« Queen of the Moonbats update | Main | Going home »
November 14, 2006
American heroes don't deserve coverage
At least not in the opinion of editors and writers at the nation's most prestigious newspaper.
I noted that Pres. Bush had paid tribute to a Marine who threw himself on a grenade, saving his comrades in Iraq; Cpl. Jason Dunham was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.
Dunham, a resident of New York, has received scant notice in the newspaper; heroism isn't what the MSM is pushing at the most prestigious broadsheet in the U.S.
But the New York Post has put the wood to the paper of record, slamming the New York Times for it's reluctance to note the sacrifice -- and heroism -- of a local son.
The nation's highest honor for combat valor was awarded posthumously to a U.S. Marine from upstate New York on Friday - and The New York Times didn't notice.
It was a shameful act of neglect, though not surprising in the least.
"As long as we have Marines like Cpl. [Jason] Dunham, America will never fear for her liberty," a clearly moved President Bush said at the dedication of the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Quantico, Va.
It was only the second MOH awarded in the Iraq war, and it was major news everywhere - especially in New York.
But . . . not a word in the Times.
In April 2004, Dunham saved the lives of several fellow Marines - at the cost of his own - when he threw first his helmet, and then his body, over a live hand grenade tossed by a terrorist.
Dunham died of his wounds eight days later, at age 22.This was Dunham's second tour in Iraq. After the first hitch, he could have left the corps and returned to Scio, some 80 miles from Buffalo. Instead, he chose to re-up, saying he wanted to "make sure everyone comes home alive."
The Times wasn't completely unaware of Dunham's self-sacrifice. In August 2005, it ran a brief review of "The Gift of Valor," by Wall Street Journal reporter Michael M. Phillips, which chronicled the heroism of Dunham and his battalion; the article called his sacrifice "extraordinary."
So why not acknowledge that heroism when the entire nation - led by its commander-in-chief - paid tribute to Dunham and the Marine Corps?
The Times wasn't talking yesterday, so let us hazard a guess.
Perhaps, to the Times, Jason Dunham was just another dead Marine - a victim, a statistic, another young life "wasted" in the battle for Iraq.
Or perhaps a heroic Marine doesn't fit in with the paper's notion of U.S. soldiers in Iraq? Selfless sacrifice is ennobling, and taking notice of it might lend nobility to the larger enterprise - and that certainly wouldn't be fit to print.
From the beginning, in fact, virtually nothing positive about the Iraq war has found its way into the Times - but, again, why take it out on the troops?
Ignoring the nation's tribute to Jason Dunham was a profound insult to those gallant men and women who daily risk their lives in America's service.
Cpl. Dunham deserved better.
The Marine Corps deserves better.
America deserves better.
For shame.
The problem is, the America-haters at the Times are shameless, have no honor, and cannot pay tribute to heroes who fight and die for us.
When it comes to the editors and reporters at the New York Times, stories about "heroes" like Cindy Sheehan and Rachel Corrie are the only news that's fit to print.
Posted by Mike Lief at November 14, 2006 08:43 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
It is sad. They don't get it. What would be honorable to them - shooting a filmmaker who criticizes Islam or the Board of Education in San Fransisco which bans a successful JROTC program because "the military has a don't ask don't tell" policy concerning gays?
Posted by: jim at November 15, 2006 09:02 AM