Obamas Preacher vs. Bushes Preacher??

scratch

Least Best Moderator
Staff member
I see someone was hurt by my post enough to DELETE it from this thread.

Cowardly I say.

BrownShark,
NOTHING has been deleted from this thread, although a couple of items in your first post probably should be. I find it interesting to attack conservatives as anti-gay and then insulting Gay people by referring to them as "pole smokers". The last link posting a picture of George Bush asking a former preacher for oral sex violates "Terms of Service" and I probably will remove that.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
I see someone was hurt by my post enough to DELETE it from this thread.

Cowardly I say.

I have been a member of this board for some time now, and I have never known any moderator to randomly delete a post that did not deserve to be deleted. Cheryl owns and operates this website with a high degree of respect for others opinions, and would not allow anyone to moderate her web forum if they were prone to randomly deleting posts they politically disagree with. Either you are lying about making a post that has been deleted, or you are lying about the content of the deleted post(if it existed), or your own computer malfunctioned somehow when you went to post it and the post never made it to the forum in the first place.

You are not the first person to post far left rhetoric here, and you won't be the last.

It is always the case of anyone defending GW Bush's record by saying that they CANT or WONT list any accomplishments in 8 years.

Of the list posted by AV8,

i dont think these measure up to the standard of a successful presidency.

Lower taxes? Higher spending and larger federal budget deficits to be paid by americas future workforce down the road. The TAX increases for this wreckless act of a president and it republican house and senate will be burdened upon americas youth long after Bush leaves office.

Same fate that President Reagan left Bush 1. Remember , "read my lips, no new taxes".....

It matters not who takes office, raising taxes to pay for the abuse of power by the republicans in the first 4 years will be imminent.

This war by all accounts, including Bush's own counsel say it will cost taxpayers 3 trillion dollars when its done.

Not one dime has been spent paying for this war so far, and each day millions of dollars get added to an already skyrocketing open tab for a military blunder of the worst kind.
You are right that the republicans failed us when it came to fiscal responsibility, and we will have to account for this sometime in the future. Its the main reason the republicans lost control of Congress in 06, but the cost of this war is a drop in the bucket when compared to the social entitlement program promises made by prior administrations.

Social Security and medicare have a whopping $53 trillion in future promised benefits over the next 40 years. We can eliminate all government waste and the military and we will still not have enough resources to pay off this huge sum of money. I am 25 years old and I will never benefit from these programs, but I will be stuck with paying the bill. Source

No child left behind act?? This has already by all accounts been proven to be a failed policy as cuts in funding for it are already in action.
This I am in agreement with you. We need to abolish the NEA, all teachers unions, and school districts. Education works better when the free market can work its magic. The federal government needs to keep its ugly head out of education and let people send their kids to where ever they can get the best education. Our country hosts the best colleges in the world, yet our public school system is a miserable failure mainly because the government holds a virtual monopoly on all pre-college education.

Free trade? This has done in our manufacturing and industrial sectors. 71% of everything america now makes, is made in a foriegn country.
Free trade allows us to produce goods and services that we are most efficient at. We can grow bananas in Alaska, but it would not be efficient to do so. We will endure some short term pain (manufacturing job losses) for long term prosperity. People who held those manufacturing jobs will be compelled to learn new skills that will keep us competitive for the long haul.

Patients bill of rights, vs the loss of citizens bill of rights.
Our health care system does have its problems, but people like Obama will only magnify them and create new problems with their federally mandated universal health care programs. The free market can work for health care too if the federal government allows it. Don't forget what I said about social entitlement programs earlier. We can't afford the ones we have.

Evesdropping, unlawful searches and laws that allow a goverment to spy on political opponents.
Can you provide me proof of such activity? I'm assuming you have an issue with the patriot act, and while I am not too happy with it I see it as a necessary evil. Besides, I don't know anyone who has lost their liberty to this piece of legislation, do you?

Fair and accurate credit transaction act? Are you serious? have you seen the latest foreclosure numbers and those numbers projected to foreclise in the second quarter (1 million to go into foreclosure) This has been the biggest failure of the Bush administration in domestic policy.
Actually I put partial blame on Alan Greenspan, but even then he plays a small part in this foreclosure issue. The real problem comes down to people who were renters were purchasing houses they couldn't afford. They are simply being forced back into renting where they should have been in the first place.

The banks are guilty of some wrong doing as well, but they are paying the price in the form of huge losses or even becoming insolvent due to their greed. I am willing to bet they won't make these same mistakes again as we are seeing it is harder to get a mortgage today than it was even one year ago. Its the invisible hand of the free market dealing out some serious discipline to greedy bankers, and the market reacting by limiting their loan activities.

I am asking for the real deal, what successes have separated this president from Jimmy Carter and the rest?

Not some meaningless junk that amounts to a wasted presidency.

Show something of substance, dont be afraid of your beloved presidents record....

