...I could care less about 'blog-whoring'. I read Glenn's work regularly, and I only occasionally comment. I don't give a damn if 6,000 or 6 of you come to my blog. Please, for God's sake, people, can't you let go of the ad hominem? I mean, really, already.

I'm not on either side of the civil war. I have well-documented suspicions (oops, am I blog-whoring?) about al-Maliki because he so obviously favors the Shiites and is behold to al-Sadr.

Still, he is the man we have to deal with. I wish he would make more of an effort to forge a true national identity and quit playing the sectarian card.

Of course, the Iraqi government is not taking my calls, so wish in one hand and...well, you know the rest...

Hough is my family name. It's not that common. Nice to see you here. Welcome. Wow :)

You weren't engaging in a debate, Mark, you were having a little sneer at Glenn, and by extension, at the rest of us. If it's a debate you want, perhaps you'd be willing to tell us exactly how many more Friedman Units and thousands of lives and billions of dollars you think it'll take before everything is hunky-dory in Iraq, and the great neoconservative aim of imposing peace and freedom on the benighted Middle East will finally be accomplished.

When, exactly, do you think the Congress should be ordering GWB's laurel wreath and triumph, assuming that we traitors and defeatists can be sneered off the stage in the meanwhile?

Mark, it appears to have escaped your notice -- not terribly surprising considering the thickness of your ideological blinders -- but GWB's adventure in Iraq already has failed. There are still some of you tin megaphones who believe otherwise, but your numbers are diminishing. If I were you, I'd try selling something besides tickets to the victory rally. Girl Scout cookies move pretty well, although you'd probably look a little strange in a green sash.

-- William Timberman

William,

Have you been reading Col. Lang's blog?

...and then I'm leaving (really! Pop the champagne!)...the Friedman Unit is a clever concept.

That's likely to be the only thing we agree on, but hey, it's something...

I read Glenn's work regularly, and I only occasionally comment. I don't give a damn if 6,000 or 6 of you come to my blog. Please, for God's sake, people, can't you let go of the ad hominem? I mean, really, already.

Sweetie, if you had done as you said, then you wouldn't have left the comments you did.

So, you aren't taking a side in the civil war in Iraq. That is a good position to hold. Like the non-partisans in any civil war, what should we do with you?

I raise your with a strawman.

Bet or call, "Mark"

Okay, William...

...I'll mark you down in the 'end the war at all costs, consequences be damned' column.

Duly noted...

I had a feeling that was the kind of response my inquiry would get, I was just testing the waters...

-- Mark Coffey

The war in Iraq ended some time ago. It was a war that was absolutely unecessary and illegal and was prosecuted regardless of cost and damning all consequences. You got your regime change. You don't like the result? Look before you leap next time. The occupation is what is ending. Is it any wonder people here treat you like the blind man in a game of blind man's bluff? The GWOT is not a war. It's a stupid rhetorical device. As observes:

(The good Professor is an expert on the ME and a former Marine. What are your qualifications, Mark, aside from an annoying bark?)

Unfortunately, the American approach to international conflict is the ideological one sketched in the preceding. It has been made clear that George Bush on the one hand rejects the Baker/Hamilton formula and on the other hand this analysis has made it clear that he remains constrained by both the ideological blinkers of the American creed of equality and the ideological blinkers of his certainty of the

“reasonableness” and “harmony” of Enlightenment liberal thought. “Right“ is on his side and this accounts for the fervor of his position.

