Times/Globe Coverage of the War in Iraq

On March 31, 2003, the Times/Globe again reported that things were not going well with our troops. It attacked them, and encouraged the enemy. In a front-page headline, it said that the Pentagon was having to defend its strategy because our troops were not doing well. The subhead trumpeted, "US troops inch toward capital."

The lead paragraph in the story was, "Facing mounting skepticism about their strategy in Iraq, senior Pentagon officials launched the fiercest defense yet of their decision to send in limited ground forces, dismissing reports yesterday of discord between US political and military officials over how to prosecute the war."

The story continued with everything they could possibly find about any negative aspect. But even it had to report that American support for the war is "holding firm." And, without quoting any sources for this statement, it wrote, "The perception that the strategy is veering off course persisted."

Only ten days later, even the Times/Globe complex had to admit that Saddam Hussein's regime has been toppled. Now the papers are free to focus on the power vacuum, the looting, the restoration of utility services, and the prospects for an interim government. All of these things are fraught with dangers and will give the Globe's editors plenty to criticize in the weeks and months ahead.

Is The Times/Globe Recreating ‘Vietnam Syndrome’?
Need to Be Over Fifty to Remember What Started Vietnam
By MassNews Staff

It became apparent last month that it's necessary to be well over fifty-years-old to remember how we got tricked and shoved into the Vietnam quagmire by the New York Times and Lyndon Johnson. It happened on Aug. 5, 1964 when the Times reported on page one, "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."
		1st Cav Troopers Boarding A Chinook

The only problem was that there had been no attacks on American destroyers. It was all a hoax. It was later explained as a mistake by a sailor reading the sonar. In 1965, Johnson commented: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

The Times had previously written on March 12, 1963: "The cost [of saving Vietnam] is large, but the cost of South-East Asia coming under the domination of Russia and Communist China would be still larger." On May 21, 1964, it had written: "If we demonstrate that we will make whatever military and political effort [denying victory to communism] requires, the Communists sooner or later will also recognize reality."

After this hoax in the Gulf of Tonkin, our Congressmen gave Johnson the power to wage war in the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution." Only two of the entire Congress of 535 members dissented.

Many watched in disbelief as teenage boys were drafted and sent to die and kill in Vietnam as a result.

Since then, when those in Massachusetts have finally learned of the incompetence of their idol, JFK, they often become cynical and disillusioned. Bobby Kennedy was also a hawk on Vietnam. He assured the public in 1962 after a trip to Vietnam, "We are going to win." He was a hawk until he decided to run for president in March 1968. Then he suddenly changed sides and began to attack the teenagers that he and his brother had sent to die in Vietnam.

But there's no need to become cynical because one has chosen the wrong people to idolize.

They should have looked more to Dwight Eisenhower, who was shocked at what he saw occurring. But the New York Times dominated the media. It was deeply involved in the mistakes and deceit. They continue to dominate our culture today, especially in Massachusetts with their Boston Globe subsidiary. The Times printed in an editorial in 1962 that Vietnam "is a struggle this country cannot shirk." It continued to support the war until public opinion went against it. Then it switched to the other side.

The Kennedy people were looking for a way to save face after their disaster at the Bay of Pigs. JFK was advised by a member of the National Security Council: "It is very important that the government have a major anti-Communist victory to its credit ... the odds are still in our favor [in Vietnam]." A few months later, JFK told a reporter, "Now we have a problem in making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place."

We must have an intelligent debate about these enormous issues, but that is much more difficult when some are marching and screaming in protest. That only polarizes the country and damages our troops as happened in Vietnam.'

Let's support our troops while they are there and then see what we find in Iraq. It will always be difficult to tell the truth from the fiction but that is the duty of every citizen in every democracy or it will surely topple.

More information can be found in MassNews archives and in a story about the 30th anniversary of the "Tonkin Gulf Incident" in 1994 by Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon at http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html. There are two excellent books: "A Vietcong Memoir," by North Vietnam's former Minister of Justice, Truong Nhu Tang and "Vietnam, A History," by Stanley Karnow, which is a PBS series book.

NYTimes/Globe Continues to Endanger U.S. Troops
By MassNews Staff

The NYTimes/Globe printed several stories in March 23rd's paper which gave the impression that our citizens were not behind our soldiers.

This type of reporting encourages the mistaken belief that we would have withdrawn our troops if Iraq had made its resistance strong enough. The enemy didn't realize that killing our troops while pretending to surrender, only made most Americans support the war even more.

On its front page March 21st, the paper continued to print a picture of anyone it could find who had a piece of cardboard and a pen. It pictured a bunch of Cambridge college boys on the Mass. Ave Bridge having a springtime party and closing a bridge.

In the lead story in March 23rd's "Ideas" section, a professor at the University of Chicago, Robert A. Pape, wrote about the countries that have opposed our war effort. He said, "Such widespread opposition is unprecedented in our country's history." The opposition countries he mentioned were France, Germany, Russia and China.

Would someone please tell Prof. Pape that China "opposed" our effort in Korea so much that after we pushed the North Korean invaders back to the Yalu River, the Chinese Army killed thousands of Amer-ican boys. They had been sent there by Harry Tru-man (with summer uniforms) to protect South Kor-ea. (That's the same government that is still there and now threatening the world with nuclear weapons.)

Please tell the Professor about French Indochina which changed its name to Vietnam after the French gave up there.

Ask him whose side the Germans were on in World War II?

Headline on March 21 said, "Protesters snarl downtown streets," as Globe attempted to show that Americans were not behind the war.

As for Russia, everyone knows that its "opposition" is not "unprecedented."

It's no secret that over 30 European countries are solidly behind us. And all of the four countries he mentioned are aware that we will find evidence of weapons that they sold to Iraq.

In the "Globe West" section, there was a large picture on the front page of three (3) demonstrators in Sherborn from the Peace Abbey, a radical group which will demonstrate anywhere for anything critical of the U.S., particularly if the Times/Globe requests them to do so. It would be fascinating to learn how the Globe photographer happened to discover the three protestors.

The editor of the Editorial page, Renee Loth, was asked what is influencing their editorials on "anti-war protests and the pro-war lobby," when she was at the Kennedy School of Government on March 17.

She responded that the primary influences are "the view of the publisher, the constituents who come to see us and the expertise of people in the [news] room," adding that this is one of the most difficult issues she has ever faced.

"We are not the War Resisters' Newsletter," she said. "Our position has been disarming Saddam is an important thing - we should do it. It's good for the region, and especially good for the Iraqi people. But we should do it with a large international coalition, and that has collapsed now."

Now, if only she can get the people who tell the publisher, i.e., those at The New York Times Inc. on West 43rd Street, to understand that, we can eliminate the pictures of the college kids who are looking for a springtime excuse to party on Mass. Ave.

Almost everyone will agree that a debate should continue about the war and whether we belong there. There are many conservatives and libertarians who are also concerned about the effect of this war upon our country. But most agree that the Globe is not helping that debate. It is repeating the Vietnam syndrome and sensationalizing this for its own purposes. This is guaranteed to stop any meaningful debate.

Times/Globe Is Consistent in Using War Coverage to Attack Bush Politically
January 2002 - NYTimes/Globe Called for U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan

On Jan. 7, 2002, the NYTimes/Globe complex called for more U.S. soldiers to die in Afghanistan. In the lead story on that day, it wrote, "It is worth risking some [American] casualties to put bin Laden out of business."

The newspaper was continuing its attempt to make the conduct of the war into a political attack against President Bush.

It said that toppling the Taliban was nice, but it doesn't mean a thing until they capture bin Laden. Here is more of what they said in their Editorial (which was written on either West 43rd St. or Morrisey Blvd):
"[T]he ultimate war aim was never confined to a regime change in Afghanistan. The true purpose of going to war in Afghanistan was to protect the American population from future terrorist atrocities like those of Sept. 11.

"To achieve this goal, American forces must do what officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell have said they intend to do - 'decapitate' bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization and 'rip up' the terrorist cells spread through dozens of distant countries.

"Given these goals, it is hard to justify the decision to pursue bin Laden ... with only precision-guided bombs and Afghan fighters belonging to a loose alliance called the Eastern Shura."

