 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! November 2, 2005 Lying TimesBy GreyhawkMichelle Malkin has a follow up report on the storm brewing over the New York Times' use of selective quotes from a final letter home from an American GI. For those who might not have known, the Times took these words from US Marine Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr: "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."And edited them down to this: Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. "I kind of predicted this," Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. "A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."In her update she notes that although the Times refused to respond to her inquiries, the "reporter" did attack at least one of the readers who had responded to this hatchet job: 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?I've been to Iraq. And I characterized the Times disgraceful use of the words of an American hero as intellectually vacant moral cowardice. I was being generous. Because I've seen numerous examples of such behavior on the part of the New York Times over the past several months. All involve selective quoting, misquoting, or simply claiming a GI said something without actually quoting them at all. Most range in repugnance from mildly annoying to grossly reprehensible - but in what I believe is the worst case they appear to attempt to frame a soldier for murder. Let's look back on a few examples of New York Times attacks on American GIs, shall we? Last year the Times edited a quote from reporter Kevin Sites about a then-notorious shooting incident in Fallujah, and changed a remorseful young man into a cold-blooded killer concerned only that his actions had been caught on film: Kevin Sites describes the immediate aftermath of the shooting of one of the thousands of insurgents in Fallujah (emphasis added):For a moment, I'm paralyzed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the Marines again, what I had told the lieutenant -- that this man -- all of these wounded men -- were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.Clearly the Marine is responding to Sites belated identification of the individuals as having already been treated and disarmed (a point which the Marine need not accept as Gospel anyway). But now watch the NY Times work it's "magic", making the key quote disappear: Earlier this year the Times doctored an op-ed piece written by milblogger and Army Reserve Captain Phil Carter, who had just been notified he was going to Iraq. I'll let them explain, without changing any of the words:I once noted that "There are two types of Iraq war veterans that have a tremendous appeal to the anti-war crowd - the fictional and the dead. Both types have a common, irresistible trait - others can claim to speak on their behalf." Phil is a living person, so they were forced to correct their "error".The Op-Ed page in some copies of Wednesday's newspaper carried an incorrect version of the below article about military recruitment. The article also briefly appeared on NYTimes.com before it was removed. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, "Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday," nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a "surprise tour of Iraq." That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error.They explained it further afterwards:"Within 10 minutes" after receiving the changes, he recalled, "I said, 'No way.' Those were not words I would have said. It left the impression that I was conscripted." His call-up was "not a surprise," he told me, because he had actually "volunteered" for mobilization. (It's not clear when the editors first learned that he had volunteered for active duty.)That time I added emphasis - making the last line bold. It's curious, that not writers bit - considering that Phil has a great, well written blog, has been published in Slate (more than just that one link), and also at least once previously in the New York Times. So since "not a writer" doesn't apply they must have had some other reason for changing his words. One of the oddest examples of the Times manipulation of quotes seems inexplicable at first glance. Following the US presidential elections last year they published a story on the reaction to the results from the troops in Iraq - in this case troops who were preparing for the assault on Fallujah. The Times reporter apparently found this quote to be essential to his story: One soldier, Sgt. First Class John Hankins, said he thought that the election results would make little difference to the troops in combat, given the immensity of the challenges in Iraq and in the worldwide war on terror.Note this isn't a direct quote - and because it's in the New York Times we have no way of knowing whether it's fabricated. And a careful read reveals we are left to determine on our own exactly what stance the troops take on the gay marriage issue - although the answer seems to be implied - they're against it. However, it also seems a bit of a stretch to accept that this somehow reveals the thoughts of all GIs on the eve of battle in Fallujah: The war doesn't matter - we voted on gay marriage. But it does reveal a theme the Times and most other media sources were attempting to push after their defeat at the polls last November - their man lost not because Americans didn't trust him on national security, but because fundamentalist Christians and others among the unenlightened masses had voted based solely on "morals" issues. A misrepresentation of soldier's thoughts on the eve of battle isn't the worst example of contempt the Times feels for military people, but it's certainly an indication that there's nothing they won't twist to their own purposes. Other examples of the contempt the New York Times feels for the American GI can be found in the stories where they insist they're speaking for the troops without ever actually quoting one supporting their claims. Last summer they concocted a story declaring that the troops were complaining that Americans aren't suffering enough as a result of the war: WASHINGTON, July 23 - The Bush administration's