The New York Slimes

[dude1394]

I can't begin to articulate my contempt for this rag.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02042007...ditorials_.htm

ebruary 4, 2007 -- Question: When is a U.S. military victory not a victory?

Answer: When it's reported by The New York Times.

Read the account from Baghdad in the Jan. 30 Times about a battle the previous weekend in the city of Najaf - one of the biggest engagements of the war - and you'd think that U.S. and Iraqi forces had suffered a terrible defeat at the hands of what was described as "an obscure renegade militia."

"Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity" of the fighters arrayed against them, read the piece by correspondent Marc Santora, who added, "They needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed."

Not until the article's sixth paragraph - 200 words into the 1,100-word piece - did this sentence appear: "The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle."

Or, as Wellington said after defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, "It was a damned close-run thing" - but the good guys won.

So why wasn't this the lead of the Times' story? Given the way things have been going, it would seem to be an unusual enough development to warrant prominent attention.

Maybe because the Times doesn't want America to win in Iraq.

Indeed, it seems that the Times wants to squelch any talk of possible victory - even if that talk doesn't appear in the paper.

The paper's chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon, went on PBS' "Charlie Rose Show" recently, and expressed qualified support for President Bush's troop surge - noting that "we've never really tried to win" in Iraq.

Stressing that this was "a purely personal view," Gordon declared: "I think that if it's done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something."

Not exactly controversial stuff there. But Gordon's editors and some of his left-wing readers deemed it offensive.

As Times Public Editor Byron Calame disclosed last Sunday, Gordon was upbraided by his editors, who declared that he'd "stepped over the line" on the show and offered "poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points."

Gordon, the column said, "agrees his comments on the show went too far."

Too far?

Interestingly, Times editors never seem to have a problem with remarks by other reporters - provided they attack the Bush administration.

Consider correspondent Chris Hedges' infamous 2003 commencement address at Rockford College, where he charged that Americans were becoming "tyrants to others weaker than ourselves," and linked Bush to Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon - whom he said were "carrying out acts of gratuitous and senseless violence."

Nor, as the Web site Timeswatch.org points out, was there any reprimand of correspondent Neil McFarquhar, who last summer also appeared on Charlie Rose's show and attacked the Bush administration for "rushing bombs to this part of the world."

"It just erodes and erodes and erodes America's reputation," said McFarquhar - who, unlike Gordon, did not even offer the disclaimer that his was "a purely personal view."

From the Times, silence.

Was this because McFarquhar and Hedges were spreading a message that Times editors agree with?

How else to explain it?

Political hypocrisy from The New York Times is no surprise. Nor is the fact that it is prepared to squelch free speech - even by its own reporters - that doesn't jibe with the paper's far-left viewpoint.

But that its reporting from Iraq has become so slanted as to fundamentally misrepresent events on the battlefield is worse than disappointing.

It's simply unacceptable.

[kg_veteran]

We won, but not as easily as we should have.

If that's not an attempt to find failure in the midst of success, I don't know what is.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

We won, but not as easily as we should have.

If that's not an attempt to find failure in the midst of success, I don't know what is.

How about writing up superbowl ads as if they are veiled commentary on the war:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006820.htm

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

If that's not an attempt to find failure in the midst of success, I don't know what is.

or perhaps breaking a signed agreement not to publish identifiable photographs of KIA before their families have been notified.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006806.htm


disgusting.

[Mavdog]

so it's the NYT that wrote a biased piece? hogwash.

the battle in najaf was a story which changed daily until the true facts were finally disclosed. the attack was to be done by the iraqis themselves, but according to the details of what happened the iraqis were not up to the task. the reasons given for this failure is 1) the iraqis grossly underestimated the cult's numbers as well as its firepower, 2) the iraqi troops were not ready to fight to the end for their government, and 3) due to the aforementioned the strategy was not working and the battle was being lost. so what else could the iraqis do? they called in the americans. the us troops saved the iraqis, and that is the story.

the problem arose when there was an attempt to not tell the true story, but to supress it. only after repeated inquiries did the truth come out.

the moral to this: tell the truth, nothing but the truth, for the truth will eventually come out.

as for malkin's apparent contempt for the NYT columnist who reviewed the super bowl ads and had the audacity to devote three whole lines to the prudential ad.....get over it. the point of the review was to comment on the pervasive violence that ran through these ads this year, from the astronaut getting wasted by a meteor (very odd ending imo) to the use of the rock. three lines in a review? seems michelle is a bit testy.

[Usually Lurkin]

mavdog, you are stretching it to transparency.

You're agreeing that victory is defeat, and you tee off on Michelle Malkin because some NYT goofball assumes "a rock" in a prudential ad is code for "Iraq" and writes it up as commentary on the war?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the moral to this: tell the truth, nothing but the truth, for the truth will eventually come out.

you mean truth like Newsweek's Evan Thomas reports?

Here's a blurb from Newsweek about Thomas

Thomas was pivotal in spearheading NEWSWEEK’s award-winning coverage on the war on terror from the Washington bureau. His reporting and writing on the terror events of September 11 and the Iraq war contributed to NEWSWEEK’s being honored with the most prestigious awards in the magazine industry—

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4916925/site/newsweek/

Here's what Evan Thomas has to say about it:

"Our job is to bash the president."

http://newsbusters.org/node/10631

[kg_veteran]

Sorry, Mavdog, but you're not convincing anyone. The Times is pro-defeat.

[Mavdog]

the times may very well be anti-war, but the accusation about najaf is without merit.

[kg_veteran]

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. They could have chosen to focus on the victory. Instead, they choose to focus on the victory not going as easily as planned.

The truth is, war is an ugly business. It is full of unexpected problems, unforeseen difficulties, and disappointing setbacks. Yet, in the end, victory is what counts, unless you have the media giving you a report card along the way.

If the media had been as pervasive in the 1940's as it is now, I'm not so certain that we would have won World War II.

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

If the media had been as pervasive in the 1940's as it is now, I'm not so certain that we would have won World War II.

Yeah, That A-bomb certainly had nothing to do with it.
Seriously though, you can't compare the way the press handles this war and they way they did WWII. After Veitnam the way Americans veiwed war changed. Remember the picture of a South Vietnamese officer shooting a captured Viet Cong through the head. Images like this were suppressed by the Gov, during WWII. It was images and stories like these that helped to change the public oppinion about Veitnam. It was "legitimized pessimistic reporting" that has over time created a sense of questioning in Amercan people of Government athourity. The press over time has changed.

And to say that the Nation supported WWII is a crock as well.
"In the 1930s, after all, the well-connected America First Committee had been arguing for years about the need for America to stay out of "Europe's wars." Aware of these popular views, the House extended the draft by only a one-vote margin in 1941. Women dressed in black crowded the entrance to the Senate, arguing against extending the draft. Several hundred students at Harvard and Yale, including future Yale leader Kingman Brewster and future American president Gerald Ford, signed statements saying that they would never go to war." (You're not the only one who reads the WSJ)
Didn't it take Pearl Harbor to get us into what was already an unpopular war?
Why do Americans only seem to remember us winning the war in the end?

What was the difference? Maybe it was the fact there was a Democrat in the White House?

Wheew...What a long winded way of saying, "Things are different than they were in the 40's"

[kg_veteran]

I couldn't make sense of most of what you said, but I think you actually agreed with me.

[rmacomic]

Yeah I totaly lost myself on that one. Basicly press was different, that war was different. However, It's a misconception that there wasn't a negative attitude toward WW2.

[Mavdog]

huge isolationist group in america in 1940. becoming involved in another european war was very unpopular.

that wasn't the case post pearl harbor. as the nazi atrocities and japanese brutality emerged the nation did not have anyone screaming for isolationism.

and yes rma, the news cameras access to the war in nam changed how journalist can influence the public perception. at the same time it also changed how the military handles the journalist.

reporters should report, commentators and columnist should give their opinions. sometimes they get confused...

[rmacomic]

I think we can all agree, Media has changed the way we perceive war. To equate WWII media to todays media is comparing apples and oranges. But that doesn't effect this war.
I agree more with KG, but didn't like the last thing he said.
Wow... I think I'm showing my ass as far as knowledge.
Also...
How the hell does Mavdog have such a low rep for being the one liberal here who does his research.
Every one here should give him rep, if for nothing else giving dems. and libs. a voice.
He may not win allot of arguements, but without him most of you guys wouldn't have someone to arguee with.
He's the Hanity to your Colmes.

Edit:You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mavdog again.
Someone else give this guy some rep.