Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are Members of Congress Accountable for Anything?(Murtha & Haditha)
American Thinker ^ | October 04, 2007 | Clarice Feldman

Posted on 10/04/2007 5:28:30 AM PDT by vietvet67

Are Congressmen above the law? The case of Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich against Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) tests this basic question.

Of course there are other reasons to ask the same question. In a year when Congressional committees see no limits to what they will subpoena from the executive branch or about what they will interrogate its officers and employees, they rushed to court to keep the Department of Justice from subpoenaing the records of a Congressman caught with tens of thousands of dollars in his freezer.

Bad as shielding suspicious Congressional cold cash from view may be, insulating Congressmen when attacking ordinary citizens, or worse yet active duty Soldiers, is an invitation to tyranny. We are all potential targets if this holds true. Are they totally unaccountable for their conduct against ordinary citizens? I certainly hope not, but if that ultimately proves to be the case in court, I hope we have the strength to demand a change in the law.

The news that Staff Sgt Wuterich was going to be permitted to proceed to discovery in his defamation suit against Congressman Murtha was a cheering note to people like me who have consistently considered the Congressman's conduct unacceptable. As you will recall on November 19, 2005 there was an incident in the then-insurgent infested town of Haditha in which a number of people were killed. Beginning in May of 2006, long before a full official inquiry, and prompted by a very suspect bit of anti-US propaganda in Time, Congressman Murtha hit the media circuit repeatedly. He publicly and falsely accused SSgt Wuterich and the men of the Marines' Kilo Company of being involved in cold-blooded (premeditated) murder and of covering up the events of that day.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 110th; abovethelaw; mccarthyism; murtha; slander
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

1 posted on 10/04/2007 5:28:33 AM PDT by vietvet67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

Yes. Just ask Senator Joseph McCarthy if HE was ever held accountable for things he said reportedly in a “wreckless and dangerous” manner.


2 posted on 10/04/2007 5:30:15 AM PDT by weegee (NO THIRD TERM. America does not need another unconstitutional Clinton co-presidency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee

All animals are equal, but those in the US Congress is so much more more equal than others.


3 posted on 10/04/2007 5:50:58 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

Members of Congress are accountable to the voters of their district. They are shielded from liabel for anything said on the floor of the House or Senate chambers. They are NOT shielded from liabel for anything said on Jay Leno.


4 posted on 10/04/2007 5:51:57 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: vietvet67
"Are Congressmen above the law?"
In a single word, NO, not if they are dimocRATS: (1) they may attack TSA employees' (2) they may slap Congressional security guards on duty; (3) they may hide cash in their home freezers and prevent FBI from searching their offices for evidence of crimes; (4) they may leave the scene of an accident where a death occurs.

Any others I have left off?

However if they are Reopublican: (1)they will be arrested for tapping their foot or reaching under a stall n a public restroom.

6 posted on 10/04/2007 6:13:24 AM PDT by zerosix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

Hillary: Misappropriated FBI files
Illegals Chinese money
Illegal campaign contibutions
...


7 posted on 10/04/2007 6:30:20 AM PDT by Wolverine (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

Democrats are NEVER held to the same standard as Republicans....NEVER!


8 posted on 10/04/2007 6:32:15 AM PDT by Suzy Quzy (Hillary '08...Her PHONINESS is REAL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

Not as long as the voters keep electing the same theives and allowing them to make rules that only apply to them and cover their own butts when hey get caught.


9 posted on 10/04/2007 6:58:17 AM PDT by chiefqc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; vietvet67; RedRover; abigailsmybaby; Badeye; bmwcyle; brityank; desherwood7; FairOpinion; ...
Excellent article by Clarice Feldman.

Just this morning it has been announced that the Investigative Officer in the Wuterich Article 32 hearing has recommended to Lt. Gen. Mattis that the 17 murder charges be dropped and Wuterich be charged with 7 counts of negligent homicide. This alone refutes Murtha's contention that these Marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood.

Murtha Watch Ping!

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Code Pinkos

To be added to the Murtha Watch ping list please notify myself or RedRover.

10 posted on 10/04/2007 9:39:51 AM PDT by jazusamo (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67; RedRover; jazusamo
Good article by Clarice Feldman. I particularly found this segment to be informative:

Wuterich argues,

"there is no indication, nor case law, that would seemingly endorse a view that every single circumstance where a congressman speaks to a member of the media falls within the scope of employment and is thereby entitled to immunity."

