Thank God for Rep. Jack Murtha (D, PA)

Thank God for Rep. Jack Murtha (D, PA), decorated Vietnam Veteran. I mean, without Rep. Murtha, Americans may not have ever learned that there is a full scale investigation into allegations that U.S. Marines may have killed civilians in Haditha, Iraq last November. According to my newspaper of fact, the Boston Globe, "Over the last few weeks, investigators from the US Naval Criminal Investigation Services have done a thorough job of interviewing witnesses and collecting other evidence about what happened last November 19 when Marines swept through a neighborhood in Haditha . . . . "

No, Rep. Murtha thinks it's his job to indict the U.S. Marines on national TV.

What are this man's motives? There is a full scale investigation. The investigation can't go away so the results/findings will ultimately be shared. Rep. Murtha was briefed as a member of his House Committee assignments and the first thing he does is find a TV camera to slam the U.S. Marines (of which he retired from). What's his motive? To further reduce the support for this war that he and Sens. John F. Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton voted for? To further reduce the support for this war that he, Sens. John F. Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Edward Kennedy keep voting funding for? To futher reduce the support for this war that he voted against immediately withdrawing the troops from? What is this man's motive?

Again, based on briefings he received in his House capacity, Rep. Murtha sprinted to the TV cameras and booked himself on all the Sunday morning talk shows just to be the first to tell the American people what the Government was doing. Is this supposed to earn him credibility? Who can fall for such garbage? Oh, yes, the liberal media, of course.

My letter to the Globe today:

Editor,

I don't think anyone would argue with these sentences from Wednesday's lead editorial, "If the killings in Haditha were unprovoked . . . the Marines responsible should be prosecuted with the full power of military law. Anyone who tried to cover up a war crime should be held to account as well (Death in Haditha, editorial)." Of course, anyone that committed a crime should be punished.

The presumption of innocence has always been misused in public conversation. The presumption extends as far as the jury box but it certainly ends at the street where the public and the Boston Globe can think whatever they want well before any trial.

The Boston Globe can most definitely end its editorial about Haditha with the following sentence, "Senators need to determine whether the Haditha killings were a shameful anomaly (presumed guilt?), or three years into the occupation, a manifestation of a deep coarsening in the US force (more presumed guilt?)" if that is the position of the newspaper, but I, for one, suggest that this be the one time where the misuse of "presumed innocence" is okay in the public domain and it should extend to the U.S. Marines fighting in Iraq. (End of letter.)