Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Enough is enough. It's time to take down the New York Times.

Recently, the Times lied about a letter written by a Corporal Jeffery Starr, trying to twist his death, and even his life, into a Vietnam-cry of "QUAQMIRE." It's the 2000 number they've been praying for! Who cares if they've been killed in action, or car crashes, helicopter accidents, they're dead, yee-haw! Now the blood-sucking leaches at the Times gets to crow about it.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, Michelle Malkin has already written on this, but I don't know how many follow the links, so I'll give my own examination on the issue.

Last Wednesday, the Times published a 4,624-word opus on American casualties of war in Iraq. "2,000 Dead: As Iraq Tours Stretch On, a Grim Mark," read the headline. The macabre, Vietnam-evoking piece appeared prominently on page A2. Among those profiled were Marines from the First Battalion of the Fifth Marine Regiment, including Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr. Here's the relevant passage:

Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Cpl. 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 Cpl. 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," Cpl. Starr wrote of his own death. "A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."


Now, this makes it look like this young Marine was resigned to a senseless death. Right? This is just a war for oil! Haliburton! Bush lied, kids died! W. and the Neo-Con Zionist conspiracy, and of course, the JOOOOOOOSSSSS [well, if you go by Cindy Sheehan].

HOWEVER, Ms. Malkin received a letter from Cpl. Starr's uncle, Timothy Lickness [the first Leftist who only takes away any humorous variations on the name "Lickness" will find himself signed up for large amounts of child pornography, and the FBI knocking on his door, capisce?].

Uncle Tim provided for the rest of the story — and the parts of Cpl. Starr's letter that the Times failed to include. IN THE LETTER'S ENTIRETY, Corporal Starr wrote,

"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." [Emphasis is mine]

What was that, you say, Cpl Starr? The NYT can't seem to hear you. You're not in Iraq because of corporations, Neo-Cons, W., oiiiiiillllllll, Haliburton, Karl Rove, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

"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."

That's right, as far as he's concerned, he died for freedom. Now, I don't know about anyone else, like Maureen Dowd, but I think there's something that supercede's the "moral authority" of Cindy Sheehan and celebrity martyrs. It's the moral authority of the dead. Those people who have died and say "make our lives have meaning. I died for something, don't take that away from me."

Should anyone out there read this and say "Well, the kid was too stupid to know about the NeoCon cabal working with the corporations," now you're just being petty. If you honor the troops, you can't honestly turn around and say that they don't know what they're fighting for. Those of you who are against this war, well, you may not actually be against the soldiers, like the idiot who called for a million Mogadishus, but the soldiers are against you on this topic.

Now, when the the Times' reporter who wrote this schlock, James Dao, was queried about his bias, he replied, "There is nothing 'anti war' in the way I portrayed Cpl. Starr," and then, then....

I'm getting pissed now. I'll merely quote his reply: "Even the portion of his e-mail that I used, the one that you seem so offended by, does not express anti-war sentiment. It does express the fatalism that many soldiers and Marines seem to feel about multiple tours. Have you been to Iraq, Michael? Or to any other war, for that matter? If you have, you should know the anxiety and fear parents, spouses, and troops themselves feel when they deploy to war. And if you haven't, what right do you have to object when papers like The New York Times try to describe that anxiety and fear?"

Hey, Mr. Dao, can you answer any of those questions in the affirmative? Any? At all? You been to Iraq or anywhere else on a battlefield? The only time state-side reporters and reporters had any anxietys about their own sorry hides was when they saw Daniel Pearl nearly get his head cut off by these butchers.

As for the fear and trembling of our soldiers over seas, ummm.... when did they take a poll? Just WHEN did they have the telemarketing folks dial up satellite phones all over Iraq asking soldiers what they feel, or fear, want or dream? I've not seen more than a dozen or two soldiers appear on television in front of the news cameras whining about how they miss home, and NONE of them have said a thing about Haliburton. Does the Times consider this a statistically significant sample? Most sociologists and statisticians want AT LEAST 2,000 people giving opinions before it's even close to a representative sample.

Gee, 2,000, that number sounds familiar.

And this fatalism from Cpl. Starr? Well, as his father said, "Jeff had an awareness of death, but was very positive about coming home."

Does an "in case of my death" letter have anything to do with fatalism? Not really, EVEN I HAVE ONE OF THESE IN MY OWN FRIGGING SOCK DRAWER. An acknowledgement of ones mortality just means you're realistic.

The Times has no right to portray fear and anxiety that THEY feel, or that they THINK that everyone else should be feeling. I see more blogs from marines and soldiers IN Iraq than I see on television, and you know what they say?


"Semper fi, do or die, kill, kill, kill."

Let's see the Times report that.

"He has died to make men holy
Let us die to make men free
His truth is marching on." ~ the Battle Hymn of the Republic


Let's see the Times report a soldier's quick response back to James Dao's whine about no one being able to criticize him unless they have been to war:

"James, yes, I've been to war. Twice now, already in OIF, and I'm heading back to war within the month. Since you do not even have the courage to acknowledge that you used selected quotes from a dead soldier's last letter home to further your (and your paper's) agenda, you are not worthy of even writing about a Marine like Corporal Starr, never mind trying to psychoanalyze what he was feeling about being back in the war. You are a coward when only your reputation is on the line. Corporal Starr was courageous, when even his life was on the line.

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 proud of what I do, I do it knowingly and with full knowledge of what the background on this war is. And likely better knowledge of what the outcome can be. I'm not some poor schlep who needs a NYT reporter to "interpret" my thoughts. I've live in the Middle East longer than Juan Cole, I've met more common Iraqis than has George Galloway, and I know more about the military soldiers I serve with than you will ever know in a lifetime of mis-reporting on soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines."

Would Michael Moore like to call this man an idiot? A warmonger? Bloodthirsty savage? The Times will ignore him, and hopefully avoid using his name should he ever actually be KIA, God forfend.

On a recent episode of the Award Winning "Boston Legal," an argument was made that we're not witnessing enough of the blood in the streets of Baghdad. We're not seeing live footage of firefights. Why is that I wonder?

Because you'd see that in the battles, we're winning.

Because you'd see the Islamic hatemongers, and that would not be PC

Because you'd see that, gee, Iraq isn't in the middle of a civil war, because THE IRAQIS ARE FIGHTING WITH OUR FORCES, NOT AGAINST THEM.

Because you'd hear from the soldiers what they think, and the Times needs to tell you what "the soldiers really think."

Because that would require embedded reporters, and a lot of them have been recalled.

Because the embedded reporters still over there are on the side of the soldiers, and you can't let them stray off the reservation.

Because some reporters in Baghdad that still ARE on the reservation won't leave their hotel rooms.

Because should you witness the horrors of war, and see the horrors the insurgents bring down ON OTHER IRAQIS, you may actually think Bush was right. Can't let that happen, no.

And because David Kelly, the creator of Boston Legal, obviously watches network news, not Fox.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.