Haditha Marine speaks (via attorney): No cover-up, killings were accidental (bumped)
posted at 8:11 am on June 12, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The defense in five words: What would you have done?
A sergeant who led a squad of Marines during the incident in Haditha, Iraq, that left as many as 24 civilians dead said his unit did not intentionally target any civilians, followed military rules of engagement and never tried to cover up the shootings, his attorney said…
[Staff Sgt. Frank] Wuterich told his attorney in initial interviews over nearly 12 hours last week that the shootings were the unfortunate result of a methodical sweep for enemies in a firefight. Two attorneys for other Marines involved in the incident said Wuterich’s account is consistent with those they had heard from their clients…
The defense attorneys said the rules of engagement — which vary depending on the mission, level of danger and other factors — are likely to become a central element of their cases because those rules guide how troops can use deadly force on the battlefield. One Marine official said such rules usually require positive identification of a target before shooting but noted that the rules are often circumstantial.
WaPo runs down the whole incident, moment by moment, according to Wuterich as relayed by his lawyer, Neal Puckett. Read every last word. As for the cover-up:
Wuterich told his attorney that he never reported that the civilians in the houses were killed by the bomb blast and maintains that he never tried to obscure the fact that civilians had been killed in the raids. Whether Wuterich gave false information to his superiors is the focus of one of the military investigations. He said the platoon leader, who was on the scene, never expressed concern about the unit’s actions and never tried to hide them.
Marine Corps public affairs officers reported that the civilians had been killed in the bomb blast, a report that Puckett believes was the result of a miscommunication.
FYI, Wuterich is the guy alluded to in this post.
If he’s telling the truth about there having been a miscommunication re: the cause of death, it should be easy enough to trace. Gen. Bargewell’s report on the supposed cover-up is expected soon, so if this story unravels, that’ll be the first part of it that does.
NCIS’s investigation of the incident itself isn’t due for awhile yet but at least it’s clear now why they’re so keen to exhume the bodies. According to Time’s original story about Haditha, the Iraqi child who survived the assault on the first house and the military sources with whom Time spoke say it was all gunfire [Update 6:42 p.m.: not so, see below]; Wuterich, however, tells WaPo that they threw a frag grenade into the room first, then opened fire through the smoke after it went off. The presence or absence of grenade shrapnel in the bodies (and the walls of the room) obviously would say a lot about who’s telling the truth here. As would having one of our military readers answer this question: what kind of explosive power does a frag grenade pack? If tossed into a 20×20 room, say, could anyone in there survive the detonation? I’m guessing yes, considering that Zarqawi was able to survive a direct hit from 1,000 lbs. of explosives, but e-mail me and let me know. Update: A retired Marine sergeant replies. See below.
There’s also the little matter of what Time was told by “Dr. Wahid”:
Dr. Wahid, director of the local hospital in Haditha, … says the Marines brought 24 bodies to his hospital around midnight on Nov. 19. Wahid says the Marines claimed the victims had been killed by shrapnel from the roadside bomb. “But it was obvious to us that there were no organs slashed by shrapnel,” Wahid says. “The bullet wounds were very apparent. Most of the victims were shot in the chest and the head–from close range.“
Sweetness & Light showed recently that Dr. Wahid might harbor a grudge against U.S. troops. (Although for what it’s worth, the story he cites names its subject, the director of Haditha hospital, as “Dr. Walid”.) But CNN has seen the photos of the bodies and says they corroborate Dr. Wah/lid’s assertion that some of the shots were fired at “close range.” The question is, what constitutes “close range” here? It could mean six feet or six inches; Wuterich’s account is consistent with the former but inconsistent with the latter. Which means: break out the shovels.
A few other things to look out for as you’re reading the story in the Post. First, Time noted in its initial story that there were no gunshots in the outside walls of the houses, which it cited as evidence that the Marines were lying when they claimed to have been in a firefight with insurgents located inside. But Wuterich never says the Marines returned fire at the houses from the street; he says they took cover when the shots rang out, then launched a raid on the first house.
Second, Time quotes military officials as saying the various raids took place over the course of five hours. Wuterich doesn’t say how long it took, but my impression is that the first two houses were cleared within minutes of each other. Read the description and judge for yourself. There does appear to be a delay between the raids on the second and third houses, but five hours?