Some observers still like our MassNews suggestion from back in 2002. "Maybe Renee Loth can join a squad headed by Jane Fonda and they can liberate the women of Afghanistan. If it were not such a serious issue, it would be humorous to watch as the Globe attempts to divide men and women with this statement which it managed to interject somehow: '[T]he liberation of Afghan women and girls ought to be celebrated by everyone who cherishes human rights.' Will those extreme feminists ever realize that men and women are all on the same team in America? And our troops are not bellboys that the extremists at the Globe can order around to die as they wish."

Times/Globe Seems Determined to Harm U.S. Troops
Anxious to Re-Create Vietnam Syndrome?
By MassNews Staff

The NYTimes/BostonGlobe complex appeared determined to damage as many U.S. troops as possible March 30th, when it ran more major stories about "protests." It was their forebears who volunteered our young men to be the "policemen" of the world - way back in 1917. Is it too late for us to decline that role now?

Some observers compare the Times/Globe axis to inner-city residents a few years ago, who would heckle and throw rocks at police and firemen who had been called to the area by other residents.

They agree that the Times/Globe should report the protests, but they also say that the newspaper has become a partisan. The March 30th page one story and picture had a lead paragraph and a headline, "Tens of thousands rally in Boston against war."

Most people believe that "tens of thousands" would mean many more than 25,000, but that is the number that was given below the headlines. Even it appeared to be inflated. There must be many more college students alone within a few miles of Boston Common. There were 2500 supporters of the war in the tiny town of Mashpee on the Cape March 30th. The Times/Globe is determined to settle our national policies by the number of people that they can assemble in the streets. The Boston rally appears to have been organized by United for Justice and Peace, a Boston group which was orga-nized after 9/11 and by the professional staff of Peace Action, which has been around for over forty years, previously known as "SANE" and "The Freeze." Both organizations are far to the left of center. A national leader of Peace Action, Brian Corr, was the moderator of the event.
		Headline on March 30 said, "Tens of thousands rally in Boston for peace."

The forebears of the protestors first started to promote "peace" back in 1916 with the election of Woodrow Wilson as the man who would keep this country out of war. He then led us into World War I a year later, as "the war to end all wars."

He was followed by Franklin Roosevelt who won reelection in 1940 on a pledge that he would not send "American boys" to fight on foreign soil, although he was planning to do so all the time. He knew about Pearl Harbor before the attack, many said at the time and most now appear to agree.

But it was Harry Truman who finally made us the "policemen of the world," by bungling us into the Korean conflict. President Eisenhower ended that war and resisted all urgings to send our servicemen to Vietnam after the French lost it. For that, he has been called the "do-nothing" President.
JFK and Lyndon Johnson sent our draftees to Vietnam. The average age was 19-years. We were not on the wrong side, but most questioned whether it was the duty of American boys to be fighting that war and be the policemen of the world.

Because of the peaceniks who changed their minds in the 1960s, after the going got tough, and then ridiculed our 19-year-olds who JFK and Johnson had sent there, there was never any agree-ment among the American people about Vietnam. And then the Times/Globe attacked Nixon who had inherited the mess and it forced us to desert all those people in Vietnam who had trusted us.

Many are concerned that the Times/Globe is repeating their failed Vietnam policy. The Christian Science Monitor has reported those concerns about protestors. A professor, was reported in a Monitor story last week.

"'I don't think any useful purpose is served by blocking [the streets],' says Bill Galston, who directs the University of Maryland's Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy. 'The issues [at hand] are of the utmost gravity for the future of the country, and shrill voices and guerrilla tactics are inappropriate for those issues.' Professor Galston, who opposes the war, recalls how quickly antiwar sentiment during the Vietnam War turned into anti-Americanism, and is concerned that current movement, with some of its more strident factions, could run the same risk. He'd like to see a clearer message from activists, and offers these suggestions: that the movement insist on a serious commitment to decency and democracy in Iraq and that it critique the changed basis of post-9/11 US foreign policy, which appears to suggest that any country who may give weapons to terrorists is a threat to the US - and could be invaded."

But the Times/Globe appears determined to reproduce its Vietnam role again. One 52-year-old woman from Colorado, Patty Grant, who was visiting her daughter, seemed to agree. She told the Globe that she participated in the Vietnam protests as a freshman. Her protesting daughter is a freshman at Emerson.

Welcome back, Patty. Was it as much fun this time?