Tuesday, January 10, 2006

This Is How the New York Times Supports Our Troops?

Once again an article in the New York Times has put our troops at risk and potentially damaged their morale. In an article published on January 6, 2005, called Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows reporter Michael Moss reveals a secret Pentagon study shows that "at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor." If the study was secret, why is the New York Times publishing the results? The real story here is that there are traitors in our government leaking top secret documents to the press.

The article goes into great detail about the inadequacy of the armor available to soldiers and what parts of their bodies are vulnerable. Now any terrorist with a subscription to the New York Times will know where to shoot. And how do you think soldiers who read this article are going to feel? At a time when the conduct of the war is coming under increasing criticism, our brave soldiers don't need their morale further damaged by reporters with 20/20 hindsight. Is the phrase "Support Our Troops" just empty words to liberals in the media?

The article seems to imply that because it took a year for the Pentagon to pay for the data to be analyzed because of funding problems that somehow the government is to blame for the armor not being up to par. The article also says there is a backlog in production of humvees with special armor, which are also expensive to make. Of course, no one could have predicted that the war would last more than a few weeks so the idea that the Pentagon should pay for a lot of expensive armor and humvees that might never be needed is absurd. Instead of whining, many soldiers and their families have simply paid for the armor themselves instead of waiting for a government handout. Wal-Mart employees pay for their uniforms so what could be more American than soldiers paying for theirs? I don't suppose liberals would give up some of their precious social programs to pay for them. I suppose liberals think we should rescind the tax cuts to pay for armor but it makes no sense to cripple our economy and destroy our way of life when that is what our soldiers are dying for in the first place. All this quibbling and second-guessing is damaging our ability to fight the war in Iraq. If liberals really want to support our troops they should shut up and get behind our President.

, , ,


Anonymous said...

I agree! It is traitorous to say anything that might make 'Murikkka look bad.

I realize that you enjoy seeing your soldiers get maimed and crippled, so keep up the good work.

Have you tried to start a petition to have all the body armor taken away from the soldiers and sold?
The money could be given to multi-millionaire Republican Crusaders for Bush.

Anonymous said...

Yes, let the liberals give money from thier programs and let the conservatives maintain thier wealthfare programs. Makes sense. Don't protect the troops just get behind the president. you have been watching way too much Fox News.

Anonymous said...

No more Rush for you, young man...Unless of course you are ready to enlist and wear some of the shit armor they gave our boys.

If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for you!

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir:

I can't believe that you quote a story from the New York Times. Any true conservative knows that the Times prints nothing but lies about America, in an ongoing scheme to convince America that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were just a pair of mixed-up, crazy kids.
You should be ashamed of yourself, treating the New York Times like a newspaper. Have you no decency? Have you no subscription to "Human

The 2008 Weblog Awards