Finally, perhaps the most tantalizing detail of all from WaPo:
After going through the houses, Wuterich moved a small group of Marines to the roof of a nearby building to watch the area, Puckett said. At one point, they saw a man in all-black clothing running from one of the houses they had searched. The Marines killed him, Puckett said.
They then noticed another man in all black scurrying between two houses across the street. When they went to investigate, the Marines found a courtyard filled with women and children and asked where the man was, Puckett said.
When the civilians pointed to a third house, the Marines attempted to enter and found a man with an AK-47 inside, flanked by three other men; the first Marine to enter tried to fire his weapon, but it jammed, Puckett said. The Marines then killed those four men.
If they really had “snapped” and were on a killing spree to avenge Terrazas, why didn’t they shoot the people in the courtyard? Assuming NCIS can corroborate that there were civilians there and the Marines encountered them and let them be, I don’t see how the rampage theory holds up.
Update: Greyhawk has started a timeline of the media’s coverage of Haditha. Pop some Dramamine and follow the twists and turns. Meanwhile, in Iraq, the new foreign minister complains about targeted killings of Iraqi civilians. But it’s not what you think.
Update: Mohammed at ITM confirms the old saying that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Update: Goldstein comments on the left’s tendency to find bad intent where there might only be mistakes with bad consequences. A taste: “These soldiers are not simply ribbing on the condom that lubricates what many in the anti-war crowd have come to think of as President Bush’s imperialistic war penis.”
Update: Dan Riehl’s been looking at news accounts of the other alleged murder perpetrated by Marines and finds they don’t add up either.
Update: Time’s original story on Haditha quotes Iman Waleed, the nine-year-old girl who claims to have survived the attack, as saying everyone in the first house was killed by gunfire. But in this interview with ITV news, she does indeed mention grenades and explosions. So her story and Wuterich’s are consistent in that respect at least.
Where they’re not consistent is the location of people in the house. She told Time that her father was in his room and everyone else — her mother, grandfather, grandmother, two brothers, two aunts and two uncles — was in the living room. She says the Marines broken in, went to her father’s room and killed him, then came into the living room and started killing the people inside. WaPo, by contrast, says Wuterich’s lawyer told them the Marines “kicked in the door and found a series of empty rooms, noticing quickly that there was one room with a closed door and people rustling behind it.” According to the lawyer, that one room is where all the killing happened. Unless the bodies were moved before photos of the scene were taken, their position in the photographs should give NCIS some idea of who’s telling the truth here.
Watch the video of Waleed carefully. She says after killing her father they killed her grandmother, then threw a grenade under her grandfather’s bed. But here’s what she told Time:
“First, they went into my father’s room, where he was reading the Koran,” she claims, “and we heard shots.” According to Eman, the Marines then entered the living room. “I couldn’t see their faces very well—only their guns sticking into the doorway. I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head. Then they killed my granny.” 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.
It’s not terribly damning that a child wouldn’t remember the exact order in which everyone was killed, but I am puzzled how she knew that a grenade was thrown under her grandfather’s bed. If his bed was in another room, how could she have seen it from where she was in the living room? If his bed was in the living room, why would the Marines have thrown a grenade into a room which, by Waleed’s own account, they themselves were standing in?
Update: This post has been bumped for the benefit of those who missed the Post’s Haditha story over the weekend.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
When troops are engaged in urban combat, street to street, house to house theres bound to be civilian casualtys much of the time. We would never have bee able to win WW2, if the Media and liberal politicans were breathing down the fighting mens necks. Not only does our fighting men have the enemy in front of them, they have the left-wing kooks in back of them, ready to put a knife in their back. Our enemy knows that all they have to do is fabracate a masicare and the MSM will jump all over the story. This of course brings chaos to our front line troops. This again gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
birdman on June 11, 2006 at 4:23 AM
If the Marines thought it was appropriate to toss in a frag grenade and then fire “clearing shots” into the room (per the WaPo article) they must not think one grenade can reliably kill everyone in a room that size.
Unless that Iraqi doctor has some sort of Magic 8-ball, the only way to tell the difference between “from close range” and “across the room” is powder burns, and “across the room” is no different from “across the road.” I haven’t touched an M-16 since before those Marines were born, and I was pretty much a REMF to begin with, but you don’t have to be an expert to know that much.
