Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
jillian said:You're talking about the Winter Soldiers. See:
http://www.factcheck.org/article244.html
But again...to once again get back to what started this conversation, one can disagree with these men WITHOUT the personal attacks on their service. They at least stepped up to the plate.
GotZoom said:Dr Grump said:There you go again. You are sure Bush did coke but when pushed, you backpeddle and say you don't have evidence...you are just sure he did.
Now you are stating that I "see Murtha as politiking."
I want you to show me where I have said anything at all about Murtha.
No I did not say I didn't have evidence, I said there was circumstantial evidence.
OK, what is your opinion on Murtha?
Dr Grump said:No I did not say I didn't have evidence, I said there was circumstantial evidence.
OK, what is your opinion on Murtha?
Dr Grump said:I have absolutely no solid evidence Bush snorted coke.
Dr Grump said:No I did not say I didn't have evidence
jillian said:You keep saying that and that is NOT what the poll said. Obviously you are ignoring the facts.CSM said:As for the evaluation of Bush's character, he was just found to be considered less trustworthy than Clinton by the American public.
rtwngAvngr said:Noone attacks their service jillian. Dems seem to think their service makes their opinions off limits for criticism and SAY it's attacking their service. OMG, you believe your own spin.
Dr Grump said:CSM said:Going by his poll figures I'd say you are wrong. Even going by some conservatives on these boards, I'd say you are wrong.
Disagreement with his actions is a whole ot different than evaluating his character. IF someone is doing what they think is right despite what others say speaks columes of their character. If someone keeps trying to mislead, twist and spin the truth despite the facts, that also speaks volumes aboit their character.
CSM said:jillian said:You keep saying that and that is NOT what the poll said. Obviously you are ignoring the facts.
And you keep saying THAT, but it IS what the poll said.
So which President do Americans now consider more honest and trustworthy -- the man who said, "I misled people, including even my wife," or the man who said, "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it and we'll take the appropriate action"? A close call, but slightly more people say Clinton -- 46 to 41 percent. That's right, by a narrow margin, the American public now considers Bill Clinton more honest than George W. Bush.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/and...06/05/poll-clinton-more-honest-than-bush.html
jillian said:That is not the original poll you posted. What you have posted here is an opinion piece and interpretation of the poll. I cannot find the thread where you posted the original poll...do you still have that link?CSM said:And you keep saying THAT, but it IS what the poll said.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/and...06/05/poll-clinton-more-honest-than-bush.html
CSM said:jillian said:That is not the original poll you posted. What you have posted here is an opinion piece and interpretation of the poll. I cannot find the thread where you posted the original poll...do you still have that link?
Sorry. I don't keep posts. If I come across it, will link it to you. But Anderson Cooper's site says it as I remember it. And all I got when I googled were a bunch of blogs and newsmax.
I actually think my original post was to aol, so I couldn't even post the link. Might be wrong about that, though.
But fair enough question.
GotZoom said:You ask my opinion about Murtha.....since you are so sure I posted something about him, why don't you do a search, find what I said, and tell me what I think about him..based on my post(s) of course.
GotZoom said:Since I haven't heard from Dr. Grump, I can only assume he must be burning up the "Search" function.
jillian said:Yeah, I couldn't find the thread where we discussed this before...it was a few months ago I think. My point is that when polls are that close and the margin for error is high (most polls average around 3% as a margin for error) then it is more than likely a draw...CSM said:Sorry. I don't keep posts. If I come across it, will link it to you. But Anderson Cooper's site says it as I remember it. And all I got when I googled were a bunch of blogs and newsmax.
I actually think my original post was to aol, so I couldn't even post the link. Might be wrong about that, though.
But fair enough question.
CSM said:jillian said:Yeah, I couldn't find the thread where we discussed this before...it was a few months ago I think. My point is that when polls are that close and the margin for error is high (most polls average around 3% as a margin for error) then it is more than likely a draw...
May well be. But given how the right sees Clinton, even a draw couldn't possibly make you happy...particularly when Bush ran as the trustworthy "uniter". Didn't quite work out that way, though.
jillian said:You haven't heard from Grump because he's at work.
Nice try, though.
GotZoom said:No. I have a pretty good command of the English language. You said:
But yet in this post you said,
You ask my opinion about Murtha.....since you are so sure I posted something about him, why don't you do a search, find what I said, and tell me what I think about him..based on my post(s) of course.
Oh and Grump, if you should bother to check this out, why not search for other posts on Haditha found at the site? The search box is right at the top, at the right.Dr Grump said:Oh, I dunno re your English. I have twice stated the term circumstantial evidence and you have twice cherry picked my statements taking out those words. No point in beating a dead horse.
Ok, my bad re Murtha. What are your thoughts on his comments re Haditha?
Marine may call Murtha as witness
By Rowan Scarborough
June 15, 2006
A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.
Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify.
Mr. Puckett said such public comments from a congressman via senior Marines amount to "unlawful command influence." He said potential Marine jurors could be biased by the knowledge that their commandant, the Corps top officer, thinks the Haditha Marines are guilty.
"Congressman Murtha will be one of the first witnesses I call to the witness stand," Mr. Puckett said yesterday.
Mr. Puckett represents Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, an eight-year Marine who was a key participant in the Haditha operations that resulted in the 24 civilian deaths.
The attorney said Sgt. Wuterich, 26, the married father of two daughters, led the squad of Kilo Company that mounted the four major combat actions on Nov. 19 that resulted in 23 deaths at a traffic stop and in three houses. The 24th Iraqi was killed while fleeing a home by a rooftop-stationed Marine or Marines, Mr. Puckett said.
The attorney said his client strongly rejects accusations in the press from Haditha residents that Marines lined up some of the civilians and executed them. Mr. Puckett said Sgt. Wuterich maintains that such an incident never occurred, and that Marines followed proper procedures in clearing the three houses.
"Whats being reported out there, it seems an awful lot of it is inaccurate," Mr. Puckett said. He said his client, stationed at Camp Pendleton, Calif., has been promoted to platoon leader and is not under confinement.
"How would you feel to be falsely accused of killing innocent people," the attorney said. "He was angered and hurt by it because he doesnt understand how the public could think he and his Marines could do such a thing."
Col. Dave Lapan, a spokesman at Marine Corps headquarters at the Pentagon, said Mr. Murtha was one of eight senior House members and senators briefed by Gen. Hagee in May on the investigation. "I dont know what he told them," Col. Lapan said.
A spokesman for Mr. Murtha did not return a message yesterday seeking comment.
The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) is expected to finish its probe by August, at which time Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, who commands the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Pendleton, will decide whether to bring charges that could include murder.
"If the NCIS has done a good job in this investigation, then Marine commanders will not feel compelled to charge these guys with homicide," Mr. Puckett said.
"But since Congressman Murtha has already judged these guys in public and folks have alleged a Marine Corp cover-up, Im afraid that the Marine Corps will feel compelled to put these guys on trial to prove the Marine Corps hasnt done anything wrong in terms of a cover-up."
On Nov. 19, Haditha remained one of the most dangerous and rebellious towns in Anbar province, a haven for both Sunni Muslim insurgents loyal to ousted dictator Saddam Hussein and foreign jihadists. The U.S. command in Baghdad had sent Marines on a "persistent presence" mission to pacify the area for Dec. 15 parliamentary elections. Lima Company, an Ohio Reserve unit that Kilo Marines replaced, suffered high fatality rates while patrolling Haditha.
That Saturday, Marine units were under attack at various points in Haditha when an improvised explosive device (IED) took out one of the vehicles in Sgt. Wuterichs patrol. The blast killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, a popular member of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment.
Mr. Puckett gave this version of events based on his discussions with Sgt. Wuterich:
After the blast, the Marines set up a defensive perimeter, and called in a quick-reaction force to find out who had placed and remotely detonated the IED.
A car appeared with five Iraqi men inside. Marines, in Arabic, ordered them to halt. The five exited the car. Rather than heed the orders, the men started to run. Sgt. Wuterich and other Marines opened fire, killing the Iraqis. Marines at the time considered Iraqis running after an attack and disobeying orders as confirmation of hostile intent, Mr. Puckett said. He said that sometime after Jan. 1, commanders no longer permitted such a response.
Next, a shot was fired from a home near the perimeter. Someone in the squad recommended clearing the homes along that block. Sgt. Wuterich agreed and gained permission from a second lieutenant platoon leader, who did not take part in the raids.
The Marines then fired grenades to "prep" the first house and went in. All rooms were empty, except one, from where Marines heard "rustling." A Marine, not Sgt. Wuterich, tossed in a grenade and then opened fire, killing all in the room.
The Marines then entered a second house, encountered Iraqis and killed them.
"Theyre chasing the insurgents who were shooting at them," Mr. Puckett said.
Hours later, they decided to raid a third house based on suspicious behavior. The first Marine to enter spotted four men inside, one holding an AK-47. The Marines M-16 jammed. He pulled out a 9mm pistol and killed all four.
Sgt. Wuterich, before counting all the bodies, radioed the battalion command and reported that 12 to 15 Iraqis were killed by Marines after the IED attack. He said there was "collateral damage," military speak for civilian deaths.
"My client did nothing contrary to his training on that day," Mr. Puckett said. "Some [of those killed] were innocent. Others, you will never know whether they were innocent civilians or not."
The next day, the 2nd Marine Division released a statement that 15 Iraqis were killed by an IED and firefight. The statement was inaccurate. An Army general is investigating whether it was part of a broad cover-up.
This is a key question that many have been pondering.
