Paul Hackett just said "...some have confessed..." (Haditha Massacre)

I just heard Iraq War Veteran Paul Hackett say on Hardball, "I understand that some have confessed" when asked by Norah O'Donnell about the Haditha Massacre.


holy.fuckin.shit.

Sure sounds like some sour grapes in Mr. Hackett's voice tonight. Norah the White House Ho was getting all giddy when he took his shot at Murtha.

He cannot earn it back. Jack Murtha is as straight a shooter as I've heard. I may not agree with his militaristic policies, but he is a truthteller. Hackett went over the line with he said about Murtha yesterday.

We're seeing how this story is looking for a grunt to scapegoat...a Lt. Calley or Liddie England to pin this thing on and claim "it was just a few bad apples". Thus I agree we shouldn't rush to judgement here, but the key question right now is getting a proper and honest investigation of what went on and if there was a cover-up and who was covering up for whom.

Norah the White House Ho was doing her best to protect her beloved booooshie by trying to claim he didn't know about this thus he can't be held responsible...as usual. That this was someone elses fuck-up. Again, looking for the scapegoat.

Hackett does express a concern I have...and that's the affects this scandal will have on the safety and ability for the ground forces in Iraq to operate. Looking for a quick scapegoat could allow those who covered this up to skate free...also to inflame things that will increase the dangers to the very troops we are trying to protect and bring home. The grunts didn't want this war, their job is to fight and not question. Those who can be questions, must be and we have to keep the pressure on until the entire military chain is held accountable.

Also, there's the elephant in the room...the culture of dehumanization in the military...especially in this ugly war which blend racism with religious intolerance and an American superiority complex that some call the "ugly American" that led to this and other atrocities.

I'm probably lookin at this in emotional terms, ie. its a little more complicated than I would like to believe. Points well taken.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

He likes to style himself as commander in chief, and compare himself to Harry Truman.

Well the ungodly massacres and wide-scale tortures in Iraq are an ugly buck that stops on George Bush's desk.

Bush cannot go AWOL again on responsibility for this. He lied to our troops to get them over there and to keep them there, and he has not backed them up or supported them adequately.

Ask yourself: how could a guy with a shameful AWOL military record, and another guy (Cheney) with Five Frikking Deferments ("I had other priorities") provide real leadership?

All Bush has done in the way of "leadership" is to insure that his republicon OIL Cronies make massive oil and gas profits -- at the expense of every car-driving and food-eating American citizen.

The Stanley Milgram experiment and one done at Stanford (I believe) showed how the average person could morph into a sadistic monster if left without proper guidance and leadership. They showed footage of people who simply took a "role" as a prison guard with people who played the role of prisoners and by Day5 they had to stop the experiment because of the cruelty. And they were just playing roles! It was scary. They applied the results of the experiments to Abu Grahib.

You certainly hold grudges...

That's not alleged. That's not an accusation.

Hackett's sour grapes have left a pretty shitty taste in my mouth. And any true Democrat who heard him prove what an asshole he is tonight, must feel much the same.


Maybe this 'circling of the wagons' around the Marines is a military thing that I'll never understand. But what I'll never understand more, is how anyone, anyone, could put a rifle to a 3yr old's head and pull the trigger.

:nuke:

oh, and fuck norah HO-Donnell.

Remember that strange concept of innocent until proven guilty? I know it doesn't really fly much in this country any longer.

We have evidence, but there's it's not complete. Also, the crime here is as much the cover-up as the murders and all we've heard about are the guys on the bottom of the totem pole. The truth takes time...and there's no excuse for any murders here, but let's get the whole story, first. No matter how corrupt the military brass is, the military justice system has investigated...such as Abu Grahb and confirmed the abuses there...let's see what plays out here.

It's amazing how a DU darling like Hackett is getting trashed tonight. I donated to Hackett's campaign last year but was disappointed when he folded up shop after that election...all that hard work in getting an organization on the ground and nothing left for the 2006 campaign. I further soured on him as a candidate in the way he handled the Brown situation.

Here he's a lawyer for one of the soldiers who could face charges...what would you expect him to say?

Yes, there's a circle the wagons here...but shouldn't there be as the situation has become a lot more dangerous for the troops inside Iraq as the news and rumors of these attrocities has angered an already angered populace. And I suspect the "insurgents" not only are using this to get more recruits but also to fan the hatred...and if it means spreading their own rumors, so much the better. Since we have a regime that is steadfast in ruining the military and using them for their proxy oil army, the least we can do is try to respect the stress and frustrations the troops there are facing. These people will need a lot of care to recover from this ugly war in the future and it sure won't be the Repugnicans who will stand with them...someone has to.

Peace...

said that right at the beginning of his interview. My point is that these talking heads are not simply saying, "innocent until proven guilty" They're going out of their way to say that it didn't even happen! In fact, I've not even heard one of those guys say "innocent until proven guilty" not once. I've only heard the "alleged" incident statements.

