Twisting What Was Said
I had a commenter ask me about a report in the Washington Post about statements made by Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Specifically:
Forthcoming military investigations into alleged war crimes in Iraq will show that a squad of U.S. Marines killed about 24 Iraqi civilians, including women and children, while on a patrol in Haditha in November — a higher number than first believed — and then gave inaccurate reports on the incident to their commanders, a congressional Republican said yesterday.
Donna wanted to know if Hunter should also be pilloried, as I did earlier to Murtha. The answer is no. Here's why:
A preliminary military investigation completed in March found that on Nov. 19 insurgents attacked a Marine convoy near Haditha in Iraq's violent Anbar province with a roadside bomb, killing Marine Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, 20, of El Paso. It said insurgents then opened fire on the Marines from several locations, and during the battle, eight insurgents and 15 civilians were killed, including women and children.
But earlier this week, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said the incident was "much worse" and had involved no firefight or roadside bomb that killed civilians. "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," said Murtha, who seeks a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Hunter also indicated yesterday that new facts had emerged on the number of civilian deaths and unfolding of events, but said he would not preempt the investigation and say that murders were committed. "I think we're going to see those [deaths] in the neighborhood of 20 or so people," he said. A statement from his committee put the number at "about 24." (emphasis added)
Now, this investigation should have been allowed to continue without anyone saying anything about it publicly. Absolutely nobody should have stated flatly that murders were committed. Murtha did that. Hunter was put in the position of having to respond to Murtha's statements yet still managed to say it in a way that does not presuppose guilt and prejudice the Marine's chances for a fair trial should it come to that.
There is a definite difference in the way the two men handled the issue. Had Hunter said the same things Murtha did, you can bet your bottom dollar I would have been screaming about him, too. It is not partisan. It is completely a rights issue. The other thing that Hunter said is very important:
Hunter strongly disagreed with Murtha's statement that undue stress on the Marines contributed to the killings. "I totally reject that," he said, adding that the actions of a single squad should not reflect negatively on the rest of the troops engaged in Iraq or their mission. "There has been no war in our history in which you didn't have incidents in which people did the wrong thing at one time or another," he said. No one should "tar the honorable service of 922,000 brave Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan with the reported actions of one squad in one city on one morning," he said.
But tarring all the troops is exactly what Murtha is trying to do.
By Truzenzuzex, Sunday, 21 May , 2006 @ 9:18 am
“But tarring all the troops is exactly what Murtha is trying to do.”
That is doubtless that is the result of what he did, but I don’t think that was what he intended. What he was trying to do was to utilize his “credibility” as a former Marine to tar the administration’s handling of the war. He is trying to show that the Bush administration was inept, and that ineptness was responsible for the alleged result.
Murtha is so swept away by his recent fame on the left and infamy on the right that he inserted his own judgment of the facts in order to maximize the political impact of his comments. Some call it “overdramatization”, but I would call it, in a general sense, treasonous. Murtha has harmed our military in general and the Marine Corps in particular just to dig at Bush.
So next time you hear a lib/Dem tell you about the horrors of “collateral damage”, you can agree and point to Murtha as an example of a Marine who doesn’t care what happens as long as he hits the target. Seems the Pelosi/Reid/Murtha wing of the party don’t care how much harm they do to the reputation of our fighting men and women as long as they score points on Bush.
By Blackhawk, Wednesday, 24 May , 2006 @ 12:24 am
They also don’t seem to care about the harm they are doing to the Democratic Party…
By Donna, Wednesday, 24 May , 2006 @ 9:55 am
Thanks for the response to my question about the difference between Murtha and Hunter. Thanks also for being so amazingly certain of motivations and intentions. You are great mind-readers who demonstrate great insight as to why you are pillorying Murtha.
So Hunter said he would not preempt the investigations, but he is using his chairmanship to ‘investigate the investigations’. Hmmm, not being such a great mind-reader, I am baffled by this inconsistency. Perhaps the great mind readers on this site can illuminate Hunter’s intention underlying his holding these hearings.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 24 May , 2006 @ 10:01 am
Well, it is an awesome responsibility to have all these powers and all, but we do the best we can with them.
By Donna, Friday, 26 May , 2006 @ 9:50 am
I originally posted my concern: danger increased for our soldiers in Iraq because of the facts of this Haditha event or because of the perception of the event by Iraqis, such perception holding sway unless refuted by a full investigation.
There’s been a lot of anger at John Murtha for speaking as he did of the Haditha event and there’s been a lot of playing-God interpretations put on his motivations [but different motivations are apparently imputed for others]. Yesterday’s NYT and today’s WAPO have news articles which quote others who, like Murtha, are making declarative statements ahead of a full investigation. Rep. John Kline [R-Minn] said he thought the incident would be regarded as ‘a horrific aberration’ for the Marines. Ret. Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms said, “It will be worse than Abu Ghraib.”
The Congress was briefed on the Haditha event and unfolding investigation by Gen. Michael. W. Hagee, the Marine Commandant, and by Brig. Gen. John Kelly the Corps legislative liaison. Hagee said, as he flew to Iraq to deal personally with this matter, “There is a risk of becoming indifferent to the loss of a human life, as well as bringing dishonor on ourselves.”
Are these newest public statements, now added to those of Murtha and Hunter, making everything worse for our soldiers in Iraq and/or prejudging the accused?
Your answers are important to me, because I cannot abide that we let soldiers risk their lives overseas only to see citizens trash soldiers [retired or not] who speak out to protect the honor of the whole military.
By Gaius, Friday, 26 May , 2006 @ 9:56 am
Nobody should be making declarative statements about this. I ask you to think about how common criminals are treated in the newspapers. Are our soldiers due on iota less consideration?
Allegations are not proof of guilt. If it comes to a court martial, then they must have their rights guarded jealously - just like any other civilian in any criminal proceeding.
Anyone who is stating flat out that people are guilty before a trial are abrogating the accused rights.