Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
The NYT should be reporting on the war and should, as they have in the past, be reporting what the present Administration is trying to hide. In the past they did this quite effectively, along with the rest of the press. The NYT is not in a position to "support the troops." They are a newspaper with an obligation to provide an extra effort to dig out the stuff the official sources are shielding. The official sources will always be covered because they are the "official" sources. If there are soldiers who want to write articles to support the official line, many of us, and likely the NYT, assume they will be covered by the official sources and therefore be carried in the NYT and other major publications. It is a formula for a free press acting as an agent for preserving our democracy that has worked remarkably well until 9-11.
US soldiers in Iraq deserve our support, regardless of their support for the Administration or lack thereof. Supporting the troops has nothing to do with supporting their presence in Iraq without an executable mission. The troops don't get to pick, or define or in any way select the mission. That falls on politicians who, in this case of our invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, have failed to exercise good judgement at every turn of the screw. It is fully understandable why they would like to have everyone get distracted with this "support the troops = support George Bush's continued bungling of running the country" as it gives the Bush Administration a shield to hide behind. It is up to people to put the time into examining the pattern of poor judgement followed by chanting of slogans and attacks on critics and questioning the patriotism of Americans who are not convinced - and deciding the tactics are not only revoltingly self serving, they are ripping America apart. Jim