Networks That Hyped Haditha 'Massacre' Now Ignore Acquittal

[jimpeel]

When was the apology and what was he apologizing for?

Dammit Cerise! You forgot to turn on the <sarcasm> </sarcasm>. You know the rolleyes smiley doesn't work on the addleminded.

Who found the soldiers guilty before their day in court?

Rep. Jack Murtha and some Marine officials.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/

WASHINGTON - 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.

...

On Wednesday, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said the accounts are true.

Military officials told NBC News that the Marine Corps' own evidence appears to show Murtha is right.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=2013939&page=1

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., told "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" in an exclusive appearance that reports a group of U.S. Marines may have killed 24 Iraqi civilians following an IED explosion in Haditha, Iraq, was "worse than Abu Ghraib," calling their actions war crimes committed "in cold blood."

...

"I will not excuse murder and that what's happened," Murtha told ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos. "This investigation should have been over two or three weeks after the incident."

 

[spike]

Dammit Cerise! You forgot to turn on the . You know the rolleyes smiley doesn't work on the addleminded.

I'm sure if Murtha apologized for something it would be covered. But I'm sure you wouldn't understand that being a completely childish dumbass trolling idiot looking for some nonexistant thing to bitch about.

Rep. Jack Murtha and some Marine officials.

Yep, I'm seeing that there were reports of unprovoked killing of civilians coming military and Pentagon officials who also gave Murtha this information.

So the it wasn't the media that found them guilty like Cerise said. Thanks for proving my point for me.

 

[Cerise]

When was the apology and what was he apologizing for?

You must've missed the word "soon." And most always means "sarcasm."

Who found the soldiers guilty before their day in court?

Other than the usual Blame America First bunch, I would suggest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052602069.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010502248.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174649-1,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/w...48540fe5c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refer.../paul_von_zielbauer/index.html?inline=nyt-per

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...s/2006/05/31/death_in_haditha/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/21/iraq.haditha/index.html


And from our foriegn "friends:"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5033648.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/may/31/usa.iraq

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,486182,00.html

http://www.aztlan.net/the_haditha_massacre.htm


Any reporting on the subject spoke of the blood, guts, and pink cheeked baby killers who filled 'em full of lead without cause.

 

[Cerise]

Who found the soldiers guilty before their day in court?

Would you agree that if the trials were civilian instead of military their lawyers would've asked for a change of venue because a fair and impartial jury could not be found due to the widespread slanted publicity the matter received?

 

[spike]

You must've missed the word "soon." And most always means "sarcasm."

So you meant that you don't think the media would it if Murtha apologized for something. That would be a ridiculous statement to make.

Other than the usual Blame America First bunch, I would suggest:

From your fist couple links this mythical "Blame America First bunch" is Iraqi witneses? Weird.

 

[Cerise]

So you meant that you don't think the media would it if Murtha apologized for something.

Can you find a translator for that? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

From your fist couple links this mythical "Blame America First bunch" is Iraqi witneses? Weird.

Hello? The subject is how the media structures the words within the paragraphs of the stories they write which are seen by Americans, nay, the entire world, to make it appear that those Marines were guilty. Guilty before all the evidence was in. Guilty before they were granted a trial.

Speaking of the Blame America First Bunch, congratulations on your recent sucess in maintaining your ranking as Supreme Commander of the BAFB.

And, have you had time to think about that 'change of venue' question?

 

[spike]

Can you find a translator for that? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I was just trying to figure out what your Murtha comment was supposed to mean. Did you have any point at all?

The only thing I could come up with was that if Murtha apologized for something that it is your belief that the media would not cover it. Seems ridiculous but otherwise there was no point at all.

Hello? The subject is how the media structures the words within the paragraphs of the stories they write which are seen by Americans, nay, the entire world, to make it appear that those Marines were guilty. Guilty before all the evidence was in. Guilty before they were granted a trial.

