.

Mark Noonan is a hypocritical sleazebag.

He calls a decorated war hero who has a long and consistent track record of serving his country in the Marines a "traitor" because he has the temerity to report on official Pentagon findings of a very unpleasant truth.

While Mark waxes poetic about the cause of "freedom" and "democracy" he won't hesitate to remove posts of individuals who expose his hypocrisy.

War is brutal and unforgiving. Those who wage it are no different than the rest of us: the good, the bad, the ugly. Many innocent civilians have been slaughtered in Iraq. Chemical weapons were used in Fallujah, and the evidence of war crimes committed by U.S. forces is overwhelming, based on information from the Pentagon, no less. More and more people of conscience are revolted by the situation there, which is getting worse, not better, despite the lame propaganda that that the Mark Noonans of the world try to cram down our throats.

Regarding Noonan's assinine assertions about "gold plated" proof: did the troops have "gold plated proof" that the car carrying the rescued Italian journalist to the airport was being operated by terrorists before they fired and killed its innocent occupants? Of course not. I could go on and on. My point is simply that the inhumanity and injustice and killing have continued. Immoral apologists like Noonan will continue to justify it and the horrendous costs by claiming that we have "liberated" Iraq from Saddam. But what the Iraqi people face now, with the complete disintegation of their society and culture is even worse.

Good night, and good luck.

cookiecorp,

Chemical weapons were used in Fallujah? Proof please. If you mean White Phosphorus or napalm? White Phosphorus is not considered a chemical munition, nor is it an outlawed munition. White Phosphorus was used in Fallujah for screening purposes, to obscure troop movements, and for psychological purposes, to flush out enemy fighters.

Napalm, also not catagorized as a chemical weapon, and also not a banned munition, was not used at Fallujah.

Oh, and by the way, what was that I read about the formation of the country's new national unity government? Didn't sound like the complete disintegration of their society and culture to me.

If your hatred for President Bush wasn't so obvious, you might be able to post a rational comment. But since you suffer from BDS, you only see the bad in everything associated with the Bush Administration.

By the way, I have the extreme pleasure to announce that Jack Murtha, the first Viet Nam vet elected to Congress has been selected to win the John F Kennedy Profiles in Courage Award, for speaking out in 2005 about his opposition to the war in Iraq. He's a real American hero, speaking out against the war when it wasn't popular to do so.

kritter,

That's nice...he gets an award which is titled after a book that Kennedy is credited with, but didn't write...with Kennedy, of course, being the man who didn't have the courage to take care of Castro and the Berlin Wall...

Murtha is welcome to such an award...

Jack Murtha has always been a liberal democrat traitor out to destroy america with his baseless slanderings of all republicans. Can't believe traitors like him and John Kerry got elected as public officials. They have done nothing to deserve them, unlike our great president George W Bush who actually risked his life and contributed to America in the past. Traitors like Jack Murtha and John Kerry need to be jailed like the coward criminals they are.

Axis..
Surely, you can't be that uninformed....yes, I guess you could be.....

Jack Murtha has always been a liberal democrat traitor out to destroy america with his baseless slanderings of all republicans. Can't believe traitors like him and John Kerry got elected as public officials. They have done nothing to deserve them, unlike our great president George W Bush who actually risked his life and contributed to America in the past. Traitors like Jack Murtha and John Kerry need to be jailed like the coward criminals they are.

It's a good thing you're so careful to delete comments that are slanderous... otherwise someone could post an unsubstaniated attack like this and it would remain online for days.

FYI, the Murtha quote above is incomplete. His comment was, "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That's what the report is going to tell."

Time will tell if he was accurate or not. I commend the military for investigating this incident in a timely manner.