The court agreed, and said, despite the Certification, the Government will not be substituted for Murtha (and the case therefore dismissed) until after Wuterich has had an opportunity for discovery to determine whether or not these statements come within the scope of his employment.

What can we expect the plaintiff will explore in this limited discovery?

a. He will want to find out where all these statements were made and the circumstances surrounding all these interviews. Three of the interviews cited in the complaint, he notes, were made in Murtha's "campaign office", not his district or D.C. offices;

b. Murtha will be asked to state what legislative responsibilities pertained to his actions. None seem evident.

c. Wuterich will explore whether Murtha commented upon Wuterich "for his own personal gain outside of his role as a representative for his constituents" If he did, his conduct is not cloaked in statutory immunity. In this context, Wuterich notes that Murtha made these statements at a time when he was vying for the role of Majority Leader, anticipating the Democrats would gain control of the House.

d. Wuterich will certainly seek all records in Murtha's possession of all comments to the media made on this issue and the circumstances surrounding all these interviews.

e. Wuterich will explore who provided Murtha the information he said he relied on. His pleadings refer, in fact, to leakers from among people inside the Department of Defense.

I think that there was no legislative purpose in smearing Wuterich and Kilo Company. Personal aggrandizement and political ambition motivated this Murtha media blitz. I think the very fact that a number of the statements were made in Murtha's campaign office rather than his official offices supports the claim that these statements were not made in the scope of his employment as a Congressman.

It is my understanding that the court-ordered discovery will take place in November, and we will not know whether the suit will proceed until it is completed. But if Congressmen are protected by statutory immunity from accountability after making facially libelous statements based on no solid evidence against the troops in time of war, something is wrong with the law.

11 posted on 10/04/2007 2:21:03 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing; RedRover

All interesting points. I would wager Murtha is not a happy camper about this ruling and Feldman points out just how far his butt is hanging out, I love it.


12 posted on 10/04/2007 2:39:22 PM PDT by jazusamo (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67; SeaHawkFan; RedRover; lilycicero; brityank; 4woodenboats; Shelayne; xzins; jazusamo; ...
Thanks for posting this, vietvet67. Clarice Fieldman has written a good summary at American Thinker of what is going on with the suit against Murtha. More from the article,

..."the District Court in the Wuterich case, make clear that the government may not be substituted for the defendant and move to dismiss under the Westfall case unless it can establish that the conduct was made within the scope of the original named defendant's employment. And establishing that requires more than a perfunctory, conclusory affidavit on the issue:...."

...."In fact that is what the Department of Justice unsuccessfully tried to do in the Wuterich case -- get it dropped without offering conclusive proof that these outrageous statements were made within a Congressman's scope of employment and without allowing the defense to probe the facts by deposition and document discovery to establish that the conduct complained of was outside that scope and that Murtha, therefore, must defend the case on his own dime and be liable for any defamatory statements he made....."

..."The court agreed, and said, despite the Certification, the Government will not be substituted for Murtha (and the case therefore dismissed) until after Wuterich has had an opportunity for discovery to determine whether or not these statements come within the scope of his employment."....

Clarice lists various facts that will be explored by SSgt Wuterich's lawyer during their discovery. Her conclusion:

...."I think that there was no legislative purpose in smearing Wuterich and Kilo Company. Personal aggrandizement and political ambition motivated this Murtha media blitz. I think the very fact that a number of the statements were made in Murtha's campaign office rather than his official offices supports the claim that these statements were not made in the scope of his employment as a Congressman.

"It is my understanding that the court-ordered discovery will take place in November, and we will not know whether the suit will proceed until it is completed. But if Congressmen are protected by statutory immunity from accountability after making facially libelous statements based on no solid evidence against the troops in time of war, something is wrong with the law."
13 posted on 10/05/2007 7:41:59 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Girlene; vietvet67
But something is wrong with the law."

This is the gist of where we're at, but I won't hold my breath waiting for Congress to repudiate or revise the laws -- it's not in their (self-) interest. Thanks for the ping, Girlene.

14 posted on 10/05/2007 10:45:18 AM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: brityank

No problem, brityank. This article was discussed by Rush Limbaugh today.


15 posted on 10/05/2007 11:28:32 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

“Liberal-speak G-O-O-D”
“Conservative-speak B-A-D”


16 posted on 10/05/2007 11:35:27 AM PDT by Polyxene (For where God built a church, there the Devil would also build a chapel - Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

Great article by Clarice! Thanks for the ping, Girlene.

