moonbattery.gif


« Animal Rights Activists Openly Advocate Violence | Main | Academic Discovers That Islam Is Not Linked to Terrorism »


May 29, 2005

New York Times Strives to Demoralize

Congratulations to the fifth columnists at the New York Times, who may have hit a new low in their efforts to demoralize the country in general and our troops in particular by choosing the day before Memorial Day to quote veterans of past wars who say they would not fight to combat terrorism and spread democracy in the Middle East.

"I don't think it's our war to begin with," said one vet. "I still don't know what it's supposed to be about. Oil? Is it about mass destruction weapons they had which were never found? I'm not an isolationist, but I can't see what we're doing over there."

If the Times' highly knowledgeable reporters can't grasp — even after 9-11 — that we have a major stake in the Middle East, and that the spread of democracy there is in everyone's best interest, especially ours, it's hardly surprising that they could find someone with a service record who has been sufficiently disoriented by the MSM's hostile coverage as to not understand what the war is about.

There are a lot of veterans out there, all of whom deserve our thanks and respect. But if you looked hard enough, you could find a few who would say pretty much whatever you want people to hear. Given the Times' resources, finding veterans who are proud of what our military is trying to accomplish in the Middle East would not be difficult. But a story like that would be good for American morale, and bad for al Qaeda. So don't expect to see it in the Times.

Posted by Van Helsing at May 29, 2005 11:49 AM

Comments

I am a Korean War (Police Action. Remember?) era vet. I think the war in Iraq was not the thing to do. And if it was done for some reason it was done to let the guilt flee from Afganastan -- what was his name? Hum. And oil. Yes, it is about oil.

Posted by: Abraham Lincoln at May 29, 2005 4:52 PM

To stress that the Iraq war is about oil is both a distortion and an oversimplification. But if it were about oil, how would that be an argument against it? What would happen to our economy if we lost our oil supply? We would be like a deep sea diver with his air hose cut. People would be starving in the streets. Wouldn't that be worth fighting to prevent?

Posted by: Van Helsing at May 29, 2005 5:51 PM

"Yes, it is about oil"

Nonsense.

It would be cheaper (and probably more popular)to conquer Venezuela.
By the way, what was the Korean war about?

I thought it was to stop the progress in general, criple socialist justice and to pevent the equality of mankind and at the same time to propagate American greed and to kill innocent children.

Gawd, I just love empty slogans.

Posted by: Felis at May 29, 2005 8:09 PM

Yes, we do have a major stake in the Middle East. Over my lifetime, this area has been a breeding ground for the terrorist that hit us on 9/11. Unfortunately, some people believe that our response to terrorism should have been simply punishing OBL. Thank God we have a President that understands that the hatred toward America is a deep-rooted movement in Islam comitted to our destruction. The situation has been handled by our President in very effective manner, he is changing the political landscape of the Middle East. Clinton would have simply blown a missle to an empty patch of land, and then get back to what he did best, having his missle blown by an empty one of his young advisors. Oil is important, and worth fighting for to keep it flowing, but not the main reason we went to Iraqi.
Abe, I disagree with you, but I truly appreciate your service to our great country.

Posted by: Eneils Bailey at May 30, 2005 7:09 AM

What is wrong with presenting the case of a former Vet who is opposed to the Iraq war? I think it is shameful that opposing viewpoints are chastised and presented in such a partisan war mongering fashion. The War is a failure of epic proportion. Everything about it is unAmerican. The notion that it was undertaken to promote democracy is completly absurd. Oh, excuse me that's right, it was about curtailing the threat posed by WMDs which were going to destroy life in the United States as we know it with a thousand mushroom clouds. 1650 US servicemen and women dead for essentially nothing. Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and all the neocons had their sights set on Iraq long before 911. All one need do is take the time to read PNAC and any second grade idiot can connect the dots. The lies used to bring us into this shameful war are nothing short of treasonous. The cowardice with which this administration shifts the blame to the intelligence community for the lack of WMDs being present is sickening. And the mainstream media which is controlled by the same corporations which receive tax cuts and special treatment from the administration is complicit in the lack of truthful investigative reporting of the crimes perpetrated Bush and the neocons. The stories are so plentiful for those who care to look where the truth leads them. The aluminum tubes, the Plame case, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo,all of which constitiute an endless litany of shameful lies and deceit perpatrated upon America and the World. The money spent by the US in this illegal and immoral war could have been used for the development of alternative energy and end or dimminish our need for non domestic sources of energy. The moral bankruptcy which is demonstrated by those who claim that we are somehow justified in going into Iraq since we need oil is typical of those who support Bush and his cronies. Galloway should be applauded for his address to Congress in which he told it like it is. It is high time that someone stands up and states what is obvious to those who still hold truth, honor, and democracy in high esteem, that being that the emporer truly has no clothes.

Posted by: Mike Miller at May 30, 2005 8:34 PM

I'm not sure this is quite on-topic, but I was rather chafed to hear of this memorial "to Iraqi civilians" that went on here in the People's Republik of Marxachusetts yesterday, put on by a group of artists and musicians with some distinct leftist tendencies.

I feel like writing them and asking if they meant to memorialize the Iraqis fed head-first into Saddam's paper shredder...

Posted by: Reginleif at May 31, 2005 9:22 AM

Mike's comment deserves a good fisking... so, here it is: GM's Corner

Posted by: GMRoper at May 31, 2005 10:39 AM

Nice job, GM! Much appreciated.

Posted by: Van Helsing at May 31, 2005 1:06 PM

I think a case can be made that if not for oil, we would not be in Iraq. But it is also true that if it weren't for terrorism and an oppressive, belligerent dictatorship, we would not be in Iraq either.

Posted by: V the K at May 31, 2005 2:58 PM

Last time I checked 19 highjackers came from Saudi Arabia.

Last I checked most car bombers are coming from Saudi Arabia.

Last I checked Bush and Co. have not been able to link Iraq to Al-Qaeda.

Last I checked Saudi Arabia is south of where our troops are now. How the f*&k does the most sophisticated military in the world miss their target like that?

Oh that's right Saudi Arabia is our friend.

Onto the vets, once you've seen combat things change. As Americans we have every right to disagree with a war without being labeled un-American or un-patriotic.

Posted by: The Bastard at June 1, 2005 6:30 AM