Sunday, May 28, 2006


Murtha--The Reason to Let the Investigation Finish

I admit that I am biased about the so called marine massacre last November in Haditha, Iraq. There are so many good soldiers and marines out there, it's difficult for me to believe that these guys shot women and children in cold blood. But I'm willing to wait and see what the investigation turns up.

Representative Murtha (D-PA) wants to talk about it now. But he at the very least is unable to articulate the facts clearly and accurately. Here is what he said May 17, 2006, with Chris Matthews:

..they tried to say it was an IED, there was no IED involved in this.

Here is what he said today with Chris Wallace George Stephanopoulos (my bad):

An IED went off... (Link to transcript will be provided in update).

Is he talking about different things? Is he merely sloppy wrong about that detail? If so is that the only detail he has contradicted himself on? If he is wrong on a detail here and there, how can we trust his ultimate conclusion?

UPDATE: ABC is not into transcripts, but will play you the video recording of any particular section of This Week on demand.

Rep. Murtha (D-PA) said "There was an IED went off..." and later "An IED exploded..." I still see a contradiction, but perhaps the context of his first comments on Matthew's show makes it a rational distinction. I doubt it, but it's possible.

Is it really that hard to believe that out of 135,000 a few guys might lose it once in a while?

I agree that our servicemen are the best in the world and these types of incidents are likely to happen less with U.S. servicemen than any others.

However, these types of things are bound to happen in war. The soldiers should be punished (if found guilty) so that their actions do not reflect on the unit as a whole. But to assume that it will never happen becuase "There are so many good soldiers and marines out there," is a bit nieve.

Here is a little 602 for you, if you are interested.
The Zulus used to have a lengthy purification ritual for any warrior that killed someone in battle. If they didn't get the ritual, the Zulus were worried that the warrior would go crazy. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Did we dwell our exception criminals in WWII or was The Dirty Dozen the first glimps you had that our troops even committed crimes during that war?
Back then we ignored the problem.

Plenty of guys came back hooked on heroin, or just "different." Some guys sucked it up and learned to live with it, others left a trail of destruction in their wake.

I like the idea of a purification ritual. At the very least, don't you think guys should at least get a brief counceling, before we expect them to assimilate back into a country where pissing is a crime? I mean, it has to be a pretty big leap.

At least in WWII, they had that long boat ride to decompress. Now, these guys are in combat and a couple of days later they are in Bakersfield.

It is weird enough for me just coming back from Prague. I'm used to it now, but the first time was really tough. I can't begin to imagine what some of these guys, who have never even been to a foreign country before this, go through when they get back.

Talk about culture shock. Wow.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?