I will be flabbergasted (and seriously pissed off) if the judge rules that Murtha was speaking within the scope of his role as congressman.

Everytime these cases come up with Democrats, though, I get a sinking feeling. Please, Lord. Let this one be different.


17 posted on 10/05/2007 1:51:11 PM PDT by Shelayne (NO running or relenting until the problem has been dealt with-decisively,systematically,permanently.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Girlene; RedRover; jazusamo; smoothsailing
d. Wuterich will certainly seek all records in Murtha's possession of all comments to the media made on this issue and the circumstances surrounding all these interviews.

e. Wuterich will explore who provided Murtha the information he said he relied on. His pleadings refer, in fact, to leakers from among people inside the Department of Defense.

Note this, for the record:

http://dcist.com/2007/10/04/is_the_senate_b.php

18 posted on 10/05/2007 5:40:28 PM PDT by freema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 1stbn27; 2111USMC; 2nd Bn, 11th Mar; 68 grunt; A.A. Cunningham; ASOC; AirForceBrat23; Ajnin; ...

Ping


19 posted on 10/05/2007 5:42:58 PM PDT by freema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: brityank

Yes, the judicial system is out of control, (see SF) additionally, the MSM as well as our educational system has been hijacked by liberals too. Shame on conservatives for allowing this to happen without a challenge! ESPECIALLY those in congress!


20 posted on 10/05/2007 5:48:50 PM PDT by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: freema

What’s the connection?


21 posted on 10/05/2007 6:26:48 PM PDT by RedRover (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

I dunno. I just want to note it for the record.


22 posted on 10/05/2007 6:31:40 PM PDT by freema (It's true!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 1stbn27; 2111USMC; 2nd Bn, 11th Mar; 68 grunt; A.A. Cunningham; ASOC; AirForceBrat23; Ajnin; ...

PAUL von ZIELBAUER of the New York Times has access to the Ware’s report
Published: October 5, 2007