– Small Town Veteran
bdfaith on June 11, 2006 at 4:28 AM
It appears we’re getting closer to the truth and it’s not as cut and dry as first reported.
There are a few bad apples in most organizations and I’m sure it’s very difficult to refrain from taking out a little payback after an IED attack, especially when the civilians are in on it and know damn well it’s going to happen but the American military, the best trained in the world, as a rule, are the only ones who value the life of civilians and put more harm on themselves to try to preserve it and minimize collateral damage. It would be much easier to order everyone out and start carpet bombing than go house to house and try to decipher which of those dressed as civilians are the enemy and which are not.
I’m sure mistakes are made, from time to time, but the difference between us and them is civilians are not our intended targets. Why is it more of a news story when an alleged attack was made by the US military than the daily targeted attacks by the insurgents on the civilian population?
To me, the biggest enemy we face, is the radical liberal. Why? They’re within the perimeter. Shooting them would not be considered friendly fire, but rather justifiable homicide.
RolandHall on June 11, 2006 at 4:34 AM
Hmm. Interesting.
They better get to diggin’. Seems like that’s going to be the only way to sort out this mess.
violet on June 11, 2006 at 5:08 AM
Hello Violet.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that somebody asked the Iraqi’s for permission to exhume the bodies for this investigation. I heard permission was denied becase “Islam forbids exhuming bodies after burial.”
Maybe they sincerely meant it, or maybe this was an excuse to help hide the fact that exhuming the bodies would reveal evidence helpful to our (the U.S. Marines) side.
EFG on June 11, 2006 at 5:48 AM
Yes, it does seem to be not as cut and dry as Murtha first reported.
gary on June 11, 2006 at 6:05 AM
I’m calling for volunteers to help keep track of the avalanche of retractions and apologies from all of the America-hating newspapers, newspaper columnists, TV pundits, politicians and all other hope-for-the worst, subversives who have tried and convicted these Marines when the truth comes out. I’m sure it’s forthcoming.
Jeff on June 11, 2006 at 6:15 AM
As would having one of our military readers answer this question: what kind of explosive power does a frag grenade pack? If tossed into a 20×20 room, say, could anyone in there survive the detonation? I’m guessing yes, considering that Zarqawi was able to survive a direct hit from 1,000 lbs. of explosives, but e-mail me and let me know.
At least back in the day, you’d have a 15 foot kill zone from the point of detonation. So, if it were tossed into a 20 X 20 room, you’d likely kill anyone within who wasn’t shielded from the blast.
The next question is how long it would take someone to die, and then whether fragging a room automatically makes it safe to enter. The first could take some time, and the second is a definite NO. A wounded combatant may still have enough life left in him to shoot you, or to detonate a suicide vest when you approach. Or, if they had something to barricade behind (like an upturned mattress in front of an upturned table) they could be quite healthy (if deaf) and perfectly capable of killing you.
If the Marines thought there were combatants in the house, the shootings are probably within the ROE and therefore clean.
As for Zarkman, he was almost defintely not in the room where a 500#’er exploded. He’d be burnt to a crisp. He was probably outside the building.
Pablo on June 11, 2006 at 7:11 AM
Having a little bit of knowledge on the way MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) are conducted by the Army the standard practice is to toss in a grenade or two followed up by an assault force entering and finish clearing the room with gunfire. Now these tactics were tactics with the knowledge that we would be fighting an armed and UNIFORMED enemy. With the constant evolution of the ROE’s (Rules of Engagment) in Iraq it is conceivable that the rules would restrict the use of grenades. This incident however is starting to look more and more like there may have been a couple of civillians killed by the Marines accidentally but that most of these casualties were done by insurgents hiding in the houses. I hope they have gone into these houses with some Iraqi’s and looked for the presence of tunnels which can bolster the case for insurgents using the houses as safe haven and using the people living there as shields.
I remember the feeding frenzy in the wake of the Fallujah operation where these same type of charges were attempted but in fact the pictures that came out showed civillians chained to the walls and floors and executed by the terrorists.
LakeRuins on June 11, 2006 at 7:16 AM
Has anyone ruled out that the civilians may have been killed by the men in black with AK-47’s, before they retreated to other buildings?
Melba Toast on June 11, 2006 at 7:23 AM
Has anyone ruled out that the civilians may have been killed by the men in black with AK-47’s, before they retreated to other buildings?
