Wash. Post op-ed page hosted disingenuous attack on Reps. Moran and Murtha
SUMMARY: In an April 13 Washington Post op-ed, Vets for Freedom executive director Wade Zirkle criticized Reps. Jim Moran and John P. Murtha for their treatment of former Sgt. Mark Seavey, who chided the Democratic legislators at a January 5 town hall meeting in Virginia for saying that they "have talked to the troops and the troops are demoralized." Zirkle failed to note, however, that Seavey is one of the co-founders of Zirkle's organization.
In an April 13 Washington Post op-ed, Vets for Freedom executive director Wade Zirkle criticized Reps. Jim Moran (D-VA) and John P. Murtha (D-PA) for their treatment of former Sgt. Mark Seavey -- whom Zirkle described simply as "a former Army sergeant who had recently returned from Afghanistan." Seavey chided the Democratic legislators at a January 5 town hall meeting in Virginia for saying that they "have talked to the troops and the troops are demoralized." According to Zirkle, Seavey's comments "should have elicited something more than silence or a dismissive comment" from Murtha and Moran. Zirkle failed to note, however, that Seavey is one of the co-founders of Vets for Freedom.
According to the Vets for Freedom website, the organization was founded in January 2006 by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who have "become frustrated with the way the operation [Iraqi Freedom] has been politicized and reported to the home front." It purports to "promote the unbiased, nonpartisan truth of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to educate the public and mobilize public support for the Global War on Terror."
Yet Zirkle never once noted Seavey's direct connection to the group, instead describing him as "a veteran injured in Afghanistan," "a former Army sergeant who had recently returned from Afghanistan," and "a constituent and a veteran."
In a March 8 online discussion hosted by washingtonpost.com, Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt lavished praise on his copy editing staff, writing:
Fortunately I have a copy desk chief and three full time copy editors who are terrific at their jobs ... They catch a lot of mistakes before publication. And while sometimes we have plenty of time -- an oped that we accept days before we can use it -- a lot of times they're working on pretty tight deadlines.
Hiatt also noted during that discussion: "I'm ultimately responsible for the factual accuracy of what appears on either the editorial or the oped page. When there's a mistake, sometimes the columnist corrects it in a subsequent column, sometimes we run a correction."
From Zirkle's April 13 Post op-ed:
The tenor of the town meeting was mostly what one might expect, but during the question-and-answer period, a veteran injured in Afghanistan stood up to offer his view. "If I didn't have a herniated disc, I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops," said Mark Seavey, a former Army sergeant who had recently returned from Afghanistan. "I know you keep saying how you have talked to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. The morale of the troops I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back despite the hardships. . . ."
"And, Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just arrived back from Afghanistan -- we never got a letter, we never got a visit from you, you didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got was a letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to, but the morale of the troops is very high."
What was the response? Murtha said nothing, while Moran attempted to move on, no pun intended, stating: "That wasn't in the form of a question, it was a statement."
It was indeed a statement; a statement from both a constituent and a veteran that should have elicited something more than silence or a dismissive comment highlighting a supposed breach of protocol. This exchange, captured on video (it was on C-SPAN), has since been forwarded from base to base in military circles. It has not been well received there, and it only raises the already high level of frustration among military personnel that their opinions are not being heard.
just present a guy as joe average when he is in fact well known to you and part of your organization. another propaganda story by the wapo. credibility sinking faster that the titanic.
Sgt. Mark Seavey took Rep. Jim Moran to task at the January town meeting for not attending his unit's homecoming upon its return from Afghanistan. According to his bio posted on the Vets for Freedom site (and also confirmed elsewhere on the internet), Seavey was a member of the Third Battalion, 116th Infantry, Virginia National Guard, which the VFF site states is based in Woodstock. Other information posted on the internet has its headquarters in nearby Winchester, with companies located in Manassas (A), Woodstock (B), and Leesburg (C). Seavey appears to have been associated with Company C out of Leesburg. At any rate, none of these communites is located in Moran's district, and Leesburg (as well as Winchester, Woodstock, and part of the Manassas area) are in the district of Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA). So while Seavey himself may be a constituent of Moran (Seavey resides in Alexandria), it's a little disingenuous to slam Moran for not being present for local homecomings, when the unit itself is based elsewhere.
Seavey's bio also indicates that he "works for a veteran's organization in Washington." The organization apparently is the American Legion. Documents posted online indicate that Seavey works in legislative affairs there. Incidentally, two years ago that office complained about the way that Rep. Moran treated Legion officials when they visited his office in 2004. Could this past friction provide additional context to Seavey's remarks at the town meeting?
I've noticed that most of the accounts of the Moran/Murtha town meeting that have circulated in the blogosphere include the charge that Moran's response to Sgt. Seavey was merely that "that wasn't in the form of a question, it was a statement." Actually, Moran did return to Seavey's statement moments later after allowing another question from the audience. Here's a transcript of the congressman's remarks. The transcript is mine, based on the broadcast that was available on the C-SPAN site:
…But the gentleman that spoke earlier should have a, uh, deserves a response.
