Troop Supporter wrote on Sep 28, 2007 9:28 PM:This is good news!

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 28, 2007 10:05 PM:Judge Collyer asked how far a Congressman can go and still be protected. Easy answer: Apparently far enough to ruin the careers of those who serve and the lives of their families. Apparently far enough to sit by and watch while one's fellow Marines, fellow Americans, are forced to be imprisoned. That's TOO far for ANY Congressman to be allowed to go. This is one Congressman who should Not be protected. The Marines weren't!!!

DH wrote on Sep 29, 2007 7:01 AM:I hope Murtha's feeling good about his actions now! Time for his own brand of justice.

Murtha's mouth wrote on Sep 29, 2007 8:41 AM:Has anyone checked Jack Murtha's mouth to see if Osama Bin Laden is hiding in there? Maybe we should come up with a new definition for those who do harm to our brave military with Anti-American and treasonous statements..."Murtha Mouth".

OldMCRDGunny wrote on Sep 29, 2007 10:24 AM:Murtha is a travesty. Hard to believe that this jerk is a former Marine. Semper Fi.

PhilM wrote on Sep 29, 2007 10:44 AM:Had Murtha made those slanderous remarks on the Floor of the House, or even in his House Office, then maybe he can claim constitutional immunity -- however he made them from his Campaign Office in Johnstown, PA. No way should the 'Speech and Debate' clause cover those types of utterances. IF the courts hold that he IS immune -- then I would hope that the legal teams bring in charges of "Undue Command Influence". Murtha is a direct link between the necessary funding of the Military and Congress. DoD is dancing with a scumbag.

DESERT BUG wrote on Sep 29, 2007 3:06 PM:PhilM's comments are on point and it appears that Judge Collyer is thinking that Murtha should explain his wild and reckless comments. Murtha owes it to the country to name the "un-named soldiers" he has so ruthlessly accused and to spit out every FACT that would validate his irresponsible blather. Get this guy up against the wall and squeeze him until he admits he made it all up for political reasons!!! As for Sergeant Wuterich, he's a hero in my book and a great Marine. It's scandalous and deplorable that he and other Marines have been subjected to this campaign of persecution with trumped up charges as wild and reckless as those mouthed by Murtha.

Lawyer wrote on Sep 29, 2007 3:43 PM:Good luck with a dafamation case. here are some of the things that must be proved to successfully prosecute Defamation: 1) A particular person must be defamed, not a vague "some marine's.." 2) The defamation must be "Malicious", that is intended to hurt the "named" individual. 3)The defamatory remark need not be true. Even if the plaintiff was proved "not guilty", he still needs to prove "maliciousness". Clearly the lawmaker was talking about the war in general and did not name any particular participant. To those above who think that he should have reserved his remarks for Congress, I remind, Congressmen like cops, are on duty ALL the time and all of their remarks are or can be considered part of FREE political discourse in a FREE country! Something that you war mongerers think is just for you. Further, just like OJ was found "not guilty" so were these marines. It does not mean they were innocent, which has an entirely different definition.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 29, 2007 5:40 PM:A particular person "was" defamed. Staff Sgt. Wuterich and 7 others were defamed by Murtha's remarks. The defamation "was" malicious. It was obviously intended to hurt all 8 individuals. Murtha is a retired Marine with full knowledge of the effect it would have on the lives and reputations of these Marines. One other Senator also made remarks but withdrew them when threatened with a lawsuit. Time Magazine admitted that it was Murtha's remarks that spurred them to go farther with their story. Murtha was NOT talking about the war in general. He said "those Marines". If not for him referring to "those Marines" as cold-blooded murderers, "those Marines" might not be paying the big bucks for civilian attornies today. That hurts. As for Free Speech; No! The Congressman made Unlawful comments from UNAUTHORIZED information during an ongoing investigation. He is guilty of Unlawful Command Influence and Abuse of Power as a Congressman. His big mouth "influenced" Media reports, resulting in Courts-martial for "those Marines". Murtha went into detail concerning "those Marines". He named the incident, the town and all particulars that came from UNauthorized information. He is not the only one who should have been investigated. As for use of a "named" individual, we all know how that works AGAINST the accused when the government can't even prove who the accused is accused of killing. Congressmen on duty all the time? Somebody might want to inform them of that. They seem to be unaware.

Pam wrote on Sep 29, 2007 7:14 PM:You go, SSgt. Wuterich!!!!!!!!!!! I hope all of the others follow you. This is the most ridiculous, time consuming thing I have ever heard of. I can't believe he would use Marine in refering to himself. I support you and all others involved and wish you the best of luck.

Are you kidding me!?!? wrote on Sep 29, 2007 9:45 PM:If Murtha goes down, then why not Bush? The claims he made about Iraq sure have proved to be false. I realize he believed them then, and may still believe them now. Should he be tried? Mutha made comments when no one knew all the facts (liek Bush). The facts are known. Did Murtha lie? Just 'cuz some commander exonerates them, does that mean no one was killed? Where's the slander? I don't see it. I'm glad y'all support the troops, rally around the flag and all that, but gawd, wake up!

