Open Letter to the NY Times
I read with total disbelief the editorial in the Sunday NY Times titled The Death Spiral of the Volunteer Army. The editorial staff of the NYT has been one of the leaders of the attempts to defeat the military of the United States. It has attacked every step taken in the war on terror. It has refused to acknowledge any positive effect that our military has had in the Middle East. It has derided the elections held in Afghanistan and Iraq first by stating they would never take place and then by questioning any effectiveness of elected leadership.
The NYT printed the claims that if President Bush was re-elected, his secret plan thought up by Secretary Rumsfeld to restart the draft would be immediately be put in place. The Times printed it knowing it was a lie because the Congress is the body that would have to start the draft, not the President. The Times doesn’t seem to think much of the truth.
The Times continued attacking the military in the same method as in this editorial. "Two years of hearing about too few troops on the ground, inadequate armor, extended tours of duty and accelerated rotations back into combat have taken their toll, discouraging potential enlistees and their parents." (By the way, enlistees is not a word. Editors don’t have to use spell check or English doesn’t matter either?) If the media concludes that the best way to get our troops out of Iraq is to get them defeated, uses the day before Memorial Day as just another day to attack the troops, covers up the lies told by fellow "journalists," and once again lets their hatred of the President excuse their behavior, they will continue to lose readership. The word of a journalist now ranks below that of attorneys and used car salesmen. How proud you must all be of the public’s opinion of your industry.
My final point today is this: Why doesn’t the person or persons writing the Time’s editorials put their names on them? Even the collective view of the Times editorial staff has to have factions. Is it because the readership may find out that the person(s) writing this have never served in the military? Could it be that it is because the person(s) writing this has a degree in journalism, flunked history, spent their youth protesting Vietnam, miss the free love, unwashed bodies, and pot smoking anywhere, anytime? Put your crack pipe away and get out of New York. Talk to people who don’t agree with your editorial position and for once in your life listen to what people have to say without your preconceived, hypocritical notions. The military you enjoy trashing is what allows you the freedom to do your job. The people of the United States know it, why don’t you?
http://http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/opinion/29sun1.html
The NYT printed the claims that if President Bush was re-elected, his secret plan thought up by Secretary Rumsfeld to restart the draft would be immediately be put in place. The Times printed it knowing it was a lie because the Congress is the body that would have to start the draft, not the President. The Times doesn’t seem to think much of the truth.
The Times continued attacking the military in the same method as in this editorial. "Two years of hearing about too few troops on the ground, inadequate armor, extended tours of duty and accelerated rotations back into combat have taken their toll, discouraging potential enlistees and their parents." (By the way, enlistees is not a word. Editors don’t have to use spell check or English doesn’t matter either?) If the media concludes that the best way to get our troops out of Iraq is to get them defeated, uses the day before Memorial Day as just another day to attack the troops, covers up the lies told by fellow "journalists," and once again lets their hatred of the President excuse their behavior, they will continue to lose readership. The word of a journalist now ranks below that of attorneys and used car salesmen. How proud you must all be of the public’s opinion of your industry.
My final point today is this: Why doesn’t the person or persons writing the Time’s editorials put their names on them? Even the collective view of the Times editorial staff has to have factions. Is it because the readership may find out that the person(s) writing this have never served in the military? Could it be that it is because the person(s) writing this has a degree in journalism, flunked history, spent their youth protesting Vietnam, miss the free love, unwashed bodies, and pot smoking anywhere, anytime? Put your crack pipe away and get out of New York. Talk to people who don’t agree with your editorial position and for once in your life listen to what people have to say without your preconceived, hypocritical notions. The military you enjoy trashing is what allows you the freedom to do your job. The people of the United States know it, why don’t you?
http://http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/opinion/29sun1.html
posted by Don Black at 10:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home