The Army Times headline is too forgiving. They stick a "may" in there. Murtha says they "may" have killed innocent civilians in cold blood. None of the quotes had any softening language that I noticed.

But yeah, think of all the time, effort and taxpayer money saved he's saved by dispensing with the need for a trial.

It was one of the headline "lead ins" for NBC Nightly News (right after a breathless announcement of a stock market free fall). Brian Williams loves hitting Americans over the head with demoralizing "news".

We can't take this anymore from the national media, their monstrosity is unbearable.

I tried to leave a trackback but got an "unknown error" message...Anyway, I blogged about this issue here.

Trial? Who needs a trial? Everyone knows that if an anti-war "hawk" makes an accusation then it's automatically true.

...and they support the troops, of course. Support any accusation of wrongdoing by said troops, it seems.

This is what happens when you play defense in the propaganda war. You're going to stabbed in the kidneys, and then who you gonna kill?

Clinton kept saying "Can we kill them tomorrow? If we can kill them tomorrow, don't tell me we look weak if we don't kill them today".

Sure. Go defense.

The problem here becomes, the Mil lawyers will sniff blood in the waters, and they're going to throw some Marines under the bus just cause it was on the media. It doesn't matter to them the Marines didn't "leak" it, they're still going to get harsher penalties and more zealous investigations just cause Murtha made it a political matter.

Peter Pace and Rumsfield is annoying precise in not answering questions about on going investigations. They explain it was not wanting to "unduly" color the investigation. The problem is, when Murtha unduly colors the investigation, what the heck is Rumsfield going to do to even the odds?