Demonstrate it for all to see, maybe you can swing a few votes with the enlightenment.
Can you tell me, since 09/11/01 how many successful terrorist attacks have been successfully carried out on our soil? I'll give you a hint, the number resembles a goose egg. Bush's legacy has been, and will be making this country safer for us here and abroad. The damage done by Jimmy Carter has not been fully realized as he was the president who allowed Iran to become the theocracy it is today. Clinton could have had Osama bin Laden handed to him on a silver platter yet he chose not to act. Inaction has consequences all its own, and 9/11/01 stands testament to that.

Ill say it first, none of you can, wont and will only try and
argue without fact.
I did with facts and all.

This election is about change and the american people will speak their minds on election day.

More of the same, or an ousting of a corrupt political party gone wrong on the road to fascism.

Peace.:peaceful:
You are right, this election is about change, this is America's opportunity to show the far left that they don't believe in an all powerful federal government. Every election cycle since 2000 the democrats have put up a more socialist candidate than the one prior, only now they have a smooth speaking black supremacist , and a shrill sounding woman who only wants us to vote for her because of her genitalia. This is why the 2000 Vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman supports McCain, and not the party he once represented. This bloody primary battle between the democrats will leave a bad taste throughout the party once its all said and done. I do not see this as an easy win for either party.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
I see someone was hurt by my post enough to DELETE it from this thread.

Cowardly I say.

It is always the case of anyone defending GW Bush's record by saying that they CANT or WONT list any accomplishments in 8 years.

Of the list posted by AV8, i dont think these measure up to the standard of a successful presidency.

Lower taxes? Higher spending and larger federal budget deficits to be paid by americas future workforce down the road. The TAX increases for this wreckless act of a president and it republican house and senate will be burdened upon americas youth long after Bush leaves office.

Same fate that President Reagan left Bush 1. Remember , "read my lips, no new taxes".....

It matters not who takes office, raising taxes to pay for the abuse of power by the republicans in the first 4 years will be imminent.

Again not true there are multiple social programs that could be eliminated that would easily cover the costs of this war.

This war by all accounts, including Bush's own counsel say it will cost taxpayers 3 trillion dollars when its done.

If your Democrats are so worried about spending on the Federal level then why do they keep proposing the expansion of Federal spending and new Federal programs.

Not one dime has been spent paying for this war so far, and each day millions of dollars get added to an already skyrocketing open tab for a military blunder of the worst kind.

Just something else that is not true. You easily confuse the "emergency spending" with the line item budget spending and both have been used to date.

No child left behind act?? This has already by all accounts been proven to be a failed policy as cuts in funding for it are already in action.

A quote from an article in The Hill. Something to thing about.

"Footage of Republican and Democratic lawmakers giving the education law high marks for its goals set the stage at yesterday’s Business Roundtable event on the coming reauthorization of the law. There, the House’s senior Republican and Democrat on education issues struck an optimistic note on future changes to No Child Left Behind, which requires states to test students annually and meet accountability standards.
But frustration among many Democrats and education groups about incomplete federal funding and state benchmarks seen as excessively rigid are fuelling campaign rhetoric in Connecticut. The state remains tangled in a lawsuit against the Department of Education (DoE), arguing that the law is an unconstitutional unfunded mandate."

It sure sounds like the Democrats are looking to expand the funding for this goofy law also.

Free trade? This has done in our manufacturing and industrial sectors. 71% of everything america now makes, is made in a foriegn country.


Free trade is a good thing I am sure you could not understand this.


Patients bill of rights, vs the loss of citizens bill of rights. Evesdropping, unlawful searches and laws that allow a goverment to spy on political opponents.


I know you think medical patients should have no right while rights should be granted to terrorists. But why did the Congress extend your so called unlawful searches and laws even though the Democrats control both houses. So just to sum this up you want no privacy rights for medical patients and all privacy right for terrorists. No wonder you are a B. Hussein Obama supporter.


Fair and accurate credit transaction act? Are you serious? have you seen the latest foreclosure numbers and those numbers projected to foreclise in the second quarter (1 million to go into foreclosure) This has been the biggest failure of the Bush administration in domestic policy.

What is this act supposed to do with foreclosures? BS you are not even on the correct planet here. Let's see it gives the right to a free credit report, right to opt out of marketing, and rights for fraud alerts. Hmmm if you thought this was supposed to help someone from making a bad debt I think you have serious issues. Anyway here it is.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf



Peace.:peaceful:
 
Last edited:

BrownShark

Banned
What I am smoking would be called the truth. Do not confuse that with the lies that you so often post about the Iraq war.

"charges are being dropped against Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz, formerly accused of murder in the Haditha incident"

"The announcement of the deal with Dela Cruz is further evidence that the cases against the Kilo Company Marines and several of their superior officers are in deep trouble. It comes on the heels of postponements of Article 32 hearings slated for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the battalion commander and two of the enlisted men charged with murdering civilians in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005."

"Much of that evidence remains classified, but it includes videos of the entire day's action, including airstrikes against insurgent safe houses. Also included was all of the radio traffic describing the ongoing action between the men on the ground and battalion headquarters, and proof that the Marines were aware that the insurgents conducting the ambush of the Kilo Company troops were videotaping the action — the same video that after editing ended up in the hands of a gullible anti-war correspondent for Time magazine."

