08/02/2006 04:56:16 PM EST

Revvin' up the swiftboats...

posted by MedfordTim

The swiftboating of John Murtha started a few weeks ago, but it got turbocharged with a lawsuit filed against him for "false, misleading and defamatory" statements.for speaking out about the Haditha atrocity.

Never mind that Murtha never mentioned any names. This guy feels "libeled." Never mind that Murtha's source was a Defense Department report on the matter, the lawsuit claims Murtha "disseminated with malice his hearsay version." Uh, that would be the Defense Department's "hearsay version," wouldn't it? And MALICE?? Murtha did nothing but decry the circumstances which LED to this horror - how the hell is that MALICIOUS?? He was and continues to take the Troops into consideration as first priority.

The attorneys on the case are Mark Zaid, who previously defended Col. Anthony Shaffer in the Able Danger probe and Neal Puckett, former military criminal defense attorney.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
US Marine accused in Haditha case sues Murtha

A U.S. Marine suspected in the killing of 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq, sued a congressman for libel on Wednesday after the lawmaker, a prominent war critic, publicly accused servicemen of murder.
 
A group of Marines, while suspected, have not been charged, and official results from the military's investigation remain outstanding. A U.S. defense official said on Wednesday, however that evidence indicates Marines deliberately shot to death unarmed civilians.

In the suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, attorneys for Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich said Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania made false, misleading and defamatory statements.


more at link
< Letter to the Editor of the AJC | The Danger of American Fascism >
 Display:
Revvin' up the swiftboats... | 43 comments (43 topical, 0 hidden)
when will the madness end? (none / 0)
Too many lawsuits in the country, I agree.

by yturks on 08/03/2006 01:04:28 AM EST

There's a difference... (none / 0)
As long as the charges brought up are true, I'm with you in rooting the facts out and charging accordingly.

It's when the unsubstantiated lying crap starts flying, that's when swiftboating starts.

Ain't it a shame that the concepts we learned in Little League - play fair, don't gloat after winning, etc. - can't be the same for grown ups playing Politics?

The editorial yturks linked to damns Murtha enough, they don't need to make anything up - but that won't stop the swiftys from doing it.

by MedfordTim on 10/03/2006 09:09:35 AM EST

Not an editorial (none / 0)
sorry, "report"

by MedfordTim on 10/03/2006 09:10:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
surrender (none / 0)
"Ain't it a shame that the concepts we learned in Little League - play fair, don't gloat after winning, etc. - can't be the same for grown ups playing Politics?"

The left's policy on Iraq is surrender. That's not a distortion.

by acroso on 10/03/2006 09:16:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
lol (none / 0)

"The left's policy on Iraq is surrender. That's not a distortion."

 

rofl 

by jarett on 10/03/2006 09:26:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
YOU are a distortion (none / 0)
Get back in your swiftboat and keep paddling.

by MedfordTim on 10/03/2006 09:30:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Distortion (none / 0)
ah, all you guys can do is laugh at that statement, but you know it's the truth.

What about the democrat's policy is not surrender?

As far as I can tell the official policy of "a new direciton" is surrender.

by acroso on 10/03/2006 09:33:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
redefinition of words (none / 0)

Surrender means giving something up to the enemy.  What are we giving up?  Iraq?  Who is the enemy?  The Iraqis?  Are we not supposed to give Iraq up to the Iraqis?  The "terrorists?"&nbs p; Who are they?  Where are they from?  Are you dead sure that the "terorrists" in Iraq are not mostly Iraqis?  What of the fact that the Iraqis want us out of their country?  How can we surrender that which isn't ours in the first place?

The issue is not as clear-cut as you think it is (or claim to think it is).   But the most insidious and Rovian thing about your use of the word "surrender" is that it immediately calls up images of surrendering HERE -- surrendering the UNITED STATES to some terrorist threat.  No one is calling for that.  But it is what you very successfully imply by using the term.

Redeploying our forces to Afghanistan is the policy which makes the most sense -- give us a platform from which to find UBL and help the Afghani government get the Taliban under control.  Get our men out of harm's way in Iraq where they are inciting more violence and more destruction and creating more terrorists.

by jarett on 10/03/2006 10:10:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The left reinvents words (none / 0)
Surrender is surrender.