It seems to me that we best support the troops when we make the most responsible decisions as to how their skills, talents, and lives are to be used on behalf of America’s interests. I voted for the use of military authorization in Afghanistan to go after the people who attacked the United States and to complete the job. And more than sufficient resources will be made available if they are requested for Afghanistan. There’s no question about that. I didn’t support the war in Iraq for three principal reasons. One, is that again I didn’t trust the intelligence that there were weapons of mass destruction. It was not verifiable. It wasn’t even current. It was a matter of trust of people who I didn’t feel merited sufficient trust on their own. [Inaudible from audience, very scattered applause]
Now the, uh, this is going to be as comprehensive a response as I can give you. Secondly, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attack on the United States. He never attacked the United States, [scattered applause] and so he was no threat to the United States. There were no terrorists, there were no terrorist operations going on in Iraq. He was a secularist. He was in fact targeted by Osama bin Laden because he was a secularist. He was a brutal dictator, but that may be one of the reasons he was able to hold Iraq together in the same way that Tito was able to hold together the Balkans. So we were not responding to any attack. And thirdly, I concluded in the same way that President Bush the father, the 41st president, concluded on the advice of his military advisors, that you don’t go to war without a plan to win the peace. And Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell, any number of others advised him that if you go into Baghdad, we don’t know how you are going to get out. We don’t know how you’re going to avoid a long-term occupation. We should be welcome liberators and not long-term occupiers.
And for those reasons I didn’t support the war, and while I certainly support the dedication of the troops and will provide whatever is necessary both to protect them and to provide health care for them, far better that they not lose their lives or lose their limbs in a mission that is not justified than to give the kind of predictable support that some others have. It is very difficult to distinguish between support of the troops and support of the war. I support the troops clearly. I appreciate what they’re doing, but I think the best thing I can do is to not put them in harm’s way unless it is clearly in America’s interest. [Long applause.]
... could we know who FUNDS and helped SET UP this advocacy group? Are they like the rightwing think tanks that are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Republican Party under the direction of Karl Rove?
See, this may seem like a rude question, but time and again, we find out that supposedly "objective" people, reporters, organizations, dirty tricksters, and even rowdy MOBS, are in the employ of the Rightwing power brokers.
It's OK for vets to have their opinion, of course ... lord knows the GENERALS are now coming forward telling us how badly Bush has botched this war effort. But if they have an origin and a backing which is purely GOP, we should know that they are not as "unbiased" as the claim to be.
Seavey and Zirkle are entitled to their opinions as are we all. Thank you, RBROWN for posting more information about this incident.
Most people presently or recently serving in Iraq are not going to be admitting, to the media, that their service was in vain, or for a cause that they don't believe in. Most want to believe that they made a contribution to something worthwhile. There have been rumblings that there is a lot of dissent within the ranks. Most will not put a voice to the dissent.
Some of them have got to feel used by the civilians in charge of the military. In the last few weeks at least five former generals have come out against Rumsfeld's leadership.
[link to www.nytimes.com]
Say what you will, there is a problem inside the military. The problem appears to be the civilians in charge. Bush, Cheyney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest of the people in charge have used the military poorly.
In fact, Secretary Rice has been quoted as saying that there were no strategic errors (political errors or errors by the planners of the war ) but thousands of tactical errors (errors in the prosecution of the war by the troops). The words in the parentheses are my interpretation of what I think she was saying. I do know that troops have died or been maimed because of this Neocon philosophy.
I was really struck and saddened by the following quote by Lt. General Greg Newbold (Ret.) in this week's time magazine.
"My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions-or bury the results."
-Lt. General Greg Newbold (Ret.)
When I first moved to Moran's district, I could not understand all the anti-Moran articles in what I then thought was the "liberal" WaPo. Not only did they grossly overreact to minor transgressions or try to make into ethical lapses events that were not, without convincing evidence, they repeatedly insulted his constituency--and a large portion of their paying customer base--as being stupid or unethical for returning him to office. It didn't take long for me to figure out who had an ax to grind. Uh, WaPo--there's one reason why we (who are among the best educated and most consistently Dem. voters in the nation) do that--he represents our interests and votes the way we want him to. Duh!
In spite of Seavey's background, affiliations, etc. he does have the right to speak out. Zirkle also has the right to compose a letter to the Washington Post. Had he written in the letter that Seavey was a contributing member of Vets for Freedom or even mentioned the organization some people would lambaste his letter as simply a self serving promotion of his website. He would be damned if he did and was damned because he didn't. He did not promote the website but the Washington Post did put, at the bottom in italics, the name of the organization.
Should these men automatically be considered biased and evil because they have a webpage? Ten year olds in third world countries now have webpages without funding. His statement concerning the morale of the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq was not addressed in Moran's delayed statement (thanks for the transcription RBrown).
To get the true answer concerning "morale of the troops" it is neccesary to ask the troops and not depend on Murpha whose ponderings are biased.
I'm certain you will get varying answers from each of the individuals. The military at lower levels has always been know for it's ability to grumble but this cannot be equated to overall morale.