See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Sierra Faith
2. 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 8:40 pm, Armigerous said:

   Getting it wrong at the NYT is becoming the rule rather than the exception

2. #2
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 8:49 pm, katieanne said:

   Exactly, Armigerous. Does the NY Times ever get it right?

3. #3
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 pm, mileslibertatis said:

   It’s much more effective for the NYT’s counteroffensive if they cast the success in Iraq as a temporary invincibility achieved by the MRAP, as if technology were the story and not the men and women on the ground. Now that the terrorists have rendered our precious MRAP obsolete, the Times wants their readers to osmotically infer, violence could well rise to the levels before our temporary vehicular advantage.

   It’s all hogwash, of course. The only thing that will allow violence to rise to pre-surge (and pre-MRAP fielding) levels is the Times getting their way.

4. #4
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 pm, zorro said:

   The New York Times makes a habit of hiring slackers for reporters.

5. #5
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 pm, serfer62 said:

   Well the Washingpost should take care of the nyt under new oqnship.

6. #6
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 9:01 pm, brooklyn red said:

   Perhaps the manufacture of the vehicle in question will take exception & protest the liable concerning their product…

   yeah right.

7. #7
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 9:26 pm, atxcowgirl said:

   I noticed the story at KVIA.com. That one is from the AP.

   BAGHDAD (AP) - A military spokeswoman says a soldier killed over the weekend in Iraq is the first to die while in the newly introduced, heavily armored MRAP, the Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected vehicle.

   Is this the same thing? Or a different report.
   I wasn’t aware of the NYT article till just now when I read this post.

8. #8
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 9:28 pm, sfrvn said:

   Hmmm. Maybe some of you know - is an MRAP an RG31? If so, the error on the part of the NYT, according to Badgers Forward, is that they apparently didn’t know that there have been earlier deaths in MRAPS/RG31s, not that the MRAP/RG31 is capable of being destoyed by an IED. As someone said in the article, a big enough IED can destroy any vehicle.

   But the oher take-away from the article is that the other crew members were only wounded, not killed which might have been the outcome in a HUMVEE.

   May God take the Gunner, and may He protect the rest of his crew.

9. #9
   On January 22nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm, trinitytim said:

   Even a tank crew can be killed if the IED is large enough. Trust me, I know.

   As for the NY Times, this surprises you because…..

10. #10
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm, allrsn said:

    FTT

    Fairy Tale Times

11. #11
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 10:09 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

    A liberal or a liberal rag will always take the opportunity to disparage the military. It’s genetically encoded that they’re creepy.

12. #12
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 10:10 pm, The Raging Republican said:

    The New York Times gets it wrong again

    No, I think they wrote exactly what they wanted to write.

13. #13
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 10:31 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

    Fishwrap? Michelle, you’re way too kind.

    New York Times=Fishcrap…”If it smells we’ll cover it”

14. #14
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 10:38 pm, DirkBelig said:

    Wouldn’t it be faster to just post the links to the stories which are accurate and unbiased?

15. #15
    On January 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

    #14 right on!

16. #16
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 12:14 am, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

    On January 22nd, 2008 at 10:38 pm, DirkBelig said:
    Wouldn’t it be faster to just post the links to the stories which are accurate and unbiased?

    If you can find one in the mainstream media you get a cookie.

17. #17
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 am, mileslibertatis said:

    And I am not sure bloggers are going for efficiency. Sometimes, just the industry of introducing a blockquote is what their readers want. Criticizing the mainstream press is exactly one of the reasons people read MM in the first place.

18. #18
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 am, PBoilermaker said:

    The RG-31 is NOT a brand new vehicle and they have been in use for quite some time. Yes, they are more heavily armored than, say, a HMMWV, but they are susceptible to damage from a large enough device just like anything else. Stack enough AT-6’s in the road and you can destroy/compromise a lot of armored vehicles.

    The Buffalo has also been in service for quite some time. Although the Buffalo IS made by Force Protection, it isn’t a “brand new MRAP”. For those who are unfamiliar with the Buffalo, one was actually used in the movie “Transformers” as the character “Bonecrusher”.

19. #19
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 6:29 am, Blind_Mule said:

    Did you really expect them to get it right?, everything that’s read in the NYT is suspect by now anyway. They probably can’t even get the classified ad’s right.

20. #20
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 6:32 am, navywife91 said:

    For those who are unfamiliar with the Buffalo, one was actually used in the movie “Transformers” as the character “Bonecrusher”.

    Thanks for breaking down into layman’s terms!

21. #21
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 6:50 am, gridlock said:

    You don’t understand, Michelle. You simply do not understand.

    This is the first American casualty inflicted by a roadside bomb on a MRAP since the New York Times became aware that MRAPs existed. Before the New York Times was aware of their existance, nothing that happened to MRAPs mattered.

    You just gotta get your mind right on these things.

22. #22
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 8:40 am, PBoilermaker said:

    On January 23rd, 2008 at 6:32 am, navywife91 said:
    Thanks for breaking down into layman’s terms!

    I try.

23. #23
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 9:08 am, lgm said:

    Oy vey (roughly means “good grief”)! You are in such a hurry to condemn the Times that you can’t even read to the bottom of the blog you quote from. If you had, you would have found:

    UPDATE: Evidently the Press Office at the Pentagon is the source for this story, so my apologies to the New York Times.

    And while you’re at it, why not mention the real Iraq story today, which you don’t dispute because it’s true. The so called milestone reconciliation law that showed political progress in Iraq was a sham.

24. #24
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 9:15 am, PBoilermaker said:

    On January 23rd, 2008 at 9:08 am, lgm said:
    Oy vey (roughly means “good grief”)! You are in such a hurry to condemn the Times that you can’t even read to the bottom of the blog you quote from. If you had, you would have found:

    Yeah, that makes it all better. Besides, it isn’t like the NY Times has a track record of biased reporting and lazy fact-checking.

    Oh, wait.

25. #25
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 9:27 am, Frank DiGiorgio said:

    New York Times=Fishcrap…”If it smells we’ll cover it”

    Fishcrap is correct.

    The NYT is not suitable for fishwrap, it’s only suitable for wrapping the fish crap that’s left over after you clean a fish.

26. #26
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 9:30 am, southsideironworks said:

    The RG31 is a Cat I MRAP made by BAE Systems Land Systems of South Africa.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RG31

    http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/RG-31.htm

    CATEGORY II and CATEGORY III MRAPS are the ones receiving all the attention in the MSM.

    I dont know how many of the CAT II and CAT III MRAPS are in Iraq/Afghanistan service at this time.

27. #27
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 9:31 am, lgm said:

    You nit pick the NYTimes while giving conservatives a pass. Do you want to read about lies from the Bush administration, which were exaggerated and amplified by Fox & co?

28. #28
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 9:36 am, PBoilermaker said:

    On January 23rd, 2008 at 9:31 am, lgm said:
    You nit pick the NYTimes while giving conservatives a pass. Do you want to read about lies from the Bush administration, which were exaggerated and amplified by Fox & co?

    Seen any UFO’s lately?

    Remember, fire can’t melt steel. Google it.

29. #29
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 9:56 am, sfrvn said:

    On January 23rd, 2008 at 9:31 am, lgm said:
    You nit pick the NYTimes while giving conservatives a pass. Do you want to read about lies from the Bush administration, which were exaggerated and amplified by Fox & co?

    I read the AP (we know their accuracy track record) article - a study by 2 “two nonprofit journalism organizations” that says, typically, President Bush lied 231 times about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction out of 259 total lies told by him. Assuming WMD was a “lie” does saying it constitute 231 lies? Or one lie told 231 times? Even in your world you must have some standards of integrity.

    Of course, the real problem for you (and AP, and the 2 “two nonprofit journalism organizations” is that, while WMD in the form we generally expected (e.g., nuclear) did not exist every EVERY intelligence service in the world and apparently even Saddam himself beleived he had WMD. In other words, being wrong doesn’t mean you are lying. But repeating known lies, as you are doing, is lying.

30. #30
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 am, sfrvn said:

    (edit) saying it 231 times constitute 231 lies?

31. #31
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 10:03 am, mileslibertatis said:

    More importantly, how is Iraq’s management of the Baath situation the ‘lead story out of Iraq’? when our men and women are still fighting for security over there?

    Or is the lead story that you think Bush has lied? Because Bush lying is also not an Iraq story.

    So, you admit that it is more important that Iraq create domestic trouble for a sitting U.S. president? Or are you simply confused about what is important in Iraq?

32. #32
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 10:22 am, sfcmac said:

    On January 23rd, 2008 at 9:31 am, lgm said:
    You nit pick the NYTimes while giving conservatives a pass. Do you want to read about lies from the Bush administration, which were exaggerated and amplified by Fox & co?

    Like these “lies” printed by the WAPO and the BBC, two of the most liberal media on the planet?:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

    and:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

    WMDs were not the only reason to erradicate Hussein, but it emphasized the necessity. As an Iraq war vet, I’m damned glad the weapons were found and destroyed before Hussein could use any of them.

    To not realize that Iraq is just one of the many battelgrounds against Islamofascism in the Middle East, takes a pretty heavy set of cerebral blinders; or worse, someone who’s “stuck on stupid”.

    You leftwing nutburgers are pathetic.

33. #33
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 am, jcflindsay said:

    Believe it or not NPR got this story correct this morning. They reported the MRAP as effective. The gunner who was killed was physically exposed in the turret. God bless him.

34. #34
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 pm, Barry F. said:

    Fishwrap? Michelle, you’re way too kind.

    New York Times=Fishcrap…”If it smells we’ll cover it”

    meatpieandtatters, you really need to give a little warning, before you make me spew my coffee across my desk like that! ROFL

35. #35
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm, KaosKlerik said:

    What part of Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected don’t they understand?
    The acronym isn’t MPAP.

    This fear-mongering crap has got to stop!

36. #36
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm, KaosKlerik said:

    On January 23rd, 2008 at 9:36 am, PBoilermaker said:

    Remember, fire can’t melt steel. Google it.

    It was “Gulf of Tonkin. Google it.”

    Don’t misquote the loons or they’ll…uh…get…uh…loonier.

37. #37
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm, DBNinKY said:

    So it’s o.k. to quote the Pentagon’s Press Office as a reliable source when their releases support the left’s anti-war argument, and as an unreliable source when the releases support the President’s plans for Iraq (i.e., the Surge’s success)? Doesn’t this exemplify hypocracy?

38. #38
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 pm, DBNinKY said:

    CORRECTION:

    “…and as an unreliable… .”

    Should read: “…and label them as an unreliable… .”

    Sorry -

39. #39
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm, PBoilermaker said:

    On January 23rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm, KaosKlerik said:
    On January 23rd, 2008 at 9:36 am, said:

    It was “Gulf of Tonkin. Google it.”

    Don’t misquote the loons or they’ll…uh…get…uh…loonier.

    That’s why I didn’t “quote” anything. I was being sarcastic.

    I’m pickin’ up what you’re puttin’ down, though.