Posted on 05/31/2006 6:20:21 AM PDT by Coop
I don't think anyone here wants that - a scenario we have seen before. Anyway, this President has shown that he has faith in the military leaders on the ground so that is not even in question. Tony's "Time" remark may have been a flippant one - not realizing how it would play. Myself, I believe the President knew something of this before "Time". He gets casualty reports which are bound to include Iraqi military and civilians. Perhaps Tony meant that Pres Bush did not know of the slant Time was going to put on this incident.
And it's an annoying spur under the saddle for the likes of you.
OK, so explain this part:
First official report "concluded" that the Iraqis civilians were killed by the IED.
A subsequent investigation concluded that the Iraqis were killed by gunfire.
Gunshot and shrapnel wounds look very different from one another.
So how did the terrorists get the Marine commander to submit a false report up his chain of command?
There was no "'Net" as we know it in 1991.
I don't believe the president needs to be informed everytime cilvilians are killed in Iraq- my thoughts were more about how soon after Murtha made his accusations the president was told..
I probably was unclear in my first couple of posts on this.
My son was a combat soldier in Iraq- so while my understanding of situations on the ground is not personal- he's given me some perspective:)
Like Kerry the traitor's record, an SF180 must be signed by him releasing the info.
Murtha is the one that should be on trial. I don't understand why everyone is falling into this pack of lies. First we are at war, if civilians get in the way, that's just happens to be part of the war. We all know that the terrorist are cowards and hide behind woman and children, and here is a prime example as to why. Because we have idiots in the goverenment that are trying with all their might to make our armed forces look bad and use this kind of incident to twist and turn and make the soldiers look as though they are the bad guys.
These are the same terrorist that had their own blow up the the world trade center, these are the same people that behead people, these are the same people that killed thousand and thousand of their own. We went over there to help stop all this and to also keep them from our shores. But all we get is what bad soldiers we have, please!!!! These are not murderers, these are soldiers doing their job. If Murtha was a general, I assume that it was during the Viet Nam War and he was one of those brave elitist that sat on his butts in DC directing the war and didn't have a clue as to what was truly going on over there.
What we need is the people of our country to come up in arms to help these soldiers, but instead we believe the liberal BS.
Maybe the President did know about it, what difference does it make, he knows that these men/woman are over their doing a very difficult job. Its war, and there truly is nothing else to say.
The first report reported, supposedly based on detailed examination of the scene after the fact by all involved, including the officer submitting the report, that the deaths were the product of shrapnel from the IED. But higher-ups found inconsistencies, dug a little deeper, and found that the deaths were the product of gunfire.
That goes a ways beyong "fog of war" in my book.
No, it is not. He may be 100% correct. Good for his client if he is. But it is amusing to me that so many here jump to take the word of a defense attorney who was demonized as a traitor during his Congressional run as absolute fact, when it is what they want to hear. If he was saying the opposite (i.e. that his client was relieved or is being investigated because of Haditha), no one here would deem him worthy of belief.
If it's the truth, it's the answer Tony should give. If the President is out of the loop, Tony can't lie to protect him.
Frankly, I would have expected the President to know about this pretty early in the process -- but didn't the Time story run a long time ago? I would hope that the military has a standing order that any investigations of troop misconduct be sent up the chain of command to Rumsfeld, who should brief the President so if he's asked a question at a press conference, he knows what is happening.
But it's not Tony's fault if the President didn't know -- that was before Tony came on board.
I hope Tony will change the procedures so that the President DOES know about this stuff. I like the "hands-off" management style, but there are some things a good manager wants to be informed about. This would be one of those things.
Why do you hate America?
No, I think this is the right thing to do. Troops cannot be making fun of, or belittling, our allies, because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
When I was a cop, and the story I got from the "witness" diverged sharply from the evidence at hand, and did so in a way that implied the "witness" was trying to hide his role in events, the "witness" became a "suspect."
Did Kerry ever really sign his SF180? A lot was known about him from other sources.
No radio net(work)? Darn it all! I wonder to whom I was talking? Hmmmm. Must have been those darned voices again. You know me and all my delusions of made-up charges and excusing murder, those kinds of things...
If that is indeed what the investigation shows, I'll agree with you. But we've already found several discrepancies between Time, Murtha and our beloved media's "initial reports."
Murtha floated up to the rank of colonel.
Yes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.