Murtha's Mistake-Slandering the Marine Corps

The Weekly Standard ^ | 11-23-07 | Christian Lowe

[smoothsailing]

Murtha's Mistake

Slandering the Marine Corps.

by Christian Lowe

11/23/2007

ON MAY 17, 2006, outspoken Bush critic and erstwhile Iraq war opponent John Murtha (D-Pa.) shocked the world with a dramatic revelation.

At a news conference he'd convened to talk about "the situation in Iraq," the formerly pro-military lawmaker dropped a bomb on the Marine Corps when he revealed in his 24 minute presser that troops with Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment had mowed down innocent civilians in a previously unknown town in north western Iraq called Haditha.

In stark language he accused the Corps of a massive cover-up and made the case that the Marines ran amok in a war with no direction. More shockingly, and without any corroborating evidence, he called the Marines involved in the bloody ambush and ensuing firefight cold-blooded killers.

"We had an incident in Haditha where a Marine was killed by an IED. Time magazine reported it and it's kind of a puzzling report because they're investigating it right now. But let me tell you what the consequences of this have been. It's much worse than has been reported in Time magazine," Murtha said at the press conference. "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Murtha was one of a reported handful of lawmakers briefed in confidence on the incident by then Marine Commandant Gen. Mike Hagee earlier that month.

"That's what the report is going to tell," Murtha added. "Now you can imagine the impact this is going to have on those troops for the rest of their lives and on the United States in our war, in our effort, trying to win the hearts and minds."

Not to mention the impact of Murtha's disclosure on the lives of those Marines and on U.S. foreign policy before any official findings or formal charges had been brought in the incident.

The accusation led to a firestorm of recriminations, prompting high-level investigations in Iraq, a Naval Criminal Investigative Service probe, and a trip to Capitol Hill by Hagee to brief more curious lawmakers caught off guard by the scandalous charge.

Rather than take Murtha's bait and reflexively admit guilt in the scandal, the Corps opted for a more deliberate approach by methodically investigating the incident, compiling both sides of the story--Iraqi and American--and finally arriving at criminal charges against eight key players in the incident.

For those of you who might need a refresher, here's the basic outline:

During a late night patrol in Haditha in November of 2005, a squad of Marines was ambushed by a roadside bomb that killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas. The Marines claimed they were then engaged by insurgents hiding in some houses adjacent to the bomb, so they stormed the buildings to clear them of enemy gunmen. When the dust settled, 24 Iraqis lay dead, including several women and children. An Iraq civil rights group, working with Time magazine, claimed the Marines overreacted and wantonly slaughtered the civilians.

From the outside, things didn't look good for the Corps.

But the subsequent investigation found the Marines acted within the rules of engagement--clearing the rooms "by fire" instead of waiting to be shot at when they entered. This is a controversial practice for sure--throwing a grenade in the room before you know who's in there can have tragic results, as this incident did. But it's important to recognize that Haditha was a perilous place in those days, and Marines had already learned the hard way in Fallujah that opening a door in a house from which you've received fire could mean an up close and personal encounter with the barrel of an AK-47. This time, they weren't taking any chances.

That's why over the last several months, a military court in California has dismissed charges against four of the seven Marines and one Navy corpsman charged in the incident. One officer, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani who commanded 3/1, was ordered to trial for dereliction of duty for not reporting the incident and violation of a lawful order. Another officer, a 1st lieutenant who commanded the intelligence cell that responded to the scene after the shootout, has just begun his Article 32 hearing--the military equivalent of a grand jury investigation.

Two other officers have had their charges thrown out.

So far, one enlisted Marine and the corpsman involved in the incident have had their charges erased, and a third, squad leader Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, is still awaiting a decision on whether his case merits a trial--though an officer involved in the Article 32 hearings has suggested he face seven charges of negligent manslaughter, rather than 17 murder charges.

One enlisted man has been ordered to trial on two counts of involuntary manslaughter.

So has John Murtha, a decorated former Marine himself, apologized for a very public display of contempt for the then uncharged Marines? When confronted with the current state of affairs and asked at a Nov. 20 press conference whether he stood by his May 2006 claim that these Marines were cold-blooded killers, he refused to comment, first hiding behind the excuse that the case was still in the courts. When pressed that four of the accused had been exonerated already, he continued his silence.

Of course, that didn't stop him back in May 2006, just months before the congressional elections that flipped the House and Senate on an anti-war platform, from making accusations that proved untrue.

One has to wonder whether the Vietnam veteran will be held to account for his earlier rhetoric. Certainly, at the very least, he owes the innocent Marines he accused of cold-blooded murder an apology.

Christian Lowe is managing editor of Military.com and is a contributing writer to THE DAILY STANDARD.

© Copyright 2007, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

[freema]

Oops.

Actually, it is not an appropriate term to use when one refers to Marines, xzins.