This is like the left calling illegal aliens, migrants instead. Or calling or terrorist surveillance a domestic spying program. Or calling amnesty, "comprehensive reform" instead.

It's the left that is reinventing words. In this case they are calling it a "redeployment" hahahahahaha

by acroso on 10/03/2006 10:16:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
As usual (none / 0)
You haven't answered my questions, instead attempting to divert attention to things which have nothing to do with the topic.

by jarett on 10/03/2006 11:14:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Surrender my ass! (none / 0)
All you right wing mudslingers want us to do is surrender. You want us to surrender our constitution, our bill of rights, the judicial system, our democracy, everything that makes our country great, so that you can change it into a theocracy dedicated to the enrichment of the rich! And it doesn't matter how many good people you drag through the mudd, as long as you get your way. I have news for you, not only are we not surrendering, we are on the march to throw your incompetent asses out of our public domain and into the cells they deserv e.   

by juebawl on 10/03/2006 12:03:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
surrender (none / 0)
Well if you not in favor of surrender how about "withdraw"?

Can I say the dems support withdrawing from Iraq?

In not elitest dem speak, sithdraw is just code for surrender.

by acroso on 10/03/2006 12:59:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
acroso (none / 0)
Obviouly you were not in the military.

If we are in a global war on terror and we overextended ourselves. The prudent thing in military terms would be to do a tactical withdraw to a more defensible position.

There were times in many previous wars that our military had to make tactical withdraws.

It is a tactic, not surrender but as usual a CHICKEN-HAWK wouldn't know that.

by LORD FOUL on 10/03/2006 03:34:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tactic (none / 0)
So withdrawing from Iraq=victory?

Why can't the democrats just run on their positions instead of jibber jabber.

Just state- We should have never invaded Iraq and we support the complete withdraw of U.S. troops.

Yet, when republicans "swift-boat" them by saying, you guys support withdraw- it's deny deny deny.

by acroso on 10/03/2006 03:52:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Victory over WHAT? (none / 0)

Over WHOM?  You use lots of "patriotic" language but it all resolves to nothing specific.  "Victory" and "surrender" as used by people like you are weasel-words.

We should never have invaded Iraq and I support the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops, SUCH THAT we a) stop creating more terrorists, b) follow the wishes of the Iraqi people and c) are able to divert our military to pursuits such as special operations against UBL.

How's that?  Nice and specific.  But you don't like that, do you?  You'd much rather wave a flag, proclaim your "patriotism" and conflate 10 million different concepts into one policy of "staying the course."

by jarett on 10/03/2006 04:05:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ahh (none / 0)
You so you support withdrawal.

I wonder why the Democratic party gets so angry when you say- the Democrats favor withdrawal?

by acroso on 10/03/2006 04:55:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
JUBE!!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0)
Where the hell you been? Last I heard from you 'round these parts was when I said I was coming over for a visit.

........eh....

...um.......

Oh.

Well, don't worry - I can't afford the gas.

Welcome back.

by MedfordTim on 10/03/2006 03:59:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Lurkin, just lurkin (none / 0)
If you were planning a trip now would be the time. Funny how gas prices can drop just before an election the oil companies don't want to see their republican friends lose, isn't it.. I miss the old forums still, does DA ever post now?

by juebawl on 10/04/2006 10:30:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Only a couple (none / 0)
...at the time of the Air America switchover, and I do miss the "old" posters (nothing against new posters, the more the merrier) conversations. Only a couple of us are so obsessed as to have kept up. If the last election cycle was an indication, many of our new found friends will drop off after the election, although A.A. does change the dynamics.

D.A. will always be #1 Turk Fan in my book, doesn't matter if he only drops by once a year on "Talk Like A Pirate Day." He da man. Jimmydunk even stopped by for a couple of days awhile back. No sign of mgeier, though.

Didja see my little three minute artistic endeavor? Remember the group "Love"? 'My Little Red Book', '7+7 Is', 'Alone Again Or?', etc.? Their 'Signed D.C.' was the inspiration, and that song is reason enough to replay over & over...

by MedfordTim on 10/04/2006 02:53:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It gets boring (none / 0)

Actually it gets boring.. The same two conservatives over and over.. parroting what rush has just said or what it says in thier conservative blog emails, not really having any original thoughts.

