Replies

I'm watched my tivo'ed copy of this piece. Frankly, i can't see what the defense thought they'd gain from this interview. It's not going to change anyone's mind. Those inclined to give the Marine the benefit of the doubt will continue to do so; those inclined to see this as the actions of rogue Marines gone beserk will find strands within the interview to justify that conclusion as well.

This may come back to bite him in the backside. Personally, I don't see an upside to this interview from a defense strategy. Maybe some of the other lawyers do.

Hey, jude24

You could be right, you could be wrong - who knows. Have you read the overview of Neal Puckett, Frank Wuterich's lawyer, on Frank's website? Mr. Puckett is no dummy.

What do you think of the fact that Frank is charged with 18 of 22 preferred charges of murder in Haditha? Twelve of those were in the first two houses where he didn't even fire a shot. Why did they charge him with these murders? I have my own ideas, just wondering what you think.

I think the only benefit to this must be publicity.

There's been terrible coverage of the Haditha operation. It's been confused by a congressman, it's been mixed up with Hamdaniya and others, it's been presented as a cut-and-dried "murder in cold blood" case, and it has been presented as already decided.

Above all, there really hasn't been much at all. Very little. Most Americans don't even know about it.

I think the lawyer wanted 60 minutes for the simple purpose of elevating visibility. And everytime someone gets into the facts of the case, and realizes that these Marines applied current infantry tactics according to the then-in-effect Rules of Engagement, they come away saying, "There are definitely 2 sides to this story, and the Marine in charge should be heard." Perhaps it will cause folks to read Wutterich's account.

One thing very important to me is that Wutterich was a young buck sergeant (E5) at the time. He looks real young now, and he looked much younger then.

Are we really going to take some guy who was about 23 at the time and punish him for decisions he made to stay alive in the middle of a firefight in the middle of a war? He was the senior guy on station at the time they were attacked and fired upon.

If there's a travesty here, that would definitely be it.

In the middle of getting your buddy killed and getting fired at, EVERYONE who is maneuvering in the vicinity is the enemy. Anyone who wants a "PERFECTLY clean" combat zone that also houses "civilians" is asking for something that has NEVER happened in warfare and NEVER will.