Look BS most people know Time magazine had this story wrong. Gullible people like you who are looking for anything they can to make our Marines look bad jumped on these baseless accusations of murder and ran with it. People like you and Time magazine have no regard for the truth you just look to advance your cause as you have proved numerous times on here with your posts by linking to stories that point to opposite conclusions.


Here is a piece not as friendly to the Marines but even they know murder was not commited.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/08/haditha-marines.html

The silence of the media is very noticable on this now.


But some have covered this story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6939337.stm
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august092007/haditha_marines_8907.php
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/08/24/another-haditha-marine-cleared/
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-haditha29mar29,0,3752011.story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR2008032801923.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/friend-news/1977783/posts
What Time Magazine said these men commited murder among other war crimes. BS says if you do not believe Time Magazine when they print those false statements I must be smoking something. Your agenda is no secret BS. You are blind to facts. The first pictures that Time ran even had disproved their allegations but you likely did not pay enough attention to detail to catch that either.


Go ahead and post the Time cover story about this from three years ago. Or maybe you can find the Murtha apology to these Marines to post.

AV8,

are these links suppose to clear ALL the marines from murder charges, or just the ones who WERE NOT Charged with murder?

These sources, mainly military rags with completely biased opinions glorifying the actions of the marines and attempt to make it sound as if these marines were "just caring out their duties"

Splitting hairs my friend does not make an innocent man.

You posted:
"charges are being dropped against Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz, formerly accused of murder in the Haditha incident"

This is funny, indeed, Cruz had his murder charges dropped, but why?????

Well, I am sure you would want the readers to have the full story, so lets tell it.


By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 18, 2007; Page A02

All charges against a U.S. Marine accused of killing five civilians in Haditha, Iraq, have been dismissed, part of a decision that grants him immunity to testify in potential courts-martial for seven other Marines charged in the attack and in an alleged coverup, Marine Corps officials said yesterday.
Murder charges against Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz were dropped on April 2, when the convening authority, Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, agreed to give Dela Cruz "testimonial immunity" in the case.

You left out the fact that Cruz will not be charged with any crimes providing he TESTIFIES against the other CHARGED marines in forthcoming court martials.

NOT BECAUSE HE WAS INNOCENT.

A little Rush Limpbaugh attempt there (on your part) at clouding an issue.

As i said before, these marines were out of line, threw hand grenades in rooms with little children, shot and killed young kids in thier bed without ever LOOKING IN THE ROOMS to see what was in there..

Simple retaliation for a comrade who was killed earlier by an IED, these monsters raided nearby homes and presumably did it under the pretense of looking for terrorists responsible for the IED.

Instead, they murdered 24 women and children.

Simple case.

Problem.

The White House is trying everything to keep this matter under the rug and out of the public eye. Using spokespeople to redefine combat and the rules of engagement.

Those who would support the actions of these marines are just as guilty when they make an effort to explain away the actions. Convictions will come down on the remaining marines and time will tell what comes out of it.

If we are to accept the triumphs of our military in Iraq, then we must accept the failures as they cost us taxpayers millions of dollars in reparations and reputation.

Only time will shed light on the goings on in Iraq, as each soldier and marine returns home, they have to deal with what they have seen, its then that these tragedies come to light.

In the case of the rape of the Iraqi girl, it wasnt until one of the marines involved returned home and began having psycological issues and went to see a therapist that it came out.

Up until that point, all marines involved believed they got away with raping a 14 year old girl , then returning to her home where they kidnapped her and killed her parents and sibblings.

A disgusting mark on our military.

I will never defend the actions of cowards.

Peace.:peaceful:
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
BrownShark said:
In the case of the rape of the Iraqi girl, it wasnt until one of the marines involved returned home and began having psycological issues and went to see a therapist that it came out.

Up until that point, all marines involved believed they got away with raping a 14 year old girl , then returning to her home where they kidnapped her and killed her parents and sibblings.

Just an FYI, the incident above involved members of the 101st Airborne, not marines.
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
AV8 said:
Oh and I saw were you used GW Bush you should be careful your liberal buddy diesel will think you are racist for using an initial or middle name.

I have to say that it is probably great that the republicans are like this. What the republicans are going to do is turn this election into a referendum on racism and xenophobia, and not only will they lose, but they will set back their party for a generation because younger voters don't see race like older voters do.
So, to Limbaugh, Cunningham, Coulter, and AV8 et all helping the republican party committ suicide, I salute you!!!!
Maybe you should take Carl Rove's advise and stop perpetuating Obama's middle name influencing the notion that Republicans are bigoted and would hurt the party.


Brett said:
Social Security and medicare have a whopping $53 trillion in future promised benefits over the next 40 years. We can eliminate all government waste and the military and we will still not have enough resources to pay off this huge sum of money. I am 25 years old and I will never benefit from these programs, but I will be stuck with paying the bill. Source


Should Brett's "entitlement hysteria" stop being hysterical about Social Security and start being hysterical about Medicare? Well, that would be a start, but it would still elide the deeper problem. The reason Medicare is in such worse shape than Social Security is that it has to account for exploding health care costs. Your focus on democratic idealilogy and greedy baby boomers is entirely misplaced. Indeed, the "entitlement problem" is mostly--three-quarters, to be precise--a function of rising health care costs.
Since you can't solve the entitlement problem without solving the health care problem, one might think that the entitlement hysterics would have gradually moved on to becoming health care hysterics. (There's also the fact that Social Security is solvent until 2041, but over 40 million Americans lack health insurance right now.) Yet this is another puzzling thing about entitlement hysteria: the sheer persistence of the obsession. It's true we have some large federal programs that are going to have to be shored up. But why do they consider this to be a matter of such unique urgency?



Today's Republican, as a group or voting block, they seem to just hate their fellow human citizen for no other reason but that they are something other than them. Or they are filled with so much anger towards certain groups they consider enemies, that they will condone any type of barbarism, torture, or any other murderous action against them.This brings me to the whole "God is on our Side" thing, of which they And Big Arrow Up seem especially proud. Oddly, I cannot find any major Republican agenda that is truly in line with any of Jesus' basic teachings.
Today's Republicans are vehemently against almost every public program designed to help humans live better lives. From national health care, to public education, to Head Start, to after school programs, Affirmative Action, civil rights issues, women's rights, to minimum wage for workers, they seem united in their prejudices. It frightens most normal Christians, for instance, that Republicans seem to pick and choose which path they will walk with their God. For example, it is okay to go to war and get hundreds of thousands of living beings killed or maimed, but any form of abortion is simply immoral. Republican teachings seem to mean that you should love yourself first, and let everyone else worry about themselves.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
AV8,

are these links suppose to clear ALL the marines from murder charges, or just the ones who WERE NOT Charged with murder?

These sources, mainly military rags with completely biased opinions glorifying the actions of the marines and attempt to make it sound as if these marines were "just caring out their duties"

Splitting hairs my friend does not make an innocent man.

You posted:


This is funny, indeed, Cruz had his murder charges dropped, but why?????

Well, I am sure you would want the readers to have the full story, so lets tell it.




You left out the fact that Cruz will not be charged with any crimes providing he TESTIFIES against the other CHARGED marines in forthcoming court martials.

NOT BECAUSE HE WAS INNOCENT.



Peace.:peaceful:

Actually they expect Cruz to testify on behalf of the one Marine left that is charged with murder. I know you want these men to be guilty of something but the evidence is against you again.

So no you say the BBC, LA times, CNN, Washington Post, Salem News, and Al Jazeera are military rags?

Yes when someone fires rounds from an AK in a combat zone when the Marines fire back they are doing their duty. You sound like you thing it is a bad thing that these Marine are better shots than the Iraqi's were.

Let's see so far you have left out this.
"The charges were dismissed after a review of the facts in the case. Sharratt had initially been charged with Unpremeditated Murder, while Stone was charged with Dereliction of Duty."

Of course that led to this which you left out.

"Involuntary manslaughter charges were dropped Friday against a 27-year-old Marine lance corporal who had faced trial in connection with the Marine killings of 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq."

No surprise you left this out.

"The Marine Corps yesterday dismissed all charges against one of the Marines accused of killing women and children in the Iraqi town of Haditha in late 2005, the third time a Marine linked to the slayings has been exonerated after one of the most notorious episodes of the war. "

Of course there is this.


"However, since charges against the soldiers were first announced in late 2006, prosecutors have struggled to make the allegations stick. Four of the eight have had charges against them dropped, while charges of murder were replaced by the lesser offence of manslaughter in the cases of Tatum and his squad leader Sergeant Frank Wuterich. "

There is of course this from the pre trial judge in the case of Tatum. I can see why you left this out.

"The government version is unsupported by independent evidence," Ware wrote in the 18-page report. "To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
AV8 said:
Oh and I saw were you used GW Bush you should be careful your liberal buddy diesel will think you are racist for using an initial or middle name.

I have to say that it is probably great that the republicans are like this. What the republicans are going to do is turn this election into a referendum on racism and xenophobia, and not only will they lose, but they will set back their party for a generation because younger voters don't see race like older voters do.
So, to Limbaugh, Cunningham, Coulter, and AV8 et all helping the republican party committ suicide, I salute you!!!!
Maybe you should take Carl Rove's advise and stop perpetuating Obama's middle name influencing the notion that Republicans are bigoted and would hurt the party.


quote]

Diesel since you threw the racism charge at me why not throw it at BS also for doing the same thing? Is it just another double standard you have?
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
Should Brett's "entitlement hysteria" stop being hysterical about Social Security and start being hysterical about Medicare? Well, that would be a start, but it would still elide the deeper problem. The reason Medicare is in such worse shape than Social Security is that it has to account for exploding health care costs. Your focus on democratic idealilogy and greedy baby boomers is entirely misplaced. Indeed, the "entitlement problem" is mostly--three-quarters, to be precise--a function of rising health care costs.
Since you can't solve the entitlement problem without solving the health care problem, one might think that the entitlement hysterics would have gradually moved on to becoming health care hysterics. (There's also the fact that Social Security is solvent until 2041, but over 40 million Americans lack health insurance right now.) Yet this is another puzzling thing about entitlement hysteria: the sheer persistence of the obsession. It's true we have some large federal programs that are going to have to be shored up. But why do they consider this to be a matter of such unique urgency?

