Posted on 06/04/2006 9:52:53 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Everyone has heard of the “killings at Haditha,” even though the military investigation of what happened there is still underway. Has anyone heard of the “killings at St. Lo” in July, 1944? A comparison of the New York Times coverage of those two events is instructive.
A Google News search of Haditha + killings + New York Times yields 891 hits as of Sunday noon. The articles on this subject in the Times are driving the national and international news in all media on this subject. The Times and its reporters are cited in most of these articles.
But what did the Times run about the killings at St. Lo in July, 1944?
It ran no stories, front page or otherwise, on St. Lo when it occurred. (Operation Cobra was intensive bombing by the US Air Force, in support of the effort to break out of St. Lo, and move against the Germans across France.)
The COBRA strikes killed slightly over 100 GIs and wounded about 500. Without a doubt, the strikes were badly executed, and serious command errors were made..... Finally, a formation of five medium bombers from the Ninth Air Force dropped seven miles north of the target, amid the 30th Infantry Division. This latter strike inflicted the heaviest casualties--25 killed and 131 wounded--on the first day that COBRA was attempted.
Lt. Gen. Leslie J. McNair, former Commander of Army Ground Forces and currently the "commander" of the fictional "1st Army Group," was killed in his foxhole by a direct bomb hit as he waited to observe the follow-up ground attack
No mention is made of French civilian casualties is made in this Air Force account of the “friendly fire” bombings around St. Lo, but surely there were many of those, also. Was the New York Times aware of this mass killing of American, British and Canadian troops, and of French civilians, a month after D-Day? How could it not be aware of an incident of this magnitude?
But what did the Times publish during the war about the killings at St. Lo? Nothing.
Why? Most likely because the then Editors of the Times realized that publishing that story then would have harmed the war effort. And defeating the Nazis was more important than revealing, then, the tragic mistakes that led to these killing. (BTW, the Air Force concluded that the off-target bombings were the fault of the weather, and mistakes made by certain pilots and officers in targeting, but no one was convicted in any Court Martial of any offense.)
What conclusion follows from the Times’ relentless coverage of Haditha, where the facts are not yet known, compared to its non-coverage of the huge military and civilian death toll at St. Lo? The logical conclusion is this is not your grandfather’s New York Times. That newspaper today is incapable of holding back a story that will get people killed. It is incapable, even, of holding the story until the facts are known.
The conclusion is that today’s Times is a willing participant in the effort to paint the entire American military as murderers. It should know better. Events like these happen in wartime, and non-combatants are killed, and Americans, along with a number of the enemy. The editorial policies of the Times today will certainly lead to the killing of more Americans. That was not the editorial policy of the Times during WW II.
Source for events at St. Lo: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-H-DDay/ This is an Air Force historian’s account of the use of air power for the D-Day invasion and beyond. The causes of the killings at St. Lo are described on pages 24-25.
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
It's not the reporting of one story that makes it treasonous, it's the method of reporting. Taking something out of context, misinterpreting, and blowing it out of proportion turns it from journalism to propaganda. Knowingly spreading propaganda for the other side is what makes it treasonous.
"Treasonous media behavior"
You have an idea there: Why not post a thread for the gathering of reporters' names who write and/or espouse such treason?
We know a lot of the names, but it would be good to have them all in one place.
In the case of Murdoch he did report the story to the public, but not until the war was over. Instead, he took the story to the people that could stop the endless suicide missions. The assault was stopped and the people who were sending soldiers to die senselessly were punished.
In my opinion it was ideal behavior on the part of Murdoch and the military.
I have no problems with the way Murdoch handled the story.
Very well written. When the Atlanta Journal-Constitution sent embedded reporters with the GA Army National Guard to Iraq, I protested strongly to the command authorities in Atlanta but to no avail. Sure enough, negative stories soon flowed back from Iraq. When they couldnt find something bad to say, they dug up old bad news for reprinting.
Seeing the efforts of the national media to destroy our war effort, even against these brutal thugs that would shut every newspaper in one second if they could, I cant help but believe even the Nazis would have friends in the media these days.
How sad to see how far they have fallen. And American soldiers fall as a result.
Thanks for the excellent post.
Explain to me what is wrong with my tagline?
Republicans were the first and true environmentalists.
