Good News

Good news for both Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt and the US Marine Corps: The AP reports the outcome of the Article 32 investigation surrounding the events in Haditha in November of 2005…the events described by Congressman Murtha as “cold blooded murder” (I paraphrase). The AP:

The government's theory that Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt had executed the three men was "incredible" and relied on contradictory statements by Iraqis, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said in the report, released Tuesday by Sharratt's defense attorneys.

"To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and sets a dangerous precedent that, in my opinion, may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and mission in Iraq," Ware wrote.

On the other hand, just who was it that developed the government’s case, to begin with? I ask because this isn’t the first time an Article 32 inquiry has rejected courts martial for the alleged crime(s) committed at Haditha.

It is the second time an investigating officer has recommended charges not continue to trial in the killings. In the case of Marine lawyer Capt. Randy W. Stone, the investigating officer recommended his dereliction of duty charge be dealt with administratively.

Our efforts to wage a “kinder and gentler” sort of war are admirable, according to Western classical liberal values, less so to jihadists and their sympathizers. And much less so when these “kinder” efforts get in the way of actual…you know…war fighting. Thank GOD for the UCMJ and its processes and procedures that guarantee the rights of the accused. And while I’m at it, thank God for the integrity of the officers charged with examining the facts and making appropriate recommendations, especially in this case. Other wise, Murtha and the media would have strung these Marines up at least a year ago.

Now the question being asked all over the Right side of the blogosphere is: “Will Murtha apologize?” Sure he will…and Satan his-own-self will be distributing pitchers of ice water in Hell around the same time.

Today’s Pic(s): Another ride I lust after, from the same car show I posted a pic from yesterday. This time it’s an early Corvette (1956, I think) done up in a questionable color scheme. Orange? ORANGE? What was GM thinking? And why did people actually buy orange ‘Vettes, when there were other, much more pleasing colors produced that year (the aqua/white combination comes to mind…more colors here)? I suppose it all goes to prove that taste is indeed in one’s mouth…

Amarillo, TX. March, 2004.

Update: I found a '56 Vette brochure and orange wasn't a production color scheme in 1956. So this means this particular car either isn't a 1956 Vette or the owner repainted the car and installed orange seats, mats, etc. That's a lot of work and is a pretty rare occurrence in the Vintage Car game; most owners elect to keep restorations of the sort pictured here "stock." I'm leaning toward the opinion this particular car is a '57...or a '58... Whatever. Orange is still a crappy color IM(not so)HO.