didn't I tell you before I ignore what the Iraqis claimed? What part of anything I posted gives you the impression that I believe the qualifier "rampage"?
"I must have missed that link where the Marines said they killed the women and children and the old man in the wheelchair. "
Yes, it sure looks like you did. The Marines admitted it and paid money for the wrongful deaths and injuries. Do you think the journalists made this up?
"He's your typical, ignorant, liberal fool, masquarading as a journalist."
What I can get from those stories is things like, Rumsfeld is the Defense Secretary, Bush is the President, we are at war, we have troops in Iraq, J. Edwards is a clymer, someone had dinner, ect.
"if these Marines claim differently, to whom will you afford the benefit of the doubt?"
The results of the investigation will provide me with more to think about. When that happens I'll have something to say about it. I remember the Pantano case. Lt Pantano caught 2 terrorists at a house containing terrorist devices. He shot them when he thought they posed a threat. The charges were brought by a Sgt. Daniel Coburn. Sgt. Coburn claimed that Lt. Pantano shot them in the back for no reason. The whole case rested on Coburn's accusation. Otherwise I saw no problem with the shooting. Since I could't interview the 2, I could not make a decision on who was telling the truth.
The investigators dug up the grave and autopsied the body. They found that Pantano was telling the truth. Coburn retracted on the stand.
I believe the investigators and the other officers involved will do there best in the interest of justice, as they did in the Pantano case.
Well, you are the one who linked the Time articles. I assume it was to bolster your argument, not just something for me to read while taking a poop. Since the majority of the case for malfeasance by the Marines stems from Times interviews of "local officials" and "witnesses", I'm glad you are discounting these quotes.
That leaves the rest of the Time article, paraphrasing anonymous "military officials" and one on-record spokeswoman who defended the Marines.
And since it was the great Time magazine investigation that took this from non-story to above the fold, it's best to examine what it said, since 90% of the rest of the stories are now using it for the basis and claiming its all true.
But I'm with you in waiting for the investigation to complete, and any subsequent trials. Unfortunately, Time and Murtha have already done the damage they intended.
What you should get from those stories is that this Time guy is a partisan hack, not fond of the Bush Administration and with a long history of liberal bias. But that would cast doubt on the veracity of the MSM. We can't do that.