Veterans' Response To The New York Times Slanted Deceitful Article
|
1/14/2008 1:45:40 AM
Thank You New York Times! |
With all that makes me proud to be a
part of this great generation of American warrior there is always
something out there that tries to bring us down. The success happening
daily in Baghdad, the Everest like challenge that our forces have
overcome in Iraq… oh there is so much to be proud of as a combat
veteran today.
The New York Times did their best to
bring out the storm clouds. Their biased rhetoric is so blatant and
natural at this point that I almost look forward to their anti-joy
stories. It is a part of the national fabric, like Roger Clemens
denials and Jerry Lewis on Labor Day.
The surge is working! Violence is down! Army and Marines meet their recruitment number goals during year five of a ground war!
You almost had me thinking positive
there. Did you know that there are 121 cases in which GWOT veterans
have murdered people when they got home from the war? Somewhere right
now there is a GWOT veteran breaking something that doesn’t belong to
him or her. (I think someone at the Huffington Post is working on that
story soon)
Look I am not making light of Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This is a very real wound from
battle. Just like a bullet hole or shrapnel bite, PTSD may take years
to show its ugly head. But c’mon… stop victimizing my peers at every
turn. Where is your front page story about Marco Martinez or LT Michael
Murphy? Do you know who Paul Ray Smith is or Jason Dunham? What makes
Joe Worley an American hero?
The military today is an exact cross
section of our nation. We have as many bad apples per capita as the
Utah State bell choir. We represent America because we are America. The
reality of war is that it does impact us all. Yet this story written by
Deborah Sontag and Lizette Alvarez seems to draw a connection to the
worst of my peers. And that is what opponents of our mission success in
Iraq and Afghanistan are left to provide for us.
No longer are there stories of
American defeat and bewilderment on the battlefield. Now we must
inflate and create a new pandemic sweeping across the nation.
“Vets are murdering Americans.”
You could do this with anything. Find
me the number of assaults in any major city of males under 25 and I
will show you 98% of them played high school football. I will show you
how a violent game such as football is directly associated with battery
and assaults in America.
This is real people! Football is killing at least beating a lot of our youth.
The New York Times doesn’t care
about the pride of a generation sacrificing for the greater good of
America. They are still debating if we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq.
The headline will never be, “We Need More Young People Like Jason
Dunham.”
The New York Times must focus on the rapes, the murders and the robberies. That brings their mission home. Today the true battle is the dulling of the sensitivties of a nation at war. And uber negativity is the modus operandi. We are told that war makes murderers and rapists of all its veterans. Mark Cuban produced a film with seven horrific minutes of that message.
Yet the truth is that these 121 men
volunteered to change the world. They gave of themselves to make a
difference and for whatever reason lost their way. They followed a
destructive and horrible path either because of a sickness or impulse.
And all ideological opponents of their sacrifice can do is gawk and
highlight these 121 felons over the nearly 4,000 brave American souls
who gave everything for all us.
I’ll see your 121 and raise you hundreds of thousands of patriots.
|
4
Comments By Bellavia, David (BUY MY BOOK) |
http://www.vetsforfreedom.org/troopblog/blogitem.aspx?id=302 |
My Groups
-
2nd amendment Updated: 3 minutes ago
-
I hate fascist liberals Updated: 3 minutes ago
-
Conservative Politics Updated: 3 minutes ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
As Matt Sanchez http://www.matt-sanchez.com/2008/01/times-hit-piece.html#comments had pointed out "The Times avoid[ing] this conclusion by simply omitting any references or comparison to the civilian delinquent population," is not surprising given its track record. Instead of being a record of fair journalism, the Times is a bulletin board for liberals.
Yes, and Sulzberger and his Times propaganda attacks this country from its’ private U.S. Senator, Chuck Schumer, who tells falsehoods and half truths in an attempt to damage President Bush and the country as a whole. I have a good name for them, starts with a "B", but I will abstain.
I remember Coulter saying she had wished McVeigh bombed the New York Times building instead of OK, but then said, "I should have added, 'After everyone had left the building except for the editors and reporters.'"
In all seriousness, they do a huge injustice.
Received this email from someone yesterday:
From the Wall Street Journal...
Most journalists consider it bad form to mention the race or ethnicity of a criminal defendant without a compelling reason. But racial and ethnic groups are not the only ones who take offense at such stereotypes. As early as World War I, the American Legion passed a resolution urging reporters "to subordinate whatever slight news value there may be in playing up the ex-service member angle in stories of crime or offense against the peace." In 2006, Veterans of Foreign Wars magazine bemoaned the "wacko-vet myth."
We learned of these complaints from an article in Sunday's New York Times -- a front-page piece that perpetuates that very stereotype. "Clearly, committing homicide is an extreme manifestation of dysfunction for returning veterans," the paper explained. A platoon of Times reporters "found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war."
The Times didn't try to establish a causal relationship between war service and homicide. It didn't even try to establish a correlation. The 7,000-word article contained no statistics on the size of the veteran population, or on the prevalence of homicide either in the general population or among young men, who are disproportionately represented among active-duty and recently discharged service members.
Various commentators performed their own back-of-the-envelope calculations, including Ralph Peters of the New York Post, who estimates that if the Times figures are accurate, recent war vets are only about one-fifth as likely to be implicated in a homicide as the average 18- to 34-year-old.
The Times acknowledges that this is no scientific study. It says it probably undercounted the number of homicides by war veterans, since it based its count on news reports. It does claim to have found a large increase -- 89% -- in the number of homicides attributed to servicemen or recent vets since October 2001, compared with the previous six-year period.
But there's the real rub. The Times is purporting to test a media stereotype by measuring its prevalence in the media. As a Pentagon spokesman put it, that 89% spike could have resulted from "an increase in awareness of military service by reporters since 9/11." Or, to put it more bluntly, the Times hasn't necessarily proved that the stereotype is true -- only that it is a stereotype.
And Rupert Murdoch said he would make the Times a better
publication?I have no respect at all for the times,and for most
of the pinko,freedom-hating editors and reporters as well.
All patriotic Americans that love this Country and Our Military
should boycott the times,and any other rag that prints this
blind,decietful sputum.