In his 37-page report on Sergeant Wuterich’s case, Colonel Ware again struck a skeptical tone about the evidence presented by prosecutors, said someone who had reviewed the document, and seemed inclined to give the accused infantryman the benefit of the doubt.
~~~~~~~~
“The case against Staff Sergeant Wuterich, that he committed murder, is simply not strong enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt,” Colonel Ware wrote, according to a person who read the report and quoted portions of it to a reporter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the report, Colonel Ware said he believed that a jury would probably decline to convict Sergeant Wuterich of any crime other than dereliction of duty, for failing to ensure that his men followed the rules of engagement when they fired their weapons, according to a person who has read the document.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I believe after reviewing all the evidence no trier of fact can conclude that Staff Sgt. Wuterich formed the criminal intent to kill,” Colonel Ware wrote, the person who reviewed the report said. “The evidence is contradictory, the forensic analysis is limited, and almost all the witnesses have an obvious bias or prejudice.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/world/middleeast/05haditha.html?em&ex=1191729600&en=99e9a40a5995cd96&ei=5087%0A


23 posted on 10/05/2007 6:46:31 PM PDT by freema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: freema; All
I posted the conclusion from the report yesterday:

I am recommending that the Government pursue the lesser offense of negligent homicide and not murder because I believe after reviewing all the evidence, no trier of fact can conclude SSgt. Wuterich formed the criminal intent to kill. The evidence is contradictory, the forensic analysis is limited and almost all witnesses have an obvious bias or prejudice. The case against SSgt. Wuterich that he committed murder is simply not strong enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. What the evidence does point to is that SSgt. Wuterich failed to exercise due care in his own actions or in supervising his Marines. When a Marine fails to exercise due care in a combat environment resulting in the death of innocents, the charge of negligent homicide, not murder, is the appropriate offense. Accordingly I believe the elements and theory of negligent homicide best fits the evidence of what occurred inside House 2.

Finally, although I believe the Government will fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that SSgt. Wuterich committed any offenses other than dereliction of duty, due to the serious nature of the charges, I recommend referral to a general court-martial.

24 posted on 10/05/2007 7:00:08 PM PDT by RedRover (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: freema

Thanks for the ping.

Dear Lord,
We praise Your divine grace and providence, Almighty Creator, who knows every hair on every head. Father God, we earnestly pray for earthly justice to be done in this case of Congressman Murtha, for the sake of our brave soldiers and our besieged nation. Not our will, but Yours be done, Father.
In Jesus’ holy Name,
Amen.


25 posted on 10/05/2007 7:00:36 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (America: “the most benign hegemon in history.”—Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

Yes, but. I’d like to know who’s feeding Heilbauer?


26 posted on 10/05/2007 7:04:16 PM PDT by freema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: freema

Mark Walker of the North County Times.


27 posted on 10/05/2007 7:12:04 PM PDT by RedRover (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

Did you get the whole report?


28 posted on 10/05/2007 7:18:27 PM PDT by freema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: freema; Girlene; jazusamo; All
Not yet. The Corps hasn't even officially acknowledged receiving the recommendation yet. LtCol Sean Gibson at Pendleton has no comment.

Until now, there hasn't been a delay between the submission of a report and the Corps' announcement of its conclusion. Don't know how to read that at all.

29 posted on 10/05/2007 7:28:02 PM PDT by RedRover (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RedRover; freema; Girlene
Tony Perry of the LA Times wrote a piece on this today too. The three of them must be working together on this sharing the info because it hasn't been officially released that I can find.

Court-martial advised for Marine

30 posted on 10/05/2007 7:51:38 PM PDT by jazusamo (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: freema
I still don't get it.

"In the report, Colonel Ware said he believed that a jury would probably decline to convict Sergeant Wuterich of any crime other than dereliction of duty, for failing to ensure that his men followed the rules of engagement when they fired their weapons, according to a person who has read the document.

Then why does he recommend charges of negligent homicide ?
31 posted on 10/05/2007 9:06:43 PM PDT by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a; RedRover; jazusamo; xzins; Girlene; freema; darrylsharratt; Shelayne; Lancey Howard; ...
"In the report, Colonel Ware said he believed that a jury would probably decline to convict Sergeant Wuterich of any crime other than dereliction of duty, for failing to ensure that his men followed the rules of engagement when they fired their weapons, according to a person who has read the document.
Then why does he recommend charges of negligent homicide ?

Likewise; this just doesn't make sense. The other thing that does not make sense is the dereliction charge. Admittedly, the entire case file has not been presented for study, but nothing I have seen in any statements indicated that SSgt. Wunterich was anything but a committed, thoughtful, and consistent squad leader. The only thing this seems to point towards is a political expediency -- to say that he was charged with something to negate the criticism of the trials and prosecutions, and to ensure that he doesn't get awarded the medal and commendation that Kallop recommended him for.

This is a political decision.

32 posted on 10/05/2007 9:18:28 PM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a; RedRover; jazusamo; xzins; Girlene; freema; darrylsharratt; Shelayne; Lancey Howard; ...

Oh, and as yet nothing in print other than as listed above.


33 posted on 10/05/2007 9:19:40 PM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: brityank
you got it. I found it in Reds post 24

Finally, although I believe the Government will fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that SSgt. Wuterich committed any offenses other than dereliction of duty, due to the serious nature of the charges, I recommend referral to a general court-martial.

That's Rat-speak.
34 posted on 10/05/2007 9:41:33 PM PDT by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a; xzins; RedRover; Girlene
That's Rat-speak.