This unique urgency is due to the fact that these entitlement programs are the biggest financial crisis our country has ever faced. You can't raise taxes to pay for these program's costs and expect our economy to move forward like it has for the last 6 years. Politicians can't lower promised benefits without fear of being voted out by their constituents so they choose to do nothing. With projected costs the way they are every fulltime worker in this country will be burdened with $410k of debt. With the average income being somewhere around $40k/yr. I would hope you understand basic math well enough to see that these numbers don't add up.



Republican teachings seem to mean that you should love yourself first, and let everyone else worry about themselves.
Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime. Its not about considering yourself and only yourself. Its about understanding that when people are required to find their own path in life they do so in the way that best benefits them. And with that everyone benefits.
 

BrownShark

Banned
AV8,

you posted this in part:
"However, since charges against the soldiers were first announced in late 2006, prosecutors have struggled to make the allegations stick. Four of the eight have had charges against them dropped, while charges of murder were replaced by the lesser offence of manslaughter in the cases of Tatum and his squad leader Sergeant Frank Wuterich. "


I guess you interpret this sentence and conclude it means they are all innocent??

Lesser charges?? Again, you leave out facts.

While the goverments case is hard to prove, considering the marines involved killed all LIVE WITNESSES and no one was left to tell the OTHER SIDE, its no wonder military jurisprudence is dropping the ball on this case.

No matter, as I said, time will tell what will happen to these marines.

The squad leader should face the death penalty in my opinion for his orders. His gung ho actions based upon revenge and NO SUPPORTIVE evidence of enemy fire ended with the deaths of innocent people.

I realize you chose to consider the IRAQI people as a means to justify and end, but they are still human beings and our country is responsible for their deaths.

Your BS military rag that you posted chocked filled with military bravado and subjective BS no more supports your view than it does the case of the marines involved.

Read it carefully, do you really believe the series of coincedences that had to have happened for all this to occur??

Squad leader: "i heard sounds consistent with an AK47 being charged", so I ordered the men to enter the house...

"Once in, we began firing thru walls, then I saw a shadowy figure running towards a back door"

" we followed and this led to a second house"

"we toss in grenades and made entry and began shooting when we heard voices"

"we know the terrorists use children to conceal themselves so we took no chances and cleared the rooms of all people"

"by clearing rooms, we shot into the rooms before we entered them:"

Yeah, sounds like real american heroes. Maybe they should give this guy the Audie Murphy badge of honor for nading children in their beds.

Peace.:peaceful:
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
AV8,

you posted this in part:



I guess you interpret this sentence and conclude it means they are all innocent??

As you pointed out now Tatum has also been cleared.

Lesser charges?? Again, you leave out facts.

While the goverments case is hard to prove, considering the marines involved killed all LIVE WITNESSES and no one was left to tell the OTHER SIDE, its no wonder military jurisprudence is dropping the ball on this case.

Wrong again but I know by now that you know that most things you post are falsehoods. You forget about the UAV footage of the entire battle. You leave out all radio transmissions that were recorded.

No matter, as I said, time will tell what will happen to these marines.

The squad leader should face the death penalty in my opinion for his orders. His gung ho actions based upon revenge and NO SUPPORTIVE evidence of enemy fire ended with the deaths of innocent people.

No supportive evidence try a HUMVEE torn in half by a IED or if that is not enemy fire in your little world try all the expended AK rounds on the floor in the room. Normally you goofy anti American types try to at least claim that our Marines may have been using an AK which is also baseless.


I realize you chose to consider the IRAQI people as a means to justify and end, but they are still human beings and our country is responsible for their deaths.

Your BS military rag that you posted chocked filled with military bravado and subjective BS no more supports your view than it does the case of the marines involved.

Wow I've never heard someone like you call Al Jeezera or the LA Times a BS military rag you must really be grasping at thin air now. That is OK I am sure you will just fabricate something again.

Read it carefully, do you really believe the series of coincedences that had to have happened for all this to occur??

Squad leader: "i heard sounds consistent with an AK47 being charged", so I ordered the men to enter the house...

Well that is the weapon of choice for our enemy over there.

"Once in, we began firing thru walls, then I saw a shadowy figure running towards a back door"

If the Marines were coming for you I think you would probably head for the door also.


" we followed and this led to a second house"

Are you surprised there is more than one house in Iraq?

"we toss in grenades and made entry and began shooting when we heard voices"

Sounds like proper TTP.

"we know the terrorists use children to conceal themselves so we took no chances and cleared the rooms of all people"

I think most beyond the third grade know this is true by now.