A google search for "alleged Haditha" returns nearly 2,000,000 hits! In what, a week?

The circling of the wagons is not to protect the soldiers from revenge attacks...it's to protect those Marines who slaughtered little babies and elderly folks praying.

I donated to Hackett. I was pissed when he gave up against that Nazi Slut Whore Bitch. And I'm certainly not singling out Hackett, for there are many many other military talking heads who've spewed the same talking points. Listen carefully and you'll hear it too.

Don't get me wrong. I am thankful that we have a justice system based on the presumption of innocence...at least we did until the pukes took over, and I would never ever take away that which is the right of every american to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

that's why I'm only talking about the fact that these guys' own words give the impression that nothing happened at all.

peace...

Look at the Slime boaters...they've lived in denial about a lot of the real history of Vietnam...My Lai, Agent Orange and so on...30 years on...despite all the evidence and nothing is going to change that meme...cause to admit it is refuting their entire existance.

I listen very carefully and also consider the source. And to say that no one believes something bad happened at Haiditha is not what the corporate media is astroturfing. If anything, it's rushing to conclusions by running the same pictures over and over again...you can't deny something happened there, but by who and under what circumstances? You don't know, neither do I...the facts haven't been totally revealed and to be definitive at this point is just as bad as being dismissive...thus the "alleged" fits for the meantime. History will remove that label when the full scope of this scandal is revealed...and that could take months and even years. So until there's an indictment, trial and conviction, it is still "alleged"...when there's some justice here, then the label can and must be removed.

The pictures that fill our screen won't go away. Just like the image of the naked girl running from My Lai, those pictures can't be erased...as well as what happened. Anyone who denies it will be minimalized in time...unless you're a kool-aid drinker...but then those people are beyond both reality and hope.

Also, I can't dismiss that some of these stories are planted by various groups in the region for their own purposes. Are there military abuses? Damn right there are...but by who and what's the real story? In the middle of this mess are our troops on the ground and stories like these lead to the use of terms "baby-killer" and paints a broad brush that ALL in the military are either accomplices in these atrocities when it's various factions here who know that pictures can be very powerful...and how rumors fly around the world while the truth is putting on its pants.

All I'm saying is careful to jump to conclusions and try to rush to blame...let's push for a full accounting and allow a combination of the justice system and history...the last thing we need is another generation of "victimized" war veterans who will take the fall for these atrocities when they weren't involved...while the higher-ups not only get away scott-free but later will turn around and blame those who rushed to a judgement as being the problem.

Peace...

"the facts haven't been totally revealed and to be definitive at this point is just as bad as being dismissive...thus the "alleged" fits for the meantime. History will remove that label when the full scope of this scandal is revealed...and that could take months and even years. So until there's an indictment, trial and conviction, it is still "alleged"...when there's some justice here, then the label can and must be removed."

The word "alleged", IMO is not being used in the context of "it is alleged that the Marines committed these war crimes"
It sounds like to me that it is being used in the context of, "an investigation continues into the alleged incident at Haditha"

In other words, there's doubt as to whether or not the atrocities occurred at all! Every time I hear the crimes at Haditha discussed in the Corporate Media blackhole, the word is used ad nauseum not to dispute whether or not the Marines intentionally killed those poor people, but if it happened at all. At least, that's the evil little brain seed they're trying to plant into the American people and the world at large, save the dumbfounded dipshits that you speak of who'll support Bush even if it's revealed he fucked a monkey in the Oval Office while Rummy spanked him and Condi videotaped it all.

Peace.

I'm can understand why you believe the use of "alleged" is an attempt by the corporate media to make it seem like either the Haditha massascre didn't happen or dismiss or diminish the scale of the atrocities that occured in that town, but neither you nor I were there and all we're going by are pictures that are sickening and mounting evidence that is damning for the Marines involved. While I wish this whole ugly invasion and occupation hadn't occured and this specific incident didn't happen, it's looking more and more as though it did...but to definitively at this point who did what and how it occured has to be kept in the realm of "developing" or alleged and from my interpretation...at least from the CNN and BBC reporting that I've seen, I don't think they're trying to whitewash or minimalize the role of the Marines in this sorrid story, but that everything they're reporting is still not proven thus they're covering their butts in a proper journalistic fashion (amazing as that might seem) and to leave room for other scenarios to play out. Again, this doesn't mean I don't think this massacre happened or that Marines went wild in the town. As I've stated in other posts...and other posters have observed as well...the stress on American forces are tremendous and this massacre was the result of the extended stays, lack of an "end game" and continued quagmire that is Iraq today.

