Everything that has seemed so obvious from the start;
That the response was not only due to an IED, but to the ambush
That there were so many women & children in one of the homes in the ambush zone = human shields
That clearly there must have been terrorists amongst those women and children, as the trigger man had warned them to hold their ears
That there was something very fishy about a car driving up to the site of an IED bombing, during a firefight, and "surrendering" - now it turns out they had weapons.
That there must have been terorists amongst the other "civilians" in the other houses - you don't call in airstrikes just because someone "thought they heard a click from an AK47", which has been the extent of any enemy action presented by the press. Every other reference to the ambush has been carefully plucked out of the story by our treasonous media, even though they clearly know better - they have the whole 10,000 page report!
I don't know which to do 1st, cheer or puke.
Well, I’m not sure how clear all of this. There have been hints, but no clear demonstration released to the public that the insurgents were known to be in the first two houses that were cleared. We know there were insurgents in the area because someone had to remotely detonate the paved over bomb. If any aerial footage exists that indicates movements of insurgents around these houses, I would think the defense would want this presented in these hearings. It would sure clear up a lot of grey areas.