Maybe I'm reading this wrong? Perhaps 'probe' doesn't mean investigation? What 'findings'? Is something 'concluded' that I'm missing? http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060531...SlX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl I may be mistaken, but doesn't seem like this lede is borne out by the rest of the article. This would be a good setup, if there was more.... Ummm, not sure where they are coming up with this, as there has been over a week of incidents saying that the Marines fired in homes, after the IED blasts. A real leader would have said that "IF something is proven against the Marines involved, they will be dealt with to highest limits of the law. Until then, our military has served our country proudly, many sacrificing all they had to give. I'll not condemn any, until a court finds them guilty." However, before jumping the gun, one should check out what has been going on here. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/GEO037072.htm which has been hotbed of insurgents. There is also this: http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/05/28-week/index.php#a002316 As for the 'misconduct' and 'poll results' let's just chalk that up to *ahem* bias of MSM. For the record, if there are Marines that did attack civilians, including handicapped innocents, (not all handicapped are innocent), and children, they should receive the maximum penalty of law. How do they know that the investigation was ordered 'only after...?' then again, maybe not... I'm not trying to be clipped here, but what does 'appeared to have been' mean?