Haditha - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

jpsartre12 · #91 (**permalink**) 12-22-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by moon

Shameless.

Your existence? or something else?

jotathought · #92 (**permalink**) 12-22-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by gem

"Accused of failures in investigating and reporting the deaths"

Looks to me like Murtha had it correct all along, jpsartre12.
Do you wish to continue with your own self-deception, jpsartre? Or are you ready to start facing the truth and reality now?

Gem

Well, I'm not jpsartre, but anyway, I'm not sure why you are associating a failure to a cover-up. If the men in charge of investigating were charged with covering up or tampering with evidence, I'm sure that would compound the charges and would a big focus of the investigation; however, in June 2006, the General in charge of investigating these Marines reported that the facts did not point to a knowing coverup.

Quote:

Haditha Report to Fault Oversight, Official Says
But the findings apparently do not indicate a deliberate cover-up by officers looking into the slayings of 24 Iraqi civilians.

The general charged with investigating whether Marines tried to cover up the killing of 24 civilians in Haditha has completed his report, finding that Marine officers failed to ask the right questions, an official close to the investigation said Friday.

Nothing in the report points to a "knowing cover-up" of the facts by the officers supervising the Marines involved in the November incident, the official said. Rather, he said, officers from the company level through the staff of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in Baghdad failed to demand "a thorough explanation" of what happened in Haditha.

In an official announcement about the report by Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell, a military spokeswoman said that Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli would "thoroughly review the voluminous report as quickly as possible," but had no timetable. ...

In the Haditha case, military officials have said that photographs of the scene contradicted the initial reports of Marines that the civilians were killed in the crossfire of a battle that erupted after a roadside bomb went off.

Bargewell's inquiry was believed to have looked into who knew about the photos, and why those military men did not question the initial report.

Source: Los Angeles Times

Now, why don't you be a good little person and take some of your own medicine OR do you wish to continue with your own self-deception and cherry pick articles to create a logical fallacy?

jpsartre12 · #93 (**permalink**) 12-22-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jotathought

Well, I'm not jpsartre, but anyway, I'm not sure why you are associating a failure to a cover-up. If the men in charge of investigating were charged with covering up or tampering with evidence, I'm sure that would compound the charges and would a big focus of the investigation; however, in June 2006, the General in charge of investigating these Marines reported that the facts did not point to a knowing coverup.

Now, why don't you be a good little person and take some of your own medicine OR do you wish to continue with your own self-deception and cherry pick articles to create a logical fallacy?

Don't confuse him with facts. They ruin his preconceived opinion of the US and damage his general anti-American dribble.

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode