Lying Times

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! « Open Post | Main | Open Post »

November 02, 2005

Lying Times

Greyhawk

Michelle 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.

At that point the Marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir-I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread.
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:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 21 - A marine who appears to shoot and kill an unarmed and wounded Iraqi prisoner in an NBC News video was not aware that the incident was being recorded, and moments later approached the cameraman with seemingly remorseful words - "I didn't know, sir, I didn't know" - according to the first public description of the events by the cameraman, Kevin Sites, since his brief and somewhat ambiguous initial report.
There are no clarifying remarks to follow, and no verbatim quotes from Sites' web page. (A feat I was able to accomplish with ease.) Sites was clear on what it was the Marine didn't know - but that didn't fit the Times' storyline. Pathetic.

*****

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:
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.)
<...>
This sort of give-and-take is standard practice on the Op-Ed pages. "We try to clarify and improve copy," said Mr. Shipley. "We do this for the benefit of our contributors, many of whom are not professional writers.
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.

We can only guess what that might be.

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".

*****

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.

One domestic issue resonates with many troops, he said, because it angers them: gay marriage. But on many other issues, troops tend to be too busy or too far from home to pay close attention.

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.

From bases in Iraq and across the United States to the Pentagon and the military's war colleges, officers and enlisted personnel quietly raise a question for political leaders: if America is truly on a war footing, why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?

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 at 08:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (61) |

Show Comments Here (61) |

Hide Comments

testing

Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 2, 2005 09:59 PM

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!

Posted by fred lapides at November 2, 2005 10:11 PM

�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.

Posted by Bill Peschel at November 2, 2005 10:26 PM

Er, don't read the Times. They'll survive without you, I think.

Posted by Jamie at November 2, 2005 10:27 PM

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.

Posted by Laddy at November 2, 2005 10:27 PM

Great post. Thanks for putting it all in one place. Hopefully you get lots of trackbacks.

Posted by Reader in SF at November 2, 2005 10:30 PM

Once is chance. Twice is coincidence.

Three times is enemy action.

So what does four times mean?

Posted by Kevin Baker at November 2, 2005 10:39 PM

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

Posted by Rick at November 2, 2005 10:49 PM

Get some, Hawk.

Posted by Grim at November 2, 2005 10:57 PM

"Four times" means you haven't ranged them properly, yet.

"Fire for effect!"

Posted by Kirk at November 2, 2005 10:58 PM

"the nutter who stated that locking up Japanese-Americans in WWII was the appropriate thing to do!"

I believe that was FDR, actually.

Posted by Robert Crawford at November 2, 2005 10:58 PM

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.

Posted by HomefrontSix at November 2, 2005 11:07 PM

No, you don't just "ignore" enemy propaganda. You expose it.

Posted by Korla Pundit at November 2, 2005 11:40 PM

(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.

Posted by Observer at November 2, 2005 11:53 PM

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.

Posted by -keith in mtn. view at November 2, 2005 11:58 PM

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...

Posted by indolene at November 3, 2005 12:01 AM

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.

Posted by armynurseboy at November 3, 2005 12:02 AM

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.

Posted by Observer at November 3, 2005 12:10 AM

I read the piece, Observer. It seems logically consistent for someone who believes that laws (and oaths) actually ought to mean something.

Isn't there a federal law against knowingly hiring illegal aliens? Why, yes, there is. United States Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1324(a) states unambiguously: "It is unlawful for a person or other entity to hire, or to recruit�for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien." The same section of the law also makes clear that any person "knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law" who "harbors�such alien in any place" shall be "fined" or "imprisoned."

And, hey, isn't there something in the U.S. Military Oath of Office mandating that all personnel inducted in the armed forces respect our laws? Why, yes, there is. U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 31, Section 502 requires inductees to swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." The military oath also requires enlistees to abide by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which, under Subchapter X, Article 83, makes fraudulent enlistment by any person who "procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation" punishable by court-martial.

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.

Posted by Kevin Baker at November 3, 2005 01:07 AM

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?

Posted by Mark at November 3, 2005 01:07 AM

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.

Posted by JorgXMckie at November 3, 2005 01:25 AM

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.

Posted by ronnord at November 3, 2005 02:31 AM

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?

Posted by John Blake at November 3, 2005 02:38 AM

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.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 12 -- American soldiers on Monday night killed an Iraqi man and a boy and wounded four others in a car that was driving behind their convoy after a roadside bomb went off nearby, said witnesses, a police official and relatives of the family in the car.

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.

Posted by John Dunshee at November 3, 2005 06:25 AM

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.

Posted by Josh at November 3, 2005 01:23 PM

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.

Posted by submandave at November 3, 2005 01:58 PM

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.

Posted by Observer at November 3, 2005 03:07 PM

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?

Posted by chris at November 3, 2005 03:44 PM

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.

Posted by SCSIwuzzy at November 3, 2005 03:53 PM

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.

Posted by bbridges at November 3, 2005 04:34 PM

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

Posted by Subsunk at November 3, 2005 04:43 PM

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.

Posted by gumshoe at November 3, 2005 06:18 PM

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/

Posted by Xmas at November 3, 2005 06:29 PM

Observer wrote:

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).

Posted by Salamandyr at November 3, 2005 06:35 PM

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.

Posted by Observer at November 3, 2005 06:38 PM

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.

Posted by cowabunga at November 3, 2005 06:41 PM

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.

Posted by Greyhawk at November 3, 2005 06:56 PM

"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.

Posted by Lyric Mezzo at November 3, 2005 06:57 PM

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.

Posted by Old Soldier at November 3, 2005 07:08 PM

SCSIwuzzy,

Observer states "And yes, I've been to Iraq." You assumed deployed, but this could have been as journalist, etc.

Posted by lw at November 3, 2005 07:43 PM

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.

Posted by Kevin at November 3, 2005 08:08 PM

"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.

Posted by 5thColumnCure at November 3, 2005 08:15 PM

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.�

Posted by Lyric Mezzo at November 3, 2005 09:53 PM

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.

Posted by Hankmeister at November 4, 2005 02:23 AM

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!

Posted by Niftynorm at November 4, 2005 02:36 AM

Hey Niftynorm, so tell me: When your Idiot-in-Chief loses the Iraq War, are you going to blame it on Clinton?

Posted by Wilson Kolb at November 4, 2005 03:45 AM

"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.

Posted by a guy in pajamas at November 4, 2005 03:59 AM

Hey, Wilson, when our commander-in-chief wins the war in Iraq, you'll give the credit to Cindy, I'm sure.

Posted by a guy in pajamas at November 4, 2005 04:04 AM

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

Posted by Former Navy LT at November 4, 2005 04:32 AM

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.

Posted by John Boyle at November 4, 2005 08:51 AM

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!!

Posted by Christine at November 4, 2005 09:58 AM

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.

Posted by Babydoc97 at November 4, 2005 12:42 PM

"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.

Posted by a guy in pajamas at November 4, 2005 01:28 PM

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

Posted by BIRDZILLA at November 4, 2005 01:34 PM

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!

Posted by Wild Thing at November 4, 2005 06:26 PM

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.

Posted by Spaceno34 at November 4, 2005 10:10 PM

-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.

Posted by Devil_Dog at November 5, 2005 02:08 AM

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.

Posted by Kalafan at November 5, 2005 10:16 PM

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.

Posted by DeanS at November 7, 2005 03:56 PM

"Er, don't read the Times. They'll survive without you, I think"

Oh, yeah?

Posted by David Foster at November 7, 2005 11:11 PM

penis size and genetics

Posted by penis size and genetics at November 20, 2005 03:25 PM

Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(61) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)

More Books Here

November 02, 2005

Lying Times