Not only that; there's also the pressure being brought by all of us to censure Murtha, so I'm sure he has his Fobbit REMFs working overtime to push for any charge that he can point to and say -- "See, I WAS right, but the Military has closed ranks and is still protecting their own."

35 posted on 10/05/2007 9:50:09 PM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a; brityank
Finally, although I believe the Government will fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that SSgt. Wuterich committed any offenses other than dereliction of duty, due to the serious nature of the charges, I recommend referral to a general court-martial.

That could also be the message to Lt. Gen. Mattis that will make up his mind to drop all charges against SSgt. Wuterich. I believe that's a real possibility.

36 posted on 10/05/2007 9:53:40 PM PDT by jazusamo (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; stylin19a

I sincerely hope he does; however I am still mystified by Ware’s comment about the Dereliction charge. That stinks, and leads me to wonder at Ware’s own impartiality.


37 posted on 10/05/2007 9:57:46 PM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
Then why does he recommend charges of negligent homicide ?

Ware's explanation:

....due to the serious nature of the charges, I recommend referral to a general court-martial.

So there you have it. Wuterich must be tried.... because the charges are serious.
Is that the most pathetic thing you ever heard of?

38 posted on 10/05/2007 9:58:47 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

Oh sorry. I see you already got the answer to your question.

Regards,
LH


39 posted on 10/05/2007 10:00:41 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: brityank

I hope that I’m not being too optimistic with my take on this. Lt. Col. Ware has been fair in the first two 32’s, he demonstrated his impartiality.

He actually recommended Wuterich be court-martialed for seven counts of negligent homicide but then comes back and says he doesn’t believe there is enough evidence to convict him of that.

He finally says he may be derilict in his duties but he didn’t recommend a court-martial for that.

That’s just my take and we’ll know soon. I’m praying that’s how it’ll work out.


40 posted on 10/05/2007 10:07:48 PM PDT by jazusamo (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
I just went back into David's lists, and can find no specification charge of Dereliction from the prosecutors. The Specification 1, all for the murders, was judged as unfounded. Specification 2 was Soliciting Dela Cruz to make untrue statements, all negated by Dela Cruz's own testimony. Specification 3, making a false official statement. Nothing in Ware's report mentions that he believed that charge, in fact he did comment that he found Wunterich's testimony as matching the evidence more nearly than the prosecution's description. So again, I just wonder where this Dereliction came from.

Well, it's early on your side of the rock -- here it's beddy-bye time. :^) 'See' you tomorrow; take care.

41 posted on 10/05/2007 10:29:05 PM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: brityank

You too, brityank. Don’t know how y’all back there do it cause it’s about time for me to hang it up here. Talk to you tomorrow.


42 posted on 10/05/2007 10:32:32 PM PDT by jazusamo (DefendOurMarines.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Being a night-owl helps.     ;^)
43 posted on 10/05/2007 10:34:54 PM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RedRover
Finally, although I believe the Government will fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that SSgt. Wuterich committed any offenses other than dereliction of duty, due to the serious nature of the charges, I recommend referral to a general court-martial.

Are you kidding me?? Who wrote this--Harry Reid?

How does he come down with dereliction of duty? Just because of the SERIOUS NATURE of the charges? Next I'll see a statement that says, "I question the timing."

What am I missing?

44 posted on 10/05/2007 10:36:10 PM PDT by Shelayne (NO running or relenting until the problem has been dealt with-decisively,systematically,permanently.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: brityank

Yeah, brit, I’m scratching my head on that one, too. I guess I will just have to wait to read the whole recommendation.

I am hopeful that General Mattis will see through this crapola and dismiss all charges.


45 posted on 10/05/2007 10:44:56 PM PDT by Shelayne (NO running or relenting until the problem has been dealt with-decisively,systematically,permanently.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Shelayne

OOPS. Should be—negligent homicide

I obviously need to go nighty-night.


46 posted on 10/05/2007 10:50:57 PM PDT by Shelayne (NO running or relenting until the problem has been dealt with-decisively,systematically,permanently.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I am with you, jaz. What’s more, Ware does not have the ‘luxury’ of being able to decide absolute bullshit.

Quite often, lost in and to the civilian world, is the first lesson learned at boot camp:

Marines don’t enjoy the freedoms they die to protect.

They can’t say what they want, when they want.
They can’t even refuse to say what they don’t want to say.


47 posted on 10/06/2007 3:02:59 AM PDT by freema (Still stoked about Hamdania.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a; Semper Fi Mom; Lancey Howard

My take is this (and I’ll beg your forgiveness before I even get started):

It looks to me as though it’s Ware’s translation that IF anyone had half a brain, IF there were any charges that MIGHT stick, this is the only charge a perverse mind could bother to explore, and if a perverse mind actually did bother to explore it, it would end up looking like a jack off. Or, to sum it all up tidily, WTF.

(But one must bear in mind that I love reading the President’s remarks and speeches to see what he’s REALLY saying : )


48 posted on 10/06/2007 3:17:34 AM PDT by freema (Still stoked about Hamdania. It ain't over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67; Girlene; RedRover; jazusamo; smoothsailing; P-Marlowe; freema; bigheadfred; brityank
e. Wuterich will explore who provided Murtha the information he said he relied on. His pleadings refer, in fact, to leakers from among people inside the Department of Defense.

And this info will Wuterich to claim command influence on his hearing and trial.

49 posted on 10/06/2007 4:26:13 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67; Girlene; RedRover; jazusamo; smoothsailing; P-Marlowe; freema; bigheadfred; brityank
e. Wuterich will explore who provided Murtha the information he said he relied on. His pleadings refer, in fact, to leakers from among people inside the Department of Defense.

And this info will ENABLEWuterich to claim command influence on his hearing and trial.

50 posted on 10/06/2007 4:26:30 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson