Friday, November 04, 2005

Embarassment of idiots II

The media, in all their glory, have decided that the 2,000th military death has happened in the Second Gulf War. And, of course, they're trumpeting it as though it's the horn that will start the apocalypse. And the, um, reason? Because 2,000 is! a! big! number! that! they! think! they! can! bash! us! over! the! head! with!

While in no way do I want to make light of the deaths of American (and coalition) servicemen and women who have fought valiantly, bravely, and honorably for a just cause, the media doesn't particularly care about them. If they did, they'd also showcase the thousands of soldiers who have been wounded in combat, as well. And those numbers, btw, dwarf the number of the dead. But those soldiers can still talk, while the dead can't. So it's not necessarily a good thing for the media members who want to play this game to put a live mike in front of them, because frequently, those soldiers tell the media how wrong they are.

And before I continue, let me say that the "2,000 deaths" number is actually a misnomer. It's including soldiers that die outside of Iraq (but included in the GWOT), non-combat deaths (training accidents, car accidents [which are frequent, btw], suicides, natural causes/disease, etc), and the number of deaths that were against an actual Iraqi army in 2003. Thus, it's acutally ALOT less that have been killed fighting against the current "insurgency". And it's taken with no regard, as has been stated, about the wounded soldiers- which many return to combat. Hell, there've even been amputees who have returned to combat action. And it doesn't include the numbers of soldiers who re-enlist- which is high as it is- even though the media's trumpeting gloom and doom with the "2,000" deaths.

But the New York Times takes the cake in this one, and in the worst possible way. Michelle Malkin ( broke this story a few days ago, and it's a doozie: the NYT basically was caught red handed trying to edit down a fallen soldier's (Cpl. Jeff Starr) farewell letter to make it look like it was a fatalist account that jived with their quagmire meme for Iraq. But the full letter was anything but that, and it was a glowing account of how proud he was to do the work he was doing in Iraq- and how proud he was about how well the Iraqis are doing (check the link for the full text). And to make matters worse, the NYT isn't returning any messages to the Starr family, who are quite understandably, pissed off. And it doesn't end there...( when other readers of Malkin wrote into NYT, and specifically to the writer of the article, they got this back:

"There is nothing 'anti war' in the way I portrayed Cpl. Starr."
He then had the gall to berate the reader: "Even the portion of his e-mail that I used, the one that you seem so offended by, does not express anti-war sentiment. It does express the fatalism that many soldiers and Marines seem to feel about multiple tours. Have you been to Iraq, Michael? Or to any other war, for that matter? If you have, you should know the anxiety and fear parents, spouses, and troops themselves feel when they deploy to war. And if you haven't, what right do you have to object when papers like The New York Times try to describe that anxiety and fear?"

Yes, Mr. Dao hasn't been to Iraq either. Nor has he faced combat, and is not a soldier. That's a pathetic line of reasoning, and quite frankly, Mr. Dao should have his press credentials revoked. He's a sick, sad, and piss-poor excuse for a human being, who doesn't know the difference between what his editors are telling him to write, and what journalism is. Mr. Dao failed to make the connection between the passive-agressive censorship he did with the letter, and how THAT alone is dripping of anti-war sentiment. Btw, Mr. Dao, don't be suprised if the Starr family takes punitive action against you, in a court of law. And no, the judge won't let you pontificate like the snippy asshole you seem to be. And I'm also sure that the NYT won't be happy with you, after the Starr family is finished gutting the remains of you and the NYT.

Anyways, this is where the left and the media are at, right now. It's so obvious that they don't care about the actual soldiers. Nor do they care about the war itself. All they care about is being "right" in any way they can manufacture it, and how it'll affect a political alignment that they hate (namely, the classical liberal line of Bush, Blair, Howard, et al). Sorry Mr. Schulzberger, you're not getting a return to the 1960's any time soon. And I do hope that the editors and the staff of the NYT are buying lots of Pepto Bismol.


And lots.

UPDATE: here is a exhaustive look at the whole NYT mess, along with stuff about the "2,000" deaths in the Iraqi war, at the Mudville Gazette:


Post a Comment

<< Home