they turn slowly, but they do turn.....

and who were those "people here" that specifically accused these marines?

... you are the one who is always asking for corroborating details when people make broadly stated comments. I feel no need to do a search for who said what about whom on SE... just as I do not feel the need to demand a retraction for every past statement made by someone who may have misspoke in their haste to express themselves. But then again, I don't take discussions in SE as seriously as some do.

To flesh out the comments of Murtha and under what circumstances these developments were part of...

So, we?re left with one Marine accused of a war crime: ?The central figure in the case is squad leader Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich of Meriden, Conn., who faces 18 counts of murder. His preliminary hearing is scheduled for Aug. 22.?

This is drawing plenty of blogospheric commentary, mostly focusing on John Murtha?s statements about the case, notably his reference to the accused as ?cold blooded killers.? See Michelle Malkin, Bruce McQuain, Jeff Goldstein, and Uncle Jimbo.

In fairness to Murtha, though, he was merely foreshadowing what the Marine Corps itself would report.

A Pentagon probe into the death of Iraqi civilians last November in the Iraqi city of Haditha will show that U.S. Marines ?killed innocent civilians in cold blood,? a U.S. lawmaker said Wednesday.

[?]

Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that ?there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.?

That?s exactly what the Bargewell Report, published twelve days later concluded. If it was wrong ? and it surely seems to have been ? I?m relieved. But Murtha?s statement was correct.

Let us hope that the remaining soldier is cleared of charges as well. BTW... I picked this particular link for no reason, other than it seemed to cover many of the questions I had about the circumstances being discussed.

I am curious... will you be demanding a retraction and or apology from the pentagon investigators as well... or will the dropping of charges suffice?

You are the one who raised the issue that other people made comments they should recant. I simply asked who, got the run around from you, and now am being called a weasel.

SOP for you once again.

I didn't call you a weasel. I was referring to the link. Not about you.

I didn't give you the runaround. In fact, I answered your question, whether you wanted to hear it or not.

SOP for you. Turning nasty ate the first opportunity. Getting kind of sick of it.

Bye


Bye bye.

he simply and accurately pointed out the type of wording you made use of and referenced it as what it is often called when not referred to as a type of dancing.

"I know weasel words when I see them" in no way refers to a person (singular) and Ed doesn't have the problems with VS agreement that someone else does often illustrate.

I know weasel words when I see them....
and then and then quoted Grim in italics he wasn't implying that Grim is a weasel...

velly velly suttle....


,.

but, you're right, that is a 'velly velly suttle' distinction.

... what was said was pretty cut and dry... and I don't mind playing these hard ball games. If I didn't find them entertaining then I wouldn't contribute to the give and take.

But come on, you throw a foul ball and get called on it... then you fess up and go on. If Ed isn't gentlemanly enough to even admit he got caught in a semantical bear trap of his own construction, then fine. I just won't respond to his posts anymore and would appreciate him not responding to mine.

I consider the matter done... it's not worth further discussion.

What I said was true. I wasn't caught in an anything. You don't like it, sod off. Tired of your constant BS.

and if you don't believe me, tough.

On reviewing the thread, I cam see where someone could mistake my quote of Grim as "weasel words", because they kind of are, aren't they? I mean, here he is falsely accusing me (again) of giving him a runaround when I linked specifically to the information he asked for and suggested a way to find similar.

BUT the actual weasel words I was referring to were the words claiming Murtha was right, when what he was right about was his prediction of what a report would say, NOT about the facts of the case, as I made clear in another post.

Also, not e that saying someone is using "weasel words" is NOT the same as calling someone a weasel. THAT is a distortion, and I would bet money it is a deliberate one.

He has more than a suggestion of ethics problems including involvement in Abscam.

I did the research to find out what Ed was talking about based on the quote Ed posted.

The evidence on the web indicates that Murthu's comments were very similar to official results of investigations made by 2 other sources... one of which was the Pentagon.

Do ethics have anything at all to do with this discussion? I thought that the accuracy of the comments were what was being questioned. Ed asked for people to acknowledge their comments as wrong. If anything, the link I posted indicates that the investigation isn't over. I would simply have to ask, was the information wrong?

... to the theme of the thread. I included more than the part about a third soldier still awaited trial because I try to include all parts of a relevant quote to avoid being accused of cherry picking to prove my thesis. If you actually look at the link you will see the quotation is made verbatim and I did not edit it jn anyway. I even made some mention of the circumstances of where and how I found this particular quote to avoid such confusion or have certain motives attributed to me.

To quote... "BTW... I picked this particular link for no reason, other than it seemed to cover many of the questions I had about the circumstances being discussed."

I do not rely on Murtha's account anymore than I reject it out of hand.

It would seem you are trying to tell me what I was thinking and I can only tell you that you are mistaken. If you accept my explanation then fine... if you don't then you don't.

nuff said.

Much is made by the media and the Democrats about Jack Murtha's heroic service in Vietnam, and his newfound and allegedly principled anti-war stance. Yesterday, I dealt with some of the likely motivations behind Murtha's recent fiery denunciations of the Iraq War, our soldier's morale and then his knee jerk accusations that our soldiers had murdered civilians in Haditha. Today, an astute reader, Lauren, provides a link whose sourcing from whom I liberally borrow, which may shed further light into the Congressman's motives for his posturing--as it appears that ethical problems may have caused him to generate a smokescreen.

Murtha's family ties to lobbying interests are now under investigation in the House after the 2005 appropriations bill, partially authored by Murtha, granted at least $9.5 million to at least four clients of a lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, where a former Murtha staffer and Murtha's own brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha are principals. And it matters because Murtha is the ranking member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, in prime position to dole out pork to individuals in the defense industry who have the right connections.

http://libertyfiles.blogspot.com/2006/06/murthas-ethical-past-and-present.html

what has happened since then?

As details of the Pentagon investigation's findings have emerged, however, they have been consistent with Murtha's characterization."[2

.

that, they killed innocent civilians in cold blood?

Okay.

it's whether you agree with: The Marine Corps responded to Murtha's announcement by stating that "there is an ongoing investigation; therefore, any comment at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine the investigatory and possible legal process."[26] Murtha was criticized by conservatives for presenting a version of events as simple fact before an official investigation had been concluded.[27] As details of the Pentagon investigation's findings have emerged, however, they have been consistent with Murtha's characterization."[2

or maybe you disagree with the findings of the Pentagon investigation?


.,

it's outdated and wrong.

I posted that link because Grim seemed confused as to what Murtha said and I wanted him to know. According to his own link: That?s exactly what the Bargewell Report, published twelve days later concluded. If it was wrong ? and it surely seems to have been ? I?m relieved. But Murtha?s statement was correct.

Right...correct inasmuch as it predicted what the report would say, NOT that the soldiers killed civilians in cold blood. THAT is the issue here, not a statement about a report Murtha made months ago. He has been only too happy to use this as a club to bash the Administration and the war effort, and now it has come back on him.

before trial. He's apparently forgotten how our legal system works.

I have no problem with what you just said KP.

What I have a problem with is the consistent trolling that is being done by certain other members on this forum.

To be exact... when I made the same observation that our criminal system begins with a presumption of innocence, I was accused of having "white guilt". Why aren't those same members who chose to question my motives for the comment, glibly chiming in once again when KP makes the same statement? Because it doesn't suit their agenda.

Hey, I'm just tired of the games that certain people are playing here. Their behavior is hypocritical. Nothing more and nothing less.

How about those accusers that are more "local"?