Hello? From your fist couple examples all I could see is reports from witnesses. So they reported what people said and then you make up some crazy conspiracy shit.

Speaking of the Blame America First Bunch, congratulations on your recent sucess in maintaining your ranking as Supreme Commander of the BAFB.

Wow, it's like you've made up an entire fantasy world to live in. I already knew that though.

And, have you had time to think about that 'change of venue' question?

I didn't see anything indicating that the defense attorney got a change of venue denied. What are you going on about?

Anyone see any explanation of how these civilians got killed? Or is that being suppressed?

 

[Cerise]

I was just trying to figure out what your Murtha comment was supposed to mean. Did you have any point at all?

Murtha said the Marines killed in cold blood. Now that he is a proven liar, if he had the courage to apologize, and resign in shame because of his traitorous, cowardly comments, the media would barely cover it, because the majority of the media is a leftist organization and while it openly cheers for anything that would show the US military in a bad light, it would hide any good news on page 72.

The only thing I could come up with was that if Murtha apologized for something that it is your belief that the media would not cover it.

Brilliant!!

Hello? From your fist couple examples all I could see is reports from witnesses. So they reported what people said and then you make up some crazy conspiracy shit.

How did the reporters know they were actual witnesses? Because they said they were? Considering the track record of the liberal media, they were probably created to fit the left's rabid attempt to denegrate the Military.

Wow, it's like you've made up an entire fantasy world to live in. I already knew that though.

I'll bet you can't say that you are glad it has been proven there was no cover up of something inaccurately called the Haditha massacre. Go on, say you're happy that 6 of the 8 US Marines have been exonerated, and charges against the other 2 have been reduced.

C'mon, you can do it: "I am happy that the world now knows that the various charges of murder, making false statements, and obstruction of justice have been dismissed against US Marines." It's easy.

I didn't see anything indicating that the defense attorney got a change of venue denied. What are you going on about?

If it was a civilian trial, and the media covered the events that led up to the charges the way the media covered Haditha, the defense lawyers would ask for a change of venue because they would realize it would be hard to form a jury of 12 people whose opinions had not been shaped by reading or viewing media descriptions of the incident. Not hard to figure out.

Anyone see any explanation of how these civilians got killed? Or is that being suppressed?

An "entire fantasy world," eh? Blame America First much?

I believe the account is that it started on November 19, 2005, when a US soldier on patrol was killed by a roadside bomb in the village of Haditha, west of Baghdad.

Insurgents hidden in nearby houses subsequently opened fire on the soldiers, forcing them to respond.

Or perhaps you'd like to offer up another version that has already been refuted by a military court, oh Supreme Commander?

 

[spike]

Murtha said the Marines killed in cold blood.

Which he was told by military contacts.

the media would barely cover it

Wishful thinking on your part.

because the majority of the media is a leftist organization and while it openly cheers for anything that would show the US military in a bad light, it would hide any good news on page 72.

Nope, the majority of the media leans to the right and parrots the administrations lies.

How did the reporters know they were actual witnesses? Because they said they were?

I don't know. You tell me.

Considering the track record of the liberal media, they were probably created to fit the left's rabid attempt to denegrate the Military.

More of your fantasy world there with nothing to base it in reality.

I'll bet you can't say that you are glad it has been proven there was no cover up of something inaccurately called the Haditha massacre. Go on, say you're happy that 6 of the 8 US Marines have been exonerated, and charges against the other 2 have been reduced.

I'm always happy to hear the military acts honorably.

If it was a civilian trial, and the media covered the events that led up to the charges the way the media covered Haditha, the defense lawyers would ask for a change of venue because they would realize it would be hard to form a jury of 12 people whose opinions had not been shaped by reading or viewing media descriptions of the incident. Not hard to figure out.

What are you bitching about exactly? Did they try to get a change of venue and couldn't get it?

An "entire fantasy world," eh? Blame America First much?

