NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...

[Longhairedskinnywhiteboy]

... lies by omission.

Wendsday's edtion of the New York Times
had a big article about the 2000th casualty of the Iraq war.

They printed a story about a young Marine killed
last April. They found a letter to his girl friend
on his laptop.

This is what the NYT printed from the letter

''I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances.''


This is what the young man actualy said

"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."
The whole story (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003793.htm)

Talk about leaving out the details :mad: :mad:
Its very clear to me that the NYT wants us to lose this war.

[Dead Fan]

I dont think the times cares weather we win lose or draw I think their ultimate goal is to have people believe that the soldiers are angry at Bush for sending them there. This is a lie. I know these soldiers and they belive in this cause. What the times really wants is to win the war but only under a democratic President. The thought of a Republican doing something that does something remotely right even if by accident sickens them. I just wish that the news could report news. Not leftist not right wing not bi-partisan just news, the truth and nothing else. I would like to see what would happen if a democrat was elected and stayed in. He would be a hero. Or if Bush pulled out he would be showing a sign of weakness showing that we werent supposed to be here, condming republicans to dismy for a raher long time. If a democrat comes in in the next election and pulls out he would be showing his compasion and caring. I pray for the day that a "third party" candidate wins the president. (Hopefully libertarian). Ill be voting next election so i will be doing my part to achieve that goal. Once that happens i think things will be what they should be not what the right or left thinks they should be.

[Longhairedskinnywhiteboy]

I dont think the times cares weather we win lose or draw I think their ultimate goal is to have people believe that the soldiers are angry at Bush for sending them there. This is a lie. I know these soldiers and they belive in this cause. What the times really wants is to win the war but only under a democratic President. The thought of a Republican doing something that does something remotely right even if by accident sickens them. I just wish that the news could report news. Not leftist not right wing not bi-partisan just news, the truth and nothing else. I would like to see what would happen if a democrat was elected and stayed in. He would be a hero. Or if Bush pulled out he would be showing a sign of weakness showing that we werent supposed to be here, condming republicans to dismy for a raher long time. If a democrat comes in in the next election and pulls out he would be showing his compasion and caring. I pray for the day that a "third party" candidate wins the president. (Hopefully libertarian). Ill be voting next election so i will be doing my part to achieve that goal. Once that happens i think things will be what they should be not what the right or left thinks they should be.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/FukNRekd/Smile/applaudit.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/FukNRekd/Smile/applaudit.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/FukNRekd/Smile/applaudit.gif

How refreshing.

Nice post, DF, nice post.

IMNSHO, there will be more polarization before there will be less. I doubt libertarians will take the big seat for a while. From what I've seen, they haven't got their minds made up to exactally what they want yet. (That might not be such a bad thing, though). I think we'll see someone like billary in there next time. Billary seems to be at least constant in her beliefs and somewhat level headed, (except for that fucked up national health care bullshit she's trying to push.)


People are defanetly getting tired of the media though. It shows more and more every year. And they get noticeably more extreme/desperate every year.

[Longhairedskinnywhiteboy]

Found this article (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/editor_asked_to_explain_editing/) this morning. I wish I could write like that!

EDITOR ASKED TO EXPLAIN EDITING

Lisa Huang Fleischman writes to New York Times public editor Byron Calame:

Mr. Calame—I’ve never bothered to write the NY Times before, because your paper seems to make a practice of sinking to new lows every time I look, although I admit I, like many others, hardly ever look anymore. But this last was really contemptible.

Your paper profiled Cpl. Jeffrey Starr in an article about the 2000th casualty (of course). Here’s the article.

The paper quotes from a letter written by Cpl Starr to his girlfriend, found after his death by Starr’s father. The erstwhile paper of record states:

"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.’"

Perfectly in keeping, may I say, with the defeatist, elegiac, Vietnam-like attitude of the entire piece.

I’m sorry to say that the Times reporter dishonestly deleted the rest of the letter. Thanks to the brave corporal’s family, who forwarded the remainder of the letter to Michelle Malkin, we actually know what Corporal Starr really thought, not what the Times would like to use him to stand for.

Here’s what the rest of the letter says.

He 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 mine—it’s the part that your reporter knowingly left out. Which only goes to show that everything—EVERYTHING—at the Times is in service of The Agenda.)

I know it just kills you guys to think that overwhelmingly our soldiers actually, consciously support the war, are perfectly aware of the dangers they face, and are as perfectly prepared to face them. I know it comforts all the Timesmen and women to think that soldiers are just sad, pathetic, barely literate dupes (when they aren’t being babykillers and Koran flushers), but in fact the soldiers view their lives as imbued with transcendent meaning, apparently something no Times reporter can claim. Maybe it’s just envy on the part of all your reporters that these American teenagers in uniform make history every day of their lives, while you all just continue to transparently twist the news and to accumulate contempt from the American people, which is now compounding at a daily rate.

Incidentally, I was a reserve army officer for twelve years. Sad, pathetic dupe that I am, I graduated Berkeley and Columbia Law School. (I understand you have a few Columbia J-School grads among your staff. Too bad. Everyone on campus knew that only the really dumb kids ended up in the J-School.)

(In my best Kelso voice... "burrrnnn!" :D

[unclejoe]

-----~~-----
...no greater gift...
-----~~-----

you will be remembered.
semper fi, Jeff

[tlranger]

lhswhiteboy-wanted to wish your chargers good luck!

Go Chiefs (what a great upc name)

Peace T L Ranger

[LIBRA]

Thats terrible, but its one of our freedoms, and its too bad they cant express it truthfully.
I dont even like to read the paper or watch the news I feel its all a stunt, half the time its nothing important anyway its all about celebrities and their lives, I could care less about who's screwing who, I just want the truth about EVERYTHING else, I dont see it happening anytime soon.
They twist everything to theyre own advantage, seems like that should not be aloud.

[morningsunshine]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/FukNRekd/Smile/applaudit.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/FukNRekd/Smile/applaudit.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/FukNRekd/Smile/applaudit.gif

How refreshing.

Nice post, DF, nice post.

I've noticed you only treat people nicely when they agree with you.
And don't give me this crap like he researched his reply or whatnot, because there wasn't a single bit of research in there. He just agreed with you.
It looks like you can't handle a bit of opposition without getting all pissy and acting like a twelve year old.
And I know you're going to say that we [as in, the 'liberals'] do the same thing.
We don't have a problem with your opinion, just how you treat people. We're not stupid and we're not ignorant. With your attitude, you turn it into a giant political dramafest. You could get your point across a lot better if you debated with people and didn't attack them personally, because a lot posts that don't agree with you are just as "well researched" as yours are, though they're researched to support their point instead of yours, just like you do with your own. I'm not attacking you, I'm seriously just trying to give you an honest suggestion because you do make good points at times, but they're hidden under all the name calling and attitude.
Just an observation I made.

[LIBRA]

I've noticed you only treat people nicely when they agree with you.
And don't give me this crap like he researched his reply or whatnot, because there wasn't a single bit of research in there. He just agreed with you.
It looks like you can't handle a bit of opposition without getting all pissy and acting like a twelve year old.
And I know you're going to say that we [as in, the 'liberals'] do the same thing.
We don't have a problem with your opinion, just how you treat people. We're not stupid and we're not ignorant. With your attitude, you turn it into a giant political dramafest. You could get your point across a lot better if you debated with people and didn't attack them personally, because a lot posts that don't agree with you are just as "well researched" as yours are, though they're researched to support their point instead of yours, just like you do with your own. I'm not attacking you, I'm seriously just trying to give you an honest suggestion because you do make good points at times, but they're hidden under all the name calling and attitude.
Just an observation I made.


I agree with that 100%, I was hoping to turn it around but, its not gonna happen. If he doesnt agree then its his way or no way.

[Dead Fan]

You got a point. There wasnt one bit of research there just my opinion from what I gather from news, newspapers and political documentaries and the ones that contredict those. (im not being sarcastic)

[tlranger]

1st- 'lieberals spreading..' when did being a liberal become so..bad? I truly think that a person can have an open mind, embrace progressive reform, be generous and not be expected to jump off a bridge with M. Moore.

2nd- N.Y. Times - tree using rag. My local paper listed ten usful things to do with newspaper. Number 10 was get the news, the other 9 were clearly more useful, and I can come up with at least one more to get it clear off the list. But I read it for local and other stuff.

The Media - Remind me of my chicken flock! Every morning, they head out of the hen house to find something to eat, except a couple that stay behind to f8ck the rooster. They generally head to where they think they'll find something easy, if I'm feeding them; they come(at this point they cannot be quiet). If they go out hunting, one may find something, then a frenzy breaks out. They scratch and dig till nothing is left, then kinda wander off, always looking back to see if someone has found something. If some young chick wanders to far, she is soon facing the rooster and sent back home. So nobody gets to far. Sorry, bet you didn't expect barnyard homur, better quit!

Peace T L Ranger