March 28-29, 2008
Mar 28 00:57 Coleman's Campaign Kickoff Mar 28 02:18 It's a Miracle (Let The Investigation Begin) Mar 28 08:11 Rechecking The Stats: Where's the Crisis? Mar 28 09:22 Steve Massey's Fabrications Exposed Mar 28 11:05 AFL-CIO At War With Lori Swanson? Mar 28 15:09 Haditha Charges Dropped Against LCpl. Stephen Tatum Mar 29 08:00 The Indictment Against John Murtha Mar 29 21:03 "I Understand That 52 Attorneys Have Left"
Coleman's Campaign Kickoff
Sen. Norm Coleman stopped at the Copper Lantern just a few blocks from my house Thursday afternoon as part of his re-election kickoff tour of the state. During his stump speech, Sen. Coleman said that elections were a balance between keeping our commitments to those who've come before us and making the world better for the generations that follow.
About 125 people showed up to hear Sen. Coleman speak. It didn't take long for Sen. Coleman to get the crowd rocking, getting a subtle dig in on Al Franken by saying that "We love small businesses, who create the jobs in this country, especially those that pay their workers compensation on time."
What wasn't subtle was his insistance that he'd run on his record. He talked about his record of public service, starting with working as a district attorney, then becoming mayor before getting elected as senator. He took another direct shot at Mr. Franken, saying that he could run on his record because he actually had a record of public service.
After the campaign event, Sen. Coleman fielded questions from the local media. Here's one of the questions he fielded:
Sen. Norm Coleman was asked whether he would fight for federal funds for repair or replacement of the DeSoto Bridge as Sen. Amy Klobuchar said she would during her stop Wednesday in St. Cloud.That's the no-nonsense type of attitude that will serve him well as the campaigns get into full swing. I suspect that the differences between Sen. Coleman and Mr. Franken will be stark.
"Absolutely," Coleman said. Those types of safety issues are not political or partisan, Coleman said, but are "things that need to be done."
"As an ex-mayor, as someone who understands the challenges at the local level of providing funding, this is where the federal government steps in," Coleman said. "So I'll do whatever I can in my power, and I'll gladly work hand-in-hand with Sen. Klobuchar to get it done."
Posted Friday, March 28, 2008 12:57 AM
No comments.
It's a Miracle (Let The Investigation Begin)
After reading this headline , I'll never again question whether miracles happen. It seems that the Agenda Media has finally decided to report on the tumult surrounding Attorney General Lori Swanson's office. Prior to this, the only reporting done was by bloggers like Drew Emmer , Michael Brodkorb and myself. Here's what the Strib's Pat Doyle is reporting:
Sen. Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope, a member of the audit commission, said Thursday that complaints that Swanson interfered with union organizing efforts and pressured subordinates into compromising situations prompted the panel to consider an inquiry.It's only been a year since these allegations were brought to bloggers' attention. What took Sen. Rest and others on the audit commission to take this long before even announcing that they might investigate? It's not like these allegation just suddenly popped up. I wonder if Drew has any idea why the commission is taking things more seriously now.
Rest said the union grievances are better resolved by a court order or legislation, but that the ethical complaints might be eligible for evaluation by Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles.
"If someone is alleging there are things that are going on that are ... not ethical ... we'll have to see whether it's appropriate for the Legislative Auditor to act," Rest said. The panel will meet this morning.
I'm also curious what Rep. Sertich's reaction to this is. You'll recall that Rep. Sertich said that the House Legal Counsel told him not to proceed with an investigation:
Sertich responded Wednesday afternoon saying, "We actually had a discussion last spring about this that Rep. Emmer seems to have forgotten." According to Sertich, the rules committee went to the non-partisan legal counsel that the House has on staff. "They advised us not to interfere in any ongoing employment dispute with any potential legal ramifications," Sertich said.My question for Rep. Sertich is simple: Do you think that the Senate Legal Counsel told the commission that it was ok to start an investigation?
Here's some interesting information that I didn't think would make it to the pages of the Strib:
The office, headed by Attorney General Lori Swanson, has been roiled by discontent for more than a year, with high turnover of lawyers amid complaints of low morale and an atmosphere of intimidation.If Pat Doyle knows that lawyers had filed complaints about being intimidated, then why didn't he investigate this sooner? It isn't like he's restricted by the House or Senate Legal Counsel's recommendations.
The good news is that this has finally made it into the Strib. The bad news is that it took over a year of hard work by bloggers to get it there.
Posted Friday, March 28, 2008 2:18 AM
Comment 1 by John Krogstad at 28-Mar-08 10:06 AM
Mukasey Vows Corruption Crackdown,
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2008-03-27_D8VM4PF00&show_article=1&cat=breaking
Minnesota might be a good place to start.
Comment 2 by Drew Emmer at 28-Mar-08 10:30 AM
It is indeed miraculous that Swansongate (aka AG Scandal versions 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0) finally hits the mainstream media. I appreciate your posting as I have not had the time lately to follow this the way I would like to.
Paid journalists have an opportunity (and perhaps an obligation)to really dig into this mess. The question is, are they just paying lip service to an undeniable uproar in the AG's office or are they really going to deliver a hearty investigation?
The media knows how to file data practices requests. The inquiries will be tightly focused for the time being on the union busting and employment practices issues. That's a start. If they ever get to the Swanson-Hatch record of rushing to sue prior to reasonable proof of wrongdoing then we might really be getting somewhere.
Majority Leader Tony Sertich should get his speech ready for why he was the go-to cover-up guy on, not just one but both, occasions when the MN House voted 129-0 for an investigation and hearings. Such unanimity begs for a reasonable explanation.
The media will either foil the cover-up, expose it for what it truly is, or they will do one of their usual cleansing of their annointed.
Encouraging? Yes, but I won't hold my breath.
Comment 3 by Bob Collins at 28-Mar-08 01:07 PM
It is absolutely not true that the media has not covered the Swanson story as far as a year ago and that only a handful of bloggers were.
Unless, of course, by media you mean the Star Tribune.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. (g)
Rechecking The Stats: Where's the Crisis?
This article by the Times' Pamela Brogan says that "About 180 working-age Minnesotans die prematurely each year because they don't have health insurance, a health advocacy group estimates." Here's another set of stats that Ms. Brogan cites:
About 9.2 percent of all Minnesotans, an estimated 475,000 people, were uninsured during 2006, the U.S. Census Bureau said.Actually, the latest statistics show that 93 percent of Minnesotans are insured. Of those that aren't insured, 59 percent of them are eligible for taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. What that means is that approximately 2.87 percent of Minnesotans don't have health insurance and aren't eligible for taxpayer-subsidized health insurance.
My question for Ms. Brogan and to the DFL that keep talking about major health care reform is simple: Where's the crisis? That's before we consider the stats King cites in this post:
Minnesota supplanted Vermont as the nation's most healthy state, marking the first time since 1999 that Minnesota has come out on top in the annual survey. In its " Health Care State Rankings 2008: Health Care Across America " survey released Wednesday, the publisher examined 21 factors such as access to health care providers, affordability of health care and the general health of the populationLet's review this. Minnesotans that aren't insured and that aren't eligible for taxpayer-subsidized health insurance is a statistically insignificant 2.87 percent. That's before we acknowledge that Minnesota is the healthiest state in the union.
to come up with this year's list.
New Hampshire came in second followed by Vermont, which won the award as the nation's most healthy state six out of the last seven years. Maine and Massachusetts round out the top five.
It's worth asking this again:
Where's the crisis?
Posted Friday, March 28, 2008 8:11 AM
No comments.
Steve Massey's Fabrications Exposed
Strib columnist and blogger Katherine Kersten has a post up on her blog exposing Forest Lake High School Principal Steve Massey. Here's the key exhange:
Initially, Massey insisted that he cancelled the vets' meeting with high school social studies students because the vets surprised him and tried to turn their visit into a political event. The group had announced a press conference at the last minute, an unacceptable situation, he suggested.That isn't the only spin that Ms. Kersten debunks:
"We had been excited about the vets coming," Massey told the Star Tribune. "Then, lo and behold, they schedule a news conference on our campus. Time out."
That's flat wrong, says Pete Hegseth, Vets for Freedom director. Vets for Freedom didn't plan a press conference, but a low-key "media availability" at their bus before the event with students.
Massey wasn't caught off guard by this, adds Hegseth ; he approved it in advance.
"We were hoping a few local reporters, like from the Forest Lake Times, would show up and talk to some of the guys at the bus before the event started," explains Hegseth.
Today, Lynn Steenblock, Forest Lake School District superintendent, provided a different spin. The school called off the event for an unimpeachable reason; it threatened "student safety," he told the Star Tribune.Peter Hegseth is on solid ground, especially after this quote from Principal Massey :
"There could have been many reasons to cancel this event," responds Hegseth. "But the very last one is security. It's a complete sham argument. I was told the event was cancelled because of 'political pressure.' Security was not part of the reason
cited to me."
"The event was structured to be an academic classroom discussion around military service. We thought we'd provide an opportunity for kids to learn about service in the context of our history classes," Massey said. "As the day progressed, it became clear that this was becoming a political event,which would be inappropriate in a public setting.Perhaps Principal Massey should confer with Lynn Steenblock to come up with a consensus on whether they want to stick with that lie or if they want to tell the truth.
The truth is that this event was cancelled for political reasons. Simply put, Principal Massey caved into the wishes of some anti-war activists. That's why I called it a profile in political cowardice.
I don't see a reason to change that opinion.
Posted Friday, March 28, 2008 9:24 AM
Comment 1 by stanford Osmundson at 31-Mar-08 03:33 PM
I agree with you totally. The solution is an apology and to re-schedule.
There are 4 immediate problems to a sensible solution.
1.Steenblock
2.Massey
3.5 entrenched board members
4.A number of teachers who would do almost anything to stop something they perceive to be conservative in nature.
Stan
AFL-CIO At War With Lori Swanson?
Based on this article , I'd say that the AFL-CIO is at war with Minnesota AG Lori Swanson. That isn't the only war happening, though.
In an unusual letter aimed at Swanson, the state's highest DFL- and labor-endorsed officeholder, the head of the Minnesota AFL-CIO has asked union officials not to send any campaign contributions to the attorney general until the dispute within her office is resolved. Swanson, who took office last year, is resisting union organizing attempts in her office, saying employees of elected state officeholders cannot by law be members of a union.That's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg:
"Everybody isn't thrilled with the letter," Diane O'Brien, a spokesperson for the state AFL-CIO, said Tuesday. "This isn't the first time labor unions have disagreed on an issue, and I think it's clear there's some disagreement."It sounds like there's plenty of discord to go around. The unions and the DFL apparently aren't currently on speaking terms. How this gets settled is anybody's guess. Frankly, I don't think they know at this point.
Minnesota AFL-CIO President Ray Waldron, in a letter last month, said he made the appeal knowing that individual unions "may have their own institutional concerns, and that we all depend on the attorney general's office for legal opinions which affect our work."
Posted Friday, March 28, 2008 11:05 AM
No comments.
Haditha Charges Dropped Against LCpl. Stephen Tatum
GREAT NEWS!!! All charges have been dropped against LCpl. Stephen Tatum. Let the rejoicing begin. Here's what Newsmax is reporting :
Charges against Lance Corporal Stephen B. Tatum, 26, for his alleged involvement in the death of Iraqi civillians in Haditha, Iraq on Nov. 19, 2005, were dismissed today.This is cause for great celebrating, especially since it brings us one step closer to forcing John Murtha to talk about why he made his accusations in the first place. All that's left is for the Marines to drop all charges against Sgt. Frank Wuterich, Lt. Andrew Grayson and Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani.
Charges of involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and aggravated assault were referred to general court marshal Oct. 19, 2007.
Marine Corps Spokesman Lt. Col. Sean Gibson said the charge were dismissed to "continue to pursue the truth-seeking process into the Haditha incident."
There will be a further explanation forthcoming from military officials.
This is another chapter in the indictment against corruption meister Rep. John Murtha. Frankly, it's time for someone to file an ethics complaint against him. It's time for him to be run out of the US House of Representatives. He accused the Haditha Marines of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood" on May 17, 2006. Since then charges against LCpl. Justin Sharratt, LCpl. Stephen Tatum, Sgt. Sanick Del la Cruz, Capt. Randy Stone and Capt. Lucas McConnell have been dropped.
Here's a timeline of the unravelling of Murtha's story:
May 17, 2006It's time that Rep. Murtha be held accountable for his despicable actions. He accused the Haditha Marines of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood" before he'd been briefed. In fact, he made those accusations before the investigation was complete. That's unacceptable. He owes these men, and the Marine Corps, a written formal apology. He owes the House of Representatives a similar apology and his immediate resignation. Anything less isn't acceptable.
Rep. John Murtha, an influential Pennsylvania lawmaker and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, said today Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush that killed a Marine during a patrol in Haditha, Iraq, Nov. 19. The incident is still under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and Multi-National Forces Iraq.
----------
"It's much worse than was reported in Time magazine," Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill. "There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people," Murtha explained, adding there were "about twice as many" Iraqis killed than Time had reported.
May 18, 2006
Asked about his sources during a midday briefing on Iraq policy in the Capitol, Murtha confidently replied, " All the information I get, it comes from the commanders, it comes from people who know what they're talking about ."
Although Murtha said that he had not read any investigative reports by the military on the incident, he stressed, "It's much worse than reported in Time magazine."
May 30, 2006
GIBSON: Jonathan just mentioned, there's no charges yet filed against any of the Marines that were in this outfit, but Jonathan mentioned a moment ago, defense lawyers are already saying, well, there's drone video and there is actual radio traffic to higher-ups that will give a different picture than you have been talking about of this incident. What do you know about that?
MURTHA: I can only tell you this, Charles. This is what the Marine Corps told me at the highest level. The Commandant of the Marine Corps was in my office just last week, so you know, I know there was a cover-up someplace . They knew about this a few days afterwards and there's no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story. I can understand why, but that doesn't excuse it. Something like this has to be brought out to the public, and the people have to be punished.
June 14, 2007
As previously reported by NewsMax, the battalion S2 officer made a full and complete report based on his monitoring of the day's events and the intelligence he and others had amassed then and previous days. As we wrote at the time, the PowerPoint after-action report he sent up the command ladder proved to all the higher officers that the incident warranted no further investigation.
August 4, 2006
Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is being sued by one of the accused Marines for libel. He had told The Philadelphia Inquirer that Gen. Michael Hagee had given him the information on which he based his charge that Marines killed innocent civilians.
But a spokesman for the Marine Corps said Hagee briefed Murtha on May 24 about Haditha. Murtha had made comments on the case as early as May 17. On May 17, for example, he said at a news conference, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
A spokeswoman for Murtha was not immediately available.
This is what happens when House leadership doesn't fulfill its oversight responsibilities. This wouldn't have happened had Democrats not allowed Rep. Murtha to run amok.
That level of corruption isn't acceptable. That level of corruption deserves swift and severe punishment.
To demand anything less is to not fully apologize to the Haditha Marines that were wrongfully accused by Rep. Murtha.
UPDATE: Welcome Michelle Malkin readers. I've written a long list of posts talking about John Murtha's despicable behaviour. It's time that we pressure Nancy Pelosi into opening a genuine ethics investigation on his accusations.
It's also time that we demand that the House and Senate Armed Services Committees fulfill their proper oversight responsibilities. Because they didn't conduct oversight hearings, John Murtha was given wide latitude in this instance. That must stop ASAP.
UPDATE II: Here's an important quote from Sgt. Wuterich's attorney:
Wuterich's civilian defense attorney, Neal Puckett, contended that the Tatum dismissal showed the government has a poor case against his client.I couldn't agree more, Mr. Puckett. This has been an abuse of the military's abuse of power.
"I think it's a further demonstration of how weak the government's case has become," Puckett said.
UPDATE III: The good news is bouncing its way around the world. The BBC comments on it here while Radio Netherlands checks in here . Here are the key paragraphs in the BBC article:
The Marine Corps said it was dropping all charges against him and granting full immunity "in order to continue to pursue the truth-seeking process into the Haditha incident".I'll be sending the BBC an email telling them that they need to print a retraction for this paragraph:
The case stemmed from a roadside bombing in Haditha on 19 November 2005 which killed one marine, L/Cpl Miguel Terrazas, and injured two others.
The US military at first reported that the Iraqis had been killed by that explosion, or in a subsequent gunfight with insurgents.
But Iraqi witnesses said the US troops shot dead five unarmed men in a car when they approached the scene of the bombing in a taxi.
The troops were then accused of killing 19 other civilians in three houses nearby over the next few hours.
'No deal struck'
Despite the accusations, there was no full US investigation into what happened until January 2006, when video footage emerged of the aftermath, shot by a local human rights activist.
A subsequent investigation by Time magazine suggested that most of the dead were shot by marines after the bomb, and in March 2006 a criminal investigation was begun.
Despite the accusations, there was no full US investigation into what happened until January 2006, when video footage emerged of the aftermath, shot by a local human rights activist.That isn't accurate. Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore put together a complete PowerPoint presentation, which went up the chain of commande. I'll also tell them that they should look into this, too:
But Iraqi witnesses said the US troops shot dead five unarmed men in a car when they approached the scene of the bombing in a taxi.Those "five unarmed men" were known insurgents. Furthermore, that "taxi" was a white car, which the 3/1 Marines were told to watch for before going out on patrol. They were told this because intel said that this white car would play a significant role in ambushing the 3/1 Marines. This was captured on videotape by a UAV which circled overhead during the long gunfight.
Frankly, the BBC's reporting on this isn't surprising. It's the same lazy reporting that we've seen here in the American press.
UPDATE IV: Welcome Gateway Pundit readers .
Posted Friday, March 28, 2008 10:41 PM
Comment 1 by mansworld at 29-Mar-08 09:26 AM
Yeah, they said OJ Simpson didn't do it either. He made a deal.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 29-Mar-08 12:44 PM
Mans, What deal did OJ make? Last I read, he was acquitted.
Comment 3 by Caron at 31-Mar-08 08:33 AM
Mr. Murtha has not yet bothered to even say HE MISSPOKE! Talk about a RUSH to JUDGEMENT. The haters of America use him and his fellow Democrats as Poster Children for our DEFEAT. I cannot imagine how much Democrats have changed in my lifetime..it used to be that they LOVED America and heck, they ran the country via the Congress and Senate for almost all the years since WW2..FDR must be rolling over in his grave. I also wonder if Mr. Murtha has any Comments regarding the American GI who was just found Dead and tortured in Iraq..GOSH ..HE WAS A POW UNDER THE TERRORISTS..WHAT RULES WERE THEY WORKING UNDER? THEY HAD NO QUALMS ABOUT MAKING THIS POOR Gi SUFFER ..AND DID NOT ALLOW THE RED CROSS TO VISIT HIM..NOR DID THE ACLU STEP UP TO FREE HIM FROM TORTURE...HOW CRAZY AMERICA HAS BECOME...I wonder..Did they give him a bible? Did they give him appropriate exercise, food and medical care???
Mr. Murtha has no comments..I already called his office..I guess it is what the Demcorats call..."just Politics"...anything goes and the ends justify the means...SOUND FAMILIAR??
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 31-Mar-08 08:41 AM
Caron, It sounds far too familiar for my liking.
The Indictment Against John Murtha
Charges were dropped against LCpl. Stephen Tatum on Friday, leaving Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, Sgt. Frank Wuterich and Cpl. Andrew Grayson as the remaining three Marines who haven't had their cases resolved. Eventually, John Murtha will be exposed as a corrupt man who used the Haditha Marines in his attempt to become the House Majority Leader.
