« The Friends of Our Enemies | Main | Multiculturalism Blossoms in France »
November 4, 2005
NY Times Steals the Meaning of a Hero's Death
Posted by Dave Blount at November 4, 2005 8:02 AM
If anyone doubts that the New York Times will stoop to any low to demoralize our country and our troops in hopes of bringing about the defeat of democracy in Iraq and the triumph of Islamic terrorism, check out Michelle Malkin's recent piece in the New York Post.
Malkin refers to yet another dreary Times article intended to convince us that there is just no use to fighting, in which the Gray Lady tells a grotesquely distorted version of the story of Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, a patriot who kept reenlisting because he believed in ideals beyond the grasp of the skittering cockroaches who write for the Times. Starr died in action, as he well knew he might. He also knew what he was dying for, writing in a letter:
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.
In order to make Starr's ultimate sacrifice look as pointless as a traffic accident, the above passage was stripped down to this:
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."
As Malkin reminds us:
When you read The New York Times (if you still bother to read it), always ask:
What is the Times not telling me?
The answers are invariably more compelling — and newsworthy — than what the paper actually deems "fit to print."
For more on the NY Times' shameless distortion of the words of our soldiers to suit their propaganda purposes, have a look at The Mudville Gazette.
Hat tips: Varla, Times Watch
