home columns images bio contact links storm warnings twitter

Hitler Resurrected
A New York State Of Mind

 

March 27, 2003

 

Hey, it’s just trading one mustachioed tyrant for another.  Hitler loved his mustache and so does Hussein.  Hitler relied on his SS just like Hussein relies on his Fedayeen.  British Labour Party chairman John Reid, “likened the Fedayeen militia near Basra to the SS and Stormtroopers in Nazi Germany.”  And Hitler loved murder, especially the sacrificing of his own citizens, to a degree rivaled only by the likes of Stalin, Mao and Hussein.  In a classic case of one-upmanship, Hussein, possibly in an effort to curry favor with a former American President, also revels in the rape of women.  Do these sound like the qualifications for Hussein to become the New York Times “Man of the Year”? 

Without a doubt, the most dogmatic, biased and anti-American hypocrites in the history of the press populate the New York Times.  Their news and editorial staffs are Hush Puppy assassins with ideas spun from intellectual lint.  Cases in point: 

1. “Protecting Prisoners of War”, editorial March 26, 2003.  The NYT starts with a begrudging acknowledgement that American POW’s in Iraq are being “abused”.  But the meat of the editorial is a diatribe cautioning the U.S. to treat POW’s in accordance with the rules of the Geneva Convention, “Washington will obviously demand that Americans captured in Iraq be treated in full accordance with all relevant Geneva Conventions. It should make sure that its own handling of battlefield captives sets the desired example.”

Conveniently, the NYT remained serendipitously incognizant of the reality that Iraqis, as U.S. POW’s, have a better lifestyle than when they were under Hussein.  I doubt that General Franks will be lobbing off any tongues.  With equal oversight, the NYT fails to ever mention that American POW’s from the 1991 Gulf War are suing Iraq for such four star treatment as, “severe beatings, systemic starvation, systematic exposure to freezing cold, deprivation of medical care, electric shock, cigarette burns, mock executions, threatened castration, threatened amputation and dismemberment, and continual death threats.” 

2. NYT front page headlines on March 25th, 2003, “Iraqis Repel Copters; One Goes Down”  “GIs Regroup After Setback --Two Prisoners on Iraqi TV”  “Hussein Rallies Iraqi Defenders”  “The Goal Is Baghdad, but at What Cost?” 

This is a gross instance of journalistic bastardization.  The NYT is reporting the news in an effort to subsidize its anti-Bush editorial policy.  Having an opinion is fine, but crafting the reporting of news to bolster that opinion without regard or respect for the consequences on our troops and their families is unethical, if not treasonous.  The teaser for the article, “The Goal Is Baghdad, but at What Cost?” reads like a grade three wonderment about why the sky is blue, “The cost of taking Baghdad and dislodging Saddam Hussein’s government, in terms of both allied and Iraqi casualties, is uncertain.”  Uncertain?   

Michael R. Gordon, the intellectually pre-pubescent author of this article should detach himself from the flow of mommy’s warm milk and try using a new tool called “logic”.  Life and war are both uncertain.  Who can guarantee taking their next pee, let alone waking up in the morning?  If worrywart Gordon wishes certainty, a jump off of the George Washington Bridge is the solution for what ails him.  Death is the only certainty and the NYT’s biased reporting will certainly help that along for our brave troops.  The editorial twits at the NYT don’t really care about American lives, they just want to stick their tongues out at President Bush and say, “Nah Nah, we told you so.” 

3. “Channel of Influence”, March 5th, 2003 by Paul Krugman.  An op-ed in which the rabidly biased Krugman unveils the conspiracy that right-wing radio is the Svengali behind the “pro-war” rallies.

Krugman initially belittles what he refers to as the “pro-war” demonstrators and then equates the Dixie Chicks boycott to a coup-de-tat in the U.S. by a Hitleresque dictator.                And speaking of Hitler, Krugman launches into a smear campaign worthy of Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels.  Here is the illogic. 

The Dixie Chick protest was organized by radio station KRMD that is owned by Cumulus Media.  The truth is that stations across America, motivated by listener outrage, boycotted Dixie Chicks music.  KRMD simply organized a publicity stunt and crushed Dixie Chicks CD’s with a bulldozer.  Those who would rather crush a CD than burn an American flag apparently appall Krugman. 

Without any thread of evidence, except delusional paranoia, Krugman segues KMRD’s ownership by Cumulus into a pro-war conspiracy by the unrelated Clear Channel Communications.  Since clear channel syndicates Rush Limbaugh, they must be smeared. In his murky lucidity, Krugman divines that Clear Channel is the organizer of “pro-war” protests as a ruse for the company to ingratiate itself with the Bush administration.  Talk about character assassination!  Funny how Krugman turns “Support Our Troops” and “Support America” into “pro-war”.  Remember that the next time Krugman replaces pro-murder or pro-abortion with the powder-puff “pro-choice”.  

By the end of the editorial, Krugman, who is seemingly psychotic from too many bad acid trips, weaves a fantasy connecting patriotism to government corruption.  No doubt that the hate-America munchkins at the NYT actually do equate patriotism with corruption.  Patriotism is so “Upper West Side” unstylish, it’s just so blue-collar.   

The abject hypocrisy of the NYT is worse than the smell of vomit on an airplane.  These people are schizophrenic spoilers.  Their best way to bad-mouth an Administration they personally do not like was to hope that its policies would lead to massive civilian deaths in Iraq.  The NYT is obsessed with minimal U.S. caused civilian casualties in Iraq while it is simultaneously oblivious to the millions of Iraqis killed, tortured and raped by the Hussein régime.     

Apparently the NYT chooses to ignore Fedayeen thugs hiding in schools, Iraqi tanks operating inside of hospitals, Fedayeen dressing in U.S. uniforms and murdering fellow Iraqis, Fedayeen using Iraqi women and children as shields, Hussein’s intentional placement of military installations in civilian areas and the reality that Hussein is the biggest murderer of Muslims in Middle Eastern history.  Not to mention that the NYT pantywaists spew more vile at an American President than a tyrant who hides behind women and children. 

The gaggle at the NYT’s is a bunch of spoiled brat “Tom and Daisy Buchanan” nitwits.  They don’t care about consequences…only about their own hubris.  It must be tragic to suffer from so much insecurity.  And speaking of insecurity, somebody on the NYT’s payroll named Alessandra Stanley analyzed balanced reporting on the war as, “…the giddy cheerleading of many Fox News anchors.”  It appears that Alessandra is either testy from the pain and discomfort of swollen hemorrhoids or miffed that some Fox anchors refer to American troops as “our troops” rather than “They” or “It”.  Some journalists think that “our troops” is biased reporting.  By definition, if you are an American, “They” are “our troops”.  If you can’t understand that, it’s little wonder why the rest is so confusing.

 

return to archives