Aw, there it is again!  The Big but.  This time it is none other than that senile congressman from Pennsylvania, John Murtha.  In it, he is accusing some US troops of murder.  But doing so in a way that not only impugns the troops under investigation, but all the troops.  In his own words:

"there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Hmmm.  On the one hand he is saying the troops overreacted because of the pressure on them.  That happens.  Whenever there is fighting with troops, there is the chance of overreacting.  Sometimes, you cannot tell a friendly from an enemy.  It happens in all wars.  It is one of the dirty sides of war and why it should be avoided whenever possible. 

But then he goes on to say "in cold blood".  Websters defines that phrase as follows:

Deliberately, coldly, and dispassionately.

So what is it Murtha?  Did the pressure get to them and they over reacted?  Or did they methodically plan to kill a bunch of civilians.  Looking for the right opportunity to go on a blood fest?

It is not bad enough that these marines committed a crime.  That has yet to be proved, but the Military has indicated the facts point to that scenario.  No, Murtha must impugn the troops by saying they cannot handle the pressure, but that they are still capable of cold premeditated murder.

With support like that, it is a wonder that not all the troops have cracked under the pressure.  Maybe Murtha and his ilk should stop supporting the troops so there would not be as much pressure on them.  Then the accidents would stop.