 

Lexus nexus this, google that.  ho hum

 

I'm already bored of it.  

 

by LoneStarLiberal on 10/04/2006 06:16:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
wtf, Ken? (none / 0)
Since when are you a homophobe?

by jarett on 10/04/2006 10:05:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I told you so (none / 0)
He is not here to discuss.

He is here to disgust.

by MedfordTim on 10/03/2006 03:55:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken, Ken, Ken....... (none / 0)
You are mixing apples and oranges. The Iraq war is a psuedo war. I'll debate you when the right has the guts to implement the draft. If this "War On Terror" is that serious and will last for decades with direct military action as your president has said, don't you think it is time for a draft?

by MountainMan on 10/03/2006 06:07:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Kentx (none / 0)
I didn't figure you for a chicken hawk.

I love war as long as somebody else has to fight it.

You have a lot in common with, rush and cheney and bush etc etc etc

by LORD FOUL on 10/03/2006 07:53:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken tx (none / 0)
Why were we there in the first place?

To hold back wave of red communism from taking over Southeast Asia.

Did the Communist take over the world, No
Did the Communists take over Southeast Asia, No.

Our purpose for being there was misguided.

by LORD FOUL on 10/03/2006 07:48:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I am left because I am right (none / 0)
You missed the point.

The point was that Vietnam was a mistake. Nothing you say changes that.

The difference between you & I is this.

I in no way insinuated that the Pubs were responsible for Vietnam.

Dems make mistakes too but we try to learn from them.

Showing pictures nice touch, you imply that some how Iraq is free.

If that was the case foreign troops would not be stationed there

If that was true scores of Iraqis wouldn't get killed every day

If that were true the Taliban would be in charge in Afganistan

by LORD FOUL on 10/04/2006 06:43:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
mistake (none / 0)
Maybe it was a mistake but Nixon brought an honorable end to the war. It wasn't until the dems impeached him and cut funding so the commies could win that we really lsoe the war.

by acroso on 10/04/2006 08:53:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Supporting this war...... (none / 0)
I'll support this war when the draft is started back up. Something tells me I don't need to worry. I'd even go for all serving politicians (including president) military age children being forced to serve. I'll bet there would be some policy changes then! Sure is easy to sit on the sidelines and be for war when none of your blood is being spilled.

by MountainMan on 10/03/2006 01:42:33 PM EST

mountain (none / 0)
mountainman,

Well that's certainly a noble position u have. However, that is not the democrats position.

The democrats position is surrender.

period

by acroso on 10/03/2006 02:02:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
acroso (none / 0)
War is sweet when you can fight it from the safety of your living room.

Noble Republican Value.

I guess, like congressional pages, the volunteer army asked for it huh?

by LORD FOUL on 10/03/2006 03:57:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
American people (none / 0)
Foul,

So if I'm not in favor of withdrawal- then I'm some sort of chicken hawk.

I wonder why the democrats don't run on withdrawal....maybe the American people don't support them?

by acroso on 10/03/2006 04:57:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Chicken Hawk (none / 0)
Let me explain what a Chicken Hawk is

George Bush actively supported the Vietnam war

When he had his opportunity to serve he used his Fathers' political clout to ensure that he would not be in the fighting.

Kerry, a rich kid, could have gotten deferments too but he went. Why because he had courage.

That is the differnce between a man and a coward.

It's not a left thing or a right thing it's a HEART thing

I don't believe we should "just withdraw" either. In fact that is not what the Dems have been saying.

That is what the Right wing echo chamber has been saying. Because the leadership of the party is loaded with chickenhawks like Bush & cheney who are all for fighting the good fight just so long as they get to stay home.

But if your wish is to stay the course then you have only 1 real option and that is to SIGNIFICANTLY increase troop levels and the only way to do that is through a draft.


by LORD FOUL on 10/04/2006 06:58:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
not withdraw (none / 0)
You're about the only democrat who doesn't support immediate withdrawal.

We haven't lost the war until the democrats get power.