Yeah, Jack Murtha has.
Pablo on June 11, 2006 at 7:24 AM
It really is inconceivable that Murtha has rushed to judgement, isn’t it?
Melba Toast on June 11, 2006 at 7:28 AM
And that he thinks he’s fit to lead the House…
Pablo on June 11, 2006 at 7:36 AM
It was inexcuseable for Murtha to have his “conclusions” so smugly held and then essentially judge and execute the Marines publicly. He should have been patiently waiting for the justice and truth of the investigation. The only reason to jump the gun and make the statements he did was so that he could score the PR points as being in the know and the first to condemn. Whether these charges turn out true or not, it is already clear that Murtha puts his own political reputation above the honor of the marines laying thier lives down.
Is it really true that the accused Marines are in shackles right now? I have a hard time believing that. Can someone substantiate that? If it is true, then Murtha and the Times reporters need to be in shackles there as well while all this is sorted out. I think even now, there is more evidence for treason and sedition on the part of the news media and Murtha than there is for inappropriate behavior on the part of the accused Marines. For this reason, they need to be in shackles along with the Marines until this is all sorted out.
Murtha and these reporters (from the battlefront to the TV screens and the editors) need to be called face to face with a platoon of our sons and daughters and be made to explain why they are spreading news that at best is still questionable, that is without a doubt — going to increase the death rate of both coalition forces and Iraqi citizens.
Getting the clear truth from a populace hostile to cause of the war is going to be nearly impossible, but even if the evidence leans in the favor of the Marines, all the premature reporters — and ESPECIALLY those in our government — and FOR SURE Murtha — need to be prosectuted.
In our government, however, Bush is the chief prosecutor, and cannot prosecute without politically jeopordizing his ability to serve this country. That is because nearly half of this countries government and most of the media ARE the enemy in this war on terror. So Bush and the upper eschelon have been neutralized by the enemy.
The only answer is in the fact that WE THE PEOPLE still have some power left in this country. WE the people need to find some spine, like Ann Coulter, and prosecute these traitors with a relentless barrage of the truth. The enemy is hiding behind the fortification of the media and hijacked governmental power. Our blogs are helping, but we need more firepower. We have to do more than we are doing.
Maybe when Air America goes belly up, we can buy it and put Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Stein, and others in place . . .
CountryDoc on June 11, 2006 at 8:16 AM
I apologize for the long post, I didn’t realize it was that long.
CountryDoc on June 11, 2006 at 8:22 AM
All I know is when the treasonous crook Murtha dies, I’d love to piss on his headstone. What a piece of crap that man is.
darwin on June 11, 2006 at 8:57 AM
How about this from the Marine Corps Times, and this from a local network on protests of the shackles.
We’re talking about Marines. These guys have fought with distinction for our country, and now…based on yet-to-be-confirmed stories and media hype, they’re in shackles. Can you say scapegoats? At least one of them was on their 2nd tour in Iraq.
My post here.
This wouldn’t be the first time Bush has jumped ugly early seemingly based on media hype. Remember his rebuke of Bill Bennett?
If anyone deserves the benefit of the doubt, it’s our marines.
MT on June 11, 2006 at 9:03 AM
You may find a careful read of the original Time story says the video showed no bullet holes in the exterior of the house - not quite the same thing as saying they weren’t there.
But since the Marines wouldn’t be aiming for the sides of the house anyway, that may be a moot point.
Greyhawk on June 11, 2006 at 9:09 AM
Sorry for a quick follow up, but I’m pissed.
Why no one has raised the possibility that the insurgents killed those civilians in order to blame it on the Marines? They know they can count on the assistance of the Western media and the Democrats in Congress…which has turned out to be correct again.
The canned explanation that the marines were likely “tired and angry” having seem one of their own blown up is ridiculous. If that’s all it took, we’d have hundreds of examples of marines “snapping” and letting loose on civilians. Also, why would they do this in broad daylight?
My money is on this being a justifiable mistake of war, or a flat-out setup. If so, put Murtha in shackles!!!!!!