"by clearing rooms, we shot into the rooms before we entered them:"

Yeah, sounds like real american heroes. Maybe they should give this guy the Audie Murphy badge of honor for nading children in their beds.

Did you just make up something else or is the Audie Murphy badge another code word? Well at least you now admit these men were doing their job and not involved in murder.

Peace.:peaceful:
 

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
Charges have been dropped against L/Cpl Tatum, so SSgt Wuterich is the sole remaining shooter facing charges, which is not all that surprising being that he was the patrol leader. Sgt Dela Cruz and several other squad members were granted immunity in exchange for their testimony against Wuterich. So far Dela Cruz's testimony would seem to be the most damaging:

Yesterday, at a pre-trial hearing ahead of the trial of one of the accused, Sgt Dela Cruz gave evidence at a courtroom in Camp Pendleton, north of San Diego, California.
He said he watched how his squad leader, Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, shot five Iraqis who were trying to surrender and then told his men to lie about the killings.
"They were just standing, looking around, had hands up," Sgt Dela Cruz said. "Then I saw one of them drop in the middle. I didn't know what was going on, sir. Looked to my left, saw Staff Sergeant Wuterich shooting."
The Iraqi civilians had been standing by a white car with their hands interlocked behind their heads when they were shot, Sgt Dela Cruz says.
"He [St Sgt Wuterich] told me that if anybody asked, they were running away and the Iraqi army shot them," Sgt Dela Cruz said.
After the five men died, a team of marines led by St Sgt Wuterich allegedly attacked two houses with grenades and gunfire in an effort to find insurgents. The dead included women, children and the elderly.


Dela Cruz does have some credibility problems though, as he has already admitted that he lied during the initial investigation when he told the investigating officer that the five men had been shot by the Iraqi army. How effective his testimony ends up being will probably hinge on corroborating statements from some of the other squad members.

It's impossible to say without seeing official transcripts of the investigation, but it sure sounds like something bad happened at Haditha (beyond L/Cpl Terrazas getting killed by an IED), and that, at least initially, someone lied about it.
I say that only because the initial after action report claimed that "A US marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bomb in Haditha.",
when in fact the only one actually killed by the bomb was L/Cpl Terrazas. Everyone else was killed by the marines.

Personally, I will withhold judgement until Wuterich gets his day in court.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
Personally, I will withhold judgement until Wuterich gets his day in court.


I agree with this 100%. This is not what has been called into question here. I asked why use a Time magazine story as some kind of authority on religion in the Bush whitehouse when they have gotten so many big stories wrong such as the Haditha story.

You say only one Marine will likely bear any responsibility for whatever happened in Haditha.

Time said the Marines of Kilo company who went on a rampage.

You say one Marine shot five Iraqi men trying to surrender.

Time said the Marine shot the five Iraqi men as they were running from the scene.

Time had to retract or correct three things from the story. I have no problem with this but two of the things should have been very easy to correct before print.

This is the one mistake they made that I can understand.
Time used a cell phone picture to show how the Iraqi men were on their knees and had surrendered. Problem is they had to retract that photo seems it was not even from that day.

As far as BS is concerned he only wants to talk about the 15 that were classified as non combatants. I can understand why he would like to only take one small part of the story and try and say that proves some kind of war crime but it does not.


This was in the Time article.

"Eman Waleed, 9, lived in a house 150 yards from the site of the blast ... She claims the troops started firing toward the corner of the room where she and her younger brother Abdul Rahman, 8, were hiding; the other adults shielded the children from the bullets but died in the process. Eman says her leg was hit by a piece of metal and Abdul Rahman was shot near his shoulder. "We were lying there, bleeding, and it hurt so much. Afterward, some Iraqi soldiers came. They carried us in their arms. I was crying, shouting 'Why did you do this to our family?' And one Iraqi soldier tells me, 'We didn't do it. The Americans did.'"


Problem is she told an AP reporter this.

AP June 3rd - In an off-camera conversation with the cameraman, Iman, the 9-year-old survivor, told of hiding under a bed for hours after the shootings. She said Marines finally found her and initially took her for dead when they pulled her out. ... The Marines later flew her and her brother Abdul-Rahman to a nearby hospital for treatment of their minor wounds. They were later moved to a Baghdad hospital.

There are plenty of things that are not consistent with the facts from the Time story.
 

BrownShark

Banned
Published on Sunday, February 6, 2005 by the Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
The Ethics of War: Is the US Military Guilty of War Crimes in Iraq?
by Jeremy Iggers

Is the US Military guilty of war crimes in Iraq?
Some people believe it is unpatriotic even to ask this question, which may be why the issue has been largely ignored by American news media. But the question of U.S. war crimes is not being ignored elsewhere around the world, where images of dead Iraqi women and children, tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the devastation of the city of Fallujah and the shooting of unarmed captives in a Fallujah mosque have done much to destroy America's image abroad.

It isn't only a question about the moral culpability of American troops, their commanders or their political leaders. While they bear moral responsibility for their actions, we as citizens in a democracy share responsibility for actions undertaken in our name. That responsibility is not diminished by the fact that Iraqi insurgents are committing horrific crimes against their own people. In years to come, the world community will likely ask of us: Did we know? Did we care? Did we speak out?

