The Worst of (the) Times

 It has become more and more transparent that the New York Times leans not only left, but far enough away from mainstream America—region> so as to reach out to our enemies in the War on Terror. To then defend themselves,  arrogantly acting as if Americans are out of line for doubting their intentions, displays a sort of elitism that is unparalleled even in the long history of "the Grey Lady." With The Times "above the law" mentality, it is noteworthy to look at some of their treasonous publications within the War on Terror.


Here then are the top ten most morale—lowering, disingenuous pieces from the NYT over just the past three years:


10. "The Deaths at Gitmo" (June 12, 2006)


In the world of the Times, anything that makes the American military look juvenile or ruthless makes good copy. The Guantanamo Bay ordeal has been a favorite of theirs for some time. In this long—winded diatribe, the editorial staff laments that so many Gitmo prisoners were never charged with crimes, discusses their despair and blames President Bush for creating this "netherworld."


9. "One month of Abu Ghraib front page stories" (May 1—June 1, 2004)


Two years ago, for the entire month of May, the Times ran at least one story per day, demeaning our troops and federal government for the way the Abu Ghraib prison was run. Each article is linked.


8. "Despite Appeals, Chaos Still Stalks the Sudanese" (July 18, 2004)


Phyllis Chesler's piece entitled, "When you can't say Muslim!" discusses a Times piece (one of many, no doubt) in which the writers tiptoe around sounding politically incorrect and culturally insensitive, refusing to label the terrorists as Arabs or Muslims, much less radical extremists.


7. "The Mystery of the Insurgency" (May 15, 2005)


James Bennet pleads with the Times to cease labeling our mass—murdering enemies "insurgents" and define them properly. Christoper Hitchens also helps makes sense of the Times  "multicultural" madness. Needless to say, more than a year later, the Times and the media in general have not acquiesced.


6. "NY Times Blows Cover of Key Counter Terror Agent" (August, 2004).


As reported above by Newsmax. Enough said.


5. "Despite his Troubles, Arafat Endures as a Leader and Symbol"  (July 27, 2004)


A little more than three months before his death, the Times' Greg Myre , like Jimmy Carter and too many others, was still lauding the "Palestinian" leader. Although the article is not a hagiography, it does not condemn Arafat, discusses his longevity, and notes, among much else, that "he remains the enduring symbol of Palestinian aspirations to full nationhood."


4. "All the News that's fit to Print?" (March, 2003)


The National Review's Tom Gross discusses at length how the Times picks and chooses which deaths and destructive activities to report and photograph more often, and with more (or less) coverage. He also debunks the oudated myths that the paper is "pro—Israel."


3. "Passive Voice Genocide" (August 3, 2005)


Jason Maoz of the Jewish Press, writing for Front Page Magazine discusses many of the same mistaken priorities that Gross did two years prior. However, Maoz goes further, discussing the word structure of certain headlines and how they can obfuscate the matters at hand. He concludes by noting the Times' unflappable concerns over dead "Palestinians." Is that really Pro—Israel?


2. "Is the NY Times a Liberal newspaper?" (July 25, 2004)


Daniel Okrent, the former ombudsman of the paper, delicately explains how the Times leans left. He naturally stops short of saying anything insidious, and in a May 2006 interview I heard with him on National Public Radio, he recanted much of this saying he regretted the first few words of his piece: "Of course it is."


1."Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater" (June 26, 2006)


David Limbaugh's most recent piece featuring the Times' most recent (and perhaps most deplorable) anti—american actions. Limbaugh explains the legal ramifications of the paper's disclosure of secure information, notes the Times' responses and elaborates on the long—term effects on this story.


Basically, as you can especially deduce from the recent pieces that harass the Bush Administration, aid our enemies and betray America's trust, the Times shows the hypocritical propensity to clamor for certain checks and balances on the executive branch, yet turn a silent ear toward those same checks upon the legislative, judicial and, of course, themselves. That, along with their recalcitrance to call the enemy by name and denounce his actions, explains why so many Americans no longer trust the Times as a viable source of news.

If you experience technical problems, please write to