"I don't see how reporting on Haditha is treasonous behaviour. "
It is basically writing according to the terrorist insurgent 'narrative' of a US military run amok that aids and comforts the terrorist insurgency. That is undeniable.
It is further undeniable that many of these 'atrocities' turn out to be either hoaxes or example where legitimate errors in judgment are being judged as deliberate acts.
The reporting has shown a reckless disregard for the negatvie consequences for our war effort, even when truth is in doubt.
On one occassion the Boston Globe falsely reported about an "Abu Ghraib' type abuse, that turned out for phony pictures. A british magazine, in a separate incident di the same thing.
AP got suckered into a story about a captured US soldier that was based on nothing more than a GI Joe doll posted on a terrorist web site.
The media played up an incided in March, which it turns out, was not what the media claimed:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060603_5320.html
These stories come and go, but the consistent theme is a bias, even to the point of false reporting, that harms our effort.
A final undeniable truth is who is responsible for these deaths:
The vast majority of civilians in Iraq, including the collateral victims in Haditha, are victims of the terrorists and their deliberate policies of using 'human shields' and killing any civilians that get in their way.
"InHaditha,ansar
alSunnaandTawhidal-Jihadmujihadeengovernthe
town, enforce a strict interpretation of Islamic law in
their court system, and use militias to provide order.
If Haditha residents follow the rules, they receive
24-hour access to electricity and can walk down the
street without fear of random crime. If they disobey,
the punishments are extremely harsh, such as being
whipped with cables 190 times for committing
adultery.
46
In the border town of Qaim, followers of
abu Musab Zarqawi took control on 5 September
2005 and began patrolling the streets, killing U.S.
collaborators and enforcing strict Islamic law. Sheik
nawafMahallawinotedthatbecauseCoalitionforces
cannot provide security to local people “it would be
insane [for local tribal members] to attack Zarqawi’s
people, even to shoot one bullet at them. . . .”
47
https://calldbp.leavenworth.army.mil/eng_mr/2006022413274004/03mcfate3.pdf
"Explain to me what is wrong with my tagline?
Republicans were the first and true environmentalists."
It exposes you as a deluded idiot who swallows eco-extremist tripe. The specific quasi-religious tripe being this - that the Earth some how requires our attention and concern to maintain its existence. Fact: The Earth is already 4 billion old, and in no danger whatsoever from any actions possible by humanity from ever going off its current course of spinning around the sun for the next 4 billion years.
By the law of conservation of mass, there is no 'principle' of Earth to spend.
Environmentalist hoo-hah. I work for a German company. What is it with the European moral superiority thing?
I now believe the time for a split has come. I'm fed up with reading "news reports which would have gotten the rags operators shot on sight for printing it. Could anyone imagine an American paper printing garbage like they do during WWII?
I am not a military ethicist and do not pretend to be. I do not know the Iraq theater rules of engagement. Like everyone else at this forum I do not the facts of the case against the Marines.
In a larger sense I wonder if the US has set the bar too high regarding civilized warfare.
Is it possible to win when (as it appears to be) the enemy knows that unless they are caught red handed with a weapon or IED stuff they will be immune from our wrath? Half of our gov't thinks those who slowly, slowly saw off the heads of US citizens are mere criminals worthy of the Miranda rights, taxpayer paid legal defense, etc.
Every once is a while I read or watch on the history channel about Dresden, Hiroshima, firebombing of various Japanese cities etc. Like our Marines on Guadalcanal, today's Marine in Iraq, knew/knows that the enemy offers no quarter. In a bloody and celebrated campaign through the central Pacific our Marines did what they had to do to win. We took very few Japanese prisoners. Our WWII, fought at the outset with a pitifully under trained and undermanned force, fought and won against powerful and well equipped forces in four years.
Four years in Iraq is not long off. We have the best trained, equipped, volunteer Marines and Soldiers in history. Damn the liberals and world socialists to hell. Evacuate civilians when possible, but let our forces win.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1643769/posts?page=4
Post 18 of the above thread gives you a sort of index on all the Hadditha information that shows considerable doubt about the accusations being made against the Marines. You may find it a useful research tool. Thank you for the excellent post here
Duh, of course the earth will be around, but the point is for humans to be around too. Do you really not care about your own species?
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.