When Friendly Fire Comes From Friends (or Doesn't)

Matt Welch | January 18, 2006

Heartbreaking article in today's Washington Post about a pro-Bush family who lost a son in combat, and then received a series of late and confusing reports about his exact cause of death. Excerpt:

Peggy Buryj asked everyone she could to help find out the details of her son's last hours. She even asked President Bush when she and other grieving parents met with him during a campaign stop in hotly contested Ohio. He promised to look into it. Soon afterward, she said, his campaign called and asked her to appear in a commercial for him, but she declined. [...]

Peggy and Amber Buryj believe they were strung along because Jesse's death became a diplomatic embarrassment. Documents obtained by The Washington Post reveal one investigation that was abruptly terminated because of diplomatic concerns, another that was not shared with Polish allies, and delays in the release of official reports about Buryj's death. Those documents were not issued until after Bush was reelected -- with the help of a slim margin in Buryj's home state of Ohio. [...]

The final casualty report was prepared on Nov. 22, 2004, attributing Buryj's death to "hostile action." The death certificate said he died within "minutes" of sustaining the gunshot wound, but it listed the time of death as hours after the incident. The final autopsy report, dated Nov. 24, 2004, attributed the death to friendly fire, but Peggy Buryj didn't receive it until February. She says it was the first indication she had that her son was killed by friendly fire. One other inconsistency: The Army Safety Center officially lists Buryj as having died from U.S. friendly fire, according to an Army spokeswoman, though U.S. investigations rule out gunshots by Americans.

Comments

|1.18.06 @ 4:24PM|#

Why does this "pro-Bush family" hate America?

|1.18.06 @ 4:49PM|#

disgraceful

|1.18.06 @ 4:50PM|#

No surprise.

|1.18.06 @ 5:21PM|#

Um... why mention the family's opinion of Dear Leader? I don't quite see its relavence. Is that meant to say "this is what you get for trusting Shrub!"?

|1.18.06 @ 5:24PM|#

Um... why mention the family's opinion of Dear Leader? I don't quite see its relavence. Is that meant to say "this is what you get for trusting Shrub!"?

Probably to prevent anyone from being able to accuse the family of being partisan sore losers who can't get over that their guy lost

|1.18.06 @ 5:34PM|#

"Why does this 'pro-Bush family' hate America?"

I was actually going to post that exact same line, but then I thought, "No, people will slam me for it...."

|1.18.06 @ 5:34PM|#

"Probably to prevent anyone from being able to accuse the family of being partisan sore losers who can't get over that their guy lost"

You're joking, aren't you? Anyone who would criticize a family who just lost their son as being "sore losers who can't get over that their guy lost" is one sick fuck. And that's just my point: To even bring up this family's
political persuasion is, IMO, rather depraved, to say the least.

|1.18.06 @ 5:39PM|#

Godamnit.

|1.18.06 @ 5:41PM|#

I agree, Andy.

|1.18.06 @ 5:51PM|#

"Anyone who would criticize a family who just lost their son as being 'sore losers who can't get over that their guy lost' is one sick fuck."

Oh, you mean like the vast legion of people who slammed Cindy Sheehan over, and over, and over again for her history of "liberal activism" when she complained about her son's death?

|1.18.06 @ 5:58PM|#

My dog, here's why they mentioned it: If you are going to do reporting seriously, you must be honest about the motivations or potential motivations of the people you write about. Pointing out that the family supported Bush helps doesn't tell you what their motivations are, but it does indicate what they are not. In this case, that matters.

|1.18.06 @ 5:59PM|#

And that's why we have fucking proofreaders. Delete "helps" in the second sentence.

|1.18.06 @ 6:04PM|#

SR,

Cindy Sheehan probably got slammed by the ultimate ad hominem of all time. Her loss can never be measured, but because she can (possibly correctly) be labeled as a left-wing loonie, she is dismissed by the right-wing as such. I hope I never have the experience to be able to comprehend her loss, but allowing herself to be used by so many left-wing fringe groups did her no favors. I only wonder how things would have played out had it just been her alone, camped outside Bush's ranch, sending away reporters and "supporters" and becoming a silent reminder of the human cost of this war, instead of the path she ended up taking.

|1.18.06 @ 6:10PM|#

Very tortuous tale.

I wonder if the discrepancies between "hostile fire" and "friendly fire" and the talk of diplomatic problems implies that he was shot by an ally (not U.S. but another friendly national)?

Sad.

Matt Welch|1.18.06 @ 6:20PM|#

To even bring up this family's political persuasion is, IMO, rather depraved, to say the least.

Depraved? Their pro-Bushness was such that the administration asked her to appear in a campaign commercial. Their pro-Bushness adds even more poignance to a story that hardly needs any (when the administration you so support and perhaps admire seems to yank you around). They think or at least suspect that their case was tabled until after the 2004 election. It's a significant sub-theme in the story.

|1.18.06 @ 6:50PM|#

jf,

I'm not defending Sheehan, merely responding to andy's posts that mentioning Buryj's support for Bush was "depraved", irrelevant, and meant to discredit him.

|1.18.06 @ 7:05PM|#

SR,

I didn't mean to imply that you were defending Sheehan, I was merely giving my thoughts on that whole disgusting situation. If anything, I'd say I was defending her more than you. I still think she became a pawn, either knowingly or unknowingly, which destroyed the chance for her to become An American Hero®.

|1.18.06 @ 7:13PM|#

(when the administration you so support and perhaps admire seems to yank you around)

Matt, I think he was being sarcastic when he referred to Bush as "Dear Leader" in his original statement. Other than that, I hope everyone is now on the same page, and I'll be the first to agree that the election angle is a significant theme here.

This is, of course, the same shit they pulled with Pat Tillman's family (aside from the election plot). Sure lends credence to the idea that the bullshit is flowing from the office of the Commander-in-Chief rather than from some strong desire on the part of the Army to deceive families for no apparent reason.

Matt Welch|1.18.06 @ 7:30PM|#

methodman -- I was referring to the family, not the H&R commenter.

|1.18.06 @ 7:30PM|#

"They think or at least suspect that their case was tabled until after the 2004 election. It's a significant sub-theme in the story."

And one that I'm cynical enough to buy into.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they delay kicking off the Fallujah offensive until after the elections?

Compared to that, delaying the facts to one piddly family is peanuts.

|1.18.06 @ 7:53PM|#

MG,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they delay kicking off the Fallujah offensive until after the elections?

I don't know all the reasons that our military does what it does, but it is awfully suspicious that the elections were on 2 November and Fallujah was invaded 5 days later.

Maybe I need more tin-foil for my hat.

Dave W.|1.19.06 @ 8:29AM|#

T.: How about a discovery joke?

|1.19.06 @ 11:00AM|#

There is no thread for this comment yet but did anyone hear about the tape, allegedly from Bin-Laden, saying that Al-qaeda has more attacks planned in the US soon and then offering a truce? I don't have all the details but given his previous tapes the truce part sounded like a non-sequitir to me when I first heard it.

I doubt that they still have the capacity to carry out an attack on US soil though.