rallying call that America is a nation at war is increasingly ringing hollow to men and women in uniform, who argue in frustration that America is not a nation at war, but a nation with only its military at war.Once again - the exact opposite of the truth. I've never met a GI who wasn't proud of the fact that because of his or her service Americans are able to live lives of peace and prosperity - it's fundamental to what we do. And, in fact, in this case the Times was unable to provide a single quote from a GI supporting this accusation. The false characterization of troops complaining about this topic is absolute character assassination - and it's unforgivable. One thing should be obvious - you can't trust anything you read in the New York Times. They once proudly boasted of "all the news that's fit to print." It's a shame the honest truth is something they now find unfit for their pages. They are reduced to waging a war based on lies. With that in mind, this email from a soldier addressing the NY Times reprinted at Michelle's site offers damn good advice: Should I die in Iraq, on this, my third tour, my wife will have in her possesion, a letter from me to be released to the press, should some slimy dirtbag like you try to make it look like I served in anything other than an honorable manner. I'm cruising through the archives, will post more examples soon. If you're aware of any other cases of the Times misquoting GIs please feel free to add them to the comments. Posted by Greyhawk / November 2, 2005 8:58 PM | Permalink 22 TrackBacksI find it interesting the ones who supposedly support our troops by hoping they fail are the ones trying to make our toops look bad. Real supportive. Read More Mudville gazette is all over them Read More The Mudville Gazette has a summary of many Read More Michelle Malkin has a good piece today on the arrogance of the New York Times and their misrepresentation of Corporal Jeffrey Starr, who has had the unfair distinction of being the 2000th US service member to be killed in Iraq.... Read More Last week, Michelle Malkin posted about how the New York Times had severely edited a quote from a fallen Marine, leaving out some vital info that cast a completely different light on the portion of the quote they did... Read More ....that the NY Times employs a bunch of lying scumbags, go over to Mudville Gazette and read this litany of stories in which the Times manipulates or makes up out of who... Read More Mudville Gazette has the details. In a nutshell the newspaper has been taking quotes from soldiers in the field and editing them to fit what they wanted to say. Here is the latest, a quote as written in the NY Times from a soldier's death letter:... Read More Less than a week ago we learned why I thought the New York Times to be despicable. Today we have additional reasons from The Mudville Gazette. The Gray Lady is a tramp. Read More Greyhawk at the Mudville Gazette breaks down the New York Times’ use of selective quotes from a final letter home from an American GI. I’ve been to Iraq. And I characterized the Times disgraceful use of the words of an American hero as int... Read More Everybody knows that the New York Times is a slimey organization of politically radical left wingers. Conservative politicians have taken turns being unfairly lambasted by this most disreputable organization or ignored outright. But now they've crossed... Read More Everybody knows that the New York Times is a slimey organization of politically radical left wingers. Conservative politicians have taken turns being unfairly lambasted by this most disreputable organization or ignored outright. But now they've crossed... Read More Why anyone believes anything in the newspaper with a record anymore is beyond me. Greyhawk has a good roundup of just one part of the fiasco that is the Shady Lady. LW... Read More It's not just Corporal Starr. They've had practice Dowdifying quotes. Mudville Gazette makes this observation: There are two types of Iraq war veterans that have a tremendous appeal to the anti-war crowd - the fictional and the dead. Both types... Read More NY Times Takes Death of Marine Out of Context (VIDEO) ... Read More Today's dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny ... It's Stop the ACLU Thursday (+ OpenTrackbacks) Read More I must be a positive thinker, because I keep thinking the lies from the Media might one day stop. They might see the light and change their wicked, wicked ways. But it just is not going to happen in my lifetime or anyone else's! Read More Those with any common sense will ask, "What else is new?" Meanwhile, this is a good one, too. The title reminds of that classic "Jerky Boys" album where one of them calls an attorney looking to sue someone for "punitive... Read More I have complained long and hard about the lies of the MSM and the totally dishonest twisting of facts (when they don't just leave facts out) and making up stories out of whole cloth. I've provided examples of the chicanery of the MSM, especially the NY... Read More The Mudville Gazette writes a very revealing topic about the biases that the low-grade NY Times has been conducting against soldiers serving in Iraq. Read More It is interesting to note that the Times and other MSM/DNC outlets allege that the public no longer supports the war. But they feel the need to wage a campaign of misrepresentation against the war anyway. Read More Blogworthies: The seventy-fifth edition of a weekly round-up of noteworthy entries from a variety of weblogs on a variety of topics. Read More This is Emmylyn Anonical. She's the girlfriend of the late Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr, on the right. Read what she has to say about the NYTimes' selective editing of Cpl. Starr's letter to her in the NYPost: The girlfriend... Read More 61 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
testing
One thing I have learned over the years: if you do not like a paper or a magazine show or a tv station: don't listen to it...move on instead of sucking in all that negative shit. As for Michelle: she is the nutter who stated that locking up Japanese-Americans in WWII was the appropriate thing to do!
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ The Times bases its reputation on fairness and accuracy in its reporting, and we keep seeing that it's not so.
This is despicable behavior and should be pointed out as such.
Er, don't read the Times. They'll survive without you, I think.
One thing I have learned over the years: if you do not like a blog or a blogger, don't read it. Is that about right, fred? Jeebus, fred, who's the nutterest here? I think it's thee.
Nice post, Greyhawk.
Great post. Thanks for putting it all in one place. Hopefully you get lots of trackbacks.
Once is chance. Twice is coincidence.
Three times is enemy action.
So what does four times mean?
Fred L.
You are missing the point. They twisted a man's "last" words to get across THEIR point.
That is extremely arrogant and disrespectful to the fallen soldier. The Times can't even respect a man's last thoughts to his family. That is why I care this time (while I agree with you and I usually just don't read it). Ironically, most of his thoughts centered around freedom and how important it is, and they take their freedom of the press and do this... absolutely disgraceful.
Rick
Get some, Hawk.
"Four times" means you haven't ranged them properly, yet.
"Fire for effect!"
"the nutter who stated that locking up Japanese-Americans in WWII was the appropriate thing to do!"
I believe that was FDR, actually.
Kevin ~ treason would be the first thing that comes to mind...
Fred - just like the "channel" button on your remote, there is an address bar at the top of the page. Try typing something into it and go somewhere else.
No, you don't just "ignore" enemy propaganda. You expose it.
(Yawn)
But what about the issue implied by Cpl. Starr?
Soldiers and Marines have to deploy again and again, because Rumsfeld fought expanding the size of the military up until last year.
So Cpl. Starr was on his third tour. Was he stop-lossed, as so many are?
Now, Young America is hip to the fact that if you join, you might not be able to get out at the end of your enlistment.
Now that's something to be really outraged about, more than some NYT omission.
(I don't believe them either: remember Judy Miller and her hype of the WMD story).
And yes, I've been to Iraq.
Expose the enemy propaganda and destroy the enemy.
Neither America not the world would be at a loss if the snake-speakers at the NYT went under.
Observer,
You'd think that with such glowing reports and truth telling from the NYT that more young Americans would be motivated to serve their country...
3rd tour means he was more than likely a Marine, who only do 6 months at a time compared to their Army counterparts who do a year. Yeah, it's 6 months less in the box, but you get to go more often.
Oh, and as for Michelle Malkin's concern for the troops, I recall that she wrote a column calling for the deportation of a 19 year old Mexican kid who managed to enlist despite not having a Green Card.
You can find the column here:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin100803.asp
The kid fought in Iraq, apparently with the 3rd Infantry Division. He fought his way to Baghdad and wanted to stay in the Army.
I'd say he earned his Green Card. Malkin wanted him deported. What a hateful PoS she is.
I read the piece, Observer. It seems logically consistent for someone who believes that laws (and oaths) actually ought to mean something.
You know, the law? The thing the rest of us have to abide by? I admire the kid, he's got chutzpah. But he should not be rewarded for violation of our immigration laws. Give him a general discharge, send him back across the border, and start the paperwork to let him legally enter the country would be fine by me, too.She didn't ask that he be imprisoned or court-martialled.
Observer, I agree with you that Michelle is wrong about the aforementioned Private. But her opinion is defensible, and I don't think she's a piece of s**T for believing it.
And your attempt at ad hominem doesn't change the accuracy of her point about the New York Times in this case. You're attacking the messenger, and not the message.
So...was the NYT right in changing the words and clear meaning of a dying Marine in his last letter to his family to serve their political ends?
Or are you just being cantakerous because you got told about it by someone you don't like?
Observer is obviously one of those "do as I say, not as I do" type Lefties. Betcha a bunch he was all hot over Plamegate, no? He wants everyone to follow the laws he likes, but not have to follow the ones he doesn't. The very definition of tyranny. Communists, Fascists, our far Left, all agree that *others* should have to follow the law, not themselves and those they like.
The New York Times has been lying for years. Walter Duranty the NYT's Moscow Bureau Chief wrote time and time again that there was no famine going on in the Ukraine in the 1930's. This was at a time that Stalin had decided that he had enough of the farmers and small business people and decided to kill them by starvation. Stalin and his henchmen the NKGB murdered over 10 million. Duranty covered it up, he denied that any starvation was going on, he lied. The Times and Duranty received a Pulitzer prize for the cover up. It was later thought that Duranty and some of the Times editors were working for Stalin. Google up Walter Duranty's name and read the stories; the Times has been lying for a long time. They covered for swine that makes Hitler look like a saint. The Ukrainian Government has asked repeatedly that the Pulitzer be given back but the Times has so far refused. Google up the name Walter Duranty, from the 30's they have been doing this.
When Michelle Malkin (or whoever) first posted regarding Cpl. Starr's desecration in the Times, I addressed a quite lengthy comment to their Mr. Calame of "corrections editor" fame. His office did actually respond with a form letter re-asserting the "accuracy" of the original article without the slightest gesture of substantive rebuttal (which they could easily have copied to all and sundry disgruntled ones such as myself). As it happens, I do write professionally, and am a lyricist and poet well-known in certain circles. Needless to say, the Times went off my Bookmark List fifteen years before there was an Internet. Anyone want to bet that, like the Saturday Evening Post with its "Ho Chi Minh equals Winston Churchill" rant, that the New York Times goes belly-up before 2012?
This isn't the first or even the fourth instance of false reporting by the NYT. Back in Jan 2004 NYT reporter Ed Wong filed the following story.
The only problem with it was that it wasn't true. The people in the car had been hit by the IED not shot by the American soldiers.
It was finally corrected after the efforts of the soldier's Commander COL Pete Mansoor.
The whole story is on Rantingprofs: THE COVERAGE OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN IRAQ
They finally corrected the story in March 2004 but they buried the correction in the 17th paragraph of a story with the headline, "Army Copter Downed West of Baghdad in Hotbed of Anti-U.S. Sentiment."
The news media has doing there sest since day one to undercut the mission and the troops. They shouldn't whine if they're called on it.
Considering the sales figures for the entire MSM in general, it seems many people are indeed not reading the NYT. It's too bad that the few people who still read them are so incredibly foolish and deluded.
It has been said that truth is the first casualty in any war, but what to do when those whose raison d'etre relies upon truth jump on that grenade themselves? The really disturbing part for me is that it has gotten so bad that I almost reflexively distrust any and all negative reporting done by the MSM, and I don't think I'm alone. If Cheyney, Rove et. al. really were involved in an illegal nefarious undertaking I'd hardly believe it if were I to read of it in the NYT. And that is not only sad, but dangerous.
First, I'll go back to my original point: why don't you get as angry about the fact that Soldiers and Marines like Cpl. Starr have to go back for a third tour, because Rumsfeld fought tooth-and-nail against expanding the size of the military. Why? Because he wanted to "transform" the military through the purchase of more advanced weaponry, and didn't want the spend the money on people.
As for the illegal alien private violating a law, I note that many good individuals have lied about their age, their physical condition, and the immigration status over the years to join the military - all violations of the law. I can't get that mad about that.
Perhaps it's time to start contacting the various advertisers on the NYTimes site and suggest that they might be better off advertising on other sites?
Observer,
Maybe people aren't as angry as you want them to be is because they don't believe that the only thing keeping GIs going back is the so called back door draft.
If this was the case, why aren't you still in Iraq?
Changing the way wars are fought, and the military is staffed and armed, is one of the reasons there have ONLY been 2000 US fatalies.
The Times would have some kind of argument (granted a very weak one) if they had simply pulled the quote in question out of the letter as a whole piece, but that isn't what they did, they edited around it to shape the meaning.
Does the Times have a system that links all quotes to the original sources (sorry, internet is very limited here and I can't check), whether on web sites or to pages devoted strictly to source material? I know, I know, that's too bloggy but if they don't, or if they do but don't use it fully, it is time to drag their carcass into the new century and join modern journalism.
I'm sure their reporters would hate it but it would give the paper some cover.