RockMomma wrote on Sep 30, 2007 9:20 AM:You go SSgt!! I hope Murtha, and those who act as irresponsibly as he has, get the punishment they deserve. They are not untouchable, and should pay for remarks made against the fine people who defend our nation. OOH RAH! We are behind you, SSgt, and all who serve.

TOVR wrote on Sep 30, 2007 9:48 AM:Bush has done worse. What about all those republicans going after Max Kleeland? John Kerry? All defenders of freedom for the USA. Murtha is a man of truth and you republicans can't handle the truth. Why doesn't Murtha do like all the other republicans do and don't show up for their subpeonas? Oh right the democrats are honest the republicans hide behind others.

Truth wrote on Sep 30, 2007 9:51 AM:The truth will come to light once the Republicans our out of office. It will show Bush lied and should be convicted as such, Rumsfield, Cheney and the rest of the gang continue the lies. God is not going to support you with all your lies fellas. Stop attacking those seeking the truth and telling the truth.

Reardon wrote on Sep 30, 2007 11:30 AM:Seeking the truth is a lot different from loud pronouncements that you KNOW the truth! " It will show Bush lied and should be convicted as such, Rumsfield, Cheney and the rest of the gang continue the lies." That is a declarative sentence, not a question!

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 30, 2007 4:57 PM:Truth? You want truth? It 'ain't' the Republicans. Murtha is a Democrat. He's Yours! Keep him. Talk about getting someone out of office. Let's start there with a Congressman who has abused his power. Oh! And when was it that God told you who He was going to support or not support? I'd like to have been in on that conversation.

R U kidding Us? wrote on Sep 30, 2007 5:50 PM:You have got to be kidding! Bush made no false accusations about the troops. You made a comment and provided the answer to it yourself. "Murtha made comments when no one knew all the facts". Wake Up yourself. That's the whole point; the incident was still under investigation. Murtha should have kept his lips from flappin. Did he lie? R U kidding me? Looks like it doesn't it? When one doesn't have the facts but accuses others of something, I do believe there's a wee bit of lyin in there somewhere. THAT is the slander. Men were not exonerated because no one was killed. Men were exonerated because they were INNOCENT. No one can prove otherwise. Gawd! Wake Up!

RU??? wrote on Sep 30, 2007 10:21 PM:So you admit Bush slandered (sp?) Saddam, eh? You still need to wake up. To lie, you are required to have known the truth. Murtha didn't, therefore no lie. Bush knew the truth, yet decided to deceive anyway...a lie. I'm not calling Murtha a hero, far from it. I think what he did was injudicious, unwise, and foolhardy, but it wasn't a lie. I disagree that the men were exonerated becuase they were . Only a fool would believe that. They were exonerated so that morale would not sink lower than it has already. Again, you need to wake up!

RU ?? Clarification wrote on Oct 1, 2007 10:19 AM: The sentence "I disagree that the men were exonerated becuase they were" was missing the word "innocent". Guess I need to wake up and proofread my posts!-

U don't have a clue wrote on Oct 1, 2007 10:37 AM:to RU??? I generally do not respond to such comments on these pages but I have to say this.....You obviously don't know the facts surrounding the Haditha hearings. If you did you would know as a FACT. The charges were dismissed because these marines were doing the job they were trained to do. There was never a question whether women and children were killed or that Iraqis were killed. They did not enter those houses to seek revenge as the prosecution suggests. They went in to save their own lives and the lives of their brother marines. So please educate yourself before making comments about why they were exhonerated.-

RU kidding Us? wrote on Oct 1, 2007 12:00 PM:To RU???: RU referring to me when you make the statement that I (?) admit Bush slandered Saddam? Where did I mention Saddam? I can't find it. Maybe you were sleepwalking. At first you said that Bush' statements were false and that you "realize he believed them".??? So; by your own definition, That is not a lie. Now you say, "Bush knew the truth, yet decided to deceive anyway...a lie". Make up your mind. Pick one and stick with it. While you're at it...Don't twist something that I never even said. Now that takes talent. If, in your own words, you think what Murtha did "was injudicious", WHY are we having this argument? Thanks for at least Waking Up to the FACT that what Murtha did was "injudicious". Also...It was a LIE! As for the reasons for exonerating the Marines; there was NO Proof, NO Evidence, NO Case. Even a "fool", as you call it, should understand that. What's YOUR problem? Better hit the Snooze button; your alarm isn't doing its job. As for leaving out a word; been there and done that.-

Sick of this prolific stupidity wrote on Oct 1, 2007 1:29 PM:Some of you people are unbelievable. I am having a really hard time with your willingness to dismiss the brutality of the ENEMY! These Marines were under attack from insurgents HIDING BEHIND WOMEN AND CHILDREN. Marines are trained to protect themselves and their fellow Marines. They did their jobs according to the ROE. The insurgents are the ones to blame for the women and children who got killed....THEY ARE THE ONES who broght them into the battle. I don't hear any of you addressing that very important factor. Talk about somebody needing to wake up! Take a trip to Iraq yourself, you will find that what I tell you is THE TRUTH!

Sick of this prolific stupidity wrote on Oct 1, 2007 7:00 PM:I forgot to add that Murtha is a disgrace. He is truly an X-MARINE, and should be in an old folks home dealing with his senility. If he has any shred of reality left in his brain, he should use it to apologize to these warriors and to be ashamed of himself!!