I haven't seen Faux's coverage...but if they're not only allowing O'Liely to slander the memory of massacred American troops in WWII and then whitewashed it from the transcript...THERE you and I are in total agreement. Any use of the word "alleged" there surely is to attempt to clear the military...and specifically the inept and corrupt boooosh regime from any responsibility or even knowledge of this mass murder. The kool-aid drinkers not only want to drink this spin, they need to or the entire "moral" compass they use (as fucked up as it is) would go into spasms. They're not looking for the truth but joining in on the cover-up...and then distorting the scope of what happened. This game can only go on so long...but even if there are trials and convictions, just like in My Lai, the hard-core wingnuts will never believed this happen and will have their own narrative...a postcard from the parallel universe if you will.

By now anyone who still supports this regime are beyond reaching and to be give heed to what they say only gives it credibility...which is also what Faux and the Rove machine wants to believe and the kool-aid drinkers will never, ever admit it occured as in their disconnect with reality is so complete it should be used to point out how corrupt and morally bankrupt these people are.

Peace

He was strongly criticizing Murtha a few days ago for saying it was a war crime.

Honor the Deaths of Innocents at Haditha and Abu Sifa

...while Hackett does not.

Murtha wasn't shooting off his mouth, he got that info from someone in uniform who had it in their inbox and likely gave it to him knowing what he'd do with it.

Hackett is defending a guy who is associated with the crimes, not in terms of being present or doing the deeds, as I understand it, but covering up the true nature of the incident(s).

Hackett made two key mistakes--he took on a guy who is in a position to actually KNOW the facts, based on his long relationships with senior military leaders, and in an effort to zealously advocate for his client, he shot off HIS mouth. Instead of shooting the messenger, he shot himself in the foot.

He can overcome if he apologizes. But he'd better do it quickly.

colours now...and I'm seeing red.

It is just sour grapes, but I must say I was surprised to hear his venom against Murtha. Murtha is an informed, respected man who has spoken the truth in the wilderness.

I would not support him again and I had donated to him. No more.

a good "talking to"

He's out for himself only and will advance his cause no matter who it may harm.

Anyone who thinks he's a Democrat needs to take a closer look at him.

like 'bro's before ho's' as in, you defend each other to the bitter end, no matter what.

Now I think it's beyond personal, dangerously political, blatantly partisan, and sickeningly selfish.

fuck hackett.

three irrefutable Repuke-kissing references for them to even admit that it might be true . . .

Here's video of Paul Hackett's appearance on Hardball today.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

He and some military officer were claiming that the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah was justified and that very few women and children were killed. Shit! I thought I'd tuned into some right wing puke fest. I'm glad that jackass cut and run from the Senate race.

and hackett is showing his true colours each day while he proves what an asshole he is...

I'm seein' red.

Using white phos. in fallujia was a war crime.


I'm not sure if Hackett's behaviour is that military "stick with your brothers no matter what" or he's just a puke.

He believes in "innocent until proven guilty" -- just like most normal Americans.

but he's not the issue here. and neither is "innocent until proven guilty"

because that's not what they're sayin'.

If you listen carefully, they're saying, "This alleged incident" or "Downplaying the alleged Haditha massacre"

"Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki denounced the alleged killings"

"White House Promises Full Disclosure Of Alleged Haditha Massacre "

"after the news broke about the alleged Haditha killings. ..."


GOOGLE.COM search for "ALLEGED HADITHA"

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,970,000 for alleged haditha. (0.18 seconds)

Sounds to me like they're sayin' it didn't. even. happen.

And they're going out of their way to say it like that. 2 million hits in a week?


There's nothing "alleged" about this. Those people are dead. And for the record, I hold dear in my heart our legal system works on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but if those marines did nothing wrong, why the coverup? What of the Iraqi videotape that proves those marines are nothing but goddamn liars saying that those people died in an explosion when the tape clearly shows they were shot at point blank range with the same rounds that only the Marines use?

like most war crimes, people in the military can usually justify them -- and most who participated in the actions must justify them to keep their sanity.

Example: White phosphorus in Fallujah. White phosphorus is "acceptable" in war if NOT aimed at people -- if it is used to 'light up' an area at night. If aimed at an empty field it lights up the area and is not a crime.

The problem is that civilians in Fallujah had white phosphorus burns.

Hackett will argue that this happened because the Iraqi civilians were some place the US troops did not expect them to be.

If US troops aimed white phosphorus at civilians as a weapon then that is a war crime.

And we are stuck again with the following: How do we know the US troops' intention?

US troops have used a chemical cousin of napalm in Iraq. A quote below keeps the waters murky - the napalm hit Iraqi soldiers that the US troops did not expect to be on a bridge. So it sounds like it was not a war crime. Then again - the quote also indicates that "the generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect." So do the generals love the big psychological effect of deforestation (in the desert - maybe olive trees)? Or do the generals love the big psychological effect of Iraqis seeing other Iraqis whose skin has melted off because of the napalm?