MT on June 11, 2006 at 9:16 AM
They aren’t in shackles because of media stories…idiots…give the military some credit. They are in shackles because of the investigation. I believe they will be proven not guilty, but get a grip on yourselves.
tomas on June 11, 2006 at 9:34 AM
For THIS I’ll be a link whore go see if you can lend a hand, here’s the website for one of the Marines held in shackles.
http://www.patriotdefensefund.com
Duty, Honor, Country
(in THAT order)
Rowane
Rowane on June 11, 2006 at 9:39 AM
The story MT links is a different incident, a different investigation.
Are the Haditha guys locked up?
Pablo on June 11, 2006 at 9:56 AM
Sorry to confuse with a different issue, but the rush to judgement and the treatment of the marine referred to in the links are still valid.
Where, then, are the Haditha marines being held? Anyone know?
MT on June 11, 2006 at 10:18 AM
Once the bodies are exhumed, they can toss Murtha’s political career in one of the graves.
JammieWearingFool on June 11, 2006 at 10:23 AM
I’m so sorry that the media and Murtha-ites have forced our Marines to give statements through attorneys and take “sensitivity training”.
In the months leading up to the 2008 election, look for Michael Moore to release an Oscar-winning “documentary” splicing together different statements of the Marines, lawyers, and the stuttering fake Ranger punk.
Dave Shay on June 11, 2006 at 10:24 AM
It is my understanding that the bodies can be exhumed if a cleric gives permission islamic law not withstanding…..
also if the marines are absolved of intentionally killing the civillians ( and I pray that is the case) murtha should either retire or be brought up on charges….it is one thing for a congressman to express his opinion, it is another to aid the enemy which clearly would be the case….
robo on June 11, 2006 at 10:33 AM
Our soldiers died in Nam because they waved to and trusted “innocent women and children” who often carried and used weapons (small arms, ammunition and explosives were favorites). These people were mostly used to “hide, secure and carry,” but were often active participants. There was NO WAY to tell the difference by simply looking at them!
Iraq is the same. If Iraqi TERRORISTS (the liberal media calls them freedom fighters and insurgents) use women and children as tools, hide behind their skirts and bodies, and seek cover in hospitals and schools, we damn well had better shoot and fight back!
In a close combat firefight you cannot stop to ask (or even determine) whether someone standing alongside terrorists is himself or herself a terrorist; you must first shoot to stop the encounter. Otherwise, YOU die! This is not cops and robbers TV, where you yell, “FREEZE!” and the war stops!
And by the way. . . what ever happened to shooting the enemy who are spies? One definition, incidentally, is an enemy out of uniform. But since NONE of the Iraqi terrorists wears a uniform, how are our Marines supposed to know who is and is not “the enemy?” The rules of engagement thrust upon our troops by politicking idiots like James Murtha are one-sided, suicidal insanity.
War is Hell. People die. Better “them,” not us!
ForYourEdification on June 11, 2006 at 10:36 AM
Boo Hoo on all this crap…. Whatever our Marines did in Haditha is fine by me…they are in the heat of battle, not us, the news media nor Murtha (traitor!). They went over their willing to put their lives on the line …that’s what this fight is about. FREEDOM!!! Why are we even questioning thse brave men….
Sandys Beach on June 11, 2006 at 11:17 AM
Where, then, are the Haditha marines being held? Anyone know?
I don’t think they are incarcerated. They haven’t been charged, have they? I’m sure they’re relieved of duty while this plays out, but I don’t think they’re behind bars.
The guy at Pendleton has been charged with kidnapping and murder. The Haditha guys have only been charged, tried and convicted in the media. And on the left side of the aisle in the House.
Pablo on June 11, 2006 at 11:18 AM
Lots of details to be reviewed here, in a PROPER investigation; speculation does very little good at this point. It is likely the truth lies somewhere between the sergeant’s version and Madman Murtha’s, though I would expect it to be closer to the sergeant’s. I’d also be interested in the autopies of the civilian on whether some of the bullet holes were from AKs.
Still, that’s a bunch of dead civilians in one firefight of this size; they are likely to find some fault with our troops, though I expect it to be a lot less than the terrorist sympathizers in this country would like.
For those of us who haven’t seen this kind of action (even those in the military), we can’t imagine what it’s like and can thank God for our incredible troops who get it so right so often.
Mike O on June 11, 2006 at 11:34 AM
When a frag grenade explodes, it creates a huge cloud. Plus as the blast wave reverberates, it blows up dust then as the fragments fly into everything, walls, ceilings, floors etc, they create even more dust. All w/in mili-seconds. You can not see for what seems an eternity, in the middle of battle, in a house belonging to the enemy. You must clear it, or possibly be killed.
