Preaching to the converted

Michael Reagan, son of the late former President, has an important piece today on the truth about the Haditha "massacre". He tells the story of how a Time magazine article and the rantings of Democratic Rep. John Murtha (PA-12) - a man who once responded to a bribe offer by saying "maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't" but who is also a decorated Marine veteran who volunteered for Vietnam - led to what now appears to be the unwarranted prosecution of six Marines, five of whom have been exonerated to date.

This is an article that people who automatically assume the worst about our military, those for whom Haditha instantly became our generation's My Lai though the facts had not yet fully emerged, ought to read. This is especially an article that moderates and those without knowledge of or an opinion on the issue ought to read. It's so important that the truth get out, and I commend Reagan for telling it.

So what does he title it? "Haditha: The Collapse of a Liberal Fiction". Why?

I get it - most of the people playing jury before the investigation was complete were on the left - Murtha, Kennedy, Huffington. I get that there's a disturbing amount of reflexive America-hating on the left, and that it may even be more pervasive than the jingoism found on the far right. And I also feel outrage when courageous Marines are slandered. But are all liberals knee-jerk military-bashers? Are they all America-haters? How about the centrists? How about moderate conservatives (like me) - do we all assume the worst about our liberal fellow citizens?

They aren't, and we don't. But by holding every self-identified liberal responsible for the fiction of Haditha, all Reagan (or his editor, whoever came up with the headline) does is alienate the very people who need most to hear what he has to say. By implying that a whole wing of the political spectrum has been colluding to pull one over on the rest of us, he instantly loses credibility with all the moderates who say, "ah forget it, he's just another wing warrior." Those (like me) who came across it at RCP will just skip to the next article (I think), and his crucial message will not be heard.

Of course, none of that is entirely true. Wing warriors on the right, who likely make up the bulk of the readership of Human Events ("Leading the Conservative Movement Since 1944"), will read it. And that's the point, isn't it. To some, it seems, it's more important to bring the converted to a righteous fervor than to bring the uninitiated (in this particular controversy) into enlightenment.