Who, if anybody, in the NCIS or the Marine command structure has been leaking this alleged information to Murtha and the media?
Or was it just made up?
And, if so, why? Was it just a way to force the Marine Corps hand, as Mr. Puckett suggests?
Dr Grump said:Oh, I dunno re your English. I have twice stated the term circumstantial evidence and you have twice cherry picked my statements taking out those words. No point in beating a dead horse.
Ok, my bad re Murtha. What are your thoughts on his comments re Haditha?
Dr Grump said:Not everyone. A lot of folk disagreed with the war including a whole lot of veterans. And he had the right to throw away those medals. They were his and as far as he was concerned it was a waste of time. Again, a tonne of folk agreed with him.
I have absolutely no solid evidence Bush snorted coke. However, going on his previous behaviour prior to becoming sober, and the fact he refuses to confirm or deny said accusations (me? I'd be suing, and turning different shades of red in denial if I hadn't), on the weight of his character I choose to believe he did.
dilloduck said:Finding all the WMDs in Iraq really screwed up your talking points so now people who aren't in Iraq are chickens? :teeth:
TNR's defection to the Right is now complete
by kos
Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 0733 AM PDT
(Bumped by DS)
People talk about the need for the left to work together and have a unified message in the face of a unified conservative noise machine. So a google group was created called "Townhouse", and it included many bloggers and other representatives of the netroots as well as a large number of partisan journalists and grassroots groups. It allowed us to discuss policy, issues, tactics and coordinate as much as you can ever get a bunch of liberals to coordinate.
There was one big rule for this list, an important cog in the growing Vast Left Wing Conspiracy -- everything discussed was off the record.
That was obviously violated today as the New Republic betrayed, once again, that it seeks to destroy the new people-powered movement for the sake of its Lieberman-worshipping neocon owners; that it stands with the National Review and wingnutoshpere in their opposition to grassroots Democrats.
The magazine published, in its website, an email I sent to the list. There is nothing controversial about the email, but Jason Zengerle tried to spin it as evidence that there is a "smoke-filled room" and that I send "dictats" to other bloggers, controlling what they can and cannot write about. In a subsequent post, Zengerle went further, saying that I control the financial fates of much of the progressive blogosphere. My power apparently knows no bounds!
Ludicrous, all of it, but that's the new rules of the game. TNR and its enablers are feeling the heat of their own irrelevance and this is how they fight it -- by undermining the progressive movement. Zengerle has made common cause with the wingnutosphere, using the laughable "kosola" frame they created and emailing his "scoops" to them for links. This is what the once-proud New Republic has evolved into -- just another cog of the Vast RIGHT Wing Conspiracy.
If you still hold a subscription to that magazine, it really is time to call it quits. If you see it in a magazine rack, you might as well move it behind the National Review or even NewsMax, since that's who they want to be associated with these days.
But what about the merits? There are none, as frequent critics of this site like Ezra Klein and Max Sawicky have already stated. In fact, it's quite funny how they're trying to parlay the nothing they have into something, anything at all. It's the price of success, and we knew the knives would be coming out after Vegas, so we shouldn't be surprised.
But I do admit being surprised by the sheer creativity of their invented attacks, such as my supposed "pay for play" scheme. Let me be crystal clear. I deny that charge completely. I have stated the sources of my income and they do not include money from people asking me to shill for anyone or anything. Problem for these writers, is that the law doesn't protect such defamation. The truth is an absolute defense to libel cases. If they have evidence for those smears, then they have nothing to fear. But if they, say, recklessly invented all manners of illegal or unethical activities by me without bothering to see if they bore any basis in truth, then they'll have plenty to worry about.
And it's not just me, even. These smear mongers have tried to drag other people and organizations into their fantasies. Like YearlyKos. YearlyKos moved aggressively and got a whole slew of corrections and apologies in response to pieces in the NY Times and Slate, but the damage was already done. Now think about the heroic work done by the YearlyKos people -- from Gina Cooper on down to the tireless volunteers. Think of all the people who took time off from their busy lives to head down to Vegas to partake in that wonderful event. Think of all the great progressive organizations that joined in to make it happen -- People For the American Way, MoveOn, DFA, UNITE-HERE, SEIU, the Rappaports, all of the politicians who attended, and so on. All of them smeared by the Right Wing, sure, that's what they do. But joined by the New Republic? Not surprising, yet still disappointing.
It is now beyond clear that the dying New Republic is mortally wounded and cornered, desperate for relevance. It has lost half its circulation since the blogs arrived on the scene and they no longer (thank heavens!) have a monopoly on progressive punditry. We have hit their bottom line, we are hitting their patron saint hard (Joe Lieberman) and this is how they respond. By going after the entire movement.
Sad, perhaps. But this is apparently the price one pays for crashing the gate.
The (dying) New Republic:
