Posted on 03/26/2007 2:57:36 PM PDT by FriendlyFreeper
The Times admitted it distributed an article in the March 18 edition of its Sunday Magazine, while knowing the story contained some glaring inaccuracies. The article was about women who served in Iraq, the sexual abuse some say they endured, and their struggles in reclaiming their pre-war lives. But one of the women profiled, who said she'd been raped twice and suffered brain damage when a roadside bomb exploded next to her Humvee, was never actually IN Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Kudos to Fox for exposing the NYT.
This article will be referenced in nearly every history book published from this day forward.
Sedition.
Fake but accurate.
Quick, which is falling faster at the NYT?
a. Their stock price.
b. Their circulation.
c. Their credibility.
Cosmic truth.
and remember, they had the other major mistake a few months ago -- in the story about imprisoning women in south america for having abortions. it turned out that the main woman featured in the article went to jail for suffocating her baby AFTER it was born -- not for having an abortion in the first trimester (as they reported).
It's not about guilt or innocence, but the seriousness of the charges...
Mistakes? Mistakes, my old Aunt Fanny!
This is a pattern of behavior by the Slimes. Not a mistake, a pattern of behavior, and it's intentional.
Somebody spits on you once, that might be a mistake. Same somebody does it three times, it's time for a punch in the nose.
NY Times is a piece of trash "newspaper" with less credibility than the Globe, the Star, and the National Enquirer combined.
This has been on Michelle's radar for a while.
http://www.michellemalkin.com/mt/oct05-tb.cgi/6508
I think it really was a mistake. With the military being as large as it is, they could surely have found several women who had been raped and/or suffered injury in Iraq, and were willing to be interviewed. Never mind that these were only a few people out of a very large number who have served in Iraq over the years.
But it certainly wasn't a mistake that they neglected to print a prominent correction, maybe an insert into the magazine section that had already been printed. They had several days to do it, but they did nothing.
They can be blamed at least three ways: 1) for writing yet another hit piece against the military and the Iraq war with carefully selected, one-sided witnesses to back it up. 2) for carefully selecting only witnesses who made their propaganda point and throwing out any testimony that contradicted their case. 3) For neglecting to admit that one of their chief witnesses had outright lied in timely fashion.
The sad thing is that this probably happens several times every day, but they only get caught doing it maybe once a week.
Somebody in the MSM should undertake a expose' on the NYT, bringing to light the high number of communists working and publishing at the paper. Probably won't happen, though.
That about right?
:^)
"Major Mistakes" !!! Enough of all this spin talk, call it what it really is.
Put simply, sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state and has to do with giving aid to enemies or levying war. Sedition is more about encouraging the people to rebel, when treason is actually betraying the country.
The NYT has more than earned both charges.
What they report are not "inaccuracies" or even incompetence's gone wild, but much more sinister acts with criminal intent, design and lasting deadly results.
I'm left wondering how this can be characterized as a "mistake."
Zactly.
Mark
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.