What We Know As Fact
We know that John Murtha accused the Haditha Marines of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood" before the investigation on Haditha had been completed.
We know that Rep. Murtha's story has changed several times. When reporters initially asked him about his sourcing on May 18, 2006, Rep. Murtha said this:
"All the information I get, it comes from the commanders, it comes from people who know what they're talking about."That didn't last long. On May 30, 2006, he made this contradictory statement:
The Commandant of the Marine Corps was in my office just last week, so you know, I know there was a cover-up someplace.He later offered another statement. This time, the spokesman for Marine Corps Commandant Michael Hagee had to correct Rep. Murtha:
He had told The Philadelphia Inquirer that Gen. Michael Hagee had given him the information on which he based his charge that Marines killed innocent civilians. But a spokesman for the Marine Corps said Hagee briefed Murtha on May 24 about Haditha.Let's highlight that conflict between rep. Murtha and the Marine Corps spokesman because it highlights extremely important information.
If Gen. Hagee did indeed brief Rep. Murtha on May 24, 2006, that means that Rep. Murtha couldn't make these accusations based on irrefutable facts; at least he couldn't do that on May 17, 2006.
That brings us to our first 'counts' against Rep. Murtha: Violating the Haditha Marines' constitutional protection of (a) being presumed innocent until provent guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and (b) violating their due process rights.
Another accusation Rep. Murtha made was that the officers in charge of the 3/1 Marines covered up their findings of what happened on November 19, 2005 in the city of Haditha. That's absurd because we know that Captain Jeffrey Dinsmore put together a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation, which was sent up the chain of command. That isn't speculation; that's his sworn testimony. The fact that the people further up the chain of command said that there isn't anything to investigate says it all.
Rep. Murtha told ABCNews' Charlie Gibson that he knew there was a cover-up "someplace." As I've said before, if you think something is true but can't prove it, then you should say that "I believe that there is a coverup someplace." You don't say that you know there's a coverup.
That's the second count in the indictment. Rep. Murtha made false accusations against the Haditha Marines. What's worse is that he made those accusations without verifiable proof of wrongdoing. Knowingly filing false charges against someone is a crime.
The third count in the indictment is possibly the weightiest of charges. Murtha's connections within the Pentagon are deep. He's built a mini-empire by acting as a 'recruiter' for companies in the military industrial complex. When they want a new hardware, Rep. Murtha gets it for them. As a result, they paid particularly close attention when Rep. Murtha made an accusation against the Haditha Marines.
With his clout, Rep. Murtha did everything except play the role of judge, jury and executioner. In civilian court, he would've been accused of poisoning the jury pool, which is another violation of the Haditha Marines' due process rights.
Speculation
I can only speculate that Rep. Murtha also knew about the "shadow body" within the Pentagon established to monitor the proceedings against the Haditha Marines. In the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib and Pat Tillman investigations, it's perfectly reasonable to think that there was a strong political component to these investigations. Here's what Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said on that matter:
"The hysteria and media firestorm over Abu Ghraib and the Pat Tillman investigations led to fear of a similar media reaction to the Haditha incident, causing the military's civilian bosses to set up this shadow oversight body," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center.If there was a political component to these investigations, then it's equally reasonable to think that John Murtha's fingerprints are all over that portion of the witch hunt.
"This extraordinary action politicized the military justice system and was a clear signal to top generals that they were expected to hold individuals criminally responsible. The investigation turned into a quest for a prosecution, not justice," Thompson said.
Based on the known facts alone, Rep. Murtha would have a fight if he found himself in a court of law.
That's why it's time to turn up the heat on the House Democratic leadership to open a thorough ethics investigation into the role John Murtha played in the smearing of the American heroes we know as the Haditha Marines.
It should insult everyone's sensibilities when people's constitutional protections are ignored. That should go double when the people whose rights were violated are military heroes.
In the end, that's the most damning indictment against Rep. Murtha of them all.
UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers. I've been chronicling Mr. Murtha's accusations and 'revisions' since he first made the accusations against the Haditha Marines on May 17, 2006. Follow this link if you want a timeline of Murtha's 'revisions'. Also check out Murtha Must Go for more outstanding chronicling of Murtha's shifting story. You'll want to check out this post . This one , too.
Posted Saturday, March 29, 2008 6:22 PM
Comment 1 by Wild Thing at 29-Mar-08 03:18 PM
Thank you for this, I pray Murtha will be punished for what he has done. I have been watching this whole thing from the very beginning and keeping track of what has been happening.
Comment 2 by Samantha West at 29-Mar-08 04:47 PM
I have linked to this important post of yours.
We must keep the heat on Murtha, he must pay for ruining so many lives, and should be made an example to others of his ilk.
Comment 3 by Skyler at 29-Mar-08 06:51 PM
As a Marine who is potentially stained by the actions of these men, I am appalled that their situation is being trotted out again to attack Murtha.
A man as despicable as he is should be attacked for the horrible things he has done, but this isn't one of them.