Marine is the first, middle, and last name.

[freema]

Good on ya, smooth, thanks : )

[xzins]

actually it is appropriate, freema.

It is similar to using the word “soldiering.” It is the generic term for any military member whether army, navy, af, or marine.

To say that Gen Mathis can soldier with the best of them is entirely appropriate.

[xzins]

The appropriate term to use when the name and rank of a member of the armed service is not known is:

soldier

[Lancey Howard]

You may technically be correct but in the real world, Marines should never be called soldiers any more than soldiers should be called sailors or Democrats called Americans.

[smoothsailing]

Always, my darlin'! ;-)

[smoothsailing]

Well, let's just see...

A soldier is a member of a nation's military. The word "soldier" specifically refers to members of the army who are without officer's commission. In most armies of the world, soldiers who are not officers can work their way through the ranks to obtain a commission. A soldier who no longer serves in the armed forces is often called a veteran, a term which can also apply to a long-serving or experienced soldier who is still in the army. In the United States soldiers are identified as those serving or once served in the United States Army.

Granted, Wikipedia is not always a reliable source, but I also checked this in other on-line and off-line dictionaries. Soldiers are most often associated with an army, especially in the US of A.

Xzins, I am a soldier, as are you.

Xzins, I know you are our fine Chappy, and I honor you as such.

However, a Marine is not a soldier, a Marine is a Marine.

Need I say more, Chappy?

[freema]

Unless that person is a Marine ; )

Don’t make me break out that Marine Chaplin conversation LOL!

[freema]

Charlie Company.

as in Chaplin.

: )

Chaplain

[chesty_puller]

I was in the US Army and the US Marine Corps so I was a Soldier, but I am still a Marine. Confusing ain’t it?

[ken21]

i heard murtha avoiding an apology

on hannity.

murtha ought to be out of the u.s. congress.

[smoothsailing]

I was in the US Army and the US Marine Corps so I was a Soldier, but I am still a Marine. Confusing ain’t it?

Confusing ain't it?

Nah, not to me, at least.

I was an enlisted man and later an officer, we were called mustangs. All said and done, I always thought being an enlisted man was a better deal. Are you confused by that? I doubt it.

So, Semper Fi, grunt. LOL!!!!

[freema]

Just for shats and giggles, I went into the kitchen and posed the question, “Are you called a soldier, if you’re a Mar...”. Didn’t even get it all out.

Brother answered, “NEVER.” Hubby looked at me like I had three eyes. That could’ve been the beer, though. ; )

That was the shats part.

The giggles part was, “I am ashamed you are even asking that question.”

So, of course, I told the dumbarse I knew the answer, I just wanted to see his response. LOL!

xzins, it’s a Marine thing.
I don’t question it, and I don’t correct it.

[freema]

Did you hear it in the last few days? I’m not finding a bit o’ reporting on the question being raised at this press conference on the 20th.

[smoothsailing]

Chappy should be able to figure it out.

I just guess I'm lucky 'cause I've known better for a damn long time! LOL!

[smoothsailing]

This thread needs graphics....

Let me start it off...

[Mogollon]

John Murtha, a decorated former Marine himself,

I thought he was a supply officer...how did he get a decoration?

[usmcobra]

The appropriate term to use when the name and rank of a member of the armed service is not known is: soldier

I know a few sailors that might take offense at that.

[freema]

Yeah, they’re real funny that way.

The hair on the back of my brother’s neck stood up. And he brought himself up straight as I tried to utter the last few words.

His two oldest boys had a little disagreement the other night out in the garage. They are both as big as bulls. He got in the middle to calm things down a bit. He wasn’t making progress fast enough for me. I got a bit mad myself and hit the garage door button. Nobody was amused but me. LOL! Later, I heard my mom remind him to plug the garage door back in. LOLOL!

[freema]

Party is on!!!!!!

Shuffling Earmarks
Posted by: John Campbell at 11:34 AM
Recently, President Bush requested $196 billion to fund troops in Iraq, but so far the Democratic Leadership has been mired in disagreement on how or if those funds will be appropriated.

Earlier this week, Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jim DeMint (R-SC), and John McCain (R-AZ) called on Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to divert earmarks in the defense spending bill and transfer those funds to the troops in Iraq if necessary. The defense spending bill contains roughly 2,000 earmarks worth approximately $5 billion.

There is substantial disagreement over these funds; however the diversion of these funds is one way of closing the gap. The redirection of funds from earmarked projects could require permission from Congress, and it is a safe bet that Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) would not let this occur without a fight.

Some of you may remember my exchange with Chairman Murtha about an earmark for a “Microbial paint shield” that the Pentagon never requested. This single earmark is worth $2 million. Rep. Murtha could potentially lose this earmark in addition another $150 million more worth of earmarks if the funds are reassigned.

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/fc4d6305-a357-44b6-a273-d208025a66f1