Bourn by the force of the American creed and by the certainty of Enlightenment assumptions, George Bush is flailing about in the interior of an ideological paper bag, which is partially of his own construction and partially of his uncritical inheritance of conduct conforming to the American and Enlightenment creeds. What is clear is that the discourse of the war on terror is largely that of an American ideological monologue. Bin Laden and al Zuwahiri have learned which of George Bush’s ideological buttons to push

and thus the latter is understandably confused and perhaps intellectually overwhelmed about theological matters of “good “and “evil”. Meanwhile, al Qaida works assiduously to extend its successes beyond the achievements of the forced American evacuation of

Saudi Arabia and the creation of a major military diversion in Iraq.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/02/more_on_ideolog.html

Those who read Glenn's work at Unclaimed Territory may remember the slander lawsuit filed against Rep. John Murtha regarding the war crimes alleged to have occurred at Haditha, Iraq. As background, Glenn commented that SSgt. Wuterich's attorney, Mark Zaid, filed the suit for partisan purposes. (Caveat: This is my recollection of those comments from my memory. These postings are still available at Unclaimed Territory.) As a result of those postings, I initiated correspondence with Mr. Zaid regarding whether his purpose for filing the suit was partisan, as Glenn suggested, or not. As a result of that correspondence, I posted several e-mails from Mr. Zaid in UT's comments to Glenn's posts.

Today, I received the following e-mail from Mr. Zaid. As you can see from the e-mail, he has requested that I (and others) forward this message to others.

Two other things: First, Mr. Zaid's comments and requests are his, not mine. Second, I realize this is off topic, but I have cleared this with Glenn prior to this posting.

Dear Friends, Colleagues and Servicemembers:

Many of you may know that since June 2006, I have served as co-civilian counsel, along with Neal Puckett who is lead counsel (and Of Counsel to my law office), for SSgt Frank Wuterich, USMC. Frank is now facing multiple counts of murder for the events arising from the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians at Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005. He was the squad commander for the 3/1 that tragic day.

This is a highly unusual case for me. Other than the dozen or so military courts-martials I handled back in 1999-2000 dealing with anthrax vaccine refusers, I am not a criminal defense attorney much less a military criminal defense attorney (though I often represent military servicemembers in the civil context in administrative or litigation proceedings against their federal agencies).

Neal brought me in on this case due to the high-profile and sensitive nature of the allegations. This is not a typical military case. It has become highly politicized and, in our opinion, these young Marines are being sacrificed for foreign policy reasons. Indeed, one of the first things Neal and I did after I reviewed the facts of the case known at that time was to initiate, on August 2, 2006, a defamation lawsuit (which has no partisan agenda whatsoever) against Congressman John Murtha for incredibly inappropriate public statements he made that have already been proven by the government's alleged charges to be false. These statements created a further climate that contributed to the public pressures to file charges against our client.

I should point out that the Haditha case has nothing to do with the Hamdania case, which is constantly confused as one and the same. No one has pled guilty, much less confessed, to any crime with respect to Haditha. No one has been confined or shackled. The confusion between the two cases, and other clear examples of criminal conduct in Iraq, has also contributed to the negative - inaccurate - public image of our client and his fellow Marines.

I have reviewed thousands of pages of evidence that few have seen. The deaths of these Iraqi civilians was a terrible tragedy, but it was not a massacre as some in the media have portrayed. And I personally do not believe, based on what I know, that SSgt Wuterich committed a crime that day. War is a terrible thing. Innocent lives are lost. This was not the first time, nor will it be the last. Whenever women, children and the elderly are killed it is natural to want to blame someone. After all, how can it be possible that children are killed and no one is punished? But if the rules of engagement and the laws of war, especially under the circumstances such as existed in Haditha that day, are to mean anything, then SSgt Wuterich is innocent of all charges.

We are set to prove this and defend the law. The Article 32 hearing, which is the initial step within the military system, is scheduled to begin June 4, 2007. There will be a great deal of press, no doubt good and bad, that will appear in the coming months. This case is important enough to me that I am devoting a significant amount of my time to it. There is, in fact, far more at stake than just the eight Marines who have been charged with crimes arising from actions taken that day. What it means to be a U.S. Marine is being challenged. Indeed, the system, and some may even say the War, is on trial.

I wanted to make you aware of a website that has been set up to educate the public about Frank. It provides relevant information about the incident, routinely posts updates on the case and, more importantly, personalizes this young man. I encourage you to take some time and review it.

www.FrankWuterich.com

Moreover, your wide dissemination of this website would be appreciated. Frank needs as many voices in his corner as possible so that justice will be done.

Thanks.

Mark