Nope, I'm blaming you for inventing a fantasy world.

I believe the account is that it started on November 19, 2005, when a US soldier on patrol was killed by a roadside bomb in the village of Haditha, west of Baghdad.

Insurgents hidden in nearby houses subsequently opened fire on the soldiers, forcing them to respond.

Link?

 

[spike]

Rupert Murdoch admits to pushing Bush's policies and the war:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K2pLo8JV5Y

 

[Gonz]

Which he was told by military contacts.

So what. As a member of the United States Congress, he should not engage in demoralizing United States Marines with political rhetoric.

 

[spike]

You mean ignore crimes he was told about by the military?

That would be silly.

 

[Cerise]

I'm always happy to hear the military acts honorably.

Uh, sorry. That's not the same as saying "I am happy that the world now knows that the various charges of murder, making false statements, and obstruction of justice have been dismissed against US Marines."

I knew you couldn't do it.

What are you bitching about exactly? Did they try to get a change of venue and couldn't get it?

No. The OP says: "Once again the press proves their bias. When the Haditha "massacre" was fresh they were falling all over themselves to blame the military and accuse them of being "trigger happy"."

OK. Take for instance the Beltway Sniper case a few years back. Remember the details? The crimes happened in Northern Virginia, but due to the excessive media coverage of them, and the distinct possibility Malvo and Muhammad wouldn't be able to get a fair trial because of that media coverage, their attorney asked for and suceeded in getting the trial moved out of the area.

Are you with me so far? The next step will be to tie in how media coverage taints a fair trial with the trial of the Marines.

Now, I'm not saying that a military trial can have a change of venue. Or that a military trial can change to civilian courts.

I am suggesting that IF the trial that these Marines was a civilian one, their attorney would ask for a change of venue because he would cite evidence in front the judge that due to the excessive, biased, anti-American coverage of the events in Haditha, his clients would not get a fair trial.

You, in the jury room, keeping in mind the media coverage would ask "Anyone see any explanation of how these civilians got killed? Or is that being suppressed?" and would find them guilty.

Am I wrong?

Now that you understand the question, can you answer it:

Would you agree that if the trials were civilian instead of military their lawyers would've asked for a change of venue because a fair and impartial jury could not be found due to the widespread slanted publicity the matter received?

Link?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080605/ts_afp/usiraqmilitarytrial

 

[spike]

Uh, sorry. That's not the same as saying "I am happy that the world now knows that the various charges of murder, making false statements, and obstruction of justice have been dismissed against US Marines."

I knew you couldn't do it.

Yeah, I don't really need anyone feeding me lines. Find another puppet.

No. The OP says: "Once again the press proves their bias. When the Haditha "massacre" was fresh they were falling all over themselves to blame the military and accuse them of being "trigger happy"."

Actually no bias has been shown in this thread (well, except the Murdoch video). I have seen nothing where the press blamed the military yet.

Now, I'm not saying that a military trial can have a change of venue. Or that a military trial can change to civilian courts.

I am suggesting that IF the trial that these Marines was a civilian one, their attorney would ask for a change of venue because he would cite evidence in front the judge that due to the excessive, biased, anti-American coverage of the events in Haditha, his clients would not get a fair trial.

Except that there was no biased anti-American coverage and the defense did not ask for a change of venue. So what exactly are you complaining about? Seems like they got a fair trial and you're stretching for something to argue about.

You, in the jury room, keeping in mind the media coverage would ask "Anyone see any explanation of how these civilians got killed? Or is that being suppressed?" and would find them guilty.

Am I wrong?

Certainly you are.

Now that you understand the question, can you answer it:

Would you agree that if the trials were civilian instead of military their lawyers would've asked for a change of venue because a fair and impartial jury could not be found due to the widespread slanted publicity the matter received?

I have no idea what their lawyers would do. I also see no point in speculating.

So got a link to how these people were killed?