Dear Observer,
Mr Rumsfeld did not reduce the size of the military in order to add hardware. He inherited a military vastly reduced in size from 1989 and the end of the Cold War. The average age of an Army and Marine Corps TRUCK (not anything sexy, just a 5 ton truck) was over 33 years old in 2003. The troops were still using trucks built in 1945 and 1950 to carry them and their gear around during the Gulf wars. Most of our gear in the 90s went through similar tribulations in maintenance and replacement. So spending to upgrade them in the midst of a war was required. Mr. Rumsfeld tried to spend wisely instead of willy-nilly. How is that wrong or evil?
Demographic studies of the US population in the 1990s indicated there would not be enough service age males in this country to man the volunteer force at historical recruiting levels. We knew this in the 90s. This is not because we aren't spending enough money on recruiting or equipping them, or sending them on too many deployments. This is because there aren't enough bodies in the country to volunteer because many young men and women have been indoctrinated by the media, their parents, and their peers that only losers join the military.
Well now we have a war where we desperately need more young men to be Men instead of candy-asses. And the Army is falling short (barely) because the media and their liberal schools and parents are admonishing them NOT to join. We can't even man the extra 30,000 men authorized, nay, insisted upon, by Congress to add to the Army without throwing extensive amounts of money for enlistment.
Additionally, where was your anger over back to back tours when Navy and Marine Corps personnel routinely deployed away from home port for 6 months every 18 months? That is the way it has ever been in the Dept of the Navy since 1976. The Air Force recently (1990s) recognized they would have to begin these deployments to just maintain the overseas presence given the number of missions they were flying. And ever since WWII the Army has had one year unaccompanied tours in Korea and Germany among other places involving many folks who could not bring family with them. (My father in law's favorite was one yr in Thule Greenland, and several friends spent years in Adak, Alaska one month) Deployment away from home is, has, and always will be part of the military life, even to war zones.
The fact that you have been in Iraq and served in Iraq means we owe you our thanks and admiration for your service. It does not mean you know better than the folks whose job it is to man our forces how to do that job. So while I am grateful to you for doing your duty, however great or small it was, I ask that you support those whose duty it is to man our forces, and administer them professionally, without depending on Democrat or Republican advice on how to do so.
My soldiers deserve relief. But unless my country truly mobilizes for war or intends to subjugate the world (an act I do not support), they will have to do with the manning they have. I blame the candy asses myself.
Subsunk
dunno what it is.
Obsever is sour about several things
and posts them in a variety of places.
the fact that this is a media/info war
as much as a shooting war
seems not to be of much concern to him.
That Gay Marriage thing.
If the soldiers were filling out absentee ballots before the election, there were plenty of gay marriage ballot questions at that time.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/ballot.measures/
Observer wrote:
First, I'll go back to my original point: why don't you get as angry about the fact that Soldiers and Marines like Cpl. Starr have to go back for a third tour, because Rumsfeld fought tooth-and-nail against expanding the size of the military. Why? Because he wanted to "transform" the military through the purchase of more advanced weaponry, and didn't want the spend the money on people.
As for the illegal alien private violating a law, I note that many good individuals have lied about their age, their physical condition, and the immigration status over the years to join the military - all violations of the law. I can't get that mad about that
Me:
Observer, you're avoiding the subject. You bring up valid points. They're worth discussion. However, you're not bringing them up for discussion. You're bringing them up to divert attention from the NYT misquoting the final words of Marines & soldiers to put forth an agenda that those Marines and soldiers didn't even agree with.
I've already said that Malkin was wrong in the case of the illegal alien soldier you mentioned. But I don't agree that holding the position she does is somehow indicative of being a bad person.
You remind me of the people who brought up the misdeeds of Saudi Arabia to divert attention from invading Iraq. They weren't bringing them up to say "Hey, we need to be invading these guys instead" They were just trying to confuse the issue.
Quit trying to confuse the issue. Address the issue we are talking about now. Then bring up the points you want addressed. It could be we're not as outraged by them as you are because we feel that they have been adequately answered in the past (and they have).
Subsunk, comparing repeated tours to Fallujah or Baghdad, braving IEDs, mortar fire and ambushes every day, to periodic Med and Westpac deployments merits little comment.
I've done both Iraq and sea deployments, and I can tell you there is NO comparison.
I don't think you have to have had a 122mm rocket land danger close, or roll out into the Red Zone to understand that.
And, the trucks are still old, although I never saw any from the 1940s or 50s, even back in the 1970s when I started in the military. The money goes into, among other things, gewgaws like Ballistic Missile Defense.
It is a fact that while there was bipartisan support and initiative in favor of expanding the size of the military, going back to 2001, Rumsfeld fought it, up to a congressional hearing in January 2004 and maybe beyond.
Anyone with common sense would know that you prepare, you provide adequate forces for relief.
I am retired military. I went there voluntarily as a contractor, spent 14 months. I felt sorry for those soldiers and Mariness I saw on their second tours, who had already done one year plus. They were not too happy, especially the first termers who were on stop-loss.
Observer - In the 1990s we went from 18 divisions down to 10 divisions under Clinton's watch. He took his eye off the ball and cut the military he "loathes" to the bone. There probably should be more troops in the force, but it won't happen instantly. The new equipment in the force was worth it.
Observer
Your response is the best illustration of why the Times misquote is reprehensible. You asked "But what about the issue implied by Cpl. Starr? Soldiers and Marines have to deploy again and again..." and repeated yourself "First, I'll go back to my original point: why don't you get as angry about the fact that Soldiers and Marines like Cpl. Starr have to go back for a third tour..."
I don't need to address that issue - because Corporal Starr already did, in the full text of his quote. And responses like yours are exactly why the Times did what they did. That's the whole point to this post.
"If Cheyney, Rove et. al. really were involved in an illegal nefarious undertaking I'd hardly believe it if were I to read of it in the NYT. And that is not only sad, but dangerous."
Very good point. Conservatives need to be even more vigilant in how we get our news, because we may very well ignore the MSM if and when they stop crying "Wolf!" and start reporting the actual undistorted, unbiased truth.
Observer
The Army can't meet it's current quota of enlistments - it's rather difficult to accept that congress raising those numbers even higher would somehow result in more enlistments.
SCSIwuzzy,
Observer states "And yes, I've been to Iraq." You assumed deployed, but this could have been as journalist, etc.
Excellent article. I hope when you find more proof of the NYT opposing our troops by lying/spinning, you will bump this post. This needs to be repeated, and often. There are still a large percentage of Americans who believe the NYT tells the truth. Until this fallacy is known to most citizens, it is going to be impossible to get the NYT to change.
The NYT was a good newspaper once, and can be again. Once they are shown that the ends (destroying Republicans/making sure we lose in Iraq) don't justify the means (lying/spinning/exaggerating), they will be better for it, and so will our media.
"I went there voluntarily as a contractor, spent 14 months."
Then you'd be one of them mercenaries waging war for profit, eh? At least that's what I hear from the Kossacks, DUers and others on the same side you've chosen to take in this war.
Check out my letter to the times....I won't paste the entire thing here, just the end (you can find the entire thing on my blog):
“Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.” What a powerful statement. “Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.”
There is no possible way Dao could have ended the article with anything other than a positive tone. In fact, he could have ended the article with those very words and ended up with a much better article – even taking into account the earlier omissions.
Unfortunately, this kind of omission has come to be expected of the NY Times by many people. As circulation numbers decrease and layoffs increase, please realize that the fault lies not in increased gas prices or cost of living or higher interest rates, but in the ever-increasing realization that the bulk of the “mainstream media” is biased.
Instead of making excuses, take action to correct these “lies of omission,” and perhaps you may recover some of the conservative readership. Remember the bulk of the people writing in to complain about this article did not actually buy your paper. Instead, we found out about it on the blogosphere. If mainstream media, such as the New York Times, does not begin to report with greater truth and accuracy, you may find that it does not exist in ten or twenty years, except as a chapter in an American history book, entitled “The Rise and Fall of Mainstream Media.”
Remember that the NY Times is known to us, not by what they say, but by what they leave out. Is this the ethical standard (or lack thereof) by which you want to be known?
When you stop making excuses and start correcting the problem, I might believe you when you answer, “No.”
Yeah, some really great advice by some posters: "Don't read the Times" ... "change the channel" and just let supposedly "objective" news agencies continuing lying with impunity, right?
Well the days of monopolistic media lies are coming to an end. The attempt by 60 Minutes and Dan Rather to foist fraudulent TANG memos on unsuspecting Americans will always be known as a watershed event in the eventual demise of the lamestream national media cabal.
