Al-Jazeera vs. NYTs: Who Can Tell the Difference?
Ralph Peters of the NY Post takes the NYTs on for their blatant anti-american, anti-military propaganda. When will they learn?
November 11, 2004 -- IN the Second Battle of Fallujah, military operations are ahead of schedule. Our casualties have been blessedly light. The terrorists who haven't fled are being killed by the hundreds. Our troops will soon achieve their goal of eliminating Iraq's key safe haven for terrorists.Go find out what is really happening...because the Times isn't going to tell you.
Our Marines and soldiers have carried the ball inside the 10-yard line. The media's response? Move the goalposts.
The legions of pundits ("Will talk for food") now suggest that a win in Fallujah will be meaningless because we failed to kill or capture the terrorist leadership, because some of the thugs ran away and because Fallujah won't resemble Darien, Conn., by next Sunday.
On Tuesday, as our troops handily pierced the defenses terrorists had spent months erecting, The New York Times carried two front-page stories implying that our forces were facing possible defeat. The Times' military analysis was incompetent and just plain wrong. And the photo its editors ran above the fold showed a Marine curled in a ditch under enemy fire.
It wasn't reporting. It was a mix of anti-American propa- ganda and wishful thinking. Al-Jazeera couldn't have done it better.
Now that our troops are winning so lopsidedly that it can't be denied, the Times likely will tell us that Fallujah didn't matter, anyway, that our efforts were wasted. Then Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker's greatest living fiction writer, will follow up with a fairy tale called "Failure In Fallujah."
What's really happening?