No, I didn't. I asked how anyone could spin the facts as reported any differently - while explicitly acknowledging that those facts, as reported, were not established.
"You mentioned the three commanders were relieved due to Haditha."
No, I didn't. I stated that they had been relieved. Which is true. It may well be a pure coincidence that they were relieved after this incident for reasons totally unrelated to this incident. I am typically skeptical of such coincidences, but it is certainly possible.
"And none of the three, according to defense, are being investigated for alleged murder or cover-up."
That's probably true - according, again, to reporting, it was the superiors of the Marines on the patrol who uncovered the facts that poked holes in the story given by those on the ground to explain the deaths, i.e. the civilians were killed by an IED.
So you are expanding and amplifying my own words to set up a straw man of positions I haven't taken. That is pretty good for a 12 year old. Perhaps if you had read my post to you where I explicitly stated that I hadn't adjudged any of them to be guilty, you would be aware that I hadn't taken that position. But it would be too much to ask you to actually respond to what I've said, rather than making up crap to ascribe to me and responding to that. You probably aren't capable of the former.
Ignored the difficult (and first!) one, didn't ya? Very pre-teen like. :-D