The issue of war crimes has taken on a new urgency in the wake of a recent study by public health researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and a Baghdad medical college, which estimates that 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the war. Those numbers, which are far higher than previous estimates, are extrapolated from a statistical sampling and may be inaccurate, but they are the best estimate available. The study attributes many of the deaths to aerial attacks by coalition forces, and found that most of the fatalities were women and children.
Unless the civilians were deliberately targeted, many of these deaths may not count technically as war crimes. But United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that the war itself violates international law, an opinion shared by many legal experts.

Civilian casualties are inevitable in war. The wrongful actions of individual soldiers should not be taken as a reflection on the morality of our country as a whole. What does reflect on our character is how we respond: Do we hold perpetrators accountable? Do we offer reparations? Do we make every effort to ensure that civilian casualties are minimized?

But there is troubling evidence that some of the worst violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, and a significant proportion of the civilian casualties, aren't simply a matter of individual misconduct, but result from deliberate policies approved by our military and civilian leaders.

The Marine who was caught on camera executing a wounded Iraqi prisoner in Fallujah was quickly relieved of duty, and his commanding officers promised to investigate the incident. But according to war correspondent Evan Wright, who observed similar killings when he was embedded with a Marine unit during the initial invasion of Iraq, such executions are common practice.

"One thing military officials are not saying is that the behavior of the Marine in the video closely conforms to training that is fairly standard in some units," Wright reported recently in the Village Voice. "Marines call executing wounded combatants 'dead-checking.' "

Torture and abuse
The torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib has also generally been portrayed in the media as the actions of a few isolated individuals. A number of low-level enlistees are being prosecuted. But independent human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and two of America's most respected investigative reporters, Mark Danner and Seymour Hersh, have all concluded, in detailed investigations, that torture of prisoners was authorized at the highest levels of command.

"This pattern of abuse across three countries did not result from the acts of individual soldiers such as [Specialist Charles] Graner who broke the rules," Reed Brody of Human Rights Watch wrote recently in the International Herald Tribune. "It resulted from decisions made by the Bush administration to bend, ignore or cast rules aside. ... No soldier higher than the rank of sergeant has been charged with a crime. No civilian leader at the Pentagon or the CIA is even being investigated. But the privates and sergeants are not the ones who cast aside the Geneva Conventions, or who authorized illegal interrogation methods. Unless the higher-level officials who approved or tolerated crimes against detainees are also brought to justice, all the protestations of 'disgust' at the Abu Ghraib photos by President George W. Bush and others will be meaningless."
Rather than distancing himself from those abuses, Bush nominated Alberto Gonzales, author of a memorandum offering a legal rationale for the use of torture, to be attorney general.

Killing of civilians
Human Rights Watch has also documented numerous cases in which military authorities have failed to adequately investigate allegations of indiscriminate or excessive force against civilians. In October, Britain's Channel 4 news aired video footage, shot from a cockpit camera, that appears to show U.S. pilots attacking and killing a group of unarmed civilians in Fallujah. The British newspaper the Independent carried a story about the April incident, which has gotten no coverage in mainstream U.S. media.
According to Independent reporter Andrew Buncombe, "The 30-second clip shows the pilot targeting the group of people in a street in the city of Fallujah and asking his mission controllers whether he should 'take them out.' He is told to do so ... . At no point during the exchange between the pilot and controllers does anyone ask whether the Iraqis are armed or posing a threat."

A similar incident was reported in Baghdad in September, when a helicopter fired on a group of Iraqi civilians who had gathered around a disabled Bradley fighting vehicle, killing 13 and wounding 61. There have been a disturbing number of such reports of massacres, but few have resulted in criminal prosecution.

But the most troubling questions of war crimes are raised not by isolated incidents involving individual soldiers, but by strategies and tactics that put large numbers of citizens at risk. As the occupying power, the coalition forces have a legal obligation under the Geneva Conventions to protect civilian lives. The U.S. military has offered repeated assurances that the bombing of Fallujah, Baghdad and other Iraqi cities is carried out with precision weaponry that is carefully targeted against insurgent positions, and that every effort is made to minimize civilian casualties, but the sheer volume of civilian casualties undermines the credibility of those claims.

We know that hundreds of civilians were killed last spring in the assault on Fallujah that followed the killing of four civilian contractors, but there is no reliable count of the number of civilians killed in the near-daily bombardment that followed -- often using indiscriminate 500-pound bombs -- or in the capture of the city in November.
Most Americans probably have little sense of the scale of destruction caused by the U.S. assault on Fallujah, a city roughly the size of St. Paul. But it is devastated, reported Ali Fadhil, an Iraqi journalist for Britain's Guardian in a documentary shown on British TV. "Fallujah used to be a modern city; now there is nothing. We spent that first day going through the rubble that had been the center of the city; I don't see a single building that is functioning."
In that attack, U.S. and Iraqi troops stormed the city's main hospital, making it off-limits to Iraqi civilians, and bombed a second hospital and an emergency clinic -- all violations of international law.
Other problematic issues include the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions. Although Iraqi physicians have blamed U.S. use of depleted uranium munitions for increased levels of cancer and birth defects, that link is unproven. But Iraqi civilian casualties resulting from cluster bombs are well-documented.
In a report in December, USA Today found that U.S. forces had fired hundreds of cluster bombs into urban areas, killing dozens of civilians, while other sources give much higher casualty estimates.
There are standards in international law that govern when civilian lives may be put at risk in military conflict, but it is highly questionable whether those standards are being met.
The United States has still not ratified or even signed Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions, where most of the limits to bombing of civilians may be found, but that does not make our conduct morally permissible; rather, it marks us as failing to accept and conform to internationally recognized standards.
For as long as the United States remains the world's only superpower, and as long as we refuse to submit to the authority of international tribunals, nobody else can compel our government to investigate these incidents, punish wrongdoers, or stop employing strategies that cause high numbers of civilian casualties. Those responsibilities fall to us as Americans, for the sake of our own honor and self-respect.
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
I agree with this 100%. This is not what has been called into question here. I asked why use a Time magazine story as some kind of authority on religion in the Bush whitehouse when they have gotten so many big stories wrong such as the Haditha story.

You say only one Marine will likely bear any responsibility for whatever happened in Haditha.

Time said the Marines of Kilo company who went on a rampage.

You say one Marine shot five Iraqi men trying to surrender.

Time said the Marine shot the five Iraqi men as they were running from the scene.

Time had to retract or correct three things from the story. I have no problem with this but two of the things should have been very easy to correct before print.

This is the one mistake they made that I can understand.
Time used a cell phone picture to show how the Iraqi men were on their knees and had surrendered. Problem is they had to retract that photo seems it was not even from that day.

As far as BS is concerned he only wants to talk about the 15 that were classified as non combatants. I can understand why he would like to only take one small part of the story and try and say that proves some kind of war crime but it does not.


This was in the Time article.

"Eman Waleed, 9, lived in a house 150 yards from the site of the blast ... She claims the troops started firing toward the corner of the room where she and her younger brother Abdul Rahman, 8, were hiding; the other adults shielded the children from the bullets but died in the process. Eman says her leg was hit by a piece of metal and Abdul Rahman was shot near his shoulder. "We were lying there, bleeding, and it hurt so much. Afterward, some Iraqi soldiers came. They carried us in their arms. I was crying, shouting 'Why did you do this to our family?' And one Iraqi soldier tells me, 'We didn't do it. The Americans did.'"


Problem is she told an AP reporter this.

AP June 3rd - In an off-camera conversation with the cameraman, Iman, the 9-year-old survivor, told of hiding under a bed for hours after the shootings. She said Marines finally found her and initially took her for dead when they pulled her out. ... The Marines later flew her and her brother Abdul-Rahman to a nearby hospital for treatment of their minor wounds. They were later moved to a Baghdad hospital.

There are plenty of things that are not consistent with the facts from the Time story.

You know what is really screwed up about all this? Based on all the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-military, and any other crap I see, along with the obsessed nature in which they keep pressinging these issues, I'd have to say that it sounds like Liberals want our Marines to be guilty. They want them to be demonized. They want our military to fail. They want our economy to fail. They want terrorists to win. Why? All so they can get another whack job in the White House. How pathetic. Well, we can clearly see where their priorities are. It's all based on the goal of getting power back. Even it means politically and socially demoralizing our military, economy, and social well being.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
Based on the way BrownShark dinged my rep based upon his inability to stick to the truth I must declare this debate's winner is av8tornt.

I'm having some technical trouble getting his article to come up, but it appears he(BS) has posted an opinion piece as a factual news article.
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
Published on Sunday, February 6, 2005 by the Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)

The Ethics of War: Is the US Military Guilty of War Crimes in Iraq?

Torture and abuse
The torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib has also generally been portrayed in the media as the actions of a few isolated individuals.



Hmmm,,, interesting... I dont recall actual torture at Abu Grahib.... was there any amputations, snapped bones, or beheadings that I missed?
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
You know what is really screwed up about all this? Based on all the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-military, and any other crap I see, along with the obsessed nature in which they keep pressinging these issues, I'd have to say that it sounds like Liberals want our Marines to be guilty. They want them to be demonized. They want our military to fail. They want our economy to fail. They want terrorists to win. Why? All so they can get another whack job in the White House. How pathetic. Well, we can clearly see where their priorities are. It's all based on the goal of getting power back. Even it means politically and socially demoralizing our military, economy, and social well being.


AMEN arrow,,,, unbelievable we have people that have such hatred for the people who are directly responsible for a liberal's right (or any American) to be outspoken.... We have the greatest military on earth with the greatest people running it..... Hats off to all of our soldiers and thank you for your service... I sure hope if the **** ever hits the fan here on our soil I dont have to rely on a lib to have my back, but I'd still be there for them
 
Top