Posted on 12/02/2005 3:55:17 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
Ten more American soldiers, all Marines, were killed today (Friday) near Fallujah while on foot patrol. Anticipating the coverage by the New York Times on these deaths, I ask, “What side is the Times on?”
The Times was created before the Civil War. So, it covered that war, the bloodiest that America has ever fought in percentage of the population who were killed. That was also the most costly, in percentage of the national wealth spent in it.
But did the Times make any attempt to cover that war death by death, profiling and decrying every single soldier who fell, as it has done in the War on Terror? No, it did not.
Then came WW I, the third most costly war in percentage of population killed, and percentage of national wealth expended? Did the Times cover it death by death? No.
Then came WW II, the second most costly war by those two measures. Did the Times cover that war, death by death? No.
Nor did the Times cover the Korean War, that way. Nor the Vietnam War. Nor the Gulf War.
Only for the War on Terror has the Times focused on every individual death, and on Cindy Sheehan, the unfortunate, and deranged, mother of just one of those soldiers.
Before I continue, I say this. In no way do I minimize the gut-wrenching sense of loss parents of every soldier killed, feel at the loss of their son or daughter. I know how it feels to put a child in the ground, dead suddenly at the age of 21. Nothing makes that sense of loss go away. Ever. (No, my son did not die in the military. But the loss is no greater or less for the cause of death.)
The point is that the Times, and many other media in the mainstream, are spending time wallowing in each individual death in this war, as never done in any prior war prior. Why?
Had the Times spent the same amount of space and ink on each individual death in the Civil War and all wars since, it would have worked its way through the Civil War dead, and WW I. It would probably now be near the end of reporting on the dead from WW II.
The current war reporting in the mainstream media occurs in an historical vacuum. The blood cost of prior wars is never placed side by side with the carnage which occurred at places like Gettysburg, the Somme, Omaha Beach, or Iwo Jima, to name a handful of hundreds of historical examples. Why are these comparisons not presented?
The only logical answer is that the Times is on the other side in this war. Its publisher, editors, reporters want the United States to be defeated now. Therefore, they exaggerate the blood costs of this war, by dwelling on every death and ignoring the historical context of all other American wars.
There are similar examples of the bias of the Times coverage on subjects other than American deaths. The Times trumpeted the discovery of “secret prisons” in which particularly dangerous and knowledgeable captured terrorists (they are not soldiers by any definition in the Geneva Conventions) have been held in foreign nations. This involves less than 200 captured terrorists. And the lives of maybe thousands of Americans can be saved by obtaining the information that this select group of terrorists possess.
Did we have “secret prisons” for the interrogation of Germans or Japanese or Vietnamese or North Koreans in those respective wars? Perhaps we did, but if we did the Times and other media did not report on efforts to obtain information from “high value” captives those other wars. Competent conduct of any international war would dictate special attention to special captives. But only in this war is the Times both printing and obsessing over such an activity.
I would like to see the President of the United States challenge the New York Times to choose sides in this war, as it has in every war since the Civil War. It’s no guarantee that the Times would choose to side with the United States. And I could create a short list of employees of the Times would resign in disgust if it did.
The President will not directly attack a major media institution in that way. So, I do. To the New York Times: Which side are you on in this war? If you lack the integrity to answer the question in plain English, your future coverage of this war will answer for you. If it continues as it has been so far, the conclusion is that you support the other side in this war.
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
Because the Times [editors and staff] feel they are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the average American.
The Times wants to disuade at every chance the notion of individual freedom and self responsibility.
The Times supports an agenda of government socialism.
They are just simply pissed off their message 'isn't getting out'.
They abuse daily their responsibility to the truth in pursuit of their own agenda.
"He couldn't move a pea shooter without us knowing it."
Really?
Then tell me how Saddam had his SAM batteries fire missiles at our aircraft during the 8 years of Clinton?
Remember the times Clinton had some planes fly and drop some bombs?
"We reap what we sow."
Oh, so you believe that the U.S> deserved /11?
Iraq had contact with Al-Qeada, and that HAS been proven, repeatedly.
The poor dear!! Maybe we should grant him US citizenship, put him on welfare, give him a housing project to live in and everybody buy him an IPod for Christmas.
Listen little chickie. You are too lazy, stupid and prosperous to understand the way the world works. Imagine being put in a wood shredder feet first. Just imagine. You apologize for a man who would do that to a fellow human being.
you have smoked yourself retarded...
Very exy!
"Saddam was looking for a way out and we turned a deaf ear to him."
Awww, poor Saddam, all lost and alonely and in need of a hug, right?
He was merely tossing people into industrial shredders because he was crying out for help, is that it?
How old are you?
VICTORY IN IRAQ IS A VITAL U.S. INTEREST
BTTT
"We could have won what we sought, now we could lose the entire Middle East."
How so?
In what fantasy world do you live?
How could we 'lose the whole MidEast' by liberating people in Iraq?
Oh yeah, you think Saddam was merely crying out for help with his tirades of tossing people into industrial shredders, having people murdered for merely the suspicion of dissent, and having tried to assassinate George H.W. Bush..
I apologize for being unclear. I probably should have said:
"...I am sure that at a PERSONAL level not all of them would not wish for those things..."
I am on the same page as you, I think. I just don't think that EVERY liberal feels that way, though you are right on, many do.
"We had Saddam in a vise with our military controlling the skies over Iraq, and as many weapon inspectors in his country as we wanted. "
You do know that in 1998 Saddam declared the era of arms inspections over and kicked them all out of the country, right? And that Clinton wasted a bunch of cruise missiles as retaliation?
You also know that Saddam Hussien never complied with any of the UN Resolutions, right? That he obstructed and obfuscated at every turn?
I just wanted to remind you if you either forgot or didn't realize it.
I think there are a few reasons why the Slimes is virulently against this war.
This is the first war (Iraq 1 + Iraq 2) since "Lincoln's war" that was not initiated by the Democrats, hence it cannot be owned by the Dims.
The heir of the former Editor is now the boss and he cut his teeth during the VN conflict and the takedown of Nixon as the Dims flexed their girly muscles.
Conservative TV and radio are now a reality and the Slimes has gone to the polar opposite expecting that it will have gazillions of loyal followers; unfortunately, its followers are proving to be fickle and lack staying power in the midst of the Slimes continued dredging of garbage. Their continued losses in readers and subscribers only serve to make them angrier and more determined to place blame on the eeee-vil Republicans.
No, we only have one working computer at home and have to take turns.
sauropod didn't bother to log in under his own screen name last night, and just wanted to ping himself to this article.
(It was a similar incident, a few years back, that tipped off certain alert freepers that "hey, those two must be an item". ;D)
It seems that our government will not deliver the appropriate sanctions against internal traitors that it once would. Hence the NYT does it, because it can. Yes, they will suffer the consequences from patriots, I will never trust, purchase, or otherwise conduct business with the NYT, or many other lying MSM organ, but these domestic enemies should be indited by the government as traitors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.