Yesterday, Diana West had a post on her site about a bill pushed by Republicans to ensure that American troops and support personnel who have been killed or wounded in the United States by terrorists (e.g., murdered in the Fort Hood massacre and the Little Rock recruiting station shootings) would be compensated financially (either themselves or their loved ones) with the same added benefits conferred on those killed and wounded on overseas war theaters are.
So far so good. But the bill has political overtones: The GOP is trying to make the point that the war on terror has come home with the enemy once again hitting us here, and Democrats are resistant to that suggestion. Thus, Diana’s post ended with this passage from a report in the Marine Times:
The addition of the June 1 Little Rock shooting to the amendment was part of a compromise on a provision pushed by Republicans to make a point that the war on terror has hit home. As part of the compromise, the final bill also was narrowed so that casualties of the two shootings are not eligible for a Purple Heart or other combat-related benefits that Republicans had wanted in the bill.
I’ve italicized the last sentence because it has now been removed from the report — see here.
The thrust of Diana’s post was to decry politicking that would deny Purple Hearts to war heroes. After her post appeared, the Marine Times report was altered: The assertion that Democrats had forced a modification that made the Little Rock shootings “ineligible for a Purple Heart” was dropped without any accompanying correction or explanation.
Was it dropped, as one would hope, because the original report was wrong? Or was the original report accurate and edited for some less worthy reason? I don’t know … but I’d sure like to know.