9 Comments

• 1. kimberly4victory  |  March 28th, 2008 at 4:30 pm

  Oooh rah! Good news!!

  Can the Marines who were falsely accused sue in Civil Court? I would.

• 2. Just Another Taxpayer  |  March 28th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

  I’m sure this is a relief to this Marine, and his family, and I am relieved as I am whenever an innocent person is found to be innocent. But what does this have with the fighting going on in Iraq right now?
  As a taxpayer, I seem to be either paying for weapons and ammo to fight the insurgents or bribing them not to fight.
  I suppose that when taxpayer dollars are used to bribe them, could it be that they are using the money to buy weapons, and the time to figure out the tactics of the surge. And are we taxing people willing to serve their country too much, as the Joint Chiefs told Bush at a closed door meeting yesterday?
  Either way, taxpayers are ponying up 12 billion a month. When is that gonna end? And what are we gonna get for the billions and possibly trillions that we’ve sunk into Iraq.
  More court martials? How does any of this help us in the least? I would like to know?
  While the editors may feel this is out of context or off topic, I believe anyone who sees this post needs to set todays events in the context of larger happenings in Iraq. We cannot cherry pick events, and hope that everything turns out ok.

• 3. Just Another Taxpayer  |  March 28th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

  Mr. Noonan,

  Used to be that a post like this would garner several dozen responses in its’ first few hours. And get more than a hundred responses. Now a post like this gets only 2.
  The well being of each and every serviceperson was tied to the well being of us all, and especially to the success of the Iraq war in the view of the wars staunchest supporters on this blog.
  has that sentiment eroded? What has happened to it?

• 4. David/California  |  March 28th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

  Mark, in your citation of the jerks who trumped-up this case you neglected to mention some of the craven SOB’s wearing our Nation’s uniform in the Pentagon, including a politicized JAG core. There are combat officers and political officers. Unhappily, our Congress seems to prefer the latter.

• 5. noodle  |  March 28th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

  yes yes - i know - they are marines so they couldn’t possibly do something bad. I know Mark - it hurts your brain to think it. Look - I am glad that this is getting sorted out through the proper legal channels - but don’t be such a naive fool to think that no american soldier has ever done anything he shouldn’t have..

• 6. LiberalNitemare  |  March 28th, 2008 at 9:17 pm

  I dont need to see every single person that said these marines were muderers punished.

  But I wouldnt mind seeing Mr murtha get a little payback.

  That murtha used his position and influence in an attempt to twist this into political gain should disgust all of us regardless of political alignment.

• 7. congressive  |  March 28th, 2008 at 10:47 pm

  Dropping charges without explanation is not exoneration.

  Hoo-rah.

• 8. Kahn  |  March 28th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

  Sorry, but this is a deal to burn the Staff Sergent running the patrol. They threatened this young lance corporal with life in prison. Now, they’re dropping the charges against HIM. But he has to testify against his boss.

  This isn’t over.

• 9. Almiranta  |  March 29th, 2008 at 10:43 pm

  Just look at the nasty Lib mouthbreathers scurrying out of the cracks and crevices to hurl even more insults at our courageous men and women in uniform. Why, regressive’s long antennae were absolutely QUIVERING with glee, at the chance to say something snide and spiteful.

  A United States Senator publicly proclaimed that the Marines involved with the events at Haditha were “cold-blooded murderers”. I sincerely hope that when this is over, Murtha as well as others get their donkeys sued off, and that those maligned get millions of dollars as well as public vindication.

  Of course, the dead could rise up and tesitfy that the Marines were innocent of wrongdoing, and the aptly-named noodle and regressive would still cling to their hateful view of the country and its military. But that’s them, and we all know what we can expect of them………
  ……………………….

  JAT—-a serious question here. Honestly, not trying to bait you or start a fight, but a sincere query. You say: “….what are we gonna get for the billions and possibly trillions that we’ve sunk into Iraq.”

  Do you have any ideas on how we might get some of that investment repaid? I think it would be very fair for Iraq to cut us some good deals on oil, to repay us and thank us—but you and I both know that the slightest hint of this would get the ghouls and goblins out again, howling “Blood for Oil”.

  It’s always made sense to me that if a nation needs military help to get out of a jam, and has goods which are valued by those who are willing to help, an exchange of goods for services is a reasonable deal. When the mouthbreathers were bleating “Blood for Oil” I thought it sounded like a pretty good trade-off, as it was so very very clearly NOT a willingness to send off our best and brightest to die for profit, but a potential win-win-win as we would gain increased national security by weakening A-Q and also a good source of oil, and Iraq would gain a powerful ally, its freedom and a chance to become a democratic state, and security for its oil fields.

  And we all know that a source of petroleum is part of national security, as well as economic strength. Is it possible to have a reasonable debate on the wisdom or desirability of negotiating an oil deal to help compensate us for our losses?