« My Grandfather's Gift to Me: Cape Cod's Yesterdays | Main | Does Customer Service Matter Anymore? »

October 29, 2005

You Won't Find the Whole Story in the New York Times

In "paying tribute" to the 2,000th soldier killed in Iraq this week, the New York Times ran a story that included a small portion of a "what if, after death" letter intended for the girlfriend of Marine Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr after he was killed in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30th. The bit of the letter the New York Times chose to profile was a blatant attempt to stamp out the principled ideals of the letter's author. The full content of the letter found on Cpl. Starr's computer (which the New York Times had also received) was forwarded to Michelle Malkin by his uncle. He was upset by the New York Times misrepresentation of his nephew's clear understanding of the current conflict.
The New York Times' omission is highlighted in bold:

“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."

There is no excuse for the obvious efforts of many here at home to deny our soldiers in Iraq (and everywhere) the full support they deserve. The New York Times and other such rags are quickly losing readership because of their disgusting lack of respect for the Iraqi people's struggle for democracy, and each and every one of the 2,000 plus soldiers who have died in their effort to rid the Middle East, and the world, of a tyrant who had no bounds.

Yesterday, blogs, forums and comments trumpeted the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff. The liberal left was heralding what they claim as vindication of their charges of an "unjust war." This war is more than justified, it is an absolute necessity. Saddam Hussein was a loose canon who had all of the know how, equipment and resources within reach to quickly put together and deliver a nuclear weapon within three months time. This was an admitted goal of his regime. That we found no nuclear materials is completely irrelevant to this simple, undeniable and verified truth. Those who feel confident that this would never have happened exemplify the ignorance that caused us to experience the likes of September eleventh here at home.

The Chief UN Weapons Inspector, David Kay, described Saddam Hussein as “a completely paranoid character without any sense of responsibility or bonding to norms.” Kay also correctly described Hussein's rule as “a regime that in its brutality is mind-boggling,” and warned our Congress that “if you are concerned about... an Iraq that produces and has nuclear weapons... then you have to deal with changing a regime.” We must never allow the voices of dissent to drown out the truth about this war. Diplomacy, containment and "wait and see" policies are not successful or safe with the likes of a Saddam Hussein. We can only hope and pray that our country's national defense remains soundly in the hands of those that understand this tragic reality.

Every single soldier who has died, from the first to the 2,000th and beyond, deserves their just and noble cause be truthfully reported. Shame on the New York Times and their irresponsible, biased journalism.

See Related:

New York Times Article

Michelle Malkin, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr: What the NY Times Left Out

Posted by capecodcyclist at October 29, 2005 09:15 PM

Comments

Post a comment