Sorry Jocelyn, Cpl. John Harrison Can’t Save You
NY Times Ingratitude Continues
see the first part:
NY Times,
Where's the Grattitude for Cpl. John Harrison's Sacrifice?
By Jen
Shroder
9/13/09
Jocelyn Enriquez, mother of 4, was kidnapped six months ago allegedly
by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in Manila. Unfortunately, Cpl.
John Harrison, 29, won’t be there to rescue her, he was killed saving
Stephen Farrell of the NY Times.
Kidnapped by the Taliban, Farrell reported hearing talk of being
moved. His translator, Sultan Munadi, was threatened with beheading
just as Daniele Mastrogiacomo’s companions had been beheaded two years
before. The situation was dire until suddenly a daring rescue led by
NATO and Special Boat Service commandos freed the NY Times journalist,
who was there to find evidence that civilians died after air strikes
hit two Taliban-hijacked fuel tanks.
Don’t miss this. The NY Times journalist risked everything to dig
up dirt on our military. After Cpl. Harrison sacrificed his life to
rescue him, the NY Times disparaged the rescue, lauded the translator
that was unfortunately killed and are using the story to self-grandize
the plight of reporters and their importance in their "gung-ho"
bravery to report. They have barely acknowledged the military except
to criticize as they quote, "they knew the high risks they would be
running."
Isn’t that a sweet thank you to the family of Cpl. John Harrison.
Jill Abramson, Managing Editor of the NYTimes, answered a reader’s
question, "Why has your paper not published its thanks to the Army
for rescuing Mr. Farrell?" Abramson never once said a word of
appreciation in her lengthy response, though she and her colleagues
are "heartbroken" over the loss of the translator and practically as a
side note, the British commando that died rescuing Farrell.
Ms. Abramson, our troops and allies are not looking for sympathy but
they darn well deserve your respect.
Instead, Ms. Abramson refers readers to a lengthy NY Times blog by
John Burns in which he whines they have no choice but to "report" and
then politicizes everything with recounts of the death toll and
financial costs of our efforts.
Meanwhile, Farrell, after his rescue, is "comfortable" with his
decision to go where he was sternly warned the Taliban would surely
take him. The only responsibility he seems to be willing to take is
that he and his team "lingered too long."
They were lingering? Does that mean they had already wrapped up their
investigation? Why no reports of the dozens of civilians killed in the
NATO air-strike, only references to the rumors? Did they fail at their
search for the dirt that Cpl. John Harrison ended up giving his life
for? Yet Farrell is "comfortable" and the task force that rescued him
"knew the risks" so why should anyone say "Thank You."
Burns explains: "But we know, too, that there are people, including
many who have written into this blog, who will condemn us, as they see
it, for willfully exposing our local staff and our potential rescuers
to fatal risk in our pursuit –- as our harshest detractors see it — of
front-page stories, of journalism prizes and of a faux claim to
courage for our gung-ho ways."
Perhaps if you would offer ONE WORD of GRATITUDE to the military you
admit you depend on as you gallivant through Taliban lands imagining
yourself a hero for your courageous work attempting to undermine our
military, chasing down rumors that civilians were killed, perhaps then
people would stop asking, "Where’s the gratitude?"
Burns even questions whether they will ever know if the people
involved in the gunfire were actually Taliban. "There may also have
been other Afghan casualties, perhaps Taliban, perhaps not; that we
also don’t know yet, for sure."
According to the Sun, 48 Taliban were killed. Afghan officials
believed Farrell and Munadi were originally held by Mullah Qadir and
then Mullah Salaam. Yes, "mullahs," as in men educated in sacred
Islamic laws and theology. Where is the gung-ho bravado of looking
into those details?
Instead, the NY Times disparaged the rescue by running the AP story
that the rescue was "reckless" according to Afghan reporters. However
Red Cross officials who were leading the talks told military chiefs
they were "going nowhere." If they moved the captives, as Farrell
overheard, chances of rescue would diminish amidst talk of beheading
Munadi.
Meanwhile, Burns writes of his own harrowing experience in Najaf, "I
took comfort in knowing that the GPS system in our GMC Suburban
armored vehicle was reporting our position constantly, in ways that
would be accessible to U.S. commanders in Baghdad; and that, in the
last resort, we could hope that the cavalry would come over the hill."
The cavalry DID come over the hill, rescued the journalist, lost a
precious son in the process and instead of appreciation the whole
incident has been used to further the liberal anti-war chants,
criticize the military, and beat their own chests.
I bet Jocelyn Enriquez would be overjoyed to see a British commando
drop in and free her from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. She and
the other two Christian teachers want to go home. Even Jocelyn’s
three-year-old son would know to say ‘thank you," but sadly, there
will be no more missions for the heroic yet unappreciated Cpl. John
Harrison.
NY Times, maybe you should try reporting on the realities of Islam,
but we would prefer it if you would do so after you pen some sincere
appreciation for the sacrifice of Cpl. Harrison and every soldier
risking their lives every day, working and fighting to advance and
protect our freedom. They are modern day heroes, every one of them,
and despite what all the liberal rags of our nation continue to churn,
most Americans are proud of our military. To every one of them serving
or that has served in the past, thank you. Thank You So Very Much.
(article picked up by USAToday and
World News
Report
