November 06, 2005
Reporting or distorting?
The NY Times lied and dishonored a fallen soldier in order to make their political statement about the war. Imagine if the Bush Administration had doctored and edited Casey’s last letter to Cindy Sheehan.
Just another example of the utter dishonesty of the left. It seems as though journalists just view themselves as propagandists first and reporters second. Truth is really the first casualty of war, except today those who purport to report the facts can't be trusted to do so honestly.
This is what the Times excerpted from Corporal Jeffrey Starr's letter home before he died:
Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents' home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.
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.'' michellemalkin
In a story about the 'Grim milestone' of Bush's failed war, the Times apparently cannot find any real examples of dead soldiers bad mouthing the war, so they have to invent it.
Here's what they left out:
"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." michellemalkin
And Cindy Sheehan still wants to know why her son died. Talk to the NY Times Cindy maybe they can explain it to you.
This 22 year old Corporal understands more about life, about what freedom means, and explains it more eloquently than all the journalists in the entire NY Times Building could ever do.
Family of dead Marine upset with N.Y. Times
Posted by Eric Simonson at November 6, 2005 03:49 AMNice Job equating Cindy Sheehan with something she had nothing to do with. Lies and distortions are really Republican Hallmarks now.
Posted by: Aldous at November 6, 2005 07:57 AMThe Times did a very poor job of journalism on this piece. While they did print the actual words of the dead young man, they did so in a manner that altered the meaning. By selectively choosing what NOT to print, they presented a different story than what the soldier was saying.
Jeffrey Starr’s relatives felt strongly enough that they wrote an article that clearly stated what Jeffrey wrote. It was a necessary step that should not have been required.
Whenever this kind of lazy journalism is conducted, it should be recognized as heinous. It forces us to have less belief in what the media is telling us…or more importantly, what the media is NOT telling us. Whether a result of laziness or intent, the bottom line is that it is just another case of shoddy journalism
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 6, 2005 08:27 AMMaybe if we actually read the ENTIRE document instead of the NYT or Eric’s cute little snips, we might see the overall view of this soldier’s mind.
Posted by: Aldous at November 6, 2005 09:37 AMWhere does this end? Is the right to privacy now giving way to the old standby first amendment.
Posted by: steve smith at November 6, 2005 09:58 AMEric,
But for the seriousness of the subject here I swear I would think you were trying to make an ironic joke here. As you accuse the New York Times of distorting the news, you completely distort the meaning of this article. You write that it “dishonors” Cpl. Starr, implying that it accuses him perhaps of being a coward or of speaking out against his commanders. Its tough to say, of course, since you don’t actually point out how it dishonors him. At the very least you seem to be saying that the article paints Cpl. Starr as being against the war, which would dishonor him in the sense that it would be untrue.
But nowhere in the article (which I read in its entirety, not an excerpt) does it say anything negative about Cpl. Starr nor does it imply that he was against the war. The point the author was trying to make was that A. he had decided it was time to come home and B. he was aware that there was a very good chance he might not make it. Both of these things are true and neither one of them takes away from Starr’s bravery.
The family is upset because the newspaper did not tell the full story, but this is generally true about most people who are included in newspaper stories. Should the Times have printed a larger excerpt from his letter? That is open for debate. You could argue that it was necessary to stress the point that he was not against the war, but the first paragraph about Starr reads “Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq.”
Frankly, I do think that on the whole the Times overly represents soldiers and vets who oppose the war versus those who favor it (rest assured, there are plenty of both). And I think that the story would have benefited from including more of his words. But The Times’ decision to take excerpts from his letter is NO DIFFERENT from your decision to excerpt the article itself. Actually, it is different - the Times does not disparage anyone or make false accusations. For you to accuse the Times of “distorting” is the height of hypocrisy.
Posted by: Adverbal at November 6, 2005 10:00 AMEric, Michelle ranks high on my list of folks who confuse short clipped sentences and stark charges with hard-hitting journalism. She, like you, makes broad generalizations about whole categories of folks based on isolated incidents.
As for your assertion that they had to invent a dead soldier’s dissent, I think that’s highly unlikely. There certainly are plenty of living ones to protest the war.
Hell, there are plenty of Americans who dislike as it is, a majority in fact. And why? not because the NYT’s was trying to push the irony of a soldier saying his re-enlistment was pushing his luck (a sadly prophetic comment), but because this president did not give the support our soldiers needed- He decided to divide the country to create the support for the war. He took us into a war where the burden of proof for it’s righteous nature was on us, and failed to be scrupulous enough to make that decision on definitive evidence. Then having gone to war, he failed to prepare for the occupaiton to follow, and the very real threats that might come to pass.
At every stage, presented with a choice, Bush’s decision has been to do things half-ass. When a leader fails to support the troops with a cause the public can unite behind, evidence that doesn’t throw the purpose of the war into question, and strategy that gets the job done and prevents needless crisises, of course the public is going to lose confidence and patience in a war, and in the leader who got them into it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2005 11:00 AMThe guy’s mother was on TV. She was very upset with the NYTs and she wanted to get the truth out. The “Times” was sloppy. I don’t attribute to malice what is probably the result of stupidity. BUT …
The media is largely ignoring this. Aldous complains that we mention Mrs. Sheehan. She - herself - has no part in this. But her treatment by the media does. Mrs. Sheehan has no real message except grief and anger. Her son evidently didn’t share her opinions about the war, yet she is all over the media. Mrs. Starr’s real complaint is more focused and she gets little notice.
Posted by: Jack at November 6, 2005 11:12 AMBeing a parent, and a third generation ex-serviceman, my heart goes out anyone that has lost loved ones or has suffered the emotional stress of having family in strange faraway places with only the distorted reports availible in the news as their sole source of information.
It is pretty evident to me, the media is more focused on a vendedtia than accruately reporting the news. From the national guard memo, to the hundreds of thousands that were supposed to have perished in New Orleans and the almost jublient reporting of the two thousandth death in Iraq, it appears the agenda is more important than the facts. And still the people that know what has to be done are still doing it and the lipputions are still complaining about it.
Makes me almost glad my bird died, so now I have absolutely no reason to waste my time and money on buying the news literally or figuratively.
Posted by: Lowell at November 6, 2005 11:43 AMThe guy’s letter would have never gotten out had it not been for the order of his death amongst others. I sympathize with those who believe the New York Times was sloppy, but the question is, does the NYT have an agenda against the war? The answer is inconclusive, because this is the paper that Judith Miller worked at. This is the paper who published many of the Bush administration’s allegations through her auspices, and fed the public the bill of goods on Chalabi and others.
Language is a tricky thing. Anybody who’s ever been in a rocky relationship can attest to the power of words taken out of context, of meanings not clearly defined, of emotional responses to words that seem neutral to the speaker, but not to the audience.
This uncertainty and miscommunication only gets worse, though, if people are willing to jump on things like this and make more out of them than is really necessary.
Lowell-
The bias we need to be careful about is our own, and unfortunately, they myth of the liberal media has fostered just that. Consequence? Record deficits, an unwise war fought on bad information, and corruption that has brought shame to the conservative causes.
Democrats experienced this same trouble when you fellows took over. The difference is, the media exposed them, same as anybody else. Look what the media did to Clinton, for crying out loud!
When the media was exposing the corrupt Democrat legislators, were we screaming “conservative bias!”? No, we weren’t. Democrats weren’t whining about the unfairness of the media towards liberals.
There is a way to get the media to stop reporting scandals: stop the people having them. Choose better leaders. If you go through your life trying to choose how you’re represented instead of taking care of what you’re doing, your behavior will suffer, and your efforts to maintain your image will always be an uphill battle. If you want integrity in government, look to the politicians. Don’t look to the friendliness of the press. The corrupt and the incompetent will merely put on a performance on your favorite show, knowing that people like you will buy it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2005 01:26 PMStephen,
Sorry if I gave the impression the media was bias either one way or the other. I was just trying to make the point it has no credibility and I would be hard pressed to act on anything they have to say until I had some way to check out the facts and even then I would have to ask myself, what effect does it have on me even if it is.
Posted by: Lowell at November 6, 2005 02:40 PMEric and others,
I am sincerely puzzled why you guys think the NYT was lying. What sentence in the original passage was deceptive? They actually quote his father saying that Starr “believed strongly in the war”. This is consistent with the passage that they left out.
If I was Cpl Starrs parents I’d sue the Times out of business.
Until you address the lies and distortions of the MSM, specifically those GOP talking points expounded by the likes of Fox News, CNN, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and etc, I will continue to consider you full of rightwing crap!
Posted by: armed, liberal, & extremely patriotic at November 6, 2005 05:40 PMRon,
Sue them for what???? Can you point to anything in the actual article that is a)untrue or b)unfairly portrays Cpl. Starr’s views or actions?
ANYTHING????
Ron,
Sue them for what???? Can you point to anything in the actual article that is a)untrue or b)unfairly portrays Cpl. Starr’s views or actions?
ANYTHING????
Posted by: Adverbal at November 6, 2005 05:41 PM
My post got interupted by an emergency. It seems my 9-year-old grandson was trying to play Superman and jumped off the barn roof. I had to take Superman to the hospital to get a cast put on his arm. He’ll be playing Superman again in a few weeks, if not sooner.
I’d sue them for slander. The left out parts of his letter that would have made their point look stupid. And by doing so slandered Cpl Starr by making him look to be something he wasn’t. I onter words by leaving out the parts they didn’t like they LIED about him.
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 6, 2005 08:54 PMBTW, if the letter was on his computer, HOW DID THE NEW YORK TIMES GET IT?
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 6, 2005 08:56 PMUntil you address the lies and distortions of the MSM, specifically those GOP talking points expounded by the likes of Fox News, CNN, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and etc, I will continue to consider you full of rightwing crap!
Posted by: armed, liberal, & extremely patriotic at November 6, 2005 05:40 PM
That’s exactly what’s being done here. Addressing the lies of the MSM.
The NY Times is no longer a member of the liberal left. They have been shown as traitors to this country with Miller and Plamegate. They are now members of the right wing media presstitutes.
Posted by: Dave at November 6, 2005 10:48 PMAldous:
The only “snips” of the letter was the snip that the NYT ran. The whole of the letter is what Michelle Malkin posted on her site.
Stephen:
Isolated incidents? Are you insane man? This is the same newspaper who had a “journalist” fabricating stories. The paper who went RIGHT ALONG with the fabrication of the Bush NG documents….should I keep going…I don’t think this thread has enough server space for me to list all of it.
What the Times did was pick the phrase and line that promotes their political views on the war. Their anti-American War beliefs. The article CLEARLY distorts the true meaning of the young man’s words and Eric’s assessment:
This 22 year old Corporal understands more about life, about what freedom means, and explains it more eloquently than all the journalists in the entire NY Times Building could ever do.
is SPOT ON. Also, this kind of distortion COULD BE actionable in court. It is liblous.
Finally, Dave…your claim that the NYT is no longer a part of the liberal left just shows that you are looking at the world through your glass of kool-aid, and PROVES that you aren’t clear-thinking.
Posted by: Robert at November 7, 2005 12:41 AMTalking this much about the NYT gives it undue credibility. Call a dead horse a dead horse. It’s become nothing more than a leftist supermarket tabloid.
It’s time to concentrate on newspapers considered more viable and ensure they aren’t heading down a NYT type of path.
Posted by: Ken Cooper at November 7, 2005 06:24 AMI?d sue them for slander. The left out parts of his letter that would have made their point look stupid. And by doing so slandered Cpl Starr by making him look to be something he wasn?t. I onter words by leaving out the parts they didn?t like they LIED about him.
Please explain this to me clearly: What was their “point”? What did they make Starr look like (that he wasn’t)?
The answers to these questions may be obvious to you guys, but they aren’t to me.
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 7, 2005 08:33 AMThis 22 year old Corporal understands more about life, about what freedom means, and explains it more eloquently than all the journalists in the entire NY Times Building could ever do.
That the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Ken Cooper
It’s time to concentrate on newspapers considered more viable and ensure they aren’t heading down a NYT type of path.
Too late Ken, 98% of them are already there.
Please explain this to me clearly: What was their “point� What did they make Starr look like (that he wasn’t)?
The answers to these questions may be obvious to you guys, but they aren’t to me.
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 7, 2005 08:33 AM
Their point was to make it look like he was against the war. When in fact, he was for it.
So they slandered him by doing this.
Robert-
I don’t think you have the evidence to prove it. All you have are a few unrelated controversies that you’ve strung together with the preconceived idea that the NYTs is the journalistic center of the liberal media conspiracy against the Republicans.
I dare you to come up with a conclusive case linking Jayson Blair, the National Guard controversy, and anything else you didn’t have the server space to go into. And I mean linking. None of this half-ass speculation you guys try to get away with. I mean you have to present this case with such plain evidence that a two year old liberal with dyslexia couldn’t deny it.
Of course, you’ll likely say that the liberals are just hiding their true agenda, or whatever else you have to say to avoid the bothersome business of actually debating with facts and reliable accounts.
Also, what do you understand of life, to be able to judge anybody’s understanding yourself? What makes you so wise? Perhaps you are the fool and they are the wise ones.
As for distortion, a previous commentor had it right: They have to prove that they misrepresented the man’s beliefs. They didn’t, as far as I can tell. They just didn’t post the complete letter, which is not all that unusual, since newspaper’s have limited space, and the subject of the article wasn’t necessarily germane. Did they present him as anti-war? They explicitly said he was a supporter. Did they misrepresent him as a scaredy cat? No. The simple truth is that this article was about the death of the soldiers, not necessarily their support or dissent to the war.
Republicans like you fail to realize that this kind of repetition without variation eventually renders such statements meaningless, especially as folks use it in the place of the good explanations people want.
Go back and read the actual article. Go back and look at the evidence that supposedly connects things. But this time, leave some assumptions behind.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 7, 2005 10:32 AMTheir point was to make it look like he was against the war. When in fact, he was for it. So they slandered him by doing this.
Ron:
As I look over all of what you’ve written, I realize that it is YOU, Eric, Robert, etc. who are slandering Cpl. Starr.
The times clearly wrote:
“Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said.” True, they didn’t include Starr’s own words, but did they really need to? There is no abmiguity in the father’s statement and it is inconceivable to me how any literate person could come away from the article with even a shred of doubt that Cpl. Starr supported the war.
What is now clear is that you are opposed to their FACTUAL use of Cpl. Starr’s statement that he felt he was pushing his luck by being there. You seem to feel that somehow these statements take away from his stated support of his mission. It is YOU who are implying that his desire to end his personal association with the war somehow makes him less of a patriot. You are denying him his own feelings because they don’t fit in with your world view. It makes you uncomfortable to think that a gung-ho, brave, and capable soldier who supports the war might want out.
Having written that, I will share with you that I feel sick and cheap. We are discussing this young man as if he were some object to be debated rather than a flesh and blood human being who died far too young and is being grieved over by the people who loved him. None of us can truly know what he thought, felt or wanted. But the bottom line is that if he, as it seems, was a fervent supporter of the war, then the NY Times portrayed him accurately.
Posted by: adverbal at November 7, 2005 12:47 PMStephen,
As for your assertion that they had to invent a dead soldier’s dissent, I think that’s highly unlikely. There certainly are plenty of living ones to protest the war.
Like this fella I suppose?
At every stage, presented with a choice, Bush’s decision has been to do things half-ass. When a leader fails to support the troops with a cause the public can unite behind, evidence that doesn’t throw the purpose of the war into question, and strategy that gets the job done and prevents needless crisises, of course the public is going to lose confidence and patience in a war, and in the leader who got them into it.
What a dodge! Stephen, I suppose it’s Bush’s fault that caused the Times to edit out the pertinent facts of this man’s letter to make it appear as if his reenlistment was a sentence of death that he anticipated?
Stephen, if you can gloss over this kind of biased reporting, don’t ever ever ever tell me that I took a quote out of context again. You often require me to include the whole freaking page as context in order to get out of the plain meaning of a single liberal quote! Please tell me you have some integrity and can plainly say see that this totally distorts what Corporal Starr said in his letter.
Posted by: esimonson at November 7, 2005 02:54 PMThe “Times” wasnt reporting accurately. So what they say the father say that he was in support of the war. By publishing only what they did of the sons comments they make it seem as though he didnt believe in the war. That’s what liberals are best at. Little snide comments and misquotes to try and forward a position that MOST of America is against. Former President Clinton didnt act when a lot of what is going on now could have been avoided. Sr Bush didnt go far enough because of all the crying little liberal faint hearts. MOST of America doesnt want to be part of a world government and sit around smoking dope and talking about a higher plane of exsistance. This is life. There is no “complex” or “deep” meaning. Go get a job.
Posted by: Billy Bob at November 7, 2005 03:06 PMEric,
Remember Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman?
Both incidences were falsley reported to hype the fallen heroes of the war. It was done by the pentagon to get America to rally behind the war effort.
What the N.Y.Times did was wrong but at least they make it clear that he understood his mission and believed he was doing “Good.”
They never invented or exaggerated the truth like the Pentagon.
Eric,
Wikipedia defines a lie as
a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it.You accused the Times of a lie. But you’ve offered nothing - NOTHING - to back it up. Your own pull-quote said:
Corporal Starr believed strongly in the warWhat part of that is a lie? You accused the Times of lying, so let’s see the proof. Until you prove your accusation, this is just a crock of bovine fecal matter.
See, that’s the thing with the zealots of the far Right (or the far Left for that matter). Zealots convenently divide the world into “our side” and “the enemy”. There’s no middle ground. Everyone is either part of the solution, or part of the problem. Or to paraphrase President Bush, everyone is either “with us or with the terrorists.” And because the mainstream media is neutral, it DOESN’T stand with the zealots. So in the nice little black and white world of the zealot, that’s “proof” that it’s biased against them.
So those who complain that the media is biased against them are really admitting that they’re zealots of one form or another.
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 7, 2005 06:37 PMEric-
Like that fellow? Get serious. You think I fell off the back of a watermelon truck?
It’s ironic you choose to write about a soldier getting misrepresented. Practically every entry you write presents Liberals like me inaccurately, even slanderously so.
You present everything as if the Mainstream media has this agenda. But what if you’re the one dodging the point? You’re always playing the referees, avoiding questions of responsibility by saying that it’s the reporting that’s bad, not what’s being reported about. If the only reason why you think things have gotten this bad is that the media isn’t reporting it correctly, then you are seriously overestimating the value of P.R. in building morale.
I’m saying that mismanaged war can do more to hurt morale than unfavorable reporting. A winning solder can laugh off a needlessly pessimistic report, as can a public that doesn’t see the persistent results of a problem not taken care of. You can’t propagandize your way out of the results of bad strategy. You just have to change your plan.
You’re the one glossing over the biases, failing to recognize how invested you are in Liberals holding back conservatives from greatness, rather than your own incompetent and dishonest leaders doing so.
As for total distortion, you have yet to prove that. You have yet to prove that none of the meaning of his letter got through. What was emphasized centered on his bad feelings about what might happen, but his fervent support of the war was not left unmentioned. It is only your bias that demands that a drumbeat on such matters be perpetually kept up, that Corporal Starr has to be made into another indistinct voice saying the same thing. If they had published that part of the letter, and nothing else, he would be just a faceless casualty. By relating that he had plans for another life, he becomes a person. What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with giving the people the chance to identify with him?
I happen to think that a good war effort can hold up under scrutiny and criticism, that the only policies that need rationalizations instead of explanations are the wrong ones. Why don’t you guys set your military minds to coming up with a plan you can defend honestly?
Stephen, your remarks in the first couple paragraphs to Eric using the words you and you’re, border on criticizing Eric, instead of his comments. Please comply with our policy, Critique the Message, Not the Messenger — WatchBlog Managing Editor
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 7, 2005 08:07 PMStephen…half-assed speculation? The fact that the vast number of stories that the Times has written about the war have been so hugely slanted to the left (which I’m sure you love since that’s the anti-Bush rhetoric you love to hear—so by all means keep reading). It’s just sad that our news media who claim to be the bastion of truth in the country are the greatest distorters (don’t know if that’s a word) in the country. Freedom of the press, absolutely!, but not freedom to be irresponsible and distort the real truth.
You sit there as liberals and allow someone to lie under oath, allows a national news company and newspaper use false documents to manufacture a story, and allows Senators to equate our troops to Nazis and yet NOW…LYING is somehow important? An investigation that has produced NO wrongdoing (b/c it was NOT a crime in any respect). And NOW national security is important despite the fact that Sandy Burglar can walk out of the archives with NUMEROUS classified documents. That’s really crazy.
Posted by: Robert at November 7, 2005 09:06 PMWatchblog Editor-
I apologize.
Robert-
Your approach to the debate here seems to be to state a broad generalization and then sit back and wait for me to agree with you.
While we wait for that to happen… Let me ask you a straight question: Why should I believe you’re right? Why should I believe your interpretation of the Documents story, with Rather and the NYT intentionally pushing forged documents? What evidence is there to demonstrate such a conspiracy, to demonstrate political motivations? You’re not even quoting from a relevant story.
Let me square with you. Many liberals did not disagree with Clinton’s attempt to evade the question of whether he had sex with Monica Lewinsky. But it is a crime, and however much we agree with the motivations of such crimes, people should not lie to a grand jury. If you ask Clinton or any number of liberals right now whether it was worth it for him to lie, I think you might now get a different answer. As for Sandy Berger, he did break the regulations, and he has been punished. Difference here is that he took it like a man, rather than compounding his intelligence leak. He also didn’t wait to be indicted to step down from a security related position. Have your people done that? No.
As for Bryan Dorgan, I believe he basically quoted an FBI agent who said that the torture and maltreatment of prisoners seemed like something more appropriate to Nazi Prison than one of our own. But of course, such a complex point of view isn’t sexy as a talking point, so again, it gets reduced to calling our poor troops Nazis.
Give me a break here. Don’t just feed me the talking points. There are plenty of good examples of quality writing on this side of the blog. I hope yours become part of that.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 7, 2005 11:24 PMGee, I thought all liberals were dyslexic.
The point of the NYT and Time mag is can you really believe the page number?
tomh-
The question is, did you ever have any trust in the paper to revoke, or are you simply telling the rest of us what to believe about the paper from a position of prejudiced ignorance?
And if you broke with them, was it because they were going after your sacred cows, or because they got something wrong?
I don’t seen any evidence to suggest a pattern of political conspiracy here. I do see the typical Republican attitude of calling any news that doesn’t slant for them biased.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2005 09:13 AMI am registered as a Democrat and at this time not proud of it. Democrats of today act more like the Communist Party than the comunist countries.
Yes the news is so twisted that they will say and do anything to sell papers, even telling things that could get our boys and girls killed. Yes, they even tell what and when we are going to attack.
I have sent the following to all the major news outlets on TV. Have you heard them say anything about it? NO.
How to stop the Musulm Radicals, Black Jack Pershing had the answer. During a uprising in the Phillipens years ago, 50 radicals were captured, 49 was tied to stakes and shot with the one watching. Before they were shot the bullets were dipped in pigs blood. The one was turned loose to spread the news. That stopped the uprising. They belived they died unclean, therefore they went to HELL.
Now I say, have all the news media go to Cuba, Soak all the prisioners in pigs blood and hang them. Let the musulam world know that is what will happen to all that is caught, plus all our shells, bullets etc. is dipped in piggs blood.
This war will stop overnight. BET ON IT.
DRASTIC THINGS, TAKES DRASTIC ACTION AND IT IS TIME WE QUIT PUSSY FOOTING AROUND WITH THESE IDIOTS.
Posted by: Walter Flatt at November 8, 2005 09:47 AMStephen
The NYT has never been on the same page as I am on.
Walter Flatt
Back in the ’60s Norman Thomas was head of the Socialist Party. He made the statement that the Democratic party had out socialized the socialists. That is quite a statement coming from The Socialist Party.
Hey adverbal,
you wanted to know how the left has disgaced the son of cindy sheehan, well here it is.
they make you feel that he died for no purpose, you seem to actually believe what the media tells you……that makes you an idiot! I am a Marine and your kind makes me sick, you see nothing that I saw over there. I do not blame you, but if you could see the real truth you would understand that we are doing good, and you would be proud. Please take the wool off your eyes!
Andrew-
The Soldiers don’t choose which war they fight, so how can they share in the dishonor of those who pick the wrong ones for them? How can anything about the mistaken nature of this war sully the one great truth about what Cindy Sheehan’s son did, that he died for his country?
I may make you sick, but you make me sad, for you tie all the value of a soldier dying for his country into the credibility of the leaders whose errors are what truly deprive the soldiers of their full glory. Bush failed to give them a war worthy of their patriotic souls.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2005 11:51 AMWalter-
I would rather us be the snipers who by steady effort and precision kills a field of soldiers than the bloody berserker who gets blown away when everybody opens fire on his crazy ass.
We need effective, powerful action, but that doesn’t mean we got to be graceless an uncivilized. If we can manage them without showing the effort, it will put the fear of God into them.
Strength is shown in what you don’t have to do to win. I think we have that kind of strength. Do you think America’s that strong, or do you believe it’s so weak that America can’t win except by becoming as barbaric as its opponents?
tomh-
If you’ve never agreed with the NYT, how can we say that you’re an effective judge of its bias? I could say that the bias is just as likely in you as in them, and there would be no way to prove me wrong.
Recall that the government you talk about as socialist is the same kind of government that won WWII. Perhaps they knew something the conservatives of this time don’t.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2005 12:04 PM