Innocents in Haditha were killed, for no reason, violating common sense and the rules of engagement. Commanders were likely derelict in reporting and investigating what happened.
I was in Haditha with the battalion prior to LtCol Chessani's and I can tell you that everyone knew that this behavior would not be tolerated. I would suggest that LtCol Chessani's Marines knew it too, or should have.
3/1, led by Chessani, potentially set back the war effort in Al Anbar from their bungling or intentional killing of these Iraqis and then not taking action immediately to atone for the errors.
I'm tired of these Marines being shielded by people who have no idea what they're talking about.
If politics end up getting Wuterich exonerated (based on Wuterich's own public statements through his lawyers), I will be ashamed. I don't like my Marine Corps being associated with the likes of him.
It's all just fodder for future bad anti-American movies. Murtha's role in the affair is inconsequential and irrelevent. His big, irresponsible mouth is just the tiniest part of why he is a menace.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 29-Mar-08 07:26 PM
I'm tired of these Marines being shielded by people who have no idea what they're talking about.With all due respect, Skyler, I'm not someone who has "no idea what I'm talking about." I've talked firsthand with LCpl. Sharratt's father. I've put together a timeline so tight that the JAG prosecutors don't even bother arguing against it. I've posted key portions of sworn testimony given by then Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore, who testified about the day-long firefight. I've even noted at times that his testimony is backed up by UAV video & audio tapes monitoring the gunfight.
I've posted about the white car that arrived on the scene immediately after the IED explosion that took Terrazas' life. I've written about how the S2 intel officer briefed the 3/1 Marines about the key role that a white car would play before they went out on patrol.
Next time, Skyler, don't accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about. I've got access to enough proof to bury Murtha & the JAG prosecutors with.
Comment 5 by Skyler at 29-Mar-08 08:00 PM
3/1's S-2 officer is a good man, I like him and respect him.
But you don't know what you're talking about. Primarily, you keep referring to Murtha violating Constitutional rights, but you don't seem to realize that Murtha is a member of Congress, not a prosecutor or a member of the court. He is not obliged to follow rules for the courts. He is free to accuse anyone of any crime, that's part of his job. It's called free speech, and it especially applies to congressmen. If he's reckless about it, that's another issue. We already know that he is about as scummy as politician as one can be (see, that's my first amendment right coming into play). But we will likely find that in the end he was right about the crime that was committed even if he was unwise to say so. Then what will you say? Will you apologize to Murtha (lordy, I hope not) or will you just say "oops?"
And then what credibility will you have for criticizing him in the future?
Notice that Tatum's charges being dropped were accompanied by the following statement:
"Charges against Lance Cpl. Stephen B. Tatum for his alleged involvement in the death of Iraqi civilians in Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005, were dismissed today. This was done in order to continue to pursue the truth seeking process into the Haditha incident."
In other words, he's turning evidence to further nail LtCol Chessani and SSgt Wuterich. It's not saying that Tatum is blameless, it's saying they're not going to prosecute a very junior Marine so that they can use him to prosecute the more senior Marines who deserve the blame if there is any.
Yeah, so you still think you know what you're talking about?
Col Collins is a friend of mine from long ago. I haven't talked to him in almost 20 years but he is among the most impressive men I've met in my life. I'm sure what he comes up with will be just.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 29-Mar-08 08:10 PM
But we will likely find that in the end he was right about the crime that was committed even if he was unwise to say so. Then what will you say?
I've seen the exculpatory evidence that will exonerate the rest of these Marines.
Furthermore, this isn't about free speech. While I agree that he can say whatever he wants, that doesn't mean that he can't be sued for his malicious statements.
I'd also argue that he isn't immune from getting sued because the Speech & Debate Clause of the Constitution doesn't extend to Sunday morning political talk shows.
That's why I won't have to apologize to Murtha.
Finally, your quoting the prosecution isn't persuasive because LCpl. Tatum's attorney issued his own press release confirming that he hadn't cut a deal with the prosecution.
The prosecution's statement is simply PR to be sucked up by people who don't have all the facts.
Comment 7 by HughS at 29-Mar-08 08:58 PM
"Rep. Murtha made false accusations against the Haditha Marines."
This may be a dumb question, but is it a crime to make false accusations?
I'm certainly no fan of Murtha but would be interested in knowing if this offense is a civil matter or a criminal matter. If it's a criminal offense then the Marines have something they can pursue that will bring justice and closure to the besmirching of their careers and name done by Murtha. If it's a civil matter I'm much less encouraged the Marines charged will see justice done.
Comment 8 by Gary Gross at 29-Mar-08 09:08 PM
Hugh, I'm not an attorney but from what I've observed, SSgt. Wuterich & LCpl. Sharratt have filed civil lawsuits against Rep. Murtha.
When I used the term indictment, I didn't mean it in a literal sense. I meant it in the sense of "Here's a rundown of the constitutional protections that John Murtha ignored & abused."
I apologize for not making that clearer from the outset.
Comment 9 by Mark Valdick at 29-Mar-08 09:19 PM
What continues to amaze me is that Rep. Murtha was so behind Rep.