That's a fact.

by acroso on 10/04/2006 07:09:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Volunteer Force... (none / 0)
We can go on and on about this but the fact of the matter is a volunteer force is not designed to fight a protracted war that requires significant numbers of troops. It is a plain and simple fact that even Republicans should be able to understand. The numbers for proper rotation just aren't there! The right likes to say "well in todays technical military a draft won't work". Give me a break! We're supposedly training Iraqis in six months. If the right is so pro war it is time they had the jewels to implement a draft and I mean right now. On a side note: Whenever a righty gets all pro war on me I ask if they have a son, daughter or close relative over there. If they say yes, I listen. If they say no, I say end of discussion!

by MountainMan on 10/03/2006 05:22:22 PM EST

Mountain (none / 0)
"Give me a break! We're supposedly training Iraqis in six months. If the right is so pro war it is time they had the jewels to implement a draft and I mean right now. On a side note: Whenever a righty gets all pro war on me I ask if they have a son, daughter or close relative over there. If they say yes, I listen. If they say no, I say end of discussion!"

Ok, your position is we need a draft in order to continue and win the war effort. I'm not sure if that is reasonable or not or if we really need one. maybe? I'd like to here what the joints chiefs of staff would say about something like that as to if they think we need one or not.

but that is really a side debate.

The Democratic Party never talks about a desire to have a draft. The Democratic party in general supports withdrawal.

But they refuse to acknowledge that that is their position. Instead they say...we're being swift boated.
They’re running a shadow campaign on Iraq and other issues such as immigration where they are completely under the control of La Raza and MECha but will not say so to the American people.


by acroso on 10/03/2006 05:30:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rush Limbaugh - cut and run Liberal! (none / 0)
"The first thing is that we pull back out of Baghdad, and we position along the Syrian, Jordan and Iranian borders..."

"...but this is on you(Iraq). We will make sure nobody else gets in. Now, you go in there (the Iraqis) and you clear out Baghdad. You do it once and for all, and then we're out."

"...the Iraqis are going to have to at some point take care of all this."

"We'll go to Turkey, wherever we have to go to keep people from getting in, but it's up to you guys to wipe them out."

Whaaaaaa?? Hear it yourself: audio Read it: transcript

Why, it sounds like Ol' Rush is channeling Murtha!

"The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction."

"I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control."

"My plan calls:

-- To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
-- To create a quick reaction force in the region.
-- To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
-- To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq"

One by one, they are coming around...

by MedfordTim on 10/03/2006 09:40:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Uh. (none / 0)

Ken.

 

Who are *we* to dictate terms to the Iraqi government? 

by jarett on 10/04/2006 12:27:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, right (none / 0)
That's why I linked the transcript AND the audio. It's the most Rush I've listened to in years. The drug addled gas bag hasn't changed his routine in 20 years.


Weasel the words any way you want, he is STILL recommending redeploying the troops - just like Murtha said a year ago. If we had done it then, who knows what the situation would be now?


Frist says Afghanistan is unwinnable, Rush advocates redeployment, Ken says "stay the course." Although, in Ken's case, it's a golf course...

Just can't stand that Rush is converting, huh? What next? Karl Rove suggesting alternative fuel research? Condi Rice making a truthful statement? Cheney opening contracts for bids instead of handing them to Halliburton?

Makes you wonder why all the Righties are so LEFT these days...

by MedfordTim on 10/04/2006 01:56:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
we just need mroe troops (none / 0)
we just need mroe troops and a much larger military.

by acroso on 10/04/2006 06:35:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
More troop (none / 0)
Just about half of the people in this country don't vote.

I bet that would change if there was a draft.

Pubs like you know the real graphics, that is why the Evangelicals are so important to you.

If that 45 to 55% of the vote turned out, the radicals in both parties would be history (which would be a very good thing)

But to the parties themselves, especially the Pubs (who hold power now and are much more extreme) that is horrifying.

Voting for people on merit instead of party, what a concept.

After 911 Bush could have gotten the draft back with overwhelming support. But at a cost, an awakened electorate.

by LORD FOUL on 10/04/2006 07:14:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
republicans (none / 0)
Republicans are the party of moderation

Win the war
Secure the border
Fight the war on terrorism

vs.
surrender the war
allow open border
terrorist bill of rights

by acroso on 10/04/2006 12:27:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Post (none / 0)

by MRFred on 10/04/2006 08:20:17 AM EST

Revvin' up the swiftboats... | 43 comments (43 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: