VABills Posted May 31, 2006 Author Share Posted May 31, 2006 I don't know this for sure but from his comments, he wasn't just convicting them before he knew what happened. He had access to the investigation and pretty much knew what happened. Surely not all the facts, as they probably haven't come out, and perhaps never will. But he wasn't just playing politics or being a jerk about something he knew nothing about. 700664[/snapback] And again, you don't read what I said. Your politics seem to get in the way of your common sense. If Murtha had access to investigative details, he is hindering the investigation by divulging it. Also, he is putting the men and women there into harms way by not allowing the military to release the info after they have a chance to shore up and protect the troops in country from reprisals, before it is announced. He is going to get troops killed if they have to "think" rather then react to an evolving situation. Finally he is hurting the reputation of the troops involved if they in fact are found innocent. Again, your bias is showing. BTW, Murtha is playing politics as he is in a fight to win his seat again, and doing a poor job of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 And again, you don't read what I said. Your politics seem to get in the way of your common sense. If Murtha had access to investigative details, he is hindering the investigation by divulging it. Also, he is putting the men and women there into harms way by not allowing the military to release the info after they have a chance to shore up and protect the troops in country from reprisals, before it is announced. He is going to get troops killed if they have to "think" rather then react to an evolving situation. Finally he is hurting the reputation of the troops involved if they in fact are found innocent. Again, your bias is showing. BTW, Murtha is playing politics as he is in a fight to win his seat again, and doing a poor job of it. 700685[/snapback] No, I read what you said, and as usual, find it completely out of whack with reality. he didn't divulge any information about the investigation. All he did was explain that he knew what he was talking about, rather than just spouting off. That's an important distinction. If he didn't have access to this information, I would agree he shouldn't make judgments like he did. But he knows pretty much what happened. He also is not putting troops in more trouble. This happened quite some time ago. I'm sure the army has already done what it thought it needed to do (however wrong it may be) about ensuring safety. And if his information is accurate, which I imagine it would be, I don't really see an argument about him putting information out there early. The army doesn't really want it out there because it makes them look bad. But it was going to come out soon. He has every right to voice an informative concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 The thing for the traitor (Murtha) to say would be:" I don't want to comment on the case before the courts marshall are done, but I hope the military does a thourough and honest investigation." Not the tripe he has been spouting recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 The thing for the traitor (Murtha) to say would be:" I don't want to comment on the case before the courts marshall are done, but I hope the military does a thourough and honest investigation." Not the tripe he has been spouting recently. 700938[/snapback] Oh, so no one can talk about this for a year or two? This is why I started that other thread about you're only innocent before guilty in court. Only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 If what Murtha knew convinced him of their guilt, then don't you think that *as a former Marine* he might be particularly and personally incensed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 1, 2006 Author Share Posted June 1, 2006 If what Murtha knew convinced him of their guilt, then don't you think that *as a former Marine* he might be particularly and personally incensed? 701576[/snapback] As as a former Marine, who is for the most part just as highly decorated as Murtha, I find his presumption of guilt and lack of thought of the effects this will have on the troops still there, extremely un-patriotic and criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 If what Murtha knew convinced him of their guilt, then don't you think that *as a former Marine* he might be particularly and personally incensed? 701576[/snapback] Nothing wrong with being incensed, but use your brain. He was out of line with his coments. If you see anything other than that, you're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 As as a former Marine, who is for the most part just as highly decorated as Murtha, I find his presumption of guilt and lack of thought of the effects this will have on the troops still there, extremely un-patriotic and criminal. 701584[/snapback] But that's the point. Let's assume that you are a former Marine, and presumably deeply proud of the institution, and are now in Congress. If in the course of investigating the investigation you become convinced not only that they are guilty but that they and the lack of investigation have brought shame upon the Marines and possibly lasting damage to their reputation, are you telling me that you would sit back and let it go on? I'm not making either of these claims, only arguing that if that's what he concluded than his response is not neccessarily as outrageous as people make it out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 But that's the point. Let's assume that you are a former Marine, and presumably deeply proud of the institution, and are now in Congress. If in the course of investigating the investigation you become convinced not only that they are guilty but that they and the lack of investigation have brought shame upon the Marines and possibly lasting damage to their reputation, are you telling me that you would sit back and let it go on? I'm not making either of these claims, only arguing that if that's what he concluded than his response is not neccessarily as outrageous as people make it out to be. 701734[/snapback] Oh I can guarantee, that if they are found guilty I will be blaming their officers for failure to recognize and I will be calling for them to be punished. But what Murtha is doing is dangerous to the troops there for two reasons. One they will start doubting what they are supposed to do instead of reacting quickly to a bad situation. That gets fellow Marines dead. Second it just continues to feed the insurgents and gives them "bad US" stories when the guys have not even been charged yet. Again this is political and is another case of liberals trying to push the agenda regardless of the troops. Murtha doesn't care about the troops otherwise he would not have said anything until the appropriate time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Oh I can guarantee, that if they are found guilty I will be blaming their officers for failure to recognize and I will be calling for them to be punished. But what Murtha is doing is dangerous to the troops there for two reasons. One they will start doubting what they are supposed to do instead of reacting quickly to a bad situation. That gets fellow Marines dead. Second it just continues to feed the insurgents and gives them "bad US" stories when the guys have not even been charged yet. Again this is political and is another case of liberals trying to push the agenda regardless of the troops. Murtha doesn't care about the troops otherwise he would not have said anything until the appropriate time. 701822[/snapback] What if what he concluded from whatever he heard was that this was a despicable act, and that the internal investigation didn't appear serious? Should he sit back and let things take their course? What if they were clearly guilty but that there was a feeling that for political reasons (Iraq, not rep v dem) it would be better to sweep this under the rug? What would that do to the morale of the Marines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 What if what he concluded from whatever he heard was that this was a despicable act, and that the internal investigation didn't appear serious? Should he sit back and let things take their course? What if they were clearly guilty but that there was a feeling that for political reasons (Iraq, not rep v dem) it would be better to sweep this under the rug? What would that do to the morale of the Marines? 701867[/snapback] He is a congressman, he has a means to ensure it doesn't just get swept under the rug. Plus as a former Marine he should know some people who could follow up. Things like this do not just get swept under the rug, and as you will find out from looking at the facts, there are 6 Marines in the brig and have been there for a while in Pendelton, the two officers directly in charge had been relieved in february long before Murtha couldn't keep his mouth shut, and endangered troops in the region. The Corps and NIS had been investigating it for a while. Murtha and his left side decided to get some airtime out of it, and what better spokesman then a former Marine, who will sell out his own, to further his own cause rather then worry about the troops. Here's what some fellow Marines think about the whole thing. http://fontman.smugmug.com/photos/72941216-M.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 5, 2006 Share Posted June 5, 2006 He is a congressman, he has a means to ensure it doesn't just get swept under the rug. Plus as a former Marine he should know some people who could follow up. Things like this do not just get swept under the rug, and as you will find out from looking at the facts, there are 6 Marines in the brig and have been there for a while in Pendelton, the two officers directly in charge had been relieved in february long before Murtha couldn't keep his mouth shut, and endangered troops in the region. The Corps and NIS had been investigating it for a while. Murtha and his left side decided to get some airtime out of it, and what better spokesman then a former Marine, who will sell out his own, to further his own cause rather then worry about the troops. Here's what some fellow Marines think about the whole thing. http://fontman.smugmug.com/photos/72941216-M.jpg 702032[/snapback] So it's ok for some Marines to state their opinion (if it jibes with yours) but not others? First Amendment freedom is speech is selective then. Well THAT'S worth dying for. Where do I sign up. Perhaps just do what I do, when someone was something you consider really stupid, roll your eyes and know that intelligent people will see through it. Unless you're afraid that there might be some truth to it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts