Sunday, October 07, 2007


The Continuing Shame of the New York Times

Read this article at the excellent Gateway Pundit showing the evolution of New York Times coverage of the Haditha battle in November, 2005. Here is a taste:

The New York Times October 6, 2007

Last year, when accounts of the killing of 24 Iraqis in Haditha by a group
of marines came to light, it seemed that the Iraq war had produced its defining
atrocity, just as the conflict in Vietnam had spawned the My Lai massacre a
generation ago.

But on Thursday, a senior military investigator recommended dropping murder
charges against the ranking enlisted marine accused in the 2005 killings, just
as he had done earlier in the cases of two other marines charged in the case.
The recommendation may well have ended prosecutors’ chances of winning any
murder convictions in the killings of the apparently unarmed men, women and

That's The New York Times special way of saying "I'm sorry" for condemning the Haditha Marines to hell for the "apparent" cold-blooded murder of innocents before their trial even started.

And, isn't it interesting how The New York Times is still searching for an atrocity to define the War in Iraq?

An Al-Qaeda atrocity like the Yazidi bombings, the murder of a brave young Sunni Sheik, torture chamber drawings, or dismembering and booby-trapping dead soldier's bodies just won't do.

It must be an American atrocity.
Sometimes it's hard to figure out just who they are rooting for.

Then read John Hinderaker's further takedown of the yesterday's NYT article on the subject. Additional taste:

In addition, the Times criticizes Lt. Col. Paul Ware, who recommended the dismissals:

The cases also reflect the particular views of Lt. Col. Paul J. Ware, who
presided over the hearings and concluded that all three cases lacked sufficient
evidence. He made clear in his recommendations to the commander who ultimately
decides the cases that he felt that the killings should be considered in context
— that of a war zone where the enemy ruthlessly employed civilians as cover.
Well, that's a "particular" view, I guess, but isn't it obviously a correct one? In some respects, the Times' critique of Col. Ware's work is almost humorous:

[Gary D. Solis, a former Marine judge] added: “He’s aggressive, and he seems to
make his judgments without regard for anything but the law. He must know that
people — civilians, primarily — are going to howl about this, but that doesn’t
seem to be a concern.”
This can only have been intended as a compliment, but it is far from clear that the Times sees it that way. On the contrary:

Other military law experts also noted that in his two reports on the charges
against Lance Corporals Sharratt and Tatum, Colonel Ware revealed a willingness
to give the men the benefit of the doubt, and to consider the impact of the
prosecutions on the morale of troops still fighting in Iraq.
"Giving the men the benefit of the doubt" is also known as the presumption of innocence, a bedrock principle of our system of justice which the Times selectively supports.

Then tell me the New York Times is a force for good in America.


Were it me, I'd use "disgrace" rather than "shame". The New York Times has no shame.
"Giving the men the benefit of the doubt" is also known as the presumption of innocence, a bedrock principle of our system of justice which the Times selectively supports.

And which you selectively support as well, I hazard to point out.
I support it absolutely in courts. I think it's stupid on the field of battle. In war we don't do what we should, we do what we can. Winston Churchill
All we need is Fox News. Right?
Duk, What?
Straw man much? (Rhetorical question.)
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?