Typical left-wing drivel. If it had been Fox News guilty of the same kind of activity the LLL moonbats wouldn't be spewing their silly platitudes about "just change the channel" but rather would be so enraged that soldiers comments were being manipulated to make them more "heroic" and supportive of their mission. Typical left-wing double-standards and hypocrisy. I'm sick of this mindless pap the radical left spews to justify outright media misrepresentations which, surprise surprise - validates their own personal biases that are now being fed and fanned by left-wing moonbat blogsites. Talk about living in an echo chamber.
I think observer is 'still stuck on stupid'. Clinton and his ilk decimated our military as any review of the facts will show. Unless you get your 'facts' from the NYT!
Hey Niftynorm, so tell me: When your Idiot-in-Chief loses the Iraq War, are you going to blame it on Clinton?
"Now, Young America is hip to the fact that if you join, you might not be able to get out at the end of your enlistment."
They've been lied to if they think that. All enlistments are for eight years in some combination of active / inactive time. If you sign up for 2, that means 2 active, 6 inactive. Inactive means they can call you back to active duty if they need you. This is in the contract every enlistee signs, and the recruiters are very clear about this -- they were when I joined anyway. The whole 'backdoor draft' BS is just that.
Hey, Wilson, when our commander-in-chief wins the war in Iraq, you'll give the credit to Cindy, I'm sure.
QUOTE: "Typical left-wing drivel. If it had been Fox News guilty of the same kind of activity the LLL moonbats wouldn't be spewing their silly platitudes about "just change the channel" but rather would be so enraged that soldiers comments were being manipulated to make them more "heroic" and supportive of their mission. Typical left-wing double-standards and hypocrisy."
DID YOU MISS THE STORIES ON THE SUPPOSED "COACHING" OF THE TROOPS FOR THEIR VIDEO CONFERENCE WITH THE PRESIDENT? THE LIBERAL MEDIA TRIED TO DO EXACTLY THAT, BUT IT DIDN'T HOLD WATER
Those whose solution is to just not read these media outlets miss the point and reveal their own self-centered myopia.
The problem is not that little ole me is "offended." The problem is that propaganda works and when used by pros with a large audience and a large reputation, it alters public opinion which, in a democracy, can change the process and outcome of mighty events which affect all of us - even our survival.
Turning a blind eye to the subversion of your country's national security, for no greater reason than your own convenience and comfort level, is moral cowardice as well as irresponsiblity. Closing the bedroom door and ignoring the fire on the stairs will not put it out or save you and your family from its effects.
I have watched the emotional manipulaton of public opinion through the coopting of the grief and tragedy of individual and collective military casualties with utter disgust and growing outrage.
The fact is, one is ten times more likely to die violently (by highway accident or homicide) in California than in Iraq - the combined totals for these causes for 2001, 2002 and 2003 is over 19,000 in that one state alone.
There is absolutely no sense of propotion or perspective in this prefabricated orgy of relentless mournfulness, which should give even the dimmest left-wing dupe a possible clue as to its real purpose. It is a miracle the casualty figures are as low as they are, and a tribute to the unequalled competence of our professional military.
I can personally attest to the effect that the MSM has on somebody. When the war began, I was in total support. At the time I spent a good deal of time on the internet really tuned into all aspects. Good and bad. Then, for a period of close to a year I only read the papers or watched television. I did not go to alternative sources for information. My moral plummeted. I had the impression that nothing at all was being accomplished. That there had been no positive steps taken at all. Well, about 6 mos ago I decided to start looking into the war through the internet again. Not only did I read about the current situation, I also looked back as best I could. I wanted to see if I missed anything. Needless to say, I'm back. With a vengeance. In my opinion, what the MSM is spewing out is nothing short of treason. The negative "spin" that they have decided to place on the war could in the end cost alot of lives. Not only over in Iraq, but ultimitely here in the US. They have not only chosen to caste the terrorists in a less lethal light, they have not even tried to educate us about who the enemy really is. The ignorance that I have witnessed, coming from a number of people who oppose the war is totally unbelievable. They do not have a clue how dangerous these people are. They think we can just sit down and have a chat with the terrorists and they will say ok, I'll stop. I'm not saying that it is the sole responsibility of the MSM to do the educating. But, if they tried just a little harder, it might actually get slipped in. My anger towards the MSM cannot really be put in words. They are helping the enemy and that pisses me off!!