(?) Charlie Wilson in funding the Afghanis against the Soviets, and yet now, he's done a total turn-around, and stabbed the military in the back. Former Marine? They need get his Globe and Anchor back...
Comment 10 by HughS at 29-Mar-08 09:54 PM
Gary
Then we can hope that the Marine's civil complaint will have the same result, however long it takes, as this suit against a sitting member of Congress:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/12/03/court_backs_ruling_against_congressman/
I remember this incident and hope the Marines find the resources and perserverance to follow through. Boehner stood firm on this and won. When it all started McDermott and his friends in the MSM thought nothing of it. But Boehner patiently pursued this to its final conclusion.
Murtha deserves the same judgement...however long it takes.
Comment 11 by Jaded at 29-Mar-08 10:44 PM
Thank you for watching and keeping us up to date as Michelle Malkin is....My family has been watching this the whole time and we are waiting for the last three to have either the charges dropped or be found innocent of all charges....at that time Murtha the traitor ought to be sued by all the Marines he slandered and judged before their case ever came to court.
God Bless the United States Military and God Bless you for watching their back.
Comment 12 by Gary Gross at 29-Mar-08 11:46 PM
Jaded, I wouldn't be much of a citizen if I didn't have these heroes backs in the media.
I've had the privilege of 'sharing a microphone' with Darryl Sharratt, Justin's father. What a salt of the earth kind of guy. I'm told that Justin has every bit of his dad's integrity & honor.
I'll stand with those type of people any day of the week.
Comment 13 by Steve J. at 30-Mar-08 08:10 PM
We know that John Murtha accused the Haditha Marines of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood"
And they did! That's why they initially lied about the events.
Comment 14 by Gary Gross at 30-Mar-08 08:17 PM
Steve J said:
We know that John Murtha accused the Haditha Marines of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood"
And they did! That's why they initially lied about the events.Actually, Steve J., we have video proof from a circling UAV and audio proof that they didn't kill innocent civilians in cold blood. That's why all murder charges have been dropped.
Comment 15 by Skyler at 30-Mar-08 08:30 PM
Where is this video? I hear people mention it all the time, but I've not seen anyone display it. How is a video supposed to offer such proof? If anything, it could be something a jury could decide as part of evidence, but I doubt it can be proof all by itself.
Please explain this video and how it single-handedly proves innocence, or if this is already done, I would be obliged if you could share a link with me. I'm always open to whatever is the truth, I am just very sceptical that this can do what you claim.
Comment 16 by Gary Gross at 30-Mar-08 10:27 PM
Skyler said:
Where is this video? I hear people mention it all the time, but I've not seen anyone display it. How is a video supposed to offer such proof? If anything, it could be something a jury could decide as part of evidence, but I doubt it can be proof all by itself.
A) The Pentagon has the video.
B) The video shows how the events of November 19, 2005 unfolded.
C) Capt. Dinsmore used the video to compile a PowerPoint presentation, which was sent up the chain of command. That chain of command reviewed the video & the PowerPoint presentation & decided that a further investigation wasn't warrented. That changed when Rep. Murtha made his unsubstantiated accusations. It wasn't until then that the Marines decided to conduct additional Article 32 inquiries into the matter.
Comment 17 by Steve J. at 31-Mar-08 01:15 AM
Steve J., we have video proof from a circling UAV and audio proof that they didn't kill innocent civilians in cold blood. That's why all murder charges have been dropped.
There is no such video. The charges have been dropped because the investigation started 13 months after the event and there is now insufficient evidence.
Comment 18 by Gary Gross at 31-Mar-08 01:22 AM
Steve J said:
There is no such video. The charges have been dropped because the investigation started 13 months after the event and there is now insufficient evidence.
You're wrong. The video exists because Capt. Dinsmore testified to it during one of the article 32 hearings. There isn't a snowball's prayer in hell that he wouldn't get prosecuted if he gave false testimony.
Comment 19 by Robert Tracy at 31-Mar-08 06:42 PM
I would like to publish this on my blog.
But I want absolute Truth about this.
I could go to http://www.snopes.com/ to verify all this but just give me the sources you have and I'll get this EX-Marine on my blog. "Once a Marine, always a Marine" I think does not apply to Murtha.
Just want to be sure.
Semper Fi!
Robert Tracy
Comment 20 by Gary Gross at 31-Mar-08 09:26 PM
Robert, Feel free to post this on your blog. As for Snopes, I'm not sold that their information is all that reliable.
Comment 21 by Skyler at 01-Apr-08 09:20 PM
So you haven't seen the video.
So you're getting it third hand what is on the video.
Your comments are consistent with what I suspected. Usually such video would be classified and this is why no one has seen it outside of specific audiences.
I have great respect for Capt Dinsmore. But I do think that this resembles more that game in kindergarten where one person whispers something into his neighbor's ear who in turn does the same. After only a few people, the message is completely distorted.
A video from an overhead drone cannot say what is happening in a home. The description provided by Wuterich on what happened inside the homes, if accurate, is likely enough to convict. The did not have positive ID of a hostile act or hostile intent per his account.