A person just by standing behind another person in a room can be protected enough to live. You might see figures or silhouettes you might not. The decision to clear the house or room comes before the frag grenade is thrown, not when you fire your weapon.
shooter on June 11, 2006 at 11:40 AM
Your SENSITIVITY TRAINING dollars at work
“It’s true that the 12 year old boy shot me in the back but I didn’t retaliate because it’s my fault. I’m a global-warming, chauvanistic male, racist, bigoted, biased, intolerant, murdering, raping military-industrial complex pig. Not only that but I’m a bad boy.”
MaiDee on June 11, 2006 at 11:52 AM
If a relatively few terrorists do the killings in the name of Allah we’re always told that they DON’T represent the vast majority of muslims. When a few Marines are accused (not even found guilty yet) then the ENTIRE military seems to be at fault. This is lunacy. This pc, propaganda style reporting has to stop. It’s sedition at best and treason at worst.
Mojave Mark on June 11, 2006 at 11:53 AM
ap article thread at FR..
article is also titled ‘Lawyer: Marine denies Haditha massacre’ on the ‘net
Defense lawyers give stories of Marines under investigation - Haditha
normsrevenge on June 11, 2006 at 1:03 PM
Again, now that the liberal minds and the MSM has already transformed whatever actually happened into something “evil”, who is going to believe the truth? ONLY the people that love the truth will believe it, all the rest “hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest”.
That’s why liberal minds always appear so mentally ill to normal reasoning people, they will always reject the truth for what they want to believe instead. It’s their nature to do so, people decieved, not only believing the deception, but always trying to deceive others in order to reinforce what they have decided to believe themselves instead of the truth. Their problem is spiritual in nature, and ultimately comes from them being exactly as Coulter points out, “Godless”.
NRA4Freedom on June 11, 2006 at 1:51 PM
BUSH, TIME TO REMOVE THE SHACKLES AND SET BAIL!
easy87us on June 11, 2006 at 3:20 PM
“BUSH, TIME TO REMOVE THE SHACKLES AND SET BAIL!”
10-4 on that easy87us, it was time before they were shackled to start with.
Duty, Honor, Country
(in THAT order)
Rowane
Rowane on June 11, 2006 at 4:13 PM
I maintain out people are INNOCENT of all charges!!
:/
VonHelton on June 11, 2006 at 4:32 PM
EFG:
I heard that too. It’s nice that “Islam prevents it” but I think if they want justice for their people, they might just have to make an exception. Most religions don’t want you digging the dead up. Just one of those funny religion things.
It is definitely a convenient rule, but again: I’m thinking maybe the actual bodies, and not grainy videos or triple hearsay anonymous testimonies, that are going to put this to rest.
violet on June 11, 2006 at 5:50 PM
The only one I want to see shackled is the treasonous and dishonorable MURTHA. His blatant attempt to use Marines for political gain and potshots on the President and the administration is disgusting.
darwin on June 11, 2006 at 5:52 PM
Maybe all these Iraqi’s are psychic. First a “witness” reports Zarq was beaten even though he probably couldn’t have “witnessed” anything. Nowthe poor nine year old girl “sees” a grenade thrown under her grandfathers bed.
joed18 on June 11, 2006 at 7:38 PM
Gang, there are two major stories going here, one is Haditha and the other one is a guy who was ostensibly pulled out of a house and shot. There was an alleged attempt to cover up by putting a rifle and shovel in his hand, those are the folks (either six or seven of them) who are under arrest. No one except some in the internet have said that they were in shackles. It’s also another case of, no one knows if the witnesses are telling the truth.
Mike H. on June 11, 2006 at 7:59 PM
This “Mother of war” (Vickie) sums it up for me regarding GWB:
MT on June 11, 2006 at 9:37 PM
I’m tired of the Democratic puppeteers presenting Murtha in his uniform every time he’s before the cameras. He was a soldier; he is now a Democratic politician. John McCain was a soldier, but now he wears the tie and jacket that all other politicians wear. Democrats obviously don’t have enough confidence in what he’s saying, so they need to dress him in his medals to give him validity.
Suzanne Fantasia on June 12, 2006 at 2:24 PM