"... was told grisly accounts of Iraqi mothers killed in front of their sons, brothers in front of sisters, all at the hands of American soldiers. He also heard allegations of wholesale rape of civilians, by both American and Iraqi troops. Manning said he heard numerous reports of the second siege of Falluja that described American forces deploying - in violation of international treaties - napalm, chemical weapons, phosphorous bombs, and 'bunker-busting' shells laced with depleted uranium. Use of any of these against civilians is a violation of international law."(Nick Welsh, 'Diving into Fallujah,' Santa Barbara Independent, March 17, 2005, )

No matter what the reason, no matter what the explanation, they're still war crimes.

'explanation' -- which, of course, is radically different from what Welsh is saying. I don't know whether Hackett was at the first or second seige of Fallujah, but I do know that not every soldier knows what is happening in all areas of the 'battle' -- and those who don't see the worst will be likely to make excuses.

I did just watch part of the World Tribunal on Iraq today (online) and an eyewitness at the tribunal testified that after the second seige of Fallujah, the US soldiers distributed fliers telling civilians not to eat or drink anything in the city - which obviously suggests that illegal weapons were used.

:( :( :( :(

I, personally, am terrified of the long-term repercussions of the use of depleted uranium. :scared:

Iraq Rejects US Probe Clearing Troops of Killings
by Mariam Karouny and Fredrik Dahl

“It said troops had been fired on as they raided a house to arrest an al Qaeda suspect. They returned fire and called in air support, which destroyed the building, killing one militant and resulting in "up to nine collateral deaths".
The military had previously said one guerrilla, two women and a child were killed in the March 15 raid in Ishaqi, 60 miles north of Baghdad.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0603-05.htm

The time may soon arrive when the Iraq Govt. demands that the US quit the Occupation of Iraq.

Dollars to Donuts that the Bushies are hoping and praying that the Iraqi govnt. throws us out. Then we can't be blamed for the additional chaos that results from the chaos we began.

that's how long the Depleted Uranium we're using will be radioactive.

http://www.criticalconcern.com/depleted_uranium.htm

What is depleted uranium? Natural uranium ore from the mine goes through an enrichment process designed to separate uranium 235 (U-235), the isotope used for nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors, from uranium 238 (U-238), a low-level radioactive by-product. The highly radioactive isotope U-235 accounts for less than 1% of mined uranium; nearly all the rest is U-238.
The vast quantity of highly toxic metal (U-238) generated by this process is called "depleted uranium" or "DU." DU emits primarily alpha radiation, and its half-life is thought to be about the age of the Earth, or 4.5 billion years. DU is approximately 2.5 times denser than iron and 1.7 times denser than lead. This high specific gravity means that, as a projectile fired from a tank or aircraft, it carries enough kinetic energy to blast through the tough armor of a tank. Furthermore, the impact of this penetration generates extreme heat. DU is pyrophoric, meaning that it burns on impact and can set the target on fire. DU is easy to process and endless quantities can be obtained free from the Department of Energy (DOE), which controls DU and considers its use in munitions to be "utilization of waste material." Retrieved 08/11/04 http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/special/index2.html

As U-238 breaks down, an ongoing process, it creates protactinium-234, which radiates potent beta particles that may cause cancer as well as mutations in body cells that could lead to birth defects.

When a depleted uranium round hits a hard target, as much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn on impact, creating a firestorm of depleted uranium particles. The toxic residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine insoluble uranium dust that can be spread by the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body and absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain. Once in the soil, it can pollute the environment and create up to a hundredfold increase in uranium levels in ground water, according to the U.N. Environmental Program. Retrieved 08/12/04 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/iraq2002/133581_du04.html

The United States military has never confronted an opponent that used depleted uranium. Most exposure to American military personnel has been a result of fire from their own forces. MATTHEW L. WALD The New York Times Oct 19, 2004<\b>

That was the first I ever heard about it.

He was adamently opposed to the Bosnian action and got into many arguments with his callers about it.

He claimed the bombings of Serbia was spreading depleted uranium in eastern Europe that would last for centuries; he wondered why the European countries weren't protesting.

Especially the young turks they stick behind them guns. You would know they look at them as toys and or much worse. Happiness awaits those who believe ignorance is bliss

a tree...

Too much pedal to the metal with bad brakes (or even breaks)...we all know what happens next.

Take a chill pill, Paul. You need some r&r, bubba.

Considering what he said about Murtha, I'd say Hackett ain't fit to carry that brave man's shoes.

Loudmouth asshole.

Julie

eating for the forseeable future

I'm still wondering if Hackett's remarks are driven by some sort of fraternal code like "bros before ho's" or some other immature asinine thing, or if he's been warned not to jump on that horse by the admin/

I'm leaning towards the frat boy bullshit