You are grasping at straws. You are in effect doing the same thing, just in the opposite direction that Murtha did; You are jumping to conclusions.
If these Marines were wrong, then the Marine Corps needs to make it clear that they do not support such behavior. The politics of people insisting that they be exonerated does a disservice to justice and to the reputation of the Marine Corps.
I would suggest that you, Murtha, me, and everyone else should await the results of the investigation and trial, if any, before spouting off how innocent or guilty these men are. I admit to overreacting too, but it's still wrong. Let's wait for Col Conlin to finish up.
Comment 22 by Gary Gross at 01-Apr-08 10:21 PM
So you haven't seen the video.
So you're getting it third hand what is on the video.
Your comments are consistent with what I suspected. Usually such video would be classified and this is why no one has seen it outside of specific audiences.
You're right. I haven't seen the video. It was declassified so it could be used at the Article 32 hearing. The fact that it was used to exonerate a Marine tells me that it was authenticated.
If these Marines were wrong, then the Marine Corps needs to make it clear that they do not support such behavior.
I totally agree. That they didn't get beyond an Article 32 hearing is quite telling.
I would suggest that you, Murtha, me, and everyone else should await the results of the investigation and trial, if any, before spouting off how innocent or guilty these men are.
I'm unwilling to wait because of all the charges that've been dropped. Had some of these Marines gone to court-martial, I'd be more hesitant to speak up but since they haven't, I'll continue to speak up.
BTW, it doesn't take a trial to know that these men's constitutional rights were ignored. John Murtha didn't hesitate in making his accusations even though he hadn't been briefed.
That isn't the type of America I want to live in. The America I want to live in is one where the person is presumed innocent.
"I Understand That 52 Attorneys Have Left"
I just received an email from a dedicated LFR reader. The email contained a letter that was supposedly sent by Amy Lawler to Minnesota Deputy Attorney General Olson. (While I haven't been able to independently verify the letter's origin, the letter's content is consistent with the accusations made against General Swanson. What I do know is that the person sending me this information has been totally reliable. I've never had reason to doubt the validity of this person's information.) In the letter portion of the pdf file, Ms. Lawler made the following disturbing statement:
I understand that 52 attorneys have left over the last year in an office staffed by approximately 126 attorneys. That is a staggering turnover rate and it is doubtful that a private firm could survive such attrition. Many have wanted to speak up but have been afraid to do so. Those who have advocated for unionization after having been at the office for years are told that they have a political vendetta or were predisposed to attack your tenure as attorney general; those who are new have been told that we have not been in the office long enough to form an opinion, or that our relative youth robs us of the credibility needed to suggest reforms for the office.Ms. Lawler is right. losing 52 of 126 attorneys is astonishingly high. It isn't possible to operate a business with that attrition rate. (Yes, I meant attrition rate because it's far higher than a turnover rate.)
As distressing as that portion of the letter is, it pales in comparison with this portion of the letter:
The attorney general informed me that she had read newspaper articles about attorneys general in other states filing lawsuits against mortgage foreclosure consultants. She handed me those articles and told me to find some defendants and file a similar lawsuit the following week. Your March 10 letter placing me on leave falsely states that at that time, Attorney General Swanson also provided me with copies of consumer complaints and complaints by other attorneys general. This is simply untrue. In fact, at the time of the meeting, no one in the room knew of any consumer complaints on the issue. I was instructed at the time to procure copies of the other states' complaints on my own. During the meeting, I asked you and the attorney general about how a case could be built so quickly, and you brushed aside my concerns, telling me simply "Don't worry, we'll make it survive a Rule 11." Rule 11, as you know, is the rule of civil procedure allowing for sanctions against attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits. It seemed clear to me from your comment that you understood that it might be difficult to ethically file lawsuits within the proscribed amount of time, and that it was questionable to decide to file a lawsuit before even locating a defendant, but were determined to file it nonetheless.This is incredibly damning information. If the OLA finds that these charges are legitimate, then Ms. Swanson is in trouble.
I'll make this prediction: once this information gets into Jim Noble's hands, it's safe to say that things will get much worse for Ms. Swanson before things get better.
Posted Saturday, March 29, 2008 9:04 PM
Comment 1 by Master of None at 29-Mar-08 11:00 PM
Gary,
That letter has been posted at Minnpost.com by Eric Black since March 18.
http://www.minnpost.com/client_files/pdfs/LawlerLetter.pdf
My take is that Jim Nobles will be focusing on these issues of ethics, rather than on the unionizing activities.
Comment 2 by Mr. D at 30-Mar-08 08:42 AM
Funny how Rachel Paulose got run out of town for far less than this, huh?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 30-Mar-08 09:11 AM
Mr. D, Funny no, ironic yes. Your point is well taken.
Comment 4 by Lady Logician at 30-Mar-08 06:38 PM
MON - based on what I have heard, that is an accurate statement. I am under the impression that Mr. Nobles can not do anything about the unionizing activities, but he CAN do something if there is mismanagement of the office.
LL