 

[MrBishop]

Considering the track record of the liberal media, they were probably created to fit the left's rabid attempt to denegrate the Military.

Just a quick statement on this point. The 'leftist media' is trying to denegrate the war, the President who sent the boys and girls in uniform into said war, and the reasoning behind said war...but not the soldiers themselves.

The statement that many espouse (equate knocking the war with knocking the soldiers) is a fallacy by the right-wing's rabid attempt to denigrate democratic ideology and left-leaning people.

 

[spike]

Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan's claims in his new book -- that the mainstream media were "complicit enablers" in the run-up to the Iraq war

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003813671

 

[Gato_Solo]

The statement that many espouse (equate knocking the war with knocking the soldiers) is a fallacy by the right-wing's rabid attempt to denigrate democratic ideology and left-leaning people.

And that there is just as great a disservice, if not greater.

This whole action, regardless of what the press says, lies at the feet of Congress. If people would actually read the Congressional record on the vote for the funding, even the most rabid of anti-"war" activist would be unable to deny this whole support vs anti-American argument is nothing more than fodder for the uneducated. Hell...I can't even get most folks to understand that this whole Iraq action isn't a war, even when I show them where to look. Why? Because its easier for them to spout off and blame the President than it is for them to use their heads for something other than a hat rack. Most of them don't even know what the protesting is all about. They just fall in line and parrot.

 

[MrBishop]

War is an easier terms to cling to and rally behind than "Police action" ever was.

I support our troops..period. They volunteer to stand in harms way on my behalf and the behalf of my family and friends. There's much there to be lauded.

I support the mission in Afghanistan.
I cannot support the decision to enter Iraq because IMO, there was insufficient reasoning to do so (feel free to argue, I'm just stating a personal opinion).

I feel that I can say both statements (support the troops/not support the mission) without contradicting myself.

I also feel that I can study/read/attempt to understand why terrorism starts or continues -- without supporting terrorism/terrorists.

But the "You're either with us or against us" mind-set is a minefield of misunderstanding, accusations, reciprocity etc... to the point where there *is* no discussion anymore..only arguments. A shame, really.

 

[Gato_Solo]

War is an easier terms to cling to and rally behind than "Police action" ever was.

Maybe, but the majority do not know the difference...which was my point.

I support our troops..period. They volunteer to stand in harms way on my behalf and the behalf of my family and friends. There's much there to be lauded.

I support the mission in Afghanistan.
I cannot support the decision to enter Iraq because IMO, there was insufficient reasoning to do so (feel free to argue, I'm just stating a personal opinion).

Once again...we, the troops, do not get to pick the fights we get into. If you have a problem with the fight, then you shouldn't have gotten us involved in the first place. Once you get us involved, you're down to two choices...support us, or not. You don't wait til the fight starts and then decide that it isn't worth it. You finish what you start, and you do it in such a way as to not marginalize those in harms way. If the reasons for starting an action were wrong, or misguided, then you deal with that after the action is over by changing the government...you know...voting? You do not do what San Francisco is doing, by allowing protestors to set up shop outside a recruiting station. You do not do what Fred Phelps is doing, by protesting funerals. You don't do what Cindy Sheehan did, by camping outside someones private residence, because that won't make any difference on the homefront, but it will cause anger, frustration, and a certain amount of disdain in those you, through your government proxies, sent to fight.

I feel that I can say both statements (support the troops/not support the mission) without contradicting myself.

You cannot honor someone without honoring what they fight for. You think you can, but theres a huge amount of contradiction in that statement because they do not support each other.

I also feel that I can study/read/attempt to understand why terrorism starts or continues -- without supporting terrorism/terrorists.

But the "You're either with us or against us" mind-set is a minefield of misunderstanding, accusations, reciprocity etc... to the point where there *is* no discussion anymore..only arguments. A shame, really.

 

[Cerise]

So got a link to how these people were killed?

So, pay attention much?