Los Angeles News Center – LA News Center reports on the controversy surrounding the Washington Post’s recent article casting doubt on the validity of a bullet wound sustained by Republican Senate candidate Tim Sheehy in Afghanistan. The article drew criticism for relying on experts with strong ties to the Democratic Party.
Sheehy’s Story and Alleged Bullet Wound
Former Navy SEAL Tim Sheehy, who is running for Senate against Democrat Jon Tester, reported a bullet wound in his arm in 2015 while visiting Montana’s Glacier National Park. Sheehy initially claimed he had accidentally shot himself with a Colt .45 revolver, but later revealed that he had suffered the injury while serving in Afghanistan in 2012.
Sheehy told the Washington Post that he never reported the wound to his superiors to avoid an investigation, as he was unsure where the bullet came from and wanted to protect his fellow platoonmates.
Post’s Report and Accusation of Democratic Bias
The Washington Post quoted three experts who questioned Sheehy’s story based on an X-ray provided by the candidate. However, it later emerged that these experts have donated thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party.
- Joseph V. Sakran: A Johns Hopkins trauma surgeon and longtime Democrat donor, Sakran suggested that the wound “may be a bullet, but it is not possible to tell what type of weapon it came from nor the age of the wound.”
- Rachel VanLandingham: A former Air Force attorney and vocal critic of Trump, VanLandingham questioned Sheehy’s hesitation to report the incident. She has also referred to Trump as a “terrorist recruiting poster child.”
- Katherine Kuzminski: The director of the Military, Veterans & Society program at the Center for New American Security, Kuzminski expressed skepticism about a civilian hospital reporting a bullet wound. She has written that Trump “is no Republican.”
Criticism of the Article
The revelation about the experts’ political affiliations drew criticism from Sheehy supporters, including Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark), who called the article a “politically motivated smear.”
Sheehy’s campaign also accused the Post of pushing a “smear piece against decorated combat veteran Tim Sheehy.” They suggested that the experts’ bias was a factor in the article’s conclusions.
Conclusion
The controversy over the Washington Post article has raised questions about the objectivity of the media outlet and the potential influence of political bias in journalism. While the experts cited in the article may have provided technical analysis, their political affiliations have cast a shadow on the article’s credibility.
