The New York Times is at it again. Honestly, why does anyone still read this piece of trash? Don Surber does a masterful job of interpreting this piece:
A Hard Look at A Haditha Editorial
The NY Times' lead editorial today is a delicious example of early 21st century elitists saying one thing, meaning another. I shall interpret it as we go along:
The apparent cold-blooded killing last November of 24 Iraqi civilians by United States marines at Haditha will be hard to dispose of with another Washington damage control operation. The Iraqi government has made clear that it will not sit still for one, and neither should the American people.
The contradiction of "apparent cold-blooded killing" is a desire by the writer to appear to be fair while basically accepting the worst, unproven fears.
This affair cannot simply be dismissed as the spontaneous cruelty of a few bad men.
Blame Bush for everything.
This is the nightmare that everyone worried about when the Iraq invasion took place.
This is the nightmare hoped for by the I-told-you-so-crowd. Hmm. Didn't we destroy the Chinese embassy when we bombed Yugoslavia into submission? Yea, bad shit happens in war.
Related:
New York Times: Bad things are bad
Hi friends, I have heard loud and clear that I am boring the bejeebus out of you with this net neutrality stuff. So let’s get back to good old, inane, pro-death media bias.
Don Surber does a good job taking apart the latest NYT editorial which celebrates the purported failure of some of our Marines in Haditha. Like most on the right and left, of course I believe they should be tried and the guilty convicted. I also think they should, you know, be tried.
But let’s look at the worst-case scenario. If 7 of our Marines did indeed commit what would be war crimes, what does that say about our people in uniform? Out of 150,000 currently in the field (over 200,000 if you count those that have rotated through) that means that .0035% of our Marines have broken the rules of engagement.
Let’s add in, liberally, 20 people who were purportedly involved with Abu Ghraib. Now we are up to .018% of the military currently in Iraq. That’s just under one-fifth of one-tenth of one percent. Meaning that over 99.9%+ of our folks have acted by the rules, in a situation the difficulty of which you and I will never know.
(Psst — find me a city anywhere in the world, in peacetime, that has such a low crime rate. Or an ethnic group, or a gender, or a faith, or any group at all.)
Now, for those who are outraged at the Haditha accusations: good. It takes great moral courage to say that bad things are bad, I admit. But it is hardly leadership, as many lefties would like to believe.
If the real impetus behind the NYT editorial is that intentional killing is a bad thing (again, moral courage), then I wonder how much editorial ink they they dedicate to the 24,000 innocent civilians that have been targeted and killed by the insurgents? ... More
Comments