This page was last updated on December 22, 2010.
The others; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 22, 2010.
The “99.5 percent of the American people who are more than willing to let the other 0.5 percent of their fellow citizens (and some non-citizens) in the armed forces do the fighting and dying for them” comment is one the Times has been repeating since at least 2007. I guess the idea is for the Times to claim it cares about the military while bashing the rest of us.
As I wrote in a previous critique, “I might be inclined to believe the concern expressed by the editorial is genuine except for one thing. Times editorials consistently [did] their damnedest to belittle the mission of our armed forces in Iraq. Maybe it’s me, but I don’t honor someone by telling them their actions are misguided and worthless.”
Here are some examples of “troop support” by the Times. First, though the Times told us in graphic terms the 2007 Iraq surge wouldn’t work (here, here, here, here, here), it said go ahead anyway. The point was to set up the Times to claim it was right regardless of how things transpired. At the time I wrote, “What a gutless position! Worse than gutless, it displays an amazing lack of principles and a willingness to sacrifice American lives to make a political point. If the Times truly believes ‘the effort to pacify Iraq most likely will fail and that many more American personnel will be killed, maimed and wounded in a futile effort,’ it has a moral obligation to fight against the troop increase.”
Second, when Gen. Petraeus reported the surge was having success, the Times told us he was “playing a numbers game.”
Third, you’ll recall the Times gave credit for progress in Iraq to the “Sunni awakening,” Iran, and Muqtada al-Sadr, not our troops.
You can find my comments about homosexuals serving in the military in my critique of “A matter of time.”
Finally, I’ll waste your time with a pet peeve I’ve mentioned before. Why can’t people get their homosexual language straightened out? The editorial refers to “gays and lesbians” twice. The implication is “gays” refers to male homosexuals. The editorial, however, concludes with a comment about “straight and gay countrymen” with no mention of lesbians. Was the editorial referring to all homosexuals or only male homosexuals? This is the same lefty language gymnastics that results in news reporters referring to black Europeans as African-Americans.
© 2004-2010 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.