Haditha

Murtha angry when questioned on pork spending, silent on Haditha

John Murtha not happy

During a FoxNews interview by Rich Lowry of Congressman John Campbell (R-CA) they first played a video of this exchange between the latter and Congressman John Murtha (D-PA):

REP. JOHN MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Our staff went over every one of these earmarks very carefully. And it’s not in our highest priority list, but I’m sure that the military is interested in this kind of research, because it’s so important to the military.

REP. JOHN CAMPBELL (R), CALIFORNIA: If I may inquire further, Mr. Chairman, you said you’re sure the military. So you’re not aware if, in fact, the military has asked for this kind of technology?

I guess the answer to that is no.

What investigations have been done to determine that this technology could actually even be effective? And I’m happy to yield to the gentleman?

MURTHA: We have a $459 billion bill. We look at every one. We attend — we ask the members to vet them. Our staff vets them. We go over every single earmark.

We don’t apologize for them, because we think the members know as much about what goes on in the district and what needs to be done for the Defense Department as the bureaucrats in the Defense Department.

CAMPBELL: Then I’m sure if the gentleman goes over every single one that he can answer the question. What investigations, what research has been done to determine that this technology could be effective and is worth $2 million of taxpayer funds?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Then Lowry and Campbell discussed the exchange:

LOWRY: There was also a great moment. We weren’t able to play in that clip, but where Congressman Murtha says to you, “Well, I don’t know what paint company you represent,” as though every congressman out there must have some paint company he’s trying to funnel congressional earmarks to.

CAMPBELL: I tell you what, that comment told me a lot. He assumed that the reason I didn’t want this money to go to Sherwin Williams Paint is because I want it to go to some paint company in my district.

I mean, I was shocked by the question. And I told him I don’t know of a paint company in my district or anywhere near me. That’s not why I’m questioning this. I’m questioning this because it’s $2 million that appears to me to be going to something that the Defense Department doesn’t want — technology we haven’t proven that hasn’t been shopped. We don’t know if this is the right supplier.

And in the end, even if it works, the taxpayer will have to pay for it again to buy it back from Sherwin Williams’ paint. So this is part of what’s driving this culture of spending that’s going on in Washington.

LOWRY: Yes. Also, Congressman, Democrats swept to power in November on the pledge to clean up Washington and to change business as usual. And it’s just been amazing how fast they’ve gone back to defending the old rotten practices.

CAMPBELL: This earmark culture is very much ingrained in D.C. and it has a lot of the problems — I mean, there are members of Congress in jail tonight because of earmarks. There are members of Congress being investigated today because of earmarks.

And yet the process continues and continues. And we spend billions of dollars. And it’s not just the money we spend on the earmarks, but it’s the culture of spending that it creates.

The Philadephia Inquirer weighed in yesterday:

The jury is still out on how serious congressional Democrats are about trimming pork from the federal budget.

When they took control of Congress in January, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and other leaders in her party promised to get tough with earmarks. That’s the name for special spending projects that lawmakers insert steathily into bills to benefit companies and institutions back home. Essentially earmarks are no-bid contracts, and taxpayers foot the bill.

“Transparency has had some effect,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “But it remains to be seen. Certain members have, at best, a thinly veiled contempt for the whole process.”

Chief among that group is Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.), chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee. He snared $163 million in pork-barrel projects, the highest total in Congress. It’s about twice as much as Murtha grabbed last year. Pelosi herself obtained about $63 million in earmarks, most of them for recipients in or near her home base of San Francisco.

Meanwhile, John Murtha remains silent about his defamation of Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt.

The truth about Haditha and John Murtha is seeing a surge

Attacks by insurgents and al Qaeda upon local and U.S. forces in and around Haditha, Iraq, during 2005 were the daily norm. Constant patrolling and repeated large scale operations attempted to wrest control of Haditha and the surrounding Anbar province from the enemy. An online search using ‘Haditha’ and ‘2005’ as the keywords reveals literally hundreds of reports of the combat actions that took place there. I will cite but a few. In April, 20 Iraqi soldiers in civilian cloths were abducted from a vehicle and taken to the Haditha soccer stadium and shot. In August, six Marines were killed near Haditha by enemy small-arms fire while conducting dismounted operations. Again in August, fourteen Marines were killed when their troop carrier was blown up by a huge roadside bomb in the western town of Haditha. In October, CNN reported forces found, “a sizable weapons cache hidden in a shrine and yard adjacent to a mosque in east-central Haditha, close to the Euphrates River, and continued to uncover deadly buried roadside bombs. The city itself is almost literally an improvised explosive device (IED) field.”

Then in the fall of 2005 came ‘Kilo’ Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, of the 2nd Marine Division, to Haditha. Among those ranks were Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas, Lance Corporal Stephen Tatum, and Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt.

On November 17, 2005, Congressman John P. Murtha (D-PA) first called for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from Iraq.

Two days later, in Haditha, Iraq, an IED attack took the life of LCpl Miguel Terrazas and wounded two other Marines. In the immediate aftermath, while attempting to locate and engage the enemy in nearby houses, the squad led by SSgt Wuterich came under some level of small arms fire, a white car with five men inside drove up near them, and they were confronted by at least two armed locals dressed in civilian attire. When it was over, the five men from the white car and eighteen additional civilian men, women, and children inside the darkened interiors of four nearby houses were dead. One armed man was shot after he ran from a house the Marines had just cleared.

The Marines took the bodies of the twenty-four to an Iraqi hospital. Primarily to gather intelligence, a Marine exploitation team searched and filmed the area of the attack, to include the interiors and exteriors of the four houses, and the bodies of the dead civilians.

On May 17, 2006, the 6-month anniversary of his calling for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, Congressman Murtha held a news conference about the war. There, before the preliminary investigation of the incident was completed, he used the occasion to state the Marines in Haditha had, “killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” denying them the presumption of innocence.

Three weeks latter, in an article entitled ‘The Ghosts Of Haditha,’ Time magazine writers Tim McGirk, Michael Duffy, and Aparism Ghosh breathlessly wrote, “Once again, the Bush Administration finds itself on the defensive about a war that is now entering its 40th unrelenting month. What happened in Haditha has the makings of one of those turning points in a military operation.” That sounded like wishful thinking by them to me.

Earlier, on March 19, 2006, Tim McGirk filed a report entitled ‘Collateral Damage or Civilian Massacre in Haditha?’ where he largely cited the accusations of cold blooded murder made by local civilians. Within his report, McGirk relied heavily upon a video:

A day after the incident, a Haditha journalism student videotaped the scene at the local morgue and at the homes where the killings had occurred. The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, and has been shared with TIME. The tape makes for grisly viewing. It shows that many of the victims, especially the women and children, were still in their nightclothes when they died. The scenes from inside the houses show that the walls and ceilings are pockmarked with shrapnel and bullet holes as well as the telltale spray of blood. But the video does not reveal the presence of any bullet holes on the outside of the houses, which may cast doubt on the Marines’ contention that after the IED exploded, the Marines and the insurgents engaged in a fierce gunfight.

In an Investor’s Business Daily editorial yesterday, the editors wrote:

The charges against Sharratt and his Haditha comrades were spawned by a fallacious and dishonest March 27, 2006, Time magazine story that said they were guilty of “massacring innocent civilians.” The story was based on false evidence provided by a known insurgent propagandist.

Time Magazine reporter Tim McGirk had written about how a “budding journalism student” who gave him a video taken after the Marines’ alleged rampage.

Except the student was 43-year-old Taher Thabet al-Hadithi, head of a human rights organization whose only other member was Ali Omar Abrahem el-Mashhadani. The U.S. had watched both for some time, along with other Sunni insurgent sympathizers known to be living in Haditha. Intercepts of their cell phone calls alerted Marines to a possible Haditha ambush.

The facts as revealed clearly demonstrate that the incident was part of a planned ambush by insurgents that used civilians as human shields, and that despite the claims of Rep. Murtha and his media allies, this was not murder but the tragic result of a firefight in which U.S. Marines were honorably defending themselves.

On August 9, 2007, all charges against Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt were dismissed. The investigating officer found that an independent forensic analysis supported Sharratt’s contention that he shot three men, in a darkened room, when he came face to face with one of them holding an AK-47 assault rifle. In addition, the officer found that the forensic evidence available as far back as February 2006 supported the sworn statement made by Sharratt to Naval Criminal Investigators that very same month. The truth is Justin Sharratt is innocent and always was.

Charges against SSgt Wuterich and LCpl Tatum are still pending and all three have incurred huge legal fees. You can read a detailed history of this case and contribute to their defense, if you’d like, by visiting the War Chronical.

Sharratt’s parents, Darryl and Theresa, live in the Congressional district John Murtha represents. Darryl Sharratt called Congressman Murtha’s office 53 times over the course of 14 months before finally the latter returned his call and still he did not apologize.

While last year Congressman Murtha eagerly denied United States Marines the presumption of innocence to further his political goals, he now refuses to comment as the “investigation is ongoing.”

As the Investor’s Business Daily said yesterday, “Now, the truth also is undergoing a surge.”

John Murtha can cut and run but he cannot hide from the truth forever.