Thursday, May 25, 2006

Jack Murtha's Latest Slander

When we last left Congressman Jack Murtha, he was insisting that U.S. Marines had indiscriminately killed Iraqi civilians near Haditha late last year. On Alan Colmes's Fox News Radio show last night, Murtha repeated the claim, comparing the alleged atrocities to U.S. bombing raids in World War II.

Reportedly, a dozen Marines are under investigation for the incident, which happened in November 2005. Murtha insisted that the "truth" (when it comes out) would be much worse than the initial reports. According to NewsMax, Colmes asked the Pennsylvania Congressman if the episode could be characterized as the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians. Murtha agreed, and likened the incident to American bombing raids during the Second World War.

"In World War II we dropped bombs on all these different countries," he told Colmes. "We killed civilians. In wartime - this is wartime. You're not sitting in an office back here. This is wartime."

There is no doubt that civilians died in U.S. bombing raids during World War II. But Congressman Murtha slanders the thousands of aircrew members who gave their lives in an effort to destroy enemy targets and minimize civilian casualties. Perhaps Mr. Murtha has forgotten, but the American bombing campaign in Europe was built around the concept of daylight, precision bombing. Despite the limitations of 1940s technology, U.S. air planners and bomber crews made every effort to hit their targets and reduce collateral damage. Army Air Corps leaders, including General Hap Arnold and Lieutenant Generals Ira Eaker and Jimmy Doolittle, resisted British calls to halt daylight raids, and join the RAF in night-time, area attacks.

Instead, the U.S. continued its daylight campaign until the end of the war, and many crew members paid the ultimate price, trying to hit precise targets with bombs from their B-17s and B-24s. Professional photographer (and aviation buff) Tom Philo has put together some interesting data on U.S. bombers losses in Europe during World War II. On particularly bloody raids (Schweinfurt and Ploesti), U.S. bomber groups lost more than 50 aircraft, each carrying a crew of 10 men.

Critics will argue that the U.S. still engaged in the deliberate targeting of civilians, during the infamous raids on Dresden, Germany in early 1945 and the B-29 fire-bombing campaign against Japan. However, those claims fail to ignore important facts: namely, (in Dresden) the bulk of the damage was inflicted by the initial RAF raid, and beyond that, there were valid military reasons for targeting the city's rail yards, the primary target for U.s. and British bombers. Against Japan, night raids (using incendiary bombs) began after daylight, high-altitude attacks failed to produce desired results. This failure was partly due to technical problems with the new B-29s, effects of the jet stream (which blew bombers and their munitions off-course), the long distance between Japan and U.S. bomber bases on Guam, and the density of Japanese cities, where civilian, military and industrial targets were typically interspersed.

With his latest defamatory comments, Jack Murtha has achieved a new low (even by his standards) and owes an apology to everyone who served as a U.S. bomber crew member in World War II. That list includes some former Democratic colleagues, namely Senator George McGovern and the late Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen. I'm sure that Senator McGovern would be surprised to learn that he did nothing more than kill civilians during his 35 combat missions as a World War II B-24 pilot.


crosspatch said...

Murtha is in a panic. He has to keep making these statements in order to keep the spotlight off his ethics problems vis a vis KSA Consulting. The more outlandish his anti-war comments, the more he becomes the darling of the agenda of the outlets who would dig into the KSA story. Doing so would cause damage to the agenda of most media outlets so they leave him alone. He is running out of new material so he is having to dig up things from the past. Expect it to continue until Diana Irey replaces him in Congress this fall.

His comments are not winning him votes in his own district. He has rightly read the agenda of the major media outlets and is simply advancing that agenda in order to stay out of hot water until the elections when he knows he will be defeated. At least this latest batch of comments should pretty much seal his defeat.

Repack Rider said...

Is it time yet for the chickenhawks unworthy to lick the sweat off Murtha's jock to offer him an apology, now that he has turned out to be right?

As a veteran, I can tell you that when the military investigates itself, whatever they tell you, it is always worse than that. What they told us was bad enough, and remember, this started with a coverup, so there had to be complicity higher in the ranks.

Wanderlust said...

Ok, boys and girls: from the "I served in the Army 34 years ago, so I MUST be an expert on what's going on RIGHT NOW...

(from repack rider's link above, quoted)

If you are reading this, it means that you have clicked on the "Homepage" link from one of my comments on a blog.

Before sending you to the rest of my website, I want you to know that I am a United States Army veteran. I was lucky and emerged without a scratch, because others at the same time sacrificed their lives for what turned out to be a lie in Vietnam.

If you supported the invasion of Iraq, but do not care to sacrifice a minute of your time or pay an extra $1000 a year in taxes to pay for it, if you believed the blatant lies that led us into Iraq, if you never think about brave people whose lives have been ruined or ended by that conflict, if you are able bodied and were born any time after my discharge but do not care to serve, or if you are not capable of service but never gave a thought to the tens of thousands of innocent people killed by that invasion, then please do not disgust me by suggesting that you "support the troops," because you represent everything that is wrong with our country.

Of course, our brave poser "repack" discharged in February 1972.

So, let's see:

* Charles (repack's first name, apparently) gets a letter with the first word being "GREETINGS", and at least doesn't flee to Canada - he serves out his draft enlistment in the United States Army.

* Charles leaves the Army in Feb 1972, just when Nixon begins getting a handle on the conflict, and leadership on the ground begin producing results.

* Then those results get undone by Hanoi Jane, JF'nK, and others who use the power of the press to undermine the war effort.

* Oh, and because Charles is a Veteran, he's obviously also an accomplished Economist.

Now, 34 years AFTER Charles has left the military, he can speak AUTHORITATIVELY on conditions in the ALL VOLUNTEER military now, because, well, he served.

Two comments to you, Charles:

1. Thank you for not fleeing to Canada when you got your call-up letter.

2. For assuming that 34 YEARS LATER, things are the same in the armed forces as they were prior to the end of the Draft, well, GFY.

/shaking head