I'm sitting in Kuwait, ready to redeploy home after completing my second tour over here in Iraq. Since the army owns me until 2012, I'll most likely be back over here again, maybe even 2 or more times, depending on how things go. I agree wholeheartedly with Corporal Starr's sentiments, and think the deliberate manipulation of his final letter home for propaganda purposes is as treasonous as Tokyo Rose's broadcasts. What is more sickening to me, however, is that anyone associated with prior military service would try to defend this treasonous act.
"DID YOU MISS THE STORIES ON THE SUPPOSED "COACHING" OF THE TROOPS FOR THEIR VIDEO CONFERENCE WITH THE PRESIDENT?"
Did YOU miss it? What I saw was a rehearsal of which soldier would answer what kind of question (you want the expert, duh) and how to pass the mike without strangling each other with the cord. No rehearsal whatsoever of what to say. Just another tempest in a teacup.
The New York Sewer the most vile nasteist birdcage linner in this nation no wonder its losing readers and besides their birds no longer want it in their cages it should change its motto to ALL THE CRAP THATS FIT TO PRINT
It breaks my heart that things like this happen.And it also makes me furious! There has to be something, some kind of punishment for this kind of thing. It is sooo horrible!!! So sick, so vile!
Babydoc97,
I just wanted to thank you and everyone over there for doing a great job. It's a tough assignment.
My personal view is - it doesn't matter if we were looking for WMD, or oil, or whatever. We are there giving people a chance to have freedom the same way we do. Sure some are not going to take that chance. Some are going to fight against it. But, I believe that alot of people over there are thankful for the opportunity.
Thank you for serving (as well Cpt Starr) and giving them that chance.
Americans in general need to understand that the changes happening don't occur over night (like MTV or a commerical) but take time.
We only heard the bad but you guys and girls are doing a great job over there (People that I know have been there).
Safe trip and thanks.
-Observer:
You are retired military? If that is true, then you are all the more loathsome. Joining the America-hater bandwagon is tantamount to directly contributing to the success of our enemy.
If you really were military (which I strongly doubt), then you would feel a sense of kinship with your brothers in arms... and you would possess the kind of understanding that all of us share: that we MUST support the mission so that we can accomplish it.
Those soldiers and Marines that you supposedly met over there were upset and demotivated? Who exactly is it that you think would believe crap like that?
Reading this thread, I grew more and more angry with each of your posts. Retired military? What military? Must have been the one that forgot about sticking together and mission accomplishment.
Sell your seditionist crap somewhere else. I am a recently retired United States Marine and I am calling you on your B.S.
Enough of this- it is time to support our military so that they can accomplish their mission and come home. That will never happen so long as "Observer" and his ilk are slinging their excrement all over the place like the deranged far left monkeys they are.
Observer doesn't really sound all that seditionist to me, but one thing that get's me is these stupid bumper stickers I see on the backs of cars every now and then that say "United We Stand," which is only half a statement. The other half is "Divided We Fall."
And Devi_Dog, legitimate criticisms of those running things from D.C. and the Pentagon, like Observer is doing, is one thing. At least he's not like another retired vet I've read (who's name I will not mention) who verbally degenerates the top brass, often with justification, and does the same to the enlisted men as a whole for the sins and mistakes of only a few dozen of them, all while saying he sticks up for them. Even if he's a vet himself, that doesn't seem like a good excuse for him to take a big piss on the guys who are going through the same shit today that he went through over thirty years ago.
Can I intrude and briefly educate some people on Stop Loss (since you won't find it anywhere else)?
Active duty soldiers, not reserve or national guard, in selected MOS's (Military Occupation Specialty, i.e. their specific job) can be retained for up to 12 months past their scheduled ETS (Expiration of Term of Service).
Reserve and National Guard will be retained until 90 days after their current mobilization. Mobilizations are currently limited by an Executive Order signed by President Bush to 730 days.
Any soldier can file for a waiver to be released under their normal ETS if they believe they have special circumstances that would warrant it.
I hope that's not too militarese but that is my job. I've seen Stop Loss used as an excuse to keep soldiers for years and years and years. As shown above this is patently not true. A google search could answer anyone's question on Stop Loss but it's much easier to drink the Anti-War Koolaid isn't it.
"Er, don't read the Times. They'll survive without you